Feds Warrantlessly Tracking Americans' Real Time Credit Card Activity

PatPending writes "A 10-page Powerpoint presentation (PDF) that security and privacy analyst Christopher Soghoian recently obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request to the Department of Justice reveals that law enforcement agencies routinely seek and obtain real-time surveillance of credit card transactions. The government's guidelines reveal that this surveillance often occurs with a simple subpoena, thus sidestepping any Fourth Amendment protections."

Comments

We are all suspects, welcome to the police state.

[elucido]

In the police state we are all potential terrorists. Just like this guy http://www.jbhfile.com/invest_beginnings.html

Let it be a lesson, don't piss off the banks and financial institutions of America.

Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it.

[elucido]

We don't have privacy because we don't deserve it. We must accept that we are peasants to large financial institutions. They own our souls.

Duh!! We don't own the data

[cenobyte40k]

Duh!! Honestly the data isn't private protected data, it belongs to the companies we did business with and they can do what they want with it. They might not want to piss us off, but it's better not to piss of the legal authorities either. As a result they are more than welcome to give it to the govt., police, or any party they like. Honestly this has been going on in dozens and dozens of ways for a long, long time and I can't believe this is really news. Didn't we all already know this?

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[bhartman34]

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to inject some sanity into the conversation. +1, if I had it to give. :)

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[dgatwood]

More than that, this is potentially a good thing if it is being done in the right way. It would make it much easier, for example, to detect somebody currently off the grid who decides to buy the materials needed to make a bomb. As long as the tracking is being done in a non-prejudicial way, as long as the banks work together to create a unique cardholder ID to mask the identity of the person in question (but with that ID shared across all cards that the person holds from all banks), as long as the card company only reports purchases of specific materials of significant concern, and as long as the identity of the person in question remains masked by the card companies until such time as the spooks do obtain a warrant to unmask the suspicious person, I'm all for it.

If, on the other hand, as I suspect, none of those safeguards are in place, and it is being used to see what random ex-cons are buying just to be nosy, then it's a bad thing. There's a right way and a wrong way to do this sort of thing, and sadly, our government has a tendency to do it the easy way, which is almost invariably the wrong way.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[roystgnr]

it's better not to piss of the legal authorities either

Generally when the legal authorities aren't supposed to force you to do something, they're not supposed to coerce you into doing it either.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[kehren77]

I'm pretty sure that if someone is successful at staying "off the grid" they aren't going to be dumb enough to buy supplies with a credit card and put themselves "on the grid." The only people this stuff will catch are stupid criminals/terrorists who will doubtlessly get caught without this sort of snooping.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[Mordocai]

I'm pretty sure that by "off the grid" he meant someone that the feds weren't already watching. There are plenty of people who have never committed a crime before who might be dumb enough to buy supplies with a credit card.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[interval1066]

Still; democracy dies by degree; death by 1000 tiny cuts.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[thue]

Well, the email log at my email provider is also owned by my email provider, not me. But I certainly consider the contents as private information.

And why do you think the AOL search scandal a scandal? The data was owned by AOL, but they still need to handle it confidentially.

Same with credit card transactions. I am pretty sure that they are private here in Denmark. I remember asking my bank about a transaction, and being told that the employees could only see the amount of the transactions, not the accompanying text.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, kind of scary too though: So businesses in the US can just sell my information (address, credit card, whatever else) to the next customer in line. I see with your explanation why this wouldn't be part of the 4th, but how awesome is that?

And I still don't know what business the government has to collect that information. I think you "Duh!" response shows how easy we bend over these days. I can remember a time when every sane person would have gone: "WTF?"

It shocks me how little meaning "privacy" really has. As we've seen in other stories: Privacy is all but a hollow word. And while off-topic to this thread, that's really the problem.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[snspdaarf]

The government's guidelines reveal that this surveillance often occurs with a simple subpoena

It not coercion. This is how the legal system has always made a request official. Don't like it, or don't want to cooperate? Get a lawyer and see of you can get it quashed. Coercion is where they make an informal request and offer to arrest you if you don't cooperate. Force is when a warrant is issued.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[Anonymous Coward]

And continues to thrive by 1000 tiny taxes.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[kehren77]

I hadn't thought of it that way. Good point. My apologies to GP post if that was indeed the intent.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[bhartman34]

Certainly, we have to guard every privacy right we have. I just think it's important to make the distinction between legitimate privacy rights and misunderstandings of what constitutes a private action.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Still; democracy dies by degree; death by 1000 tiny cuts.

Welcome to the Libertarian form of Democracy, where you have exactly the protections you can pay for. And dollars equal votes.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[pitchpipe]

They might not want to piss us off, but it's better not to piss off [Big Brother].

