Slashdot Mirror
Just How Much Privacy Do We Have?
stuffman64 writes: "Popular Science is running an excellent article on just how private our daily lives are. The article chronicles a typical day of a make-believe Graphics Designer from Chicago. Throughout his day, he unwittingly supplies companies with information that can potentially be used against him. And with GPS-enabled cell phones just starting to hit the market, our privacy can only continue to deteriorate from here. A must read."
I'm not believing a word Popular Science tells me.
--Blair
I don't think gps phones threaten anyone's provacy that much - i mean no one cries a river just because their adress is known to the IRS or whatever. Knowing you current location is not that far off from knowing your adress.
Really, if you think about how much the insurance compnies know about you, there is the real issue.
Join the elite! Post at score:2! Ghostwheel is online.
That's right, baby. Visit your ATM infrequently, withdraw a lot of cash, pay for stuff with said cash. Privacy maintained.
While this may not be the best article or the best source, it definitely addresses an issue that we have been pointing out here at /. for the past forever. At least they printed the article.
There's no sig like SIGSEG
For Mark, he has other issues:
9:14 am: Instant messaging
Mark IMs his girlfriend: "Don't worry about last night. I'll get tested. Love you."
I'd say privacy should be the least of his concerns.
Sent from your iPad.
Simple
You have no privacy, get over it.
I stole this Sig
Is there any reason that a phone could not simply fire up the GPS unit when 911 were called? Do any of these GPS-enabled units do this?
Somehow this feature seems like it would be a major selling point to me.
I have a Samsung A400 (SprintPCS). The GPS can be turned off as a menu function. Right now, it's no good for anything, except emergency 911 locating services, and even that currently works only in Rhode Island.
Personally, I wish the WOULD get the rest of the darn GPS thing working, so that next time I'm lost I can get directions!
Now when "they" decide that GPS will not be turn off-able, oh well, I guess I'll just turn the whole darn phone off. If I'm feeling *super paranoid* that day, I suppose I'll have to go to the trouble of removing the battery too. It's too d*mn intrusive anyway, even when it *doesn't* know where I am.
I told them to use cyphered analog rotational fequency walkie talkies. But did they listen? NO they didn't.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Upon clicking the link to the article, the Popular Science web server will set two cookies, instantly making you trackable on all future visits to that server or any other with which they share data... -m
--- Learn XForms today: http://xformsinstitute.com
on every single page is going to replace the whale in my nightmares..
Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
In North Dakota where, we had a total of 5 murders last year, they are installing cameras all over, privacy is gone in public. Noone really even put up a fuss either, strange. On a good note we just approved a law preventing all banks from selling any of your information. First in the nation from what I understand, to be approved in a proposition.
It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
The article claims that I-Pass (which I'm assuming is the same as EZ-Pass) uses standard 802.11(b) to transmit it's data.
Anyone attempt to hack this, or have more information about this?
Who needs to worry about GPS enabled phones?
A cell phone's signal is received by multiple antennas at distinct locations simultaneously, therefore, it's only a matter of using triangulation to determine a phone's location based upon signal strength.
Here's a sample of its applications, and if you do a quick search, you'll surely find more:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/3223847.People who are paranoid about getting GPSes in cellphones must not realize how small most cells are: if your cellphone is turned on, its location can already be determined to within a pretty small area: a quarter mile or less inside cities.
Obviously, opt-out should be the default, otherwise an undue burden of opting-out on tens of thousands of databases would be placed on the individual.
Unfortunately, with the current climate ushered in by the War on *.*, we're not likely to see anything remotely resembling protection of civil liberties for years to come.
Until we fight collection and access to this data, we're all going to be run against "terrorist" profiles. The feds might decide that your choice of cusine this weekend fits a "terrorist diet" profile - though to pick a point with the article I think a visit from the feds is much more likely to result from a /. post than a visit to the supermarket.
I should have included this in my original post, but PopSci also has a good article about the E911 GPS service in their most recent issue. I thought I saw it on their site, but apparently it is not there.
Here is another feature which links to a website that can map out a route in Manhattan to avoid its 2400 or so security cameras watching your every move. If you happened to read the article, a link to this also appears to the right.
By now you would think I work for Popular Science. I have no job. I employ my University with a $24,000 per year salary.
--- At my sig, unleash hell.
I'm one of those believers that if you don't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be concerned about privacy. I don't do anything bad; I'm not about to blow up the Chuck E. Cheese's down the street with a dirty bomb or anything. And the GPS enabled cell phones could help with rescur operations, like in the article. In fact, the article in the magazines mention stuff about GPS locations being beamed only if a button is pressed. The article also mentions ATM cameras, street cameras, the supermarket discount cards, tollbooths, IM's, emails, medical insurance databases, and more. There is not really anything new for the well-educated slashdotter though.
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
...It's the privacy I don't have that gets to me.
Visit your ATM infrequently...
...and withdraw from your bank account? The one with your name, address and account history attached, administrated by the bank that has access to your home loan details and credit history?
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
i did it! ive finally found something grosser than the goatse pictures! http://www.99x.com/new_morningx/photos_courtney_lo ve.html .. i am now going to move to PA and become amish so i can never have to see something like that again
Maybe things were simpler when the only privacy people had to worry about were people lookin at their privates.
*DrugCheese rants*
So, what exactly are the eating habits of a terrorist? Do they all eat the same thing? Can I be flagged as a terrorist because I enjoy Mid-East food? Or, perhaps I am one of those "axis of evil" Korean people because I like kimchi and yaki-niku(ok, so that one is Japanese/Korean food)...
Is anyone else at least moderately (understatement) disturbed by the compiling of a profile of "terrorist eating habits"? It seems insanely useless to me. The idea that someone might get "special attention" because of the way he/she eats...pffft. The sad thing is, I won't be at all surprised if/when this happens.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Jugging from the comments here you must be all yanks. So what if companies know if you buy gay porn instead of blonde teen. No one really cares about what your upto, as long as annoying advertising is not in my face then its fine. Sure if you are into illegal stuff then privacy all the way. (A side note) you should see how many time I put down Rodregez as my name on web pages.
