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."

Comments

Where are our flying cars?

[blair1q]

I'm not believing a word Popular Science tells me.

--Blair

Re:Where are our flying cars?

[Rhinobird]

don't believe the other guy. They are right here

Re:Where are our flying cars?

[doubtless]

I have one more issue of Popular Science left in my subscription and I am not going to renew it.

Half the magazine are ads, and another quarter of them are half baked product reviews (for example, comparing iMac with top of the line Sony desktop) with appropriate information on where to buy them.

In the past year, only a handful of articles were worth reading, and this one is definately the best I have seen thus far.

Maybe I should just use the money to subscribe to /. wait.. I can still get it for free..

Re:Where are our flying cars?

[Animats]

Moller is full of it. He's been announcing his flying car as Real Soon Now since 1974. I have his 1974 brochure.

It's embarassing that he hasn't produced a flyable prototype. It's quite possible to build such a thing; the Avrocar did it in the 1950s. The thing was aerodynamically unstable. This was expected, and an active stabilization system was provided, but 1950s control technology wasn't up to the job of making an unstable aircraft flyable. Today, that's far less of a problem.

Privacy is a legitimate concern....but

[Em Emalb]

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.

Re:gps... so?

[Kwikymart]

Knowing you current location is not that far off from knowing your adress.

Well, maybe for those of us who never leave the house.

Just How Much Privacy Do We Have?

[quantaman]

Simple

You have no privacy, get over it.

GPS Phone Question

[zook]

It is my understanding that the federal government is the one responsible for GPS (or other technology aimed at locating the unit) being added to phones, purportedly so better locate them in the case of a 911 call.

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.

Re:GPS Phone Question

[frovingslosh]

Is there any reason that a phone could not simply fire up the GPS unit when 911 were called?

The GPS will have to be already running, it takes time to lock on the satellites and get enough data to compute a fix; once it has that info it can track very accurately. The real question is will the sending of that data be limited to just 911 calls. Every indication is that it will not. While it would be very handy to be able to send the data when you want to and let another party receive it (perhaps a person you are trying to meet with or a website you want location specific information from), it seems more likely that the phone company will capture this data against your will and sell it, it would be valuable to a lot of people. It's even been suggest you might start getting targeted instant messaging advertisements when you get close to a store targeting you.

Re:GPS Phone Question

[DNS-and-BIND]

GPS doesn't work indoors!

Or for that matter, anywhere it doesn't have a clear view of the sky. Such as in your pocket.

Re:GPS Phone Question

[baka_boy]

Your pocket actually isn't much of a problem, unless you're wearing pants made out of metal or concrete...it's the heavy (microwave-blocking) building materials in the city that really cause problems, along with (to a lesser extent) the water in your body.

Re:GPS Phone Question

[jukal]

> 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?

No there is not :) And that's why there already are such "emergency phones". To market something else than the giant mobile phone vendors, here's a link to Benefon Esc's product details, including:

Emergency button: in case of emergency, up to five SOS messages with your location is sent, and a voice connection is opened to a predefined number

GPS enabling, is, at the moment, a non-issue

[io333]

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.

Re:GPS enabling, is, at the moment, a non-issue

[Technician]

Get a handheld GPS with a map display. I can know where I am without letting everyone else know. If I need help, I can tell them where I am.
Many of the pocket size Etrex units have this feature. I have the Magellan Map 330 and love it. It has paid for itself in gas saved several times. It has gotten me out of traffic tie ups. Road blocked by an accident? just cut into a neighborhood, check map for current location and locate alternate route on the spot. It saves time and gas. This alone made mine better than free. No need to re-fold and store the map when done. ;-)

Re:GPS enabling, is, at the moment, a non-issue

[prockcore]

"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."

Well, considering that GPS requires line-of-sight to work.. just don't use your phone outside. If you're inside, GPS won't work. Or you can wrap your phone in tin foil.. it'll block GPS, but act as a nice antenna for your cell phone.

Of course they can still triangulate your position without GPS.. so your best choice is to stay in your basement, with your shotguns.. listening for the FBI.

Re:GPS enabling, is, at the moment, a non-issue

[Technician]

wallet escaping pocket... must resist!!!!
Sometimes spending money saves more money. Choose your toys wisely. I've saved aprox 5 hours of stuck in traffic time with mine in the last 6 months. What's that worth?
On dash nav is the only way to cut the plugged throughfares and make it through that housing complex to the next open street. Most housing complexes are lost traveler unfriendly. A map GPS fixes the gardem maze of unfamiliar winding residentual streets. It's as simple as You are Here X, the way out is up two streets to the left and around the bend. It beats being lost in the maze.

Re:GPS enabling, is, at the moment, a non-issue

[Technician]

The black helicoptors can use it to pinpoint you from above, but on the ground it ain't going to help you get from A to B any better than the sun.
Um, have you tried one of the map units? Are you thinking of the antiques that only gave a latatude and longitude? Check out the useful features they now have! Ever got lost in a suburban developement? A map unit will mark the maze with a "you are here going this direction" indication. It's a simple matter to locate a route to an exit to a main street.
I'm no longer afraid to jump off a plugged street and cut through a housing developement to the next unclogged street. It's saved me many hours sitting stuck in traffic. It's much easer (and safer) to navagate with a GPS map unit than try to read a street sign and find your location on a paper map while driving. Not all streets have the luxury of a place to pull off out of traffic to read a map. Preplaned routes in the GPS let you know your next turn is a quarter mile away, instead of trying to keep track of street signs and house numbers. Hmm, a quarter mile away, that is probably the second light ahead... It's that simple. They could take down all residentual street signs and take off all the house numbers, and I could still pull up in front of the right house on a service call. I pre-load my destination and route before leaving home.
I no longer have that "Dude, I got lost in Rhode Island yesterday" feeling.

Mmmm, cookies

[mdubinko]

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

Re:Mmmm, cookies

[Technician]

Only if you let the cookies remain! A simple batch file (MS users) or cron job can take care of any new unwanted cookies next time you log on.
This keeps many sites from being broken. Your cookie history goes away when you log out of the current session. Keep some cookies, like your /. logon.