I'm usually against the FTFY thing, but in this case I think that it really gives clarity to what you are saying.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[Anonymous Coward]

In any jurisdiction with sane privacy laws, the logs would be more of liability than anything else as long as even a shred of personally identifiable information is in them.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[BeanThere]

As a result they are more than welcome to give it to the govt., police, or any party they like.

But are they giving it voluntarily? The article is not clear on this but suggests they are in fact being ordered to give up the information, which is completely different, and absolutely not OK.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[Crudely_Indecent]

It goes deeper than that.

While your email resides on the mail server of your email provider, the message itself belongs to them. Even if you download your messages and delete them from the server every second, for the brief time they reside on the mail server, they belong to the provider. A brief time is all that is necessary to copy them to another location where they are now permanent property of the provider.

When it absolutely, positively must be secured, host your own mail server.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[cenobyte40k]

I don't disagree that many people have some expectations of privacy in certain situations even if they don't legally have it. However the idea of being surprised that the govt could use your credit card to track you seems pretty either disingenuous or at the least willfully ignorant. Credit card companies will sell your data to just about anyone (That's where all that junk mail comes from), why would anyone think they would be less cooperative with govt requests than they are with private company requests.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[7-Vodka]

What the hell are you smoking?

Your local high street bank's financial information about you is also on their systems, it doesn't make it "their" information. The government needs WARRANTS for financial information.

Your medical records are on a bunch of corporate owned systems. It doesn't give them the right to divulge it either.

Talk about rolling over and lubricating your own anal cavity. With people like you we don't even need tyrants. You take it upon yourself to tell other people to roll over for them.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[dgatwood]

Exactly. Someone not on the feds' radar screen who may or may not be smart enough to stay that way.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

why would anyone think they would be less cooperative with govt requests than they are with private company requests.

We know the issuing banks and the credit card networks are privacy sluts.
But we expect the government to be restricted in what it does.
It isn't that the banks give the government the information, it's that the government is asking for it with minimal oversight.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but somebody off the grid won't be using cards.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[fyngyrz]

Sorry, but somebody off the grid [buying explosive components] won't be using cards.

Sure they will. Yours. Mine. Anyone's but their own. Do you have *any* idea how easy it is to obtain credit card info?

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[he-sk]

Actually, in Europe you own the data that is tied to you. That, at least, is the ideal that is prescribed in our data protection laws. The reality, of course, is quite different.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[dgatwood]

Someone smart off the grid won't be using cards.

FTFY.

I write my own, thank you

[digitaldc]

For credit cards, agents can get real-time information on a person’s purchases by writing their own subpoena, followed up by a order from a judge that the surveillance not be disclosed.

Write your own subpoena - now legal in all 50 states!

Re:I write my own, thank you

[blair1q]

It always was. A subpoena is a demand for a witness to appear or for the delivery of records. If it's for a witness the court doesn't get involved before the subpoena is served. If it's for records from someone who isn't a party to the case the court issues the subpoena.

You are protected by the 4th amendment. Information other people have about you, who aren't your lawyer or your immedate family, is not.

Re:I write my own, thank you

[BJ_Covert_Action]

And in a world where it is, supposedly, very profitable to gather together any and all data about you and sell it to the highest bidder, no information regarding you is protected by the 4th amendment.

It's funny, our founding fathers put massive amounts of effort and intellectual practice into drafting a fantastic document that protects the people from the government. It's too bad none of them thought to draft up the same type of document to protect the people from large social entities like corporations, businesses, special interest groups, powerful churches, political parties, etc. You would have thought they had heard about the abuses of the British East India Trading Company and the abuses of the Vatican that caused Martin Luther to separate back then...ah well. Maybe next time around we'll get it right.

Re:I write my own, thank you

[cobrausn]

In their time, they were all one and the same.

Re:I write my own, thank you

[icebike]

What's all this talk about Agents and Feds?

Watch any TV show and you can see it only takes a suggestion by the Star detective to have all the credit card records tracked in real time. And that DNA will be analyzed before they can get back with the records, not to mention all of the semen spewed all over the room, and the blood spatter found on the building across the street from the crime scene.

Re:I write my own, thank you

[operagost]

powerful churches

That's the first. The federal government is not allowed to establish a religion and they are supposed to protect our rights to free speech, assembly, etc. from others through the courts.

political parties

You can vote for whoever you want. If the mob gets involved, see my statement above about the courts.

corporations

The East India trading company was a problem because they had the favor of the government. Take away the government's power to meddle in business. And if all else fails, see the second amendment.

