Tech's Answer To Big Brotherism

StCredZero writes "Along the same lines as the earlier article about Poindexter's info being posted, C|Net has an interesting editorial by Declan McCullagh on how to protect our personal information from unauthorized snooping by the authorities, yet let them have a database for tracking down terrorists. McCullagh's solution is based on algorithms developed for Digital Cash."

Comments

Re:We need Bayesian Terrorist Filters

[CreamOfNavistream]

i dont think its as easy as delete from people where hat like '%towel%' and ethnicity = 'Muslim' and profession = 'pilot'

Never happen.

[wilburdg]

Your talking about an agency which tried to get a backdoor placed into Phil Zimmermann's PGP. Even if they did try to protect the information, there is not way they would do anything which would impede their ability to extract every bit on just a whim. 'Encrypting the data' would just be a PR stunt.

protecting yourself

[wattersa]

The article could have been summed up in one sentence: the best way to protect yourself is to buy everything with untraceable methods like cash or money orders, and limit your recorded transactions to things like land. Oh, and don't take out any loans either, or buy anything online, or fill out a census form. In other words, all the progress of the 20th century will be reduced to us paying cash at the local general store like in the 1950s because we can't trust our government. If ordinary people can avoid the new system, how hard will it be for terrorists? Thanks a lot, Uncle Sam.

Re:protecting yourself

[jackb_guppy]

Cash is already outlawed.

Try to take to put more than $5000 in cash to a bank account.

Keep $10000 is cash in a cookie jar.

Carry *ANY* negotiable item more than $2500 across a legal boundary - state or country. Or even just have in your pocket on a street corner.

You are a "drug runner" until you can prove otherwise. PERIOD. Your money is impounded and forfeited - unless you can quickly show receipts otherwise.

Right now - go and by a one-way airplane ticket with cash, say SF to LA... Guess who is getting a stripe search?

Re:protecting yourself

[JWSmythe]

I opened a new bank account with $1000 cash.

I made a few small transactions over the next month, and large cash deposits weekly.

After 1 month of having an account, I bought a plane ticket for my girlfriend's daughter, two weeks in advance of the flight.

I moved recently across the country. I personally flew the same route a couple times, and my girlfriend and her daughter about 6 round trips. All those trips were with another account at a different bank. On most of the previous transactions, the airlines called the bank to verify information. My bank volunteered the information to me, as they had it all on record..

This particular trip, the airline called the new bank. The new bank thought because it was a large purchase ($250).

Instead of contacting me, my account was marked as suspect/fraud and suspended, my bank card (ATM/Mastercard) was flagged as stolen.

We got to the airport to let her fly. We went to the ticket counter to check her in. Security was called over to keep an eye on us. They asked to see the credit card, and held onto it behind the counter. Then they asked to see my ID.. Luckly, I carry several forms of ID around with me. That was enough to get my credit card back.

They then told me that the card was used fraudently to purchase the ticket. I told them *I* made the purchase, and I am the card holder.

They then told me the card had been stolen. I opened my wallet back up, looked inside. Oh look, card is still there. I told them it had not been stolen.

The airline was being cooperative with me. They weren't dicks about it, just trying to be safe.

I stepped out of line to call the bank.. Standing in the middle of LAX, waiting to get a little girl on a flight. I had roughly 10 minutes to get this fixed...

The bank calmly told me that the card had been reported stolen at 6am that morning. Well, the card was in my wallet, locked in my house, with me at 6am. It wasn't stolen (we left for the airport at 7am). I asked them who reported it. They don't record information like that. Only that someone called and said it was stolen. So I asked, "Can I call the bank, and say that your card has been stolen?". That made her very nervous.. Yes. Anyone can call and say anything they'd like, and they will respond to it.. You can call and say you've found a credit card belonging to one of their customers, and that card is now useless.. (Evil thoughts to do to bad customers, huh?)

Through about 8 hours of me interviewing everyone I could get on the phone, I came to understand what happened. The bank messed up. They took the fact that I had only made small purchases (up to $100) at local stores, and the fact that it was a plane ticket, and decided I couldn't have possibly bought the ticket, and froze everything..