Re:Mmmm, cookies

[baka_boy]

Or, use a browser that lets you selectively accept or block cookies from each domain...it's also an interesting way to find out exactly who's trying to track you, and keep random ad banner exchanges, etc., from being able to assign a global id to you.

To bring this back on topic, let me ask you this: will there be a market in the future for consumer electronics devices (cell phones, PDAs, etc.) that give you the same level of control over how much information you're willing to share?

That Eye

[jcoy42]

on every single page is going to replace the whale in my nightmares..

Ya tell me about it

[El_Nofx]

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.

Re:Ya tell me about it

[Steve Franklin]

The fallacy in all this is that the more data you collect the more people you have to hire to process it all. Even with computer assistance, the level of intelligence required to do this job properly is not going to be met by the minimum wage employees they are going to have to hire to make it financially practical.

We either end up in a situation analogous to that described by Bill Burroughs in which everyone is either a criminal or a prison guard or they are going to have to be much more discriminating in what kind of data they collect. The classical example is all the pointers that were collected concerning the loonies who attacked the World Trade Center. They never got around to putting the dots together because they had entirely too many unrelated and meaningless dots. This is not rocket science. But then these are not rocket scientists either.

These are people who are still functioning under the Burger King metaphor that "more is better." I am sorry: More is not better. 50 cameras are not better than 1 camera in the right place. Cameras are no substitute for intelligence, and intelligence (the intellectual kind) is one quality that is severely lacking in law enforcement circles. More could be done to improve crime statistics by testing and raising the intelligence of police cadets than by any fancy technological "fix." The really sad part of this all is the more time these characters spend sitting in front of a monitor, the less time they spend learning to actually detect anything.

Re:Ya tell me about it

[colmore]

hey, that's a 25% increase in only a year!

jesus man, we've gotta triple the number of cops on the streets, this is an epidemic!

Re:Ya tell me about it

[rapid prototype]

much like politicians. the people who would make the best candidates for the jobs of police officer or state representative have the intelligence not to throw their life or morals away doing either.

-rp

Re:Ya tell me about it

[5KVGhost]

privacy is gone in public

Has "privacy in public" every actually existed?

There's never been an expectation of privacy in any public place, pretty much by definition. Once you step out of your house and into a public place there's nothing at all preventing me from following you around, watching where you go, who you talk to, etc. I can even stand nearby and listen to your conversations. And if I'm discreet you'd never even know you were being observed.

Chances are that no one will bother to do any of these things, of course, but none of it is illegal.

Re:Ya tell me about it

[Tetsujin28]

More could be done to improve crime statistics by testing and raising the intelligence of police cadets

Sadly, most intelligent people realize that policing is a shitty job and therefore avoid it.

And on the other hand, we have towns like New London, CT which disqualify police applicants with high IQs.

Re:Ya tell me about it

[4of12]

There's never been an expectation of privacy in any public place

Then we can categorically surmise that people talking in hushed voices or whispers in public places have absolutely no reason to do so.

People have had the expectation that some privacy existed in publicly accessible places. Simply, if people were close by, then you expected less privacy. If the nearest person was 100 meters away, you expected more privacy.

Now, with telephoto lenses in cameras and shotgun microphones, your expectations will change subtly but significantly because the cues for sensing privacy that worked for millenia no longer work.

Re:Ya tell me about it

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Has "privacy in public" every actually existed?

If you are silly and regard privacy as all or nothing, than no, of course not. You could never be 100% sure that someone wasn't hiding in the shadows of your cave...

But if you use your head, you'll realize privacy, like most everything else, is a matter of degree. How likely is it that people you don't want to know something about yourself will in fact know it in the future? The answer to this question is how much privacy you have. A likelyhood of either 0% or 100% is not desirable--society has some need to prevent its members from destroying each other, but, as human beings are judgmental creatures, they are better off not knowing too much about each other.

Seeing privacy as all or nothing puts us in one of the two undesirable extremes--most likely the Orwellian one.

No need for GPS

[tjcoyle]

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.h tm

Re:No need for GPS

[briancnorton]

Sprint and Cingular are actually putting GPS recievers IN the phones, while verizon and others are doing the triangulation thing. The triangulation is really only useful in remote areas. Multipath and timing errors severly limit its usefulness. GPS on the other hand only works outside.

your cellphone *already* lowjacks you

[Jamie Zawinski]

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.

Re:your cellphone *already* lowjacks you

[ceejayoz]

Which is a lot when you consider that GPS can narrow it down to what, about six inches? Not all that comforting anymore.

Re:your cellphone *already* lowjacks you

[stuffman64]

This is very true, in fact last year I witnessed a motorcycle accident in State College, Pa (location of my Alma Mater, PSU). When I called 911 to tell them of the accident, they did not ask me for my location, rather, she asked my to confirm if I was infact on East College avenue by the OfficeMax and the Supermarket.

Cell phone location is possible without GPS by timing the signal arrival between different towers. This is not nearly effective as GPS, but this time they hit it right on the head. Unfortunately, this non-GPS solution is much more expensive and less accurate than the GPS route, but nonetheless effective in semi-rural areas such as where I was.

Read about this technology here.

Re:your cellphone *already* lowjacks you

[billn]

I think you might be a little on the paranoid side. Were you the first person to report a motorcycle accident within the first few minutes of it happening? Dispatch operators tend to be in near proximity to each other, and likely have some form of information sharing, if not simply overhearing the call next to them.

Re:your cellphone *already* lowjacks you

[Fat Casper]

Cell phone location is possible without GPS by timing the signal arrival between different towers. This is not nearly effective as GPS...

Umm... That's how GPS works. Your reciever times the arrival of signals from several sattelites and decides where it is. Cell tower positioning is the same thing with the work being done at the other end.

Keeping records and triangulating isn't "much more expensive and less accurate" than launching and maintaining a constellation of sattelites. It's just more expensive to reinvent the wheel. It is more accurate, however; a good GPS signal isn't always there, but if you're on the phone, you are hooked in to the towers.