A phone's location can be determined to within 10 yards in an average metropolitan area, and that's without any real triangulation effort.
while i am concerned about privacy and the possibility that people might actually know what they are talking about, i wonder what you might glean from the sites i visit or the purchases i make, other than i make a fair amount of money and might be insane or manic... if i should decide to become an organized terrorist, i promise to become much more regular, and analyze my profile very closely! privacy of the sort mentioned is good for stopping some spam, but perhaps you haven't noticed the curtailing of legitimate rights as of late.
i'm with the terrorists who founded our country.
"...we gave it up for a pinball machine in the lounge."
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
--Mark withdraws $100 at his bank's ATM machine.
Big suprise. Guess what that black dome is above it. I'll give you a clue, the sticker that says "Camera" is right... Also, I'd expect the bank to keep the records for at least 10 years (census data/back taxes).
--Mark enters his office building and takes the elevator to 5. (cameras..)
Guess how much theft happens in places like that... They're just defending against that. And if trust between your employer is an issue, you can always get a different job. Just be glad they dont lock the fire doors like they did in the early 1900's.
--Mark writes a friend: "No raise. My boss is a liar."
Unless you're using heavy encryption AND sending to a secure source (someone who wont blab), he's an IDIOT. I'd laugh and then find a different way to fire/lay him off.
--Mark IMs his girlfriend: "Don't worry about last night. I'll get tested. Love you."
Anybody's who heard of DSniff wont be saying stuff like this over ANY network.
--Mark deletes a file containing freelance work he did for a competitor.
We've went over this in every major publication. This should NOT be new material. And figuring the crowd is the SciAM subscribers (me), I'd figure the average computer security like this would be common knowledge.
--Mark calls a friend from the street at his lunch break. "Dude, she wants me to get an AIDS test," he confides.
We know that cell phones are NOT safe. They're broadcast devices. Even during 9-11, some senator said that getting cell records were trivial at best.
--Almost home, Mark stops to buy deodorant and toilet paper; the card saves him 36 cents.
Dead horse. I simply state that I will fill in fake info if you give me one. I then take one, scribble through it, use it, and then toss it on the ground. Stores are pulling this shit, so I do the same.
--Mark shows his driver's license to enter his favorite bar.
I'd demand to talk to the bar manager, demand to know why he thinks he has the right to STEAL my information. If he doesnt let me in, I go elsewhere and LET both bars know that.
A lot of this "information stealing" is the cost of life in this type of society. Much of that data is useless. Simply, use your head. If it seems weird (like idiots who want to pre-approve you for a cred card) TELL EM' NO!
I think I speak for many here when I say...
gaahhh!!
ahem...
but if you have nothing to hide why should you be afraid of cameras in public places. if your a regular john doe your not going to get any attention paid to you. cellphones might be a little more worrysome if data fell into the wrong hands... but i think 911 locating it quite useful. What about the incedents your really not sure where you are? As for purchase tracking... have you heard of cash?
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
If you want privacy stay away from technology and be vigilent.
.), pay with cash.
Get ride of the cell phone, unplug from the internet, hell get ride of the computer, since cash is still not tracked (just yet. .
Don't buy a new car with a gps locator, don't take loans. No debt cards, no bank account. Wear gloves, no finger prints.
This can go on and on depending on how paranoid you are.
The thing is most of us want the convience of the technology and thus we are willing to give up little bits and pieces of information about ourselves here or there. To the grocery store, to the bank, to the piggies, etc. . .
There was as time when records were paper and travelled as fast as someone could transport them. A person with the right papers were whomever they claimed to be. Times change, photographic identification becomes the norm, information is swapped between law enforcement agencies, spammers and multinationals and yet, with the right preperation, you are whomever you claim to be.
...) identity and allow it to gradually accumulate data trails until it ceases to be useful. Then abandon it.
Sure we face increasing ease of date transfer and collection, there are moves afoot to use various biometrics to identify you, but your fingerprints and DNA have been doing just that for some time. This is just a matter of degree.
Decide your level of privacy and choose your degree of paranoia. If your persona is clean, then what does it matter if your eating habits trigger an increased surveillance by the FBI - they will get bored soon enough.
If you are planning something that requires a degree of secrecy, then apply the appropriate levels of paranoia, develop a secondary (tertiary
The increase in data accumulation just makes it that much easier to assemble what appears to be a sufficient amount of 'mass' to demonstrate a persona's legitimacy.
Students have been producing fake ID since they were introduced to get around the invasion of 'privacy' that is associated with demanding their age; take similar steps if warranted, or accept the inevitability of a trend that has been in force for several centuries.
Just trying to count the number of technical mis-statements in those two sentences alone makes my head hurt.
Popular? Yes.