Re:I write my own, thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

it is called the third party doctrine
not many in the us know of it, they will be shocked when they realize all that cloud computing business is a joke

Re:I write my own, thank you

[AshtangiMan]

You also need to take away a business power to meddle in government. The people that make up the corporation have the ability to vote, but the corporation should not be allowed to donate money, lobby, or otherwise influence government. Until the two are fully decoupled there is no hope. But it seems that there is always the imperative for government to regulate business as it is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens from corporate abuse. So there is always going to be some kind of relationship and regulation from the government, which means there is always going to be a means for corporations to influence the government. It's an idea that I struggle with when trying to identify plausible solution to the corporate control of so many aspects of our society.

Re:I write my own, thank you

[ZFox]

protect the people from large social entities like corporations, businesses, special interest groups, powerful churches, political parties, etc.

The difference between those and the government is that the government is allowed to compel you to do things by force and against your will (e.g. through imprisonment, subpoenas, warrants, etc).

Like another responder stated, the British East India Company was only able to do what it was able to do through their lobbying of the powerful central government. Our founders thought the way to solve this problem would be to limit the powers of the central government thereby limiting who the companies, churches, parties, groups, etc. could lobby to. I would agree this plan has failed; not from the disregard of our founders, but through our inability to keep what they had set up.

Re:I write my own, thank you

[The Wild Norseman]

Back then corporations weren't given the same rights as human beings as they have now with none of the corresponding responsibilities. It's win/win for those who control the corps, it's lose/lose for everyone else.

I assume everything I do is tracked

[peter303]

By the government, commercial data mining firms, and my employer. As Zuckerberg said, "There is no privacy in the modern world, Learn to live with it."

Re:I assume everything I do is tracked

[elucido]

By the government, commercial data mining firms, and my employer. As Zuckerberg said, "There is no privacy in the modern world, Learn to live with it."

It is tracked, then it's sold to China so the Chinese workers and business owners can have the edge.

Re:I assume everything I do is tracked

[bhartman34]

Zuckerberg and co. can't seem to manage a website properly. Are we really supposed to take (self-serving) privacy advice from them?

I like to think of myself as a reasonable person, and as such, I try not to put anything on the Internet that might embarrass me (now or later on). Having said that, accepting the premise that your actions on the Internet are inevitably going to be seen by other people doesn't mean it's okay for just anyone to see them. To put it bluntly, I see no reason to lube up and hand to them the anal probe they want to use on me.

Re:I assume everything I do is tracked

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume everything I do is tracked By the government, commercial data mining firms, and my employer. As Zuckerberg said, "There is no privacy in the modern world, Learn to live with it."

Fuck you, shill.

CAPTCHA: knight

Re:I assume everything I do is tracked

[Minwee]

As Zuckerberg said, "There is no privacy in the modern world, Learn to live with it."

You misspelled "Scott McNealy", and he said it in January of 1999 when Zuckerberg was still in High School.

Re:I assume everything I do is tracked

[Anonymous Coward]

Zuckerberg is a dumbass.

Should be, 'There is no privacy for that which you willingly engage in, in the modern world.'

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Newsflash: the government gets whatever it wants when it approaches a large enough company. You do realize that warrantless wiretapping hasn't stopped, right?

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have privacy because we don't deserve it. We must accept that we are peasants to large financial institutions. They own our souls.

We sold them our souls.

This just in...

[GPLDAN]

The NSA watches you play World of Warcraft in REAL TIME! If you play the Horde, you are a terrorist.

Re:This just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you play alliance, you're probably 12.

Re:This just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that originally, it wasn't called 'Horde', it was 'Taliban', but a bunch of high-strung assholes had a fit about it and made them change it.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[mschaffer]

The ancient Romans and Greeks debated policing the police many years ago. I guess we just forget from time to time how important this is.

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Actually that quote is misplaced here. Just because they're watching us, doesn't mean we're not watching them. In fact, the very reason we have this information is because they handed it over in compliance with the FOI act.

How does this violate the 4th?

[MobyDisk]

How does a subpoena violate the 4th amendment? Subpoenas are granted by a judge - that's exactly what the 4th amendment is meant to require.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Hatta]

A subpoena is not a warrant. The 4th amendment requires warrants issued with probable cause.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

A subpoena isn't a search. It's an order to produce documents. No searching is involved. A search warrant would be inappropriate in this situation, because there isn't any doubt that the credit card companies have kept this information.

And has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, the card holder's rights to privacy aren't being violated any way you slice it, because it's not the card holder's records that are being examined. It's the credit card company's.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not the card holder's records that are being examined. It's the credit card company's.

Ahh, so, that means that the doctors examine their medical records, not mine? You might want to work on your powers of deductive reasoning... I assert ownership of all information related to myself, and my rights to information about myself supersede anyone else, even if they collected that information.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[MobyDisk]

That seems like a dangerous loophole since almost any information would fall under that. It seems like we are saying the data isn't protected, it is the records themselves.