Privacy Legislation (uhhh...yeah)

[Sean Clifford]

This point has been hammered home time and again, but it's obvious that Americans (and everyone else, but talking US in this specific instance) need privacy legislation. Unfortunately, the only kind they're likely to get is the sort put forth by the distinguished Senator from Disney.

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.

Another good PopSci Read

[stuffman64]

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.

Re:Another good PopSci Read

[colmore]

Hell if it wasn't for Uncle Sam and a few private scholarships, I'd be paying Columbia $35k a year.

Or rather, my parents would...

Or rather, I'd be going to a state school for free.

One thing about privacy...

[Devil's BSD]

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.

Re:One thing about privacy...

[billn]

On some points, I'm inclined to agree with you, but. Us Americans are in a capitalist society, and profiteers will capitalize on anything to milk more money out of the masses. It's one thing for government to have access to data about me. In some cases, it's a necessery evil.

When it comes to advertising and marketers, I fall back to the basics: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notably, that liberty part. Why should I have to waste my free time wading through ads I may not be interested in? If I'm paying all the costs to maintain my cell phone, why should anyone be freely allowed to send ads to it? What if I'm not interested in geophysically targeted marketing? Why should I have to turn my phone off to avoid it, when I may be expecting an important call, or an unexpected emergency call comes through?

Overall, I thought the article to be fairly bland, and frankly, rather alarmist.

Re:One thing about privacy...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm one of those believers that if you don't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be concerned about privacy."

I won't spend a lot of time pounding on the fact that you are posting under an alias, rather than yor real name, though I will mention it. 8-).

My problem is not that I'm afraid for my actions to be publically recorded, but that I might be victimized by the local government. For example, if I kiss my date good night at her door, and there's an ordinance against PDA (Public Display of Affection), then I'm ticketed an fined.

It's not so much the good laws as the bad laws that you want to avoid.

I guess if you want to get technical, I'm for "hiding" from bad laws.

-- Terry

Re:One thing about privacy...

[Fat Casper]

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.

That's shortsighted as hell. Maybe nothing you do is "bad" now, but maybe something you do will be illegal tomorrow. There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal that are unpopular as hell. Voting is legal, but the idea of the secret ballot is the only thing that makes it work. Privacy is more vital to our lives than simply not going to jail.

Remember: If we let Bush and Ashcroft tear up our Constitution, then the terrorists have already won.

Re:One thing about privacy...

[colmore]

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

- Martin Niemoeller

"Those who would trade freedom for a little temporary security
deserve neither freedom nor security.".

- Ben Franklin

The question is not why are they watching you now. The question is why they will be watching you in 10, 20, 50 years. The simple fact is, no government avoids tyranny for a very long time, and our founding fathers knew it. With this kind of precedent set, a future, less nice, government basically has free reign over your data.

It's funny, the American revolution was fought over far smaller violations than the current American government commits every single day. I always find questions like "what would Thomas Jefferson do" in regards to current political questions. Thomas Jefferson would overthrow the US government with armed force. Thomas Jefferson was a terrorist / patriot / freedom-fighter.

Re:One thing about privacy...

[colmore]

You can judge a society by how many laws it has. With enough laws, everyone is a criminal and the government has free reign via selective enforcement.

I live in a small southern city, and I see it happening allready. If you are a black male and you get arrested, you are never, ever, ever, getting off of parole, they'll add a year for tossing a cigarette out of your car.

Thankfully, I'm a white kid with middle-class parents. The police let me get away with a quarter ounce sack of marijuana with only a warning. God bless America.

Terrorist Eating habits?

[interactive_civilian]

From the 5:47 pm: Discount card section:

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."

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.

Re:Terrorist Eating habits?

[josh crawley]

Dont you know? This is one of the government's ways to funnel money to black ops groups. Seriously. There's things we do that teh public wouldn't want to know about. Since it's not a war, we funnel money from "profilings".

Re:Terrorist Eating habits?

[PacoTaco]

The authorities requested the data, Ponemon says, because they were trying to compile a profile of "terrorist eating habits."

To allay suspicion, be sure to buy pork or alcohol every time you go to the store.

Re:Terrorist Eating habits?

[mlk]

Its a Scienceitifly proven fact that all terrorists don't eat ham and pinnaple pizza, instead go for crappy flavours like Tuna and Sweetcorn!
So remember all, next time you are at a LAN party, and some sick terrorist bastard orders tuna and sweetcorn, kill the fucker, for [Queen and] Country.

Re:Terrorist Eating habits?

[Black_Logic]

I don't know, I can think of one example where some terrorist profilling would make things a little more sane. After the twin tower thing I flew up to see my dad in NC, just about everyone in the line at the security gates was being checked. It was like trying to go through customs coming from Columbia. Specifically I saw a young white woman holding a toddler in one arm opening up her bag for some jackass security attendant with the all while trying to tend to an upset baby in a stroller next to her. I'm all for racial, gender, sexual preference equality, but has an expectant mother or an little old grandma or teenage girl EVER hijacked a plane or commited an act of terrorism?! I'm only assuming of course that many of those types of people that I saw being checked, were checked because of politically correct reasons.( For all i know the security guy could have seen loads of C4 peeking out of the mother's baby's anus. )

Re:Terrorist Eating habits?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I'm all for racial, gender, sexual preference equality, but has an expectant mother or an little old grandma or teenage girl EVER hijacked a plane or commited an act of terrorism?!

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. How many people ever crashed 767 into skyscrapers after hijacking them with paper cutters? The only way such procedures as searches can be effective is if they are either (a) universal or (b) truly random and very frequent. Any pattern employed can be used against the search. Why do you think Al Queada is trying to recruit "ordinary" Americans??

From where I sit, all this whining about "They even search gradmas, for Pete's sake" seems to come from people who are all for waging war but don't want to pay even the tiny price of extra time in the airports. "Let's you and them fight, but as soon as this 'war' involves sacrifice on my part, we need to reconsider." And generally it's not really the 76-year-old grandma that they want excluded from the search -- it's the safe-seeming white middle class.