Science? Barely.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
As mentioned b4, it is already possible to track a mobile's position by triangulating from the phone towers. I was working on such a system in australia, where the government is trying to make mobile phone tracking mandatory (again, for `emergency services'). The main problem with this, and with GPS in a phone, is that most phones are used in cities. Cities have large buildings. radio signals reflect off large buildings. So it is very difficult to avoid false positional data due to reflected signals. The easiest way to get around this is to keep track of the unit over a period of time; sudden `jumps' in the position will be able to be seen as errors. But this would require quite an amount of computational power to be used all the time to firstly track, then to filter the data.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
I want to be able to withhold information to myself, that much is sure. Maybe Ive scribbled an equation to some new form of energy on a piece of paper. No one or government has a right to that except me. But the rest of it, like the GPS enabled phones... Okay, so 20 years from now the "government" can take over some cell phone company and tell where everyone on a cell phone is standing. Then the "government" can build a massive database of EVERYONE's web traffic, and see that 2/3 the country visits porno sites, then the "government" builds a database and see's that you've flown from Floria to New Hampshire 5 times this year! For all 300 million citizens of America. NOW what? So how does that bring about the destruction of our world? Does the "government" (the same one you see made of honest NYC Firemen, and young Marines that were the friends and family you grew up with, the same American's that will remove Bill Maher from TV just because he thought for himself and said "running airplanes into buildings isn't cowardly" (ie, we are overly-politically correct), these same people are going to up and one day decide "okay, everyone who's looked at a porno website and eaten vanilla ice cream in the last 30 days, you're all getting baked in an oven." When does this happen? And what purpose does it serve? I think everyone looks at Nazi Germany and thinks that if we get GPS cellphones that's the next logical step. The world is a different place now. The bright light of the media is "EVERYWHERE" and loves stories and exploitations. If the "government" wants to single out a group of people based on information, say, religious preference, they can just go to all the churches of one kind with a pickup truck and take them away. It isn't going to start or stop with GPS cellphones. Again, I want privacy, I expect privacy "for those things I have made or do on my own in my own private home". Why do we expect privacy when dealing with the outside world? You're on tape going in to K-Mart, every CC purchase you make is logged. If you call customer service at your electric company the call is taped. You have decided you want to deal with the public. You will realize there will be records of it. How much privacy do you think there is in a 25 person african village? How about a small midwestern town? Stop expecting privacy when using services provided by someone other than yourself.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
Meanwhile, Larry Ponemon, the CEO of Privacy Council, says that since September 11 he's been hired by at least one major supermarket chain to oversee the handing over to law enforcement agencies of the buying records of customers with specific ethnic backgrounds. The authorities requested the data, Ponemon says, because they were trying to compile a profile of "terrorist eating habits.
Holy crap! I knew it! Those axis of evil foreign evil doers that with their damn foreign ethnic that live beside me ARE damn terrorists! I knew there was something evil about that hallal meat.
Strange though. If the government knows that these people with specific ethnic backgrounds are indeed terrorits why are they studying their eating habits instead of getting rid of them?
One thing it went over was that people did not like the idea of GPS being always enabled on their phones, so what's happening is that phones will only enable GPS when 911 is dialed or the user hits a "I AM HERE" button, or the phone will have an option to disable GPS altogether.
RTFA.
You could hope that articles like this never got posted on Slashdot - atleast without any critisim in the intro to the article. Slashdot is supposed to have readers that atleast pretend to know something about technology. It is very easy to write a such of terrifying provocating horrorshow of article on about any matter related to technology. The popular science magazine, in this case, is just the "popularism magazine".
If you want to read something real about the same matter, browse to EFF 'Privacy - Surveillance & Wiretapping' Archive.
... is spying on you through the fillings in your teeth!
Just kidding. Now, who wants to see me slug one over the fence and into the carpark?
- SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
Analysis. grep is a faster tool than vgrep. I can pull out data from millions of line of data from with script.
Cost. With the digital age, and the connection of computers, I do not even have to pay for crunching time to do this. Most spam is duplicated at someone else's expense.
Overzealousness. Now we get to the stage that /any/ comment can be overheard. People simply do not do act this controlled.
What can be done.
Until we get some sort of protection from this sort of digital snooping, nothing really. Like, who obeys the good manners and law associated with spamming.
We can hide for a while, but why should we?
Sometimes being different or incognito is perfectly legitimate. But you neigh must be a technical wizard to make this happen...
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
I find it more disturbing that they are flagging people based on "specific ethnic backgrounds"... yah gotta love that. Just because I'm from X country, immediately I'm suspect and start having my food habits examined, my photo scrutinised at every airport and I'm certainly going to be looked upon as a bit suspect if I buy anything from Radio Shack that ticks...
Not that I suspect I would attract any of those attacks on my personal privacy as I'm a honest to goodness anglo saxon, white skinned, wholesome Australian boy... and I could never be conceived of doing anything wrong.
Bah.
Of course, I have eated kangaroo, emu and camel... so I wonder what that would do to any 'eating habit matrix' built about me.
I'm thinking that for all the data collection and surveillance "they" do, they're still pretty darned clueless. I remember cleaning up my credit reports a few years back and being astounded by the ammount of innaccurate data they had managed to cobble together. They had no idea where I currently lived or worked, or even how I spell my name. And people rely on this so-called data to make decisions that are critical to people's lives?!? It's a crock, pure and simple.
Don't even get me started on the FBI. Heck, they know they're lacking for humint, but they don't even have the sense to call it what it is: smarts. They are so deeply mired in a craptacular project of data collection that they can't even do a simple policing task like chase some bad guys and catch them before they strike again. Argh.
Can someone government or otherwise spy on you. Of course they could if they really wanted. But why would they bother. Lets face it, in the grand scheme of things most of you just are not that important. In spite of you bloated sense of ego the US Government the FBI and Homeland Security don't revolve around Slashdot posters, linux users and people who have decss.
The lack of privacy is disturbing, but it wouldn't be as bad if I could at least access all the information people are collecting about me. For example, I'd actually be curious to see what I buy at the grocery store (and maybe the time of day, season, etc. when I buy it) over a 6-month period.
the truth of the matter is that you have EXACTLY as much privacy as you want. The popular science article made a lot of assumptions. If you're that paranoid,
1) Dont use ATMS
2) work where there isn't tight security
3) dont write personal email or send IMs from work
4) keep your files where they belong
5) go to a doctor that does not share medical information
6) dont use a discount card
7)Dont let them scan your license
8)Dont use an I-pass or a GPS.
9)For god sakes dont use a cell phone.