Suppose a customer uses a backup service that has a privacy policy saying they won't give away the customer data. I think you are saying the service can release the files because it isn't the customer's files that are being examined, it is the backup service's files.

Or am I misapplying the reasoning?

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Ephemeriis]

That seems like a dangerous loophole since almost any information would fall under that. It seems like we are saying the data isn't protected, it is the records themselves.

If I go to your store and buy something from you, you're going to keep track of that transaction. You'll note down that you sold some item for some amount of money. This is your data, not mine. You use it to keep track of your inventory and balance your books and whatever else.

If you get subpoenaed for all your records pertaining to a certain date, my privacy isn't being violated. Even if I bought something on that date. They're your records, not mine. You may have recorded some data about me... But that's still your data. Not mine.

This is the same thing, only larger.

These aren't your records, they belong to the banks and credit card companies and whoever else. They keep these records to make sure that everybody gets paid/charged the right amount.

You buy something at a store with a credit card - that credit card company needs to keep track of it. Not for your sake, but for theirs. They need to know that $X was paid to this store, in your name, and you now need to pay back $Y on your next bill. This information is necessary for the credit card company to stay in business. If they don't track it, they don't know where their money is going, or who owes them money.

It is data about your actions... But it isn't your data. It belongs to the credit card company. They're the ones generating it and maintaining it for their own purposes. And when you use their credit card you agree to let them generate and use this data, because the credit card wouldn't function without it.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Attila Dimedici]

Subpoenas are also issued by government agencies without a judge. From the article, "For credit cards, agents can get real-time information on a person’s purchases by writing their own subpoena, ..."

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[poena.dare]

"It is data about your actions... But it isn't your data. It belongs to the credit card company."

I think you are exactly correct! However, I must inject some common sense here: if the Feds are using a variety of data sources to track ME specifically, then the issue is sneaking into 4th amendment territory. For example, a reasonable person would object if a policeman followed them all day long noting what purchases they made. This is the virtual equivalent. Yes? No? Maybe?

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

You can assert anything you like. That doesn't make it so. The record of your credit card purchases is kept by your credit card company to do business. It's theirs. Medical records are protected by doctor-patient privilege, and by other privacy regulations (e.g., HIPAA). You can read more about that here.

Life is a little bit more complicated than you seem to believe.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[El Royo]

In the case of medical records those are protected by specific laws (HIPAA). I suspect, unless specifically spelled out in HIPAA, the doctor's income records could be subpoenaed, which might contain amounts you were billed. As to your other information, good luck with that. Your right to assert that ownership is tenuous at best and almost certainly waived by the agreements you signed with your bank, your credit card and your mortgage company.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[MobyDisk]

I think that is a great analogy and explains why this smells wrong, even if taken individually it doesn't sound too bad. I'm still curious about the backup example though. Perhaps they could subpoena what was uploaded and when, but no the contents without warrant?

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

If you use a data service to backup your files, they're still your files -- your data. They're just being held by another company. That other company didn't generate the data. They're just storing it. (Indeed, most companies I know of that have backup services allow you to encrypt the data so they can't even get to it.)

If you wanted to challenge the court about access to your data, you certainly could. You'd have standing in that case, because it is your data. They'd probably (although I'm not a lawyer) also need a search warrant, because they wouldn't be asking for a specific document, but would be poring through data.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

If your actions are in public, they're in public. You might be able to claim the police are harassing you by following you around, but they wouldn't be violating your privacy rights.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[MobyDisk]

Oh. I didn't think "writing their own subpoena" meant that no judge was involved. All I know comes from Slashdot + wikipedia. :-(

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[nabsltd]

A search warrant would be inappropriate in this situation, because there isn't any doubt that the credit card companies have kept this information.

Unless the subpeona lists the credit card account number and name on the account, then the request should be refused without a warrant, because it's a search.

In other words, if a credit card company gets a request for "all credit card transactions for John Doe", that's a search, because the requestor isn't even sure if John Doe has a credit card with that company.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

Not sure I follow you. If the authorities contact a credit card company, then obviously they know the subject has a card with the company. If they're seeking the records of a John Smith, then obviously they need to be more specific, but they're not asking for everyone's records. Only for the subject's.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[EvilBudMan]

A subpoena means you have to show up to a court date or provide the authorities with some information. A warrant means they are after you for sure.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If your actions are in public, they're in public. You might be able to claim the police are harassing you by following you around, but they wouldn't be violating your privacy rights.

The idea that actions in public are public information is too binary.
The concept of not having a right to privacy while in public was formulated under different conditions than we now live with.
There were no databases. No cctv systems. No facial recognition software. None of that.
At that time the basic assumption was that actions, even in public, were ephemeral, only witnessed by the people in the near vicinity and frequently anonymous.
None of those are necessarily true anymore.