Re:Terrorist Eating habits?

[bungo]

but has an expectant mother or an little old grandma or teenage girl EVER hijacked a plane or commited an act of terrorism?!

Are you serious?

Do you ever what the news, or doesn't your news cover the middle-east?

Only some weeks ago, a teenage girl blew her self up in Israel. In fact, it was the first time that a bomber was a teenage girl, which is why it made international news.

So much for your ideas of gender profiling.

Re:Terrorist Eating habits?

[Reziac]

In VietNam, and I understand this has also happened in the Middle East, little kids and doddery old people were routinely strapped full of explosives and sent into "enemy" camps. So, no, you can't discount the possibility, or it's not just a hole in security procedure, it's an outright invitation.

(Not that the current security methods work in the first place, but..)

Re:Cash is King!

[billn]

For you paranoid people, what's to stop the ATM's from associating the bill numbers with you and then tracking your retail cash spending through your greenbacks' serial numbers?

Ever run a cash drawer? Unless you scan every bill that comes in and goes out, you'd have better luck tracking VD in a dance club.

Say I wander into a Cold Stone Creamery for a bowl of French Vanilla with blueberries. I pay with a 10. and get back a five and pitch the one in the tip jar because the girl behind the counter is cute. The guy in line behind me pays with a 20, and gets my 10 as part of his change.

Unless whatever bill I hand across the counter is scanned as I do it, and likewise, my change scanned as it comes back, how will [insert big brother of choice here] know I spent that 10 bucks on ice cream, and not next door at Fascinations, on a pack of condoms and some strawberry flavored lube?

Ugh. much of this stuff is a no-brainer

[josh crawley]

--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!

Re:Ugh. much of this stuff is a no-brainer

[Rhinobird]

--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.

Um, they have to check your ID, it's the law. If the bar get's caught with drunk minors on the premises, they get shut down. You could let both bars know how you feel about it, but both bars won't let you in.

Re:Ugh. much of this stuff is a no-brainer

[Theodore Logan]

A lot of this "information stealing" is the cost of life in this type of society.

Which, of course, is the whole point of this article. Just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's not bad.

Idiot.

Re:Ugh. much of this stuff is a no-brainer

[Quimo]

There is a difference between checking your ID and taking your personal information without your consent. When I show my ID to the people at the door I am giving them permission to confirm that I am indeed old enough to enter the premises and to confirm that the ID card I have is real. I did not give them permission to store my age / sex / anything else stored on my card so they can better target there market. If they want that type of information they should ask me for it.

Article

[The Cat]

I think I speak for many here when I say...

gaahhh!!

ahem...

Here's How

[jchawk]

If you want privacy stay away from technology and be vigilent.

Get ride of the cell phone, unplug from the internet, hell get ride of the computer, since cash is still not tracked (just yet. . .), pay with cash.

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. . .

Has "Popular Science" come to this?

[Nonesuch]

The "Popular Science" article is technically weak, the scenario described is more fear-mongering than actual facts. For example:

Because Mark's e-mails travel across the Web, copies of them may also reside in the computers of the various service providers that carry Internet traffic. These files, and all of Mark's other Internet activity, are accessible to the government.

Just trying to count the number of technical mis-statements in those two sentences alone makes my head hurt.

Popular? Yes.
Science? Barely.

So they know what kind of ice cream I like? And?

[Proc6]

Okay, I am seriously not trying to troll here, but - while I agree we do need to protect our right to keep information private, I can't help but play devil's advocate.

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.

RTFA

[unformed]

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.

CRAP

[jukal]

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.

As long as I can see my own information.

[goat_of_wisdom]

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.

As much privacy as we want

[briancnorton]

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.

Medical Data

[TastySiliconWafers]

"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).

Words I never thought I'd see together...

[Llywelyn]

At least not on /.

"/Popular Science/ is running an /excellent article/" (emphasis added)

Double Edged.

[Renraku]

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.

Re:Double Edged.

[Fat Casper]

Back in colonial times, the government was our enemy. You might not have had any glass for your window, but if all the King's men wanted to hear your seditious ideas about personal freedoms and representative government, they needed to plant an actual person in your yard. With today's technology they can capture any data they like and then look back in time to selectively reconstruct your guilt.

All you have to do is be a member of a group to get ethnically or otherwise profiled and the FBI will come down. Not on you in particular, but if your name comes up on the wrong list, good bye. Not that I feel strongly about Skakel, but isn't it worrying that Connecticut (and probably elsewhere) law allowed a murder conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence? I don't know or care if he did it- I disapprove of the law that allowed that conviction. Now you were saying that I shouldn't worry about my privacy?

Re:Must be Yanks

[Rhinobird]

You say that now. Wait till you try running for office. Your opponent bribes someone to get you spending habits and finds out that you like the gay porn. Your opponent then lambasts you in media as against family values and tradition and what not. You lose. There was nothing wrong with what you were doing, but then again, it wasn't anybody else's business either.

I know I personally wouldn't want some of the strip joints I go to, to become common knowledge. While I may enjoy the naked women, I wouldn't want a potential employer (or even my current employer) to know what I'm gonna be doing with that money they'd be(en) paying me.

Too much information can color an impression of an otherwise honorable person. You may say something like, "I have nothing to hide, so this doesn't bother me." Don't fall into that trap. Something will come up that you would rather not be public knowledge. Maybe you wet the bed till you were in high school. Do you want your boss to confront you about that herpes test you had last week? Do your co-workers know how you REALLY feel about Star Trek/Star Wars/Buffy/Simpsons? What would they say about ALL that memorabelia that you have? What were you DOING down in the seedier parts of town last night? Buying drugs? No...just seeing those stippers...again. Does your Mom know about your subcription to Playboy/Penthouse/Hustler/Big'uns? All those things and more will become easier and easier to discover, just because you say you have nothing to hide.

Re:I think it's funny!

[gripdamage]

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?

Re:I-Pass (EZ-Pass) question

[Fat Casper]

Think it through. You wouldn't be hacking a system, but someone's account. They'd notice when it dried up, and you'd be on all those tapes. More interestingly, Big Brother could decide to look for him and come up with you. Try explaining to Ashcroft that you're not a terrorist threat, just a malicious hacker.