People selling your information are not people that you cant live without. (the medical community being a notable exception) You dont have to move to Montana or become a recluse to maintain your privacy. We sometimes assume that these things are needed to maintain a life, but they are not. A combination of lifestyle and policy can keep you out of the system.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Oh thank you so very much, now suddenly I'm gonna have dreams about giant white whales with Sauron's eye plastered all over it's body. And Captain Aragorn is gonna spear it and get his ring caught and remain chained to mighty beast for all eternity.
I don't need these mixed literary metaphores right now.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
"No federal laws protect the privacy of medical records."
This part is just plain wrong. There is indeed a federal law to protect the privacy of medical records, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). It's not in effect yet because there are provisions in the law that give health providers a specific amount of time to bring their organizations into compliance after the publication of the rules. The rules have been published. The clock is ticking and health care providers are spending big $$$ right now to implement their plans for compliance by the deadline. The law implements real fundamental changes in the way personal health information is handled (including required logging of every access to medical records and serious penalties for misappropriation of patient data).
At least not on /.
/excellent article/" (emphasis added)
"/Popular Science/ is running an
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Took me a while, eventually, I did the print this and "view page info" on the little pop-up window. Here it is
posted anonymously so as not to be a karma whore. Please mod this up, (If it works that is. It may timeout eventually.)
Not like this didn't happen before, at times. Back in colonial times, people's houses weren't exactly built well, and half of them probably had no glass. Anyone could sit around and hear your every words in almost total privacy. You could go to the local store and say, 'the usual, please' the they would know what you meant. They might even suggest items. People weren't demanding total privacy back then. Now, people get pissy when their IM programs don't come with an 'invisible' option or their LiveJournal doesn't have a 'no-read' post option.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
YOu were publically stupid, so you were publically banned, what's the problem?
Sure, the government has information on us all. For instance, did you know that the U.S. government has your Social Security number?
Plus, when I tried to leave the site, it hit me with a popup. (I'd forgotten to turn my filter back on.) Stupid.
I'm inclined to dislike anything with "Popular" in the title. News for Me. Stuff that matters.
The world can be wrong today for once.
Just because you get to participate in Slashdot doesn't mean it's a democracy. You are free to post your thoughts elsewhere, even make your own website. Instead you just want to gripe to a captive audience not interested in what you have to say.
The fact is that Slashdot editors have appointed themselves representatives of the Slashdot community, and all those continuing to participate in adding content to the Slashdot website are clearly endorsing that arrangement. Neither cmdrtaco or anyone else is obligated to listen to you or give you a platform to spout your bullshit mean-spirited humor. It is not an act of censorship or a violation of your privacy to use your ip address to kick you out of where you are not wanted. By continuing to hang around, a stronger argument can be made that you are infringing on their right (and clearly demonstrated desire and intent) to be rid of you (or your unwanted additions to the content anyway).
This is not a democracy. You do not have an implicit or god-given right to spout off here. It's a carefully manipulated and engineered community. If you don't care to participate in that community, if it's standards and practices offend you, exercise your right to go elsewhere.
This is Slashdot and banning, moderation, meta-moderation, and editors are part of what makes the site what it is. Yes all those features can lead to situations clearly "unfair": even against the intent of those in charge. Yes like all systems this system is flawed. If you've found something better, go there. If you have ideas about how to make the system better, submit them in a constructive way or implement them yourself.
In the meantime, as far as I'm concerned you should fuck off. I'm sure Alan Cox (and his wife for that matter) is a smarter and better person than you, and more importantly Alan Cox plays a significant role in Slashdot culture. Your comments were hurtful and not constructive or beneficial in any way. You aren't a reformer or a rebel. You are a troll: so who cares about you and your petty complaints?
What I'm worried about is the legal ground all levels of government have won over our privacy. It's a shell game. People can rant and rave all they want about the need for laws protecting consumers' privacy, but the problem is that people can be coaxed to give away this information voluntarily. If you don't want to save the measily .12$ on your next batch of groceries, don't fill out that little saver card application and pay using cash, or just shop at some mom-and-pop establishment. Private investigators would probably ply their trade whether government licensing was in effect or not, and few people complain about them. But government works through compulsion. It's the law that makes banks keep records of all our ATM transactions and makes them available on demand to the "proper" authorities. Social Security was originally something you could opt-out of, but you're required to have a social security number in order to be able to work legally. It isn't just the latest bit of event-driven mass hysteria among voters that enables the police state. It's also the fact that the executive and the legislature, the two branches that influence the makeup of the third branch of government (judiciary) and the power of the fourth branch (the bureaucracy), are overwhelmed with the same old faces from two entrenched parties, and those two parties have been in bed with each other for generations despite their efforts to create the opposite impression. Once the government reaches the point where it can't spend anymore without bankrupting itself or encouraging a taxpayer revolt (the federal government has been getting closer and closer to that point for years), it attacks our freedoms directly. The reason for any private organization's existence is going to be influence or profit, neither of which are assured unless the government intervenes. For a government, it's power, pure and simple.
-My boss reading my email?? At work, it's not my email!
-My boss reading my IMs at work? It's not my network!
-Cameras on the street? It's a public place, they can film if they want!
-If I go to a bar and they keep my name on record, well, it's their bar. I can buy a beer and go home and drink. Now if they sell that information, that's something else...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with everything....
-Collecting and selling my medical records? That's shameful and these people should be castrated.
-Forcing my ISP to release information is also shameful. My personal surfing habits are my business.
I just feel that you can't expect to have complete privacy everywhere you go. Your personal life is your own, but anything you do in public is exactly that, public.
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
In case you want privacy while surfing the internet, have a look at Cloudish - a distributed anonymizer.
www.vanheusden.com - home of Multitail, HTTPing, CoffeeSaint, EntropyBroker, rsstail, bsod, listener, nagcon, nagi
From the article
"In May of this year, for example, an 18-year-old Miami girl was kidnapped and murdered on a Saturday night. By working with her bank to track transactions on her ATM card, the police were able to follow her abductors as they traveled from one location to another"
If the privacy advocates had their way, this criminal would probably still be out there.