It's time for a re-evaluation of what rights organizations, especially the government, have with respect to mass surveillance of the public.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

How do databases, CCTV systems, or facial recognition software in any way impact whether what you do in public is subject to privacy? What you do in public is public, by definition. It would be absurd to expect privacy when you go out in public.

Actions being ephemeral has nothing to do with it. Photography has been around since at least the Civil War, and sound recordings since the early part of the 20th century, far before databases, CCTVs, or facial recognition.

If you don't want someone to see you doing something, do it privately, where you have some expectation that people aren't able to see it. If you can't be bothered to take that minimum precaution, whose fault is it?

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Sabriel]

It's not your data. It's not my data. It's our data.

And to borrow a phrase, with great data should come great responsibility.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

How do databases, CCTV systems, or facial recognition software in any way impact whether what you do in public is subject to privacy?

Because they change the nature of events in public from what was local and ephemeral to world-wide and permanent.
Current laws were written under the expectation of the former, not the later.

Actions being ephemeral has nothing to do with it. Photography has been around since at least the Civil War

Actions being ephemeral has everything to do with it. Arguing that basic assumptions about mass surveillance in public haven't changed because we had photographic capabilities during the civil war is like arguing that we don't need speed limits on roads because the Benz Motorwagon had a top speed of 10mph.

If you don't want someone to see you doing something, do it privately, where you have some expectation that people aren't able to see it. If you can't be bothered to take that minimum precaution, whose fault is it?

If you want to have a private conversation, don't use the telephone.
If you can't be bothered to take that minimum precaution, whose fault is it?

Ain't no philosophical difference between what you wrote and what I wrote.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is exactly what I mean when I say nothing government does is criminal(if in general the government doesn't want it to be) since by definition, they decide what crime is. Got an annoying clause in a constitution that the current government wants to circumvent? Create legal distinctions and exemptions and have at it. The fact that we are not under complete and utter subjugation is not because of some binding contracts that our government itself holds itself to, it is because of any resistance society exerts on its rulers and the cost of increased control. Put simply, democracy has nothing to do with it; society does. Some may think this is a pedantic distinction but it really isn't. They are not one and the same just because society is what drives governments towards democratic models.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

Because they change the nature of events in public from what was local and ephemeral to world-wide and permanent.

Current laws were written under the expectation of the former, not the later.

Local vs. non-local isn't the issue. Either an action is taken in public, or it's not. How far the knowledge of the action spreads makes it more or less embarrassing, not more or less public.

The laws of physics don't change because of the Internet. If you do something in public, you don't have any expectation that people can't see or record you. If you're in public, they can see and record you -- often incidentally, rather than purposefully. If you run laps naked in Times Square, you're going to be recorded, whether you like it or not. If you put yourself out in public, why should (indeed, how can) the law protect you from your own idiocy?

Actions being ephemeral has everything to do with it. Arguing that basic assumptions about mass surveillance in public haven't changed because we had photographic capabilities during the civil war is like arguing that we don't need speed limits on roads because the Benz Motorwagon had a top speed of 10mph.

I think you're missing a key difference: We have speed limits now because we have more people driving, and cars can go faster. That's a fundamental shift. Surveillance hasn't changed in such a way as to redefine "public" and "private". All that's changed is the level to which someone can embarrass or incriminate themselves in public. The nature of public or private space hasn't changed. The fact that your drunken antics in a bar can now be broadcast worldwide doesn't mean that you suddenly have an expectation of privacy when you're in a bar.

If you want to have a private conversation, don't use the telephone.

If you can't be bothered to take that minimum precaution, whose fault is it?

You're missing a key point: Phone conversations have been declared private.

"Private" means you have a reasonable belief that you won't have any unwanted spectators. "In public" means out in the open. If you do something out in the open, where everyone can see you, you have no expectation of privacy. It doesn't matter how they record you. It doesn't matter where they put the recording. What matters is that you were in a space where you had no reasonable expectation that no one could see you. That's it. The fact that you may find being seen embarrassing has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you're in a public or private space. It's the configuration of the space that determines how private it is, not your attitude toward being recorded.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

It's not your data. It's not my data. It's our data.

If I recorded it, and I use it for my business purposes, in what sense is it our data? You didn't create the data. You didn't store the data. All you did was make a purchase. The data was created from your purchase, with your signed consent. It's your credit card >i>information that's being used, but that information is being used with the consent of the credit card company, and you agreed to its collection as the terms of use of the card.

And to borrow a phrase, with great data should come great responsibility.