It's worth the buck. Unless you're getting on the Mass Pike from I 84, in which case they should pay you a toll for putting up with their bad road design.

I'm going to get flamed.....

[bakreule]

But a lot of the stuff I read in the article doesn't bother me.

-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.

Tracking isn't all bad...

[CProgrammer98]

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.

Re:Tracking isn't all bad...

[radja]

actually.. no, since a properly controlled policeforce may have legitimate interests in the data (such as the case you mentioned)

//rdj

Re:Tracking isn't all bad...

[edp]

"If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be concerned with people watching you."

False. You should be concerned with people watching you because they can harm your interests even if you are not doing anything wrong. Just for example, if somebody could see how you voted, they could harass you or bribe you. That's why voting booths have privacy curtains. Privacy is essential to democracy and freedom.

If you buy valuable objects (electronics, jewelry, whatever), you are doing nothing wrong. But if the wrong people get ahold of that information, you become a target for theft. How do you keep information like the addresses of people with valuable items out of the hands of criminals? You keep it out of the hands of companies that collect it. They almost never have your security at heart, and they often have lax security procedures. Privacy is essential for security.

How do you keep your competitor from learning your business plans? You keep the plans secret. You do not want information about what you are buying or whom you are meeting to get into your competitor's hands. How you keep them from learning that information? You keep it out of everybody's hands. Privacy is essential for business.

How do you protect yourself from sexual assault? You don't let strangers know your address. You don't let every peon employee who sees a pretty woman in a store find out where she lives. How do you keep strangers from getting her address? You don't let companies collect it. Privacy is essential for safety.

How do you keep telemarketers from bothering you? You don't let them have your phone number or information about your interests and purchasing patterns. (They may still call randomly, but this decreases targeted calls.) How do you keep them from getting that information? You don't let companies collect it. Privacy is essential for peace and quiet.

Re:Tracking isn't all bad...

[edp]

"... you could be ASURED that you'd never have a plan stolen, since the government could always confirm that it was your original idea..."

First, the government confirming an idea was yours wouldn't stop theft; it would just provide evidence. Second, even with evidence, suing somebody who stole your plans is expensive, time-consuming, and only returns a fraction of the value of not having the plans stolen in the first place. Third, not all theft of business plans is illegal. If you can figure out what a competitor is up to through public information and jump the gun on them, that's generally legal. So having the government referee who thought up an idea first does nothing to protect the idea. You must keep it private.

"I'm suggesting that the means to protection is strength (i.e. self-defense training, etc.)..."

You have no business telling any person that they should limit the deterrents they will use because you think self-defense is sufficient. It is not sufficient; it won't stop every attack, and there is no reason a person who wants to protect themselves should not be allowed and encouraged to use privacy as one means of protection.

... and through a willingness to trust your protectors (i.e. police). If police were watching my house 24-7..."

The only reason the police ever watch any house 24-7 is because they want to get the people inside in, not because they want to protect it. Believing the police can protect people is a fantasy. The police at most deter crime and punish criminals; they do not prevent crime, and you cannot rely on them. In fact, police departments have argued in court, successfully, that they have no duty to protect people.

"... telemarketers..."

The things you suggest, playing with the telemarketers or hanging up, do not remedy the problem: The disturbance still occurs. Caller ID helps but does not completely remedy the problem.

"Privacy is essential for deception, little else."

Well, then don't keep your passwords private; you must be deceiving somebody. Publish all of yours accounts and passwords here, along with your credit card numbers, Social Security account number, and so on.

Re:No need to get upset

[Fat Casper]

Lets face it, in the grand scheme of things most of you just are not that important.

I know that I'm not. I even work for a part of the government. Some of my attitudes can be misinterpreted, however. It's easy to get caught in a net that has nothing to do with you, especially in the last year. The public doesn't even know who has been arrested. Maybe everyone that's being held secretly since 9-11 is a mean terrorist. Maybe most of them are just poor immigrants. Maybe some of them are US citizens who just eat more couscous than the rest of us do. None of us know who they are, though. None of us know what perfectly legal and normal things are going to look wierd in what database and land you in a jail without a lawyer or a phone call. Therefore, we all need to worry about privacy.

There are several things you can do.

[Moderation abuser]

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.

Re:There are several things you can do.

[thelen]

I think it's a mistake to approach the problem in terms of minimizing the footprint you leave. Why set yourself up in opposition to the system when you can utilize it's own methods to protect yourself?

For instance, why not use a grocery card with purchases that you would *want* people to see, like that you buy lots of broccoli and juice? In the worst case scenario, if an insurance company ever saw those records they'd believe you had lower cancer risk. Pay in cash for things you want them *not* to see, such as the bag of chocolates, smokes and double bottle of cheap red wine.

Put books on gardening and cooking on your credit card bill, pay in cash for books on hacking.

Use an ordinary mobile phone except for when you truly *need* privacy, and for god's sake turn it off when you cross state lines to buy grass!

Set up email accounts in several different classes: One that you *want* identified with you for legitimate personal/professional contact; one for questionable personal use (e.g., dirty jokes) that you access through a proxy server; one as a throwaway that you don't really care about, say for registration sites. And don't mix them up!

The point is to understand the system well enough to *purposely shape* the profile that's built of you rather than eliminating it all together. The latter option is becoming increasingly unrealistic.

Re:There are several things you can do.

[Junta]

1) Ok, so wow, they don't know what you buy, but at any one point you have hundreds of dollars on your person at a given time, and if you either get robbed or drop your wallet, well, you are pretty well screwed. An alternative is to make your purchases at the most generic place you can when you buy something. For example, knowing you bought something at a general store is not very informative as opposed to a purchase at a games store.

2) Never signed up for a prepay cell phone, this may be a good strategy, again, paying in cash may not buy you much though.

3) Also a fine point for the paranoid, but I'm not sure all these huge companies are all trading personal information so that any email address can be tracked down to someone.