'nuff said.
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
I just symlink my cookies file to /dev/null, so all cookies are non-persistent. You can do something similar with Netscape or Mozilla on WinBoxen by just creating an empty directory called cookies.txt or whatever in the appropriate place (though I don't think this works for IE last time I looked).
1. Use cash, not credit cards, for a start. Take out the most the ATMs will allow at any one time.
2. Buy a prepay mobile phone, pay cash for the top-up cards.
3. Set up free email addresses with Yahoo and the like. Use one address to get others.
4. Don't use encryption. Or alternatively, get *everyone* else to use encryption, but don't raise a flag over your mails.
5. Don't bother with store loyalty cards. I mean, are you really bothered about 5p off a product?
6. Support/use your local family grocer or market rather than the big chain stores.
There's more you can do, but doing the above is simple and will reduce your information profile significantly.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Human societies work best when there is little or no privacy in communal areas. We evolved to live in small villages where nothing was private unless you trekked across a mountainside to be alone.
People just don't behave themselves unless they know they are being watched and either criticized or given approval. This applies to drivers, policemen, government employees, hackers, anyone, as far as I can see.
One of the nice things about IT is its ability to blast huge holes in walls of 'privacy'. Don't forget that every nasty corporation hoping to turn a quick buck by selling private data can eventually be subject to the same inspection as Joe Schmo driving to work.
My blog
at The Net
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Yeah slashdotters! Keep referencing New York Times. Keep signing up and registering new people. Now the LA Times is following suit. Make sure you keep using them and linking them for sources in your articles. Then don't go cryin' home to mama when they put everything together, build a nice little profile on you, and someone steals your identity. Or checks everything you've done, everyplace you've went, everyone you've come in contact with, everything you've said because you might be a terrorist. FBI already checking your book checkouts, and library online travels. Already purchasing your marketing info and sticking in their database. Wanna bet some criminal is gonna hack it? Wait till you become an identity fraud victim. Never ending nightmare. All because of slashdotters, and those great references to New York Times. Geniuses.
I think you just made the previous poster's point. Replace the word Slashdot with America, adapt the text as required.
You may have a right to free speech. But that right was given with the assumption there are no consequences, that you have a degree of anonymity which is no longer there. If you now spout opinions, you must now expect consequences, and those consequences are inescapable. In the past, you would have moved to a different town where noone knew you, you can wipe the slate clean and start again. You no longer have the option.
If you feel Slashdot is too draconian then yes, you can always start your own webpage. But if you feel America is becoming too draconian, how do you start your own country?
Yes, it is a democracy, but the PC brigade hold sway. Would you hire somebody to look after your kids if you knew they were an active poster on alt.abuse.children.doit.doit.doitnow? I know I wouldn't. If they complained, noone would argue in favour of them, because they would be blamed if they actually do abuse (whereas the abuser would be excused, as they were clearly sick and doing only what came natural to them, when you look at all this 'evidence' in hindsight).
Would you expect the government to put someone in charge of the transport of nuclear material if they were part of a terrorist organisation? Of course not, there would be hell to pay IF THEY DO ANYTHING. But do you think they would wait for absolute proof first? Of course not, it's not as if it is a trial! As a student, involvement in any socialist group would exclude you from certain government jobs in the past. Today, if you shared a flat with someone who is a member of a terrorist organisation, they would probably consider that a sufficient risk. With more information they can apply stricter safeguards, excluding people who may have possibly been infected with terrorist propaganda - so don't buy ice cream from a vendor who is a member of a terrorist organisation, just in case. You mean he didn't tell you? Of course, if he does, that may be propaganda infection - Erase yourself immediately.
With no restrictions on use of this data, you can find yourself marked as a second class citizen despite having done nothing wrong.
And I'm only thinking about abuse of genuine information. I don't want to consider the situations where the data is modified - e.g. the lazy cop who wants to track someone he really believes is smuggling liquor but can't get any evidence, may decide to mark him up as a suspected terrorist, so the FBI can do the tracking instead. He gets his conviction, and the man is marked for life!
Digital cable, DSS, and tivo are all capable of collecting personal viewing information. They all have mechanisms to phone home and share this data, and none of the companies promise that they won't sell that data. True, you can get a Pirate Hucard for your DSS system, and then unplug the phone line, and Tivo is so far a relatively reputable company, but it's pretty clear that it's now 1984 and our tv-sets are all 2-way so that They can know what we do every minute of our lives.
As far as the daily propaganda film is concerned, everyone without a Tivo who watches TV without pre-recording it on a VCR (or suitably equiped PC) is subject to the propaganda, of how great it is to use in-stream pregnacy tests. Or which shoe Athlete X was paid to wear (they even made a movie about that "Like Mike"). Which deoderant to wear, and how to get the best shave a man can get. This constant bombardmant cannot be good for society.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Lessons Learned:
For thieves and low-lifes only:
Does anyone know where I can download that "Caught In The Act" video?
Don't be an idiot. As soon as the authorities adopt an exlcusive rule -- "We won't stop grandmothers" -- they open up a huge hole in their procedures, one which will get exploited.
Maybe it's the comp-sci orientation of /., but why do people here seem to believe that criminals and terrorists are all-logical, all-careful, and all-powerful? I guess by your logic, we should just give up. Anything we try will just be defeated and worked around. Oh well!
Police and intelligence work has gone on forever, and will continue to go on. Patterns and behaviors are analyzed, and do yield useful information. It does make sense to focus limited resources where they will do the most good.
Nobody I've seen is advocating exclusively searching specific profiles, but you will get the most (least?) bang for your buck that way.
there aren't any "local family grocers" left. There is a farmers market but they don't sell toilet paper, razor blades, etc etc etc.
What if you go to the latest "Greenspeace" meeting to protest the building of a nuclear reactor down the street?