I certainly agree that credit card companies need to be careful who they give your information to, but that's limited to the information you gave them when you signed up for the card (which is obviously really sensitive). They can't just give out your Social Security number or income, for example. But the records they generate for their business are theirs, not yours.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[he-sk]

And life is a little bit more complicated than you seem to believe as well because you're viewpoint is entirely US-centric.

OTOH, if we look at Europe the GP is right -- data held by businesses or other entities that is tied to me and was created because of a transaction between me and that entity is owned by me and the other entity has, in principle, no right to it other than what's necessary to complete the aforementioned transactions. It's the basis of our strong data protection laws.

Unfortunately, these laws contain loopholes, so the reality is quite different from the ideal.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

Admittedly, my viewpoint is U.S.-centric, because I live in the U.S. But I'd also point out that the article itself is referring to U.S. authorities. The EU is a whole other ball of wax, so to speak.

To be honest, I can't conceptualize how that would work in practice. If your transaction is owned jointly, does that mean you could demand that the vendor destroy the data the next day? Does it prevent vendors from compiling data for data mining purposes (e.g., to determine who would be interested in various promotions?).

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[monstermagnet]

Incorrect.

I'm a patent litigator these days. I can and do issue subpeonas by filling out a form (AO-88 in civil cases, google it), signing it, and mailing it to people, businesses. I've lost track of the number I've sent, no judge required.

If the recipient fights it, then a judge gets involved to referee.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You're missing a key point: Phone conversations have been declared private.

"Private" means you have a reasonable belief that you won't have any unwanted spectators. "In public" means out in the open?

You seem to be oblivious to your own words.

Why do we have a reasonable belief that we don't have any "unwanted spectators" to a phone conversation?
It can easily travel across hundreds of miles of wire, even broadcast over the air - none of which we have personal control over, all of which leave plenty of opportunity for "unwanted spectators" to listen in. By your own logic, we shouldn't have any expectation of privacy for phone calls. Yet we do. Just as we have a reasonable belief that not everything anyone does outside and off their own property should be recorded and cataloged indefinitely.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

Why do we have a reasonable belief that we don't have any "unwanted spectators" to a phone conversation?

We have that reasonable belief because the only way you're going to hear a phone conversation (assuming you're not physically in earshot) is to tap the line. It's obviously assumed that the line isn't tapped. That expectation could be wrong, but the system is set up for you to specifically talk to the person you're calling. If you hold the same conversation in an open space, you have zero expectation that no one else is hearing it, because you're not taking even the minimal precautions.

Now, granted, there are situations that are a bit more gray than that (e.g., you'd expect privacy in a public bathroom), but in general, if it's a public space, you don't really have any reason to expect privacy.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

We have that reasonable belief because the only way you're going to hear a phone conversation (assuming you're not physically in earshot) is to tap the line.

You've picked one arbitrary reason and said that it matters while other reasons don't. You aren't analyzing how it is that the courts arrived at that distinction in the first place.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

The specific rule I'm talking about was laid out in Katz v. United Sates. I'm not sure how much more specific I can be. The court found that when the defendant closed the phone booth, he had a reasonable expectation that no one would hear his conversation. In an open public space, where you don't take any precautions from being seen or heard, you have no such expectation.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Sabriel]

Hmm. I point out that the records "you" generate are records of "my" actions, and exist only because of a mutually beneficial contract (since all contracts must involve a quid pro quo to be valid).

But it's not so much about what the CC companies can do. It's about what the government must not do.

A company is an arbitrary entity that exists only because the government empowers it to exist.

And if I understand correctly, the United States Constitution guarantees the people certain inalienable rights - contracts cannot give them away - and this includes due process and freedom from warrantless search and seizure.

So the moment a company - an empowerment of government - can be compelled without a warrant to share specific records of my activities (that I entrusted to them) with the government, even if I contractually agree to that, at least for purposes unrelated to the data's original reason for collection, a constitutional line is being crossed.

At least, that's my understanding. Please educate me if I'm mistaken.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[symbolic]

It doesn't matter if it's their data. There is an implicit trust between the company and the customer, and selling this information to anyone who will pay is a violation of that trust. It pretty much sucks to know that nearly everything you do with a credit card these days is tantamount to making it a public record - all for a little extra revenue. That said, people need to realize that the interest being charged is only the first way you get raped by credit companies. The second is the nickel and dime service charges that occur, and the third is wholesale pimping of everything you've done.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The specific rule I'm talking about was laid out in Katz v. United Sates. I'm not sure how much more specific I can be. The court found that when the defendant closed the phone booth, he had a reasonable expectation that no one would hear his conversation. In an open public space, where you don't take any precautions from being seen or heard, you have no such expectation.

Yes, I am fully aware of Katz and frankly its not particularly relevant because it does not deal with mass surveillance, only targeted surveillance.