8 hours of talking on the phone to come to that realization, and get them to unfreeze my bank account. It was another three weeks before they'd send me a working ATM/Mastercard .

Needless to say, she missed her flight.

The only advice the bank had, was not to make large purchases {sigh}, and that my girlfriend's daughter should have bought the ticket with her credit card. I don't know how the rest of the world sees it, but a 12 year old girl probably shouldn't be running around with her own credit card. Well, not until she has a job to support it. :) Generally, we don't let her go out by herself in the bigger cities, so very rarely would she have a need for a credit card of her own..

Now when I make purchases, I wonder if the bank will suddenly decide to reverse the charges on them.. I love banks, honestly.

Since I got to California, I've had some problem with two different banks, that has required me to be in the bank at least once per week to straighten out. I spent almost two hours at "Bank Of America" a couple weeks ago, just to get a check cashed. Not waiting in line, waiting for someone to make the executive decision that my check was ok to cash. Not just any handwritten check, it was my payroll check. The vice president happened to walk by and say "Have you been helped." I told him the story as quickly and concisely as possible, and told them just to take care of me..

It's sad when the secret to getting any simple task done in a bank requires you making an ass of yourself in front of other customers til it gets taken care of. They're growing to know me when I walk in now.. I'm the customer that *WILL* make an ass of himself til they do what I need done. It's not like I ask for extraordenary things. I bring in a payroll check to the bank it's drawn on, and I have proper ID (several forms), I want it cashed. I still don't get how they have the nerve to ask me if I want to open an account with them, when I know it's this much of a pain to work with them normally.

I could rant more, but.....

Re:protecting yourself

[Catbeller]

No tattoos: embedded chips, probably. Something microscopic and embedded.

First, it'll be for "pedophiles".
Then, it'll be for The Safety of Our Children.
Then, it'll be for anyone who goes to or leaves prison.
Then, it'll be a requirement for employment in sensitive jobs.
Then, it'll be a requirement, like immunizations, for joining the armed forces. And there'll be a reinstituted draft soon, if I read the sneaky 'pubs right lately. So everyone 18 and over gets chipped.
Then, it'll become an expected part of getting a job in a corporate environment, even if you're a paint mixer at a Benjamin Moore store.
Then, it'll become a requirement for going to a state university. Or just attending school of any sort.

Sounds silly? Think of drug testing, and how we drop our pants on command without even questioning why we are doing it. America will swallow chipping if it's done slowly, over years.

Ten, fifteen years from now, my objections to chipping will sound to the Americans of that time like I do to the Americans of this time when I refuse to take a drug test. A damned liberal hippy, probably a criminal.

I hate being right.

algorith

[dirvish]

McCullagh's solution is based on algorithms developed for Digital Cash.

if (!terrorist)
ignore ();
else
collect_data ();

Re:algorith

[JWSmythe]

// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();

Database to track terrorists, ha ha

[LoRider]

Yeah, that's what it's for; tracking terrorists. The FBI just needs to read their own memos from their own agents to track down these terrorists. Why doesn't anyone ask that question? Do we really need to give up our privacy and freedom simply because the FBI isn't processing the information that is readily available to them?

Aside from the memo sent out by their own agent, I can promise you there was way more information available to the FBI prior to 9/11 that should have made them take notice. Taking into account that they had the information prior to 9/11 before everyone was shitting in their pants about terrorism it's no wonder they didn't do anything.

We are such reactionists. We got hit by terrorists, now lets shred the constitution and live under Marshall law and military rule until we stop shitting ourselves.

I don't believe we need a Dept. of Homeland Defence or any of that shit. The FBI and CIA need to read their fucking email and act on the information they have. Or did they have the information and we told not to act on it? I wonder.

Big Brother is More Than That

[Grip3n]

The thought that many people consider, like this article, that Big Brother was just the government watching everything you do really goes to show the author probably never read the book. Big Brother is much more than monitoring...actually the monitoring plays a very minor role.

Big Brother's scariest tactic was the use of DoubleThink - and it's rampant today. DoubleThink meant you could see something one way, but you would willingly force yourself and thereby *believe* the opposite to be true, if the government requested it of you. In the book by George Orwell this was common regarding rations of chocolate, war with Eurasia or Eastasia, etc.