4) Now this is just damn stupid. This is like telling someone to send all important information on a post card instead of in an envelope. Sure, an encrypted email may raise a flag somewhere, but if you use good encryption and use it for as much of your email as possible, pretty much no one short of the NSA is going to decipher your mail and after the NSA wastes enough time deciphering "Hello, how have you been?" messages, they may decide they are not worth the trouble. And if you believe they will try to read each and every encrypted email even if history shows all to be benign in your case, they would probably be reading your plaintext mail, especially if it happened to contain a few keywords.

5) Alternatively I would say feed the personal information out with bogus data, better yet get your friends to do the same and swap cards ever so often. That way you save money and provide no personal information.

6) If a local grocer or market exists, then yes, this is a nice thing to do, for more reasons than just protecting personal information. In fact, if your sole goal is protection of private informaiton this is not a good strategy. The better strategy would be to cycle your shopping among different stores and have those stores be far away, just because you aren't being electronically tracked does not mean other people can't look and see what you buy. If you are going to be paranoid, might as well be extremely paranoid.

I'm not that protective of my information, I really don't have anything to hide from the NSA. Encrypted email may set off flags, but I don't give a damn, I don't trust post cards and so I don't trust email, and if the NSA knows I'm telling my friend he can come over this weekend, I don't care.

I like protecting what I can from common eyes, but do not obssess over whether executives at Food Lion know I bought beef last week, or even that my bank knows I bought something expensive from an electronics store a while back. Protecting privacy is all good, but there is a point where the inconveniences are just overboard to protect data that no one is really interested in anyway, or at least data that can't really be used against you.

Re:There are several things you can do.

[Moderation abuser]

1. I've never been robbed. I don't know anyone who's ever been robbed. I'm not particularly worried about losing a couple of hundred quid.

4. Only people who need encryption use it. It's like a big sign which says "Look at me, I'm doing something that I want to hide". It attracts attention, unless everyone is using it.

Re:There are several things you can do.

[Moderation abuser]

That's fine. The information he has isn't simply and immediately encodable into a format that can be searched and sifted. They want the info, they have to physically collect it.

Re:There are several things you can do.

[Junta]

Well, I've had my home robbed, and any cash laying around was gone, not exactly a mugging, but still a case where having large amounts of cash lying around would do more damage than a credit card. And oh how I wish *I* could say losing a couple hundred bucks would be no big deal, I don't think that many people would see it that way. The amount of information you have to give away when using a credit/debit/check card is relatively small if purchases are planned right, and what information you do give out isn't necessarily that detrimental.

4. I still strongly disagree here. I want encryption and use it for those recipients that accept it for all correspondence, but I have yet to pass any illicit material that way. Hell, I have a VPN configuration that has only served to protect FreeCiv games and trivial file transfers. And those who I want to hide things from are private individuals and organizations, who *cannot* read the mail, whether or not they have it flagged or not. As said before, *if* the NSA is trying to read my mail, they will get bored with it, and you can bet your ass that if you happen to mention some sensitive words in your unencrypted email that it will be *much* more likely to be read than any encrypted email, whether it be by private or government entities. If a password or billing information had to be emailed, it should be encrypted, otherwise a third party looking for keywords like "password" or "credit card" will stumble accross this stuff, while encrypted emails are useless to them.....
Trying to hide stuff in plain sight just doesn't work when computers can sift through this stuff to identify likely candidates for human review. If a group has a set of emails flagged for keywords and encrypted, those keyword emails are much much more likely to be perused, where often the encrypted email will be left untouched.

Re:There are several things you can do.

[n-baxley]

5. Don't bother with store loyalty cards. I mean, are you really bothered about 5p off a product?

I'm not sure what 5p is unless your not a USian, but on my typical grocery bill I save somethinhg like $5-$7. That's at least every other week. Minimally, we're talking $130 in a year! That's a little too much for me to drop on the floor.

Re:Must be Yanks

[CProgrammer98]

"Maybe you wet the bed till you were in high school."

Nope

"Do you want your boss to confront you about that herpes test you had last week?"

Never had one

"Do your co-workers know how you REALLY feel about Star Trek/Star Wars/Buffy/Simpsons?"

Yes, and what has that to do with my job anyway?

"What would they say about ALL that memorabelia that you have?"

Don't have any

"What were you DOING down in the seedier parts of town last night?"

Never been there. Don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs. Happily married for the last 21 years. getting all the pleasure I need from my wife.

"Buying drugs? No...just seeing those stippers...again."

Nope, see above.

"Does your Mom know about your subcription to Playboy/Penthouse/Hustler/Big'uns?"

don't have one. See above the above.

Some people really are upstanding honest citizens wwho lead perfectly normal (some may say boring) lives, and are perfectly happy doing so.

Privacy is overrated

[pieterh]

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.

Re:Privacy is overrated

[Tim C]

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.

You mean that we can sell their private data?

People go to prison for that sort of thing.

I also take issue with your assertion that I misbehave when left to my own devices.

The only thing that a loss of privacy will bring is more targetted advertising, and more targetted attacks on members of minority groups by the majority.

There was a case here in the UK a couple of years ago involving a little girl that was killed by a paedophile. Some groups of parents around the country started protesting against known and suspected paedophiles in their community, occasionally going as far as hounding them out and forcing them to move.

All fine, right? After all, paedophiles are evil, right?

Only trouble is that one of the people forced out was a paediatrician. The mob just saw the "paed" prefix and went baying for blood. She'd still be living in the same house now and would've been spared the experience if she'd only had a little more privacy.

As for the mob, they were interviewed on TV regularly over the course of a week or so. Lack of privacy didn't stop them, it encouraged them - they wanted people to sit up and take notice, to get a law passed forcing police to inform people of paedophiles that moved into the area.

My personal feeling is that a lack of privacy will do little to improve society, and has the potential to expose even more people to victimisation and pressure to conform. But then, I was teased at school and am "different" now, so I guess my outloook isn't as rosy as it could be.

Cheers,

Tim

And to think they laughed

[ch-chuck]

at The Net

Re:I think it's funny!

[e.a.kendrick]

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!