...and then the government decides Greenspeace is a terrorist organization...
Fortuntely *YOU* never do anything wrong (I mean, other than go to terrorist meetings).
Then when you don't get that job, you won't even understand why. After all, what self-respecting company hires known terrorists.
Do you know what? My scenario isn't worst case, either. But you seem content in your idyllic middle-class cocoon, so what the hell.
From the article:
Meanwhile, Larry Ponemon, the CEO of Privacy Council, says that since September 11 he's been hired by at least one major supermarket chain to oversee the handing over to law enforcement agencies of the buying records of customers with specific ethnic backgrounds. The authorities requested the data, Ponemon says, because they were trying to compile a profile of "terrorist eating habits."
There is nothing that can be added to that.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
--now you know. radio shack has got to be the worst dickheads about this. Forewarned is fore armed, always have some silly address and phone number in mind as you approach the counter. Go to different radio shacks and rotate around. When I first ran into this I couldn't believe it and loudly ripped them a new one in front of the other customers there. My closest local one now is used to me giving them silly names and addys and phone numbers. I think the poor clerks are just as embarrased and upset with it as the customer, just like everyone else (mostly) when it comes to anyones personal job they don't want to jepordize it. Hmm, that's the main reason government gets away with so much bogus crap, the drones are not very good at whistleblowing or saying "no" to illegal orders. Just my opinion on that.
I honestly think that someone might have a civil case against them, but IANAL, maybe someone who is can chime in. They absolutely DO need to be sued over their policy at the counter.
IMHO, the real crux of the privacy debate never gets stated clearly.
It is this: there are many people who believe that invasion of privacy is perfectly OK as long as it is done only in pursuit of commerce.
In other words, if they have a dossier on you and they use it to blacklist you and prevent you from getting work, that's wrong; but as long as all they do with it is use it to sell you things, that's OK.
I happen to believe myself that it is definitely not OK. But I think it would clarify the debate if it clear that, currently, that's at the core of what the debate is about.
By the way, don't you wonder whether companies really use all that marketing information in the positive ways they suggest ("If you just bought a recumbent bike, wouldn't you actually LIKE to get catalogs of gear for recumbent bikes?") or whether it's really being used for electronic redlining?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
The (IMO) scariest line in the whole article:
"No federal laws protect the privacy of medical records."
Brandishing Dangerous Logic
American Scientist and Nature, with a little bit of the Skeptical Inquirer and Astronomy will make you wonder why you've bothered with Popular Science since 1990 or so.
Leem
are any of us honestly surprised by this? Most of the individuals who read ./ (News for Nerds, you know) tend to be technically savvy and have a good understanding of technology.
Look at most of the commentary that went on in this "community" post-september 11th with how rights and civil liberties were being trashed.
Are we so naive to believe that this information is not being tracked?
Oh, wait, I left a comment on Slashdot and now the Feds are going to come get me...
-- You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stay alive.
Is a great infoporn story in the latest Wired.
There are documented cases of old women and young girls (prepubescent) blowing themselves up as terrorist bombers in the name of the Palestinians (both PLA and PLO) in Israel. As such, its not to far a stretch that they could bomb or hijack a plane.
"Stumble before you crawl"
I live in a developing country where privacy and silence, for that matter, are luxuries. Privacy is having a door on the crapper.
/. completely paranoid, have you all had horrible Big Brother experiences?
I moved here from the UK in '95 when they were establishing the first large-scale CCTV systems in urban areas - there was a fuss about that which has now largely died down because of the effectiveness of these systems in combatting crime.
Is everyone on
Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
Go read Mr. Kendrick's reply. Think about it. When you are done with your process, come back and tell me what your conclusions are.
so who cares about you and your petty complaints?
Umm, you? And I appreciate it!
I recently read an excellent book on privacy protection by J. J. Luna (sparked by an earlier thread on privacy here.) Evidently he's set up a website to promote the book (http://www.howtobeinvisible.com/). I highly recommend this book to anyone who's concerned about their privacy.
In America, maybe in your home.
In other countries, maybe in between your ears.
The world has become too dangerous to let anyone have privacy.
And it will remain so until we ACT on declarations of war, Jihad and Fatwah and paint a bull's eye on the declarator's forehead and blow it off.
There will be no peace for the US and no return to the less expensive and freer way of life until we have a government hit squad who are mandated openly and supported with funds who'se mission is to terminate with extreme prejudice any individual who overtly declares war, Jihad and Fatwah on us.
Its that simple.
Now it would be CHEAPER to do it that way but Americans will just suck up the cost and kiss their privacy good bye because they're idiots and the terrorists will still be able to organize covertly and then come here and blow up busses and mail boxes.
This loss of privacy will NOT address the covert operations but a publicly supported "Hit Squad" might eliminate the public justification and posturing and fund-rasing efforts. (Box cutters and twenty plane tickets may have been cheap but testing out the strategy and feeding, clothing and housing the animals who destroyed the WTC cost. Without Osama's millions, it wouldn't have happened.)
But until Islam recovers some sense of shame about hom-/suic-icide, your best bet is making wide spread use of electric energy and a nice, brightly painted, thermo-nuclear device on a tall pole planted in Mecca displaying a simple message: "Attack us and we set this off!"
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Get hired by monitoring company or start one. Accumulate embarrassing info on public officials, law enforcement officials, and pro-monitoring advocates. Anonymously give info to press. Sit back and watch cameras being removed...
Slashdot isn't America. It isn't even a good metaphor for America. On the news America is being called "the only remaining superpower." I'm hesitant to put America in a class by itself, so for the sake of argument lets say there are very few countries where an American citizen might live comfortably (without an uncomfortable change in lifestyle). I hardly think being banned from the Slashdot is the equivalent of an American needing to pack their bags and move elsewhere, because their simply aren't that many if any places to go.
There is more text on the Internet than in the Library of Congress. There are probably several million community based sites where one can discuss the news.