In today's society it's Nike saying they free people to achieve their dreams while running sweatshops in Asia. It's McDonalds saying "My McDonalds" when really they're the ones dictating what I can and cannot eat. Its the Gap saying "People of the world, join hands" in their newest commercial while they're, once again, utilizing sweatshops in Asia. Its Microsoft saying "Where do you want to go today" while basically saying "This is where we're going to take you today".

Big Brother is not just monitoring - it's an entire way a society thinks. Sure, prevent people from possibly taking over your data, but I believe that should be the least of your concerns. The first priority should be to stop people from taking over your mind.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[sabinm]

Your comments are pretty interesting
but you would willingly force yourself and thereby *believe* the opposite to be true,

that is mostly true. however the real insidiousness of it lay in the fact that the people were not *forcing* themselves. Infact, winston was tortured becasue he was *forcing himself* to believe what the party was telling him.

forcing oneself to believe has the implication of somewhere knowing that one is still aware that one is lying to oneself.

the true "converts" (there can be no converts) to the party were those who could believe two things at once with no contradiction (we are at war with Eurasia, we were always at war with eurasia).

in other words, people unconsiously thought in terms of dual or multiple realities. there was no deception on anyone's part, only acceptance of all things at once.

scary, huh.

who would really have the time?

[Hubert_Shrump]

Detectives will tell you the reason a lot of criminals get caught is because they have this attitude. Or they think they're too smart - that no one would ever bother to Luminol the inside of their car...

So what happens when something you've done, something you thought - becomes illegal? And what happens when they do have the time and the means? Will you just hand it to them?

Call me paranoid, fearful, whatever - but I'd rather put up a fight.

If you think...

[NilObject]

If you think this is our biggest problem, you should check out: http://www.orwelltoday.com

You'd be surprised what goes under even our meticulous radar of freedom infringement...

Why would anyone do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although corporate databases CAN be made to hinder or thwart gathering personal information, WHY would said corporations bother to implement this?

Here are just three reasons it won't happen:

1) Purposely hiding customer transactions and data may draw unwanted attention of the feds. Not officially, of course (or maybe...). But lots of "unofficial" attention by federal agents and agnecies can be a real headache. Maybe the company finds itself the target of yearly IRS audits, for instance.

2) As explained 14,000 times a day on Slashdot, corporations don't care about us except as a source of revenue. Their declared objective is to make as much money as possible. So why go to any extra effort unless it results in higher profits?

3) Even if a company did bother how can you, as a consumer, ever be certain it even works? Maybe it's just a PR campaign (i.e. lying) in an attempt to increase revenue (see #2 above). Without detailed insider knowledge about the methods used, there is no way to ensure that any database privacy measuses exist or work even if they do exist.

You want some privacy, make small transactions and pay for everything in cash.

Re:Why would anyone do this?

[Deven]

Although corporate databases CAN be made to hinder or thwart gathering personal information, WHY would said corporations bother to implement this?

To reduce liability and to avoid adverse publicity, in the event the database is compromised. Sensitive databases have been compromised before, and will be again. The potential damage is limited if the data is encrypted in the database. Corporations don't care about our privacy, but they certainly do care about liability and adverse publicity! (A PR campaign doesn't provide those benefits, only the illusion of them...)

Why should we care about privacy?

[Confused]

In the past years, technocrats, maketroids and burocrats of all kinds have had their wet dreams about the global database and total information about their victims.

In the beginning, those databases will probably work and be a menace to our privacy, but as they're fed on a constant stream of uncaring data input, random garbage, errors, the quality of the data will deteriorate quickly. Just have a look at the Times registration database (are there really that many Mr. Goatse?) or the mailing list from the wonderful Real-Media Player download page.

Once this stage is reached, the conclusions of those databases will get discounted more and more, and transparent anonymity will be reached. People will simple learn how to feed the system on the crap it likes best. We have that already today in accounting (just keep below the radar of the IRS) and other offical reporting duties. The trend will just continue.