Re:Cash is King!

[DutchSter]

And obviously such a task (scanning bills) would have to happen right in front of you, especially in situations where there is a large line. The article focuses on hidden/unknown types of tracking where the person might have an idea they are being tracked, but surely no idea of to what extent. I 'spose for the paranoid types that do the self-checkout at the supermarket where the bill is scanned to determine the denomination, that might be possible, but why? Sure the supermarket wants my stuff, sure the cops want my stuff, but to pull something of that scale off would require massive money from somewhere. The store has almost no marketing interest in what particular currency I use (ie, $20 number 5 or $20 number 13). That'd make it hard for the cops to come say "hey it's a win-win..just install these scanners..." Not to mention the least of the problems is that you'd have to install one at every single POS in the area to even begin to come close to the level of real-time tracking discussed.

And of course - the most suspicious of all transactions are illegal anyway and surely wouldn't use a scanner. Drug Dealer to client - "Hod on, lemme scan yo $20."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Lessons Learned

[macsforever2001]

Lessons Learned:

• To get cash, wear a facemask at the ATM machine.
• Use the stairs instead of the elevator.
• • If in a skyscraper - do not pick your nose in the elevator.
• Do not get AIDS.
• Get a digital cell phone, not an analog one.
• Do not go to bars - at least ones that ID you.
• Do not use those lame bonus cards at the grocery store.
• For Tollbooths, do not get those nice EZpass things. Just use cash.
• Do not buy a car with a fancy GPS based navigation system.
• • Make sure your car rental does not have one either - go with the economy car.
• At work: Do not disparage your company or boss via email - or at least use PGP.
• At work: Do not waste time surfing the web... damn busted!

For thieves and low-lifes only:

• After you have robbed another person, do not use their ATM card as you travel.
• Do not steal a car with a fancy GPS based navigation system.
• Do not go to an airport, walk near public buildings or walk the streets of a major city
• When erasing computer files to hide corporate fraud, use a program that overwrites the free space.

Does anyone know where I can download that "Caught In The Act" video?

People are stupid and crazy

[colmore]

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.

The crux: is it OK if it's "just" commercial?

[dpbsmith]

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?

Popular Science

[lblack]

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

Re:Popular Science

[doubtless]

Since 1990? more like 2001, and I still blamed my foolishness.

Re:This is insightful?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

why do people here seem to believe that criminals and terrorists are all-logical, all-careful, and all-powerful?

Why do people seem to believe that law enforcement is "all-logical, all-careful, and all-powerful"? Why do people assume that targeted ethnic searching won't lead to higher incidence of abuse of the innocent?

I don't assume that terrorists are all-logical. I just assume that they are logical: that a search pattern significant enough to stir recognition in the average traveler, and enough to be run on national news, might -- just maybe -- also be obvious enough to be spotted by the terrorists.

It does make sense to focus limited resources where they will do the most good.

It hasn't been shown that this is where it does the most good. The case for racial profiling hasn't ever been made, much less made well. On the other hand, in a world of limited resources, it certainly doesn't make sense to throw away resources you have. If it's true that

Police and intelligence work has gone on forever, and will continue to go on.

then does it makes sense to blindly alienate the community in which that intelligence work must take place? Is it reasonable to ask the average Arab-American to risk their lives for a country that makes them pariahs based -- not on their citizenship, their record, or their contributions -- but on their genetics? How many people will come forward to a law enforcement regime that states, blatantly, "We don't trust you, because of your skin"?

The call for racial profiling is just another quick-fix, "minimize my inconvenience" tactic that goes against the grain of American liberty in the name of pursuing a chimeric safety in this so-called war. It would at best engender a false sense of security and could conceivably unerdmine the safety of the citizens of the US... even the ones blessed enough to be the "good" racial groups.

How to disappear completely

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Is a great infoporn story in the latest Wired.

Re:How to disappear completely

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Ah the beauty of the nice community here at /. Wish I could mod this up.

Re:Must be Yanks

[CProgrammer98]

My real name is Steve Atkinson. You're right, I don't have a webpage otherwise I'd put that in my profile.

Happy? Good!

Re:Cash is King!

[rapid prototype]

And of course - the most suspicious of all transactions are illegal anyway and surely wouldn't use a scanner. Drug Dealer to client - "Hod on, lemme scan yo $20."

but what happens when there must be a record of all transactions of money? the USA Patriot Act II, or whatever it eventually is called.

John is carrying a $20 #BB774532A. Everyone knows he is carrying it, because he received it from an ATM this morning and it has not shows up on any transaction records. The next day, Larry, known dealer in Mary Jane, uses the $20 #BB774532A to buy a 12-pack of Corona at the corner Quick Stop. Moments later, a warrant is automatically printed out and faxed to the precinct closest to where John works. He is picked up on suspicion of Marijuana posession, searched, and lo and behold, there's the little Zip-Loc baggie of grass.

It will happen.

-rp

depends on the regime

[crovira]

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!"

Re:Must be Yanks

[killmenow]

How 'bout this then...

getting all the pleasure I need from my wife.

Ever done it up the butt with your wife? (I mean not to offend, only to illustrate a point.) Some places have laws still that make that act illegal. They are seldom enforced...but still on the books. Now, I'm sure you are an upstanding person who is easy to get along with...but, being human (you are, aren't you?) makes you imperfect just like the rest of us and thereby prone to making mistakes on occasion. On one occasion, perhaps your mistake is to piss off the brother of a police officer...then he gets his brother to look into your ass-fucking history and brings you up on charges because...well, it's illegal.

Now, this is just an example. Perhaps sometimes you drive too fast, or keep a library book overdue, or inadvertently do something that violates some little-known, little-advertised regulation in some sub-paragraph of a dusty law book. All you need to do is anger one guy (a friend of a friend of an asshole cop) to get someone on your back. And if they're allowed to look into your every move without just cause, and they have records that show everything you've done over the years, then that one thing you did...well, it could get you a year in jail, or at least a public humiliation and reputation as someone who's "had trouble with the law."