Your argument boils down to "because they can do mass surveillance, they should do it" and I am saying that is not true because mass surveillance has an enormous cost to society.
Drawing on Katz to rationalize mass surveillance is a bad extrapolation because katz doesn't even try to address any of the relevant issues.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

I have to reiterate that I'm not a lawyer. However, it's important to understand that companies are not, in any sense, government entities (provided, of course, that they're not government-owned). As such, companies can do things that governments cannot (e.g., abridge your freedom of speech in various ways).

Additionally, you can give rights away via contracts. In fact, people do it all the time. You may, for instance, sign away your right to sue someone. You agree to have your computer use tracked when you take a job utilizing a company's computer equipment. (It's been settled law that employers have a right to track employees' computer use.) And there are probably other examples I'm not remembering right now. Even on the government side, people can sign away some of their rights, under certain circumstances. Someone can be paroled, for example, on the condition that they agree to random drug testing or restrictions on where they live or work. Or they may have to wear an ankle tracking device. (I'm actually not a fan of any of those parole conditions. If someone is such a problem that you have to keep track of them like that, you're better off not letting them out in the first place. If they're okay to let out, they shouldn't be monitored.)

Taking things a step further: As a defendant, there are all kinds of rights you can sign away if you choose to plead guilty to a crime (not the least of which is your right to be tried by a jury of your peers).

These days, getting on a plane involves an agreement to forfeit some of your rights. You agree to a search, or you don't fly.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

Yes, I am fully aware of Katz and frankly its not particularly relevant because it does not deal with mass surveillance, only targeted surveillance.

Katz deals with the question of privacy. Mass vs. targeted surveillance is an issue you're raising, but you have yet to demonstrate a) that it's a recognized distinction in law, or b) that it makes any difference at all how many people are surveilled at once.

The importance of Katz in the Internet age is that if you take steps to make a conversation private (e.g., using security on your Internet connection (wifi or wired) then you have an expectation of privacy. If you're just walking around in a public space, making no effort to conceal yourself, you don't. There's no need for more legislation on this. The guidelines in Katz are still relevant. How much surveillance is done is irrelevant (according to any case law I've seen or heard of, anyway). What's relevant is if the people involved (however many of them there are) had any expectation that they wouldn't be recorded. Now, as it happens, there are lots of situations that you do expect your communications to be secure. But certainly, when you're out in public in a shop, you have no right to expect that someone else won't see you buying an item.

I can understand where people would think an online purchase would be different, since you're doing the shopping in your own home, and (theoretically, at least) the only people who would see the transaction would be you, the vendor, and (if the transaction wasn't encrypted) your ISP. But (at least, under U.S. law) it's still the vendor's data, and he can cooperate with the authorities if he chooses to (especially if a subpoena is involved).

Incidentally, I'm not saying they should do it because they can. All I'm saying is that they can legally do it, and that it's not a violation of privacy rights (as I see it) if it's done in public. That doesn't mean I think every square inch of the country (in public view) should be covered by a CCTV. That would clearly be wasteful and counterproductive, in addition to leading to a very superficial society.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

How much surveillance is done is irrelevant (according to any case law I've seen or heard of, anyway)

Again with the civil war mentality. Things have changed, its time for the law to catch up.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[he-sk]

If your transaction is owned jointly, does that mean you could demand that the vendor destroy the data the next day?

Theoretically, yes. Practically, you have no idea what data different entities have on you and it's hard to force them to disclose that. Also, the time limit is not the next day but IIRC 3 months to account for billing and other business purposes.

Does it prevent vendors from compiling data for data mining purposes?

Unfortunately, no. That's one of the loopholes I was talking about. Even worse, they can legally sell some of the data to other entities for marketing purposes (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listenprivileg). A major goal of the CCC is to get rid of the Listenprivileg.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

Okay, that sounds somewhat different than the U.S., but not by much. It sounds (from what I understand) that the main difference is that the vendors can't turn your information over to the authorities, which is the one entity that might actually use it a socially beneficial use.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

I'm not just talking about the Civil War. I'm talking about the Civil War onward. Is there any case law supporting your position that how many people are surveilled is somehow relevant? A very big part of U.S. law is the idea of precedent. How much precedent is there for this thinking? You can't just rewrite U.S. law based on some novel concept that how long the data is preserved, or how widely it can be distributed, matters. You're engaging in almost magical thinking.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[nabsltd]

If the authorities contact a credit card company, then obviously they know the subject has a card with the company.

Why do you think this?

Suppose they the suspect Zaphod Beeblebrox of some sort of wrongdoing, and believe that knowing what he bought would help. So, they merely send a subpeona to every credit card company for purchase information by Zaphod Beeblebrox. That should require a search warrant, because they don't even have evidence he has a credit card...they just assume, because it's easier than following him and asking every store he visits.