I think a better metaphor is that the Internet itself is America. Slashdot is a rather popular church. It is correct to believe that if America is truly free, you have a right to criticize the church. That doesn't mean the members have to let you inside their church to do it.
As for your other thoughts, freedom does not mean being able to do whatever you want without consequence. Speaking out can have consequences in your community. People aren't obligated to let you babysit their kids, or be your friend. You have to earn their trust by what you say and what you do. Engaging in deviant behavior can have consequences in your community: so what? The things you do will always have consequences. It is your recourse when you believe your government is imposing unfair consequences that matters. The system will always move slowly to address an individual's complaints, but you can get involved and make a difference in the direction of your government. Maybe you are already involved. If so, your complaints have merit because you have tested your government's methods of recourse and found them lacking. If not, you really don't know the state of your government well enough to comment.
Ah, a game of softball? How refreshing.
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
And before the conversation wanders, let me remind you that the above is a minimum , not a maximum.
Also, the above restraint only applies to the government, not corporations. Corporations may be restrained by existing laws, and as the article makes clear, they should be restrained by additional ones.
Stop expecting privacy when using services provided by someone other than yourself.
No. For example, it is illegal to tamper with US Mail. It is illegal in many states to eavesdrop in certain ways, or to record certain conversations. I expect my phone calls, my mail, and more to be private. There is more that I want, and if a majority of Americans would join me, we would have those privacies as well. There is no plausible reason why I should be able to purchase your medical history, your salary history, or your credit history. A narrow group of people or corporations may need to know these things, with your informed consent, in certain situations, but the general public never does.
So criminals were never caught before ATMs were invented? Don't knock privacy because of lazy police. Get a clue. One extreme example doesn't justify anything.
Funny how we fantasize in our games and movies about crime, terrorism and blowing things up in general but then act shocked when someone actually does it in real life. A nation of closet cases if you ask me.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
We have as much privacy as most people [in our respective, democratic countries] want, or think they deserve, to have. Scary, isn't it?
There is a silver lining to this. It's nice to know that if my next door neighbor were to be brutally murdered and the weapon tossed over the fence into my yard, the nice folks at the police station could pull up records saying I was shopping 10 miles away at the time of the crime.
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.
Employers can check my medical records? I knew that insurance companies could check medical record through MIB if I was applying for insurance. But this article states that if I interview for a new job, the prospective employer could check my medical records. This is completely new to me. Does this mean that if I got your SS number, I could check your medical info by submitting a request to MIB and claiming that I represent a company that has interviewed you?
Alright that should get some people's attention. quite possibly someone in a government office. I am employed to do research on methods and commercial products available for detecting the items in my title. Now to properly do this i need a little background information correct? I thought so. therefore I had to go to Google and search under various things related to (Nuclear Chemical Biological) Weapons and Explosives.
So now my question is after logging on to my computer with my user name which is invariably connected to my real name and other employment records.....
How many computers per day is my name going through?
How many government people are interesting in what i'm doing RIGHT NOW.....
Just something to keep in mind. I don't have anything to hide, but i don't like the idea of my name circulating on some stuffed shirt's desk.
-Chris
A real estate lawyer in NYC was telling me that in order to prove that NYC was not the primary residence of one of his clients, the opposing attorney issued a subpoena for his EZ pass records. No hacking or suggestion of terrorism was required.
In this case the opposing attorneys could see that he left the city every evening, and that he could not legitimately claim residency.
He lost his case.
Some of the ways of opting out are obvious, fake names for store loyalty cards, etc.
Don't forget to remove all of your usenet postings from Google. To prevent articles from being added to the Google Groups archive, add 'X-No-Archive: yes' in the header of the article when you post. If your news posting software does not allow you to edit headers, type 'X-No-Archive: yes' as the first line of your post.
Then post all under fake names after that.
There is no right of privacy. No, this isn't a troll. It's the truth. Our expections of privacy are not rights, just expectations. Legally transforming these expectations into rights is a guarantee that the Law of Unexpected Consequences will be invoked.
Throughout most of human existance privacy was a virtual unknown. Communities were small enough that everyone knew everyone else. Everyone knew where you were, where you were going, and what you were going to do when you got there. The only privacy you had was within your own home if you were lucky enough to have one. Back then (prior to a mere few decades ago) privacy meant solitude
Jump to today. We are so confused over privacy it's almost funny. We would be incensed if everyone knew that we were buying condoms online, yet we buy them at the local drug store in plain sight. We display outrage when a website tracks our addresses, yet we post our real estate listings in the local paper. We wonder why PGP hasn't caught on for email with the general public, yet we yack on the cell phone in the clear all day long.
The big disconnect is easy to explain. We think we have an expectation of privacy because we are sitting in a chair in our homes with the curtains closed. But in reality we are online spewing out personal information as fast as we can over the internet. Here's an experiment. Go buy the very same product three times. The first time buy it online using your personal computer from your home. The second time buy it online using a computer sitting in a public library. The third time buy it from a brick and mortar retailer.
We should have, and must have, privacy within our own homes, including the harddrives of the computers within our homes. But that privacy ends at the walls of our homes. Once we engage in communication beyond our house walls, it's up to us to make our own privacy by using encryption, anonymizers or whatnot.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
By the way, I'm curious as to what moderator docked my message a point for, since I see no comment with the score reduction. If it's just that I presented a point of view that they disagreed with, I'm quite disapointed in them. The moderation system is only intended to eliminate unhelpful comments (and conversely to praise helpful ones), not to filter out ideas you simply do not like.
"Stumble before you crawl"
Before he goes to bed, a M$ employee posts an anonymous *nix-supporting comment on slashdot. The next day he is fired for anti-competitive behavior.
TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
Debaters on both sides are missing the most profound aspect of centralized surveillance: historically, nations that monitor their own citizens nearly ALWAYS use that information suppress legitimate political opposition.