In the end, any query will produce a lot of chaff while missing much important data that they won't be worth the the processing time.

The idea that those databases can be used to combat Terrorism and crime is quite ludicrous. I'm certain Mss. Nasty and Dr. Evil will manage to have completely harmless profiles in all of those databases. At worst, it will just give those criminals with access to power an additional leverage (see current Mafia-trials in Italy).

At the moment we're in atransitional phase, where people still believe in Big Brother, and those poor sods having their data in the wrong place will suffer most. Anybody who got associated with somebody else's credit record can attest that.

But once enough people are made to suffer from the garbage produced by those databases, things will normalise again.

We just need more databases, more agressive datamining, leading to more mistakes. The bigger the mistakes, the merrier. If those reports hit the evening news often enough, the systems will find their rightful destiny:

A big garbage dump for burocraties to wank over.

Re:Since..

[susano_otter]

I have three 'votes' on what the authorities ultimately can and can't do: HK93, Mauser P.08, and Enfield #1 mk3.

You've got to be kidding. When the authorities come to debate the issue with you, what, exactly, are you going to do? Shoot some cop, soldier, or CTU agent? Some guy with a job to do, and maybe a family, or a dog, or whatever back home waiting for him?

Then what? The authorities are going to back down and let you keep whatever rights they were planning to take away from you? Please.

If you're lucky, you'll get that grunt's commander in your sights before they gun you down, but it's not like he sets policy either. Or maybe you're betting that once the SWAT team figures out that the job involves getting shot at, they'll call the whole thing off.

Of course, if you get enough citizens armed and ready to fight, you might have some impact--the exact same impact a large number of citizens would have if they engaged in peacful noncompliance.

Would people get shot during a nonviolent protest? Probably. Would people get shot during a violent protest? Most definitely. So where's the benefit to your solution?

If the SWAT team does desert, it won't be because you're shooting at them--it'll be because they've heard a lot of reasonable debate on the subject, and you position makes much more sense to them than the other guy's. So there they are, teetering between their responsibility to their employer and their growing conviction that their employer is wrong. They're having second thoughts about this whole raid. Maybe you're a nice guy, they're thinking. Maybe you have a good point. Maybe taking you down would be the wrong thing to do. Maybe it's time to take a stand and make a change.

And then you start shooting at them. Nice going, Einstein. Now you, and your family, and your dog, and your mp3 collection--gassed, and firebombed, and mercilessly slaughtered. And the media will carry the story of another crazy gun nut getting shut down before he could endanger innocent lives.

Of course, if you don't think your arguments could make a change, or you don't relish joining thousands of other dissenters in prison for your beliefs, or you've seen Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid one too many times, then maybe going out in a violent, bloody, and futile blaze of glory might seem pretty appealing. It's certainly more cinematic than sitting in prison for a couple decades, like Nelson Mandela. Certainly more heroic than traveling the countryside, educating citizens with your example of passive resitance, like Gandhi. Congratulations! Vin Diesel will star in the MTV movie of your extreme rebellion.

What do your "votes" have to offer that peaceful protest does not, except more dead people and less calm discussion?

By all means, excercise your rights! Keep those guns, enjoy them. But if you think they're going to help you make a difference during some armed rebellion, you may want to consider moving to the United States of Some Parallel Universe. I hear that there, the 2nd Amendment guarantees everybody's right to own a main battle tank, a joint strike fighter, mechanized artillery, a recon satellite, and a cruise missile.

Top ten TIA changes

[K-Man]

10. Lose your keys, Poindexter brings them back the next day.
9. To stop brute-force attacks, first names like "John0xF8A94388xyzzytangoalpha" become common.
8. Get a free battery after ten trips abroad.
7. World's richest man, John Doe, sets world record for simultaneous grocery transactions.
6. To avoid long check-in lines, precision guided smart luggage becomes popular.
5. Free CueCat with every truckload of fertilizer.
4. Oliver North's credit cards cancelled.
3. Radio Shack wins contract for immigration.
2. Missiles 30% cheaper with frequent-shopper card.
1. Terrorist operations disrupted by flood of Penis Enlargement spam.