Personally, I think the solution is to have no secrets. I think the reason people get wiered out about privacy is that there is an imbalance in it. To wit: the government can know all kinds of secrets about you, but you have little to no ability to know the government's secrets. If the law was that there are no secrets...that no person, no matter who they are or what their position, is entitled to even one secret...the playing field would be level...and what would it matter that you know what goes on in my bedroom because I know what goes on in yours...it would become such trivia as to be boring and so would be mostly ignored...but if I were commiting crimes, anyone could know about it...and if George W. Bush were evil or maybe trying to hide something well...he couldn't, and we'd all know every last detail about the skeletons in his closet.

Re:Must be Yanks

[CProgrammer98]

Interesting points.

Yes I am human, I lead what might be considered by many to be a trivial and boring life. Of course I have made mistakes, and violated minor laws, such as speeding, but have paid the penalty when I got caught( a small fine) and that didn't bother me in the slightest. I don't think I've ever done anything that would cause me "public humiliation" and at least here in the UK, I would hope (perhaps wrongly) that our CPS (Criminal Prosecution Service) would toss out on the spot any case brought against me because I angered a friend of a friend of a bad cop. They're far too busy dealing with real criminals.

There is a place for secrecy (bank acount numbers and stuff like that) but it irritates me when people go on about having movements tracked by gps phones/atm withdrawels/loyalty cards/public cameras and how it is such a violation of privacy that someone knows this stuff. I don't give a toss that someone knows I took 20 quid out of an ATM this morning, or that at 08:00 I left my house to go catch the train. If people are that curious about my life, then all I can say is that they lead even sadder lives than I do!!!

The fact that surveilance such as that mentioned above can help catch real crims is more important to me than not having surveilance because people feel it violates their privacy. I'm not even really that bothered about people reading my emails, there's nothing important or exciting in them!

Re:Must be Yanks

[rgbrenner]

Personally, I think the solution is to have no secrets. ... If the law was that there are no secrets...

So your idea is to get rid of privacy altogether? I certainly wouldnt want to live in such a country where no one has any secrets or privacy. That would be one huge step toward a 1984ish world.

How would you enforce such a law? Would you watch the populace constantly? Would you deploy a ThoughtPolice? Or would you simply rely on everyone to make their secrets public?

Asking everyone to make their secrets public wouldnt change anything. The people who really have something to hide obviously wouldnt comply - and those who do comply would only have that used against them.

Watching the populaces every move (even in their own homes), would be a huge invasion of privacy. Furthermore, it would not uncover everyones secrets. This would be a huge disappointment in the name of freedom - it would be Big Brother run amuck. The same goes if you were to deploy the ThoughtPolice.

There is no way to enforce such a wild idea, and it could only result in further abuse of power by the goverment.

I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry , March 1775

Ironic...

[Hoi Polloi]

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.

How much?

[Gulthek]

We have as much privacy as most people [in our respective, democratic countries] want, or think they deserve, to have. Scary, isn't it?

Employers can check my medical records?

[pschmitt]

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?

While you are opting out...

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

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 not right of privacy

[Arandir]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Must be Yanks

[FreeUser]

Too much information can color an impression of an otherwise honorable person. You may say something like, "I have nothing to hide, so this doesn't bother me." Don't fall into that trap. Something will come up that you would rather not be public knowledge. Maybe you wet the bed till you were in high school. Do you want your boss to confront you about that herpes test you had last week?

Or, as happened to a Swiss acquaintance of mine, get called into your bosses office and be read the riot act for not having tidied up your yard and trimmed your hedges properly. While Switzarland is a beautiful country, it is also, in its way, quite Big Brotherish (and the lifetime service in the Army reserves adds to that, but thats another story). Some people don't have a problem with it, but I for one won't be applying for Swiss Citizenship anytime soon.

We in America have gown up expecting to have certain rights and liberties, among them the right to privacy (even if most people do not realize that it isn't enshrined in the constitution as it should have been), and eventually even the apathetic masses (who, I suspect, are less apathetic than the media would have you believe) will grow sufficiently outraged to take to the streats, Osama bin Laden or not.

Good governance is having the wisdom to fix these sorts of ugly trends before the people feel the need to fill the streets and start rioting. Unfortunately I've seen precious little good governance in the United States of late.

Re:One more time....

[symbolic]

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?

Re:Must be Yanks

[symbolic]

Morality aside, did you ever stop to think what might happen if someone merely disagrees with something that you deem perfectly 'moral'? You could be the most moral, most (self)righteous person on earth, and you'll still find others that are just as moral and (self)righteous as you are, but disagree with you. Get ready for the same kind of judgement, because it certainly won't be confined to the hedonists.

Re:I can just see it....

[symbolic]

NSA Agent to FBI Agent...

"Well, as we suspected, they do eat."

There IS a Right to Privacy

[Garry Anderson]

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

Re:Must be Yanks

[symbolic]

Of course, its clear that some things (like your sexual activities within the realm of safe, i.e. excluding rape/S&M) are not absolutely moral or immoral. In that situation, you must concede to the tyranny of the majority.

I totally disagree with this. The mere prospect of tyranny of the majority is not a hallmark of a free society. Those who penned the U.S. Constitution understood this well, and provided sufficient means to make sure this doesn't happen: it's the concept of individual rights - that is, rights that benefit us all equally and concurrently. This, I'd posit, is the basis for one's religious freedom - no matter what the 'majority' thinks I should believe, I have the right to believe what I do without fear of discrimination of reprisal by those who believe differently.

Back in 1992, several states experienced an odd surge in "family values" oriented religious groups . They were pushing an amendment to state constitutions (in at least one case) that would make it illegal to formulate laws that would in any way benefit one particular class of individuals (those not of a heterosexual orientation). In other words, it would render null and void any laws which prevent discrimination based on this attribute of one's character. The tyranny of the majority spoke loud and clear (in at least one case), by voting in favor of this amendment. After its passage, an injunction was sought (and granted), and as you may recall, this amendment was eventually declared unconstutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. So, at least in this case, tyranny of the majority was NOT an option, nor is it an option in any society who claims to be free.