America has a responsive, transparent government, but times change. Steady-state is an illusion. Individual privacy is essential to the continued functioning of our republic.
Tim
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Newsflash: TechXNY, supposedly a technology show, requires attendees who pay for their admission to supply the last 4 digits of their social security number to verify their credit card info during the online signup.
Combined with info located on other sites on how to breakdown social security numbers (beginning numbers are social security offices and area locators), and the info supplied during signup, crackers now have all the tools they need not only to steal your credit card info, but your identity as well.
God bless technology and TechXNY!
It's NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE! With respect to the government, it's about whether or not there exists a reasonable cause to track what you're doing, PERIOD. No cause, no track. Sheesh...ever heard of the 4th Amendment?
Corporate abuse of information is a different matter. Here's the problem with corporations collecting information on what you do or what you buy: interpretation - it's an entirely subjective process that could have significant implications for you that you'd never even know about. Was there *really* a legitimate reason you were turned down for that loan? For that last job? For that last health insurance policy? Or, could it be the result of a composite score assigned to you based on an overall profile that has been established from all of the information that has been collected about you?
Was it the overt "forcing" of conformity? Was it the bleakness of the characters' outlooks?
It seems from the posts that I see here that as long as we gradually erode our privacy, for convenience of course, we could always opt out by not using credit cards or the internet or... it is just fine with us, because only criminals need to worry about privacy.
So the option is opt out of society or be surveilled? We shouldn't worry or be concerned because there are options, for now?
Maybe we've already had the brainwashing. 1984 isn't so bad after all.
-Rose
NSA Agent to FBI Agent...
"Well, as we suspected, they do eat."
First, here are three quotes from Rightoprivacy.com
"The right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.
To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."
Justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v. U.S. (1928).
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy"
Article 12, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Unfortunately, most people assume that they have greater rights to privacy than the Law actually provides. Others dismiss erosion of their rights to privacy with the dangerously false pretense that only people with something to hide should be concerned about the loss of privacy.
***********
The rest of this is a basic cut and paste from my previous posts on 'Bringing Echelon In From the Cold'
I believe anybody who says "They can read my email - I have nothing to hide" must be of low intelligence - a moron.
This information can be used retrospectively against you - wait until you get a just cause to fight. The UK government love to put down protesters - as can be seen when they tried to get the dirt on Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom I presume would have nothing to worry about, having her emails read.
News article: Labour admits second email seeking searches on rail group
Labour has found another email from a government adviser seeking information searches on the Paddington rail campaigners.
The adviser to Stephen Byers, sent a second request for the searches - which have been seen as an attempt to 'dig dirt' on members of the public.
Dan Corry's email to the Labour headquarters at Millbank Tower expressed a wish to find out what was behind the group's criticisms of Stephen Byers.
In it, Mr Corry said: "Any other checking useful. They seem to have an anti-SB agenda and we want to find out what lies behind it."
The department said the second email had been unearthed in a "very thorough" trawl of the email traffic from Mr Byers's special advisers.
A spokesman said it failed to reach the Labour Party owing to "intermittent difficulties" with the system.
The disclosure last week of Mr Corry's original email asking for information about the political affiliations of the Paddington group, prompted bitter accusations that the Government was trying to smear the crash survivors for asking awkward questions.
It led to unreserved apologies from Mr Corry and from new Transport Secretary Alistair Darling.
Story filed: 02:35 Tuesday 11th June 2002
***********
What do you think the USA Patriot Act is about?
It is all about Big Brother.
Ask the Security Services in the UK and US to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will get caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Go with plan A (human bomb to target A), or plan B (target B) or abort.
SURVEILANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA.
It is for several reasons, including: making you feel safer - that the government are doing something and the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy.
This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.
It really annoys me that our governments would con their people like this.
We pay their wages - we deserve the Truth - not this spin and lies.
Beware corporate theft of your domain name. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org
How much privacy do we have? Nearly none, but at least we can stop them from watching us while we watch TV.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
If you want to give your german language skills a test, you might like this mp3 file of a police operation in Berlin involving GSM tapping and localisation. The cops refer to it as "ping".
If you want to know about the streets they're talking about, try this link and click on Berlin.
GSM seems to be enough for everyday police "work".
The combination of broadly violated laws (traffic, drugs, public demonstration, misc.), previously private information easily accessible and usable by law enforcement, and suspension of due process (non-citizens broadly, Jose Padilla as citizen precedent) is leading to a government that could get very ugly. I don't claim to know if it will, but I am very concerned by what I see.
A sibling of mine (you don't need more info to understand the point) had a routine traffic violation lead to a local police department comparing their family name to a list of Taliban connected individuals. Evidently, our name "loosely resembled" a family name on the list.
Months after that occurred, my sibling's spouse was pulled from work to come to the police station for questioning.
They asked a few questions that due to my in-law being a little confused led them to believe that they should approach it differently. They then showed a photo of my sibling and asked what my in-law could tell them about that person. Since it was just local police using FBI to get information, the person explained why my in-law was being questioned.
As it turns out, they decided to investigate my sibling's background, watch my sibling (at least), and had a quite thick file on them. The police had also decided to put an alert in some areas that. as they described it, would make my sibling's greeting "look like cops" should they show up in certain locations.
Due to good legal support, my sibling is not being held and not being charged with anything. Nothing illegal was ever found.
Even if this was not so close to me, knowing that it happened would certainly not make me feel "safer". Personally, knowing that a sibling of mine was investigated and under surveillance for having a name we share does not make me feel "free" in this country of ours.
I happen to have a relatively high-profile position and some might not like my political views. At what point can/will this power be abused by anyone in a position to wield it? At what point should I be afraid to speak out for fear of repercussion that goes beyond debate?
This does not feel like the US where I grew up, and the situation does not look likely to improve unless and until enough people feel enough risk and are willing to do something about it.