For a less unique name, they can guess the billing ZIP code, or some other thing that might make it look like they have actual information about his credit card. But, this is still fishing that should require a warrant. Unless they have all of the same sort of information required to make a purchase with that card (name, account number, billing ZIP, etc.), then the request is vague enough to require a warrant, but I suspect that no credit card company would fight back and require one.

The moral of this story is that if you ever are accused of a crime and your purchase records are important evidence, then you should contest the fact that a warrant was not used when it was likely needed.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

In the situation you outlined here, would they even be able to get the information? It seems very unlikely to me that they would have a starting point of "We don't know anything about his purchase history, so we'll just call all credit card companies and see if they've ever heard of a Zaphod Beeblebrox (outside of fiction ;))." What would be a more likely scenario is that they find a certain item in Zaphod's house, so they go to different stores in the area to figure out where he bought it, and get the credit card information that way. Or perhaps they know what his ISP is, so they go to the ISP for his credit card information, based on his account. Just knowing his name isn't really a good way of going about a records search.

For what it's worth, in the situation you outline here, I would agree that a warrant would be necessary. But based on such slim information, I can't imagine it would ever be granted.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Is there any case law supporting your position that how many people are surveilled is somehow relevant? A very big part of U.S. law is the idea of precedent.

I don't know any other way to say this - circumstances have changed, the law has not caught up yet.
Even Katz broke new ground because circumstances had changed, much of the judge's opinion was him explaining that precedent didn't cut it.

You're engaging in almost magical thinking.

You are engaging in circular reasoning.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

What I've been trying to ask is, what circumstances have changed that would redefine what private or public mean? Katz broke new ground in that it acknowledged that the listening device didn't have to be in the same space as the person being surveilled to infringe on someone's privacy. You're expanding "private" space to such a degree that it would be illegal to record someone walking naked down a public street in broad daylight, so long as they weren't the only ones being recorded.

So let me ask the question another way: What would be public space, in this new paradigm?

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So let me ask the question another way: What would be public space, in this new paradigm?

I'm stelling you that it is not such a binary distinction any more.
It isn't just public anything-goes versus private nothing-goes anymore.
All the changes named in my first post have combined to create a sort of "super public" which did not exist prior.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Sabriel]

But a company only exists within and because of the framework of laws that the government creates. What's the point of having the Amendments, or the Constitution in general, if the government can simply have patsy companies do its dirty work?

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

I understand that "public" is a lot more public than it used to be. But that's not a new legal reality. The fact that your actions can be recorded for posterity and distributed worldwide easily means people have to be more careful, obviously, but not that the law needs to change. Again, you're butting up against the laws of physics. If you do something out in the open, people can see you and record you. At this point, that recording can be (at least theoretically) preserved longer and distributed more widely. But it doesn't mean that people should be restricted from recording what happens out in the open. It just means the consequences for allowing yourself to be recorded are different.

Consider Facebook. Do you think everyone captured in every image on Facebook gave their permission to be photographed and put on the Internet? Do you think everyone who is photographed incidentally (e.g., because they walked into someone else's shot) should be allowed to require a release before their image is loaded on to the Internet? That seems impractical and oppressive to me.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

Well, to say that the government can get companies to do things that the government can't do is not really accurate. If the government asked your ISP (without a warrant, certainly) to put a keylogger on your machine and send the government real-time outputs from it, that would be a serious problem. (That's why many people are upset that the government gave hone companies a pass for the warrentless wire-tapping.) But if the government requests company documents that the company generated in the process of doing business, after the fact, that's a different situation. That's no the company acting as a government agent. That's just companies doing what companies do, and the government seeking the records later.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

But that's not a new legal reality.

Legal "reality" is whatever man defines it to be.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

Legal reality is whatever the law defines it to be. Now, granted, men define the law, but until men change the law, it is what it is.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Sabriel]

"That's just companies doing what companies do, and the government seeking the records later."

What's the practical difference between real-time knowledge of our papers and effects by the government, and real-time knowledge of our papers and effects by companies with a copy uploaded to the government a few seconds later?

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

but until men change the law, it is what it is.

the law has not caught up yet

it's time for the law to catch up

It's time for a re-evaluation

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

The practical difference is that, unless the government is already tracking you, they can't get access to those records a few seconds after you make the purchase.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

What is the law supposed to catch up to? What's changed, other than how far and how long recordings can be kept? And if that's all that's changed, why does that necessitate changing the law?

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What's changed, other than how far and how long recordings can be kept?

Oh you got me. Nothing has changed. Technology is not an enabler.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

I just conceded that technology is an enabler. It enables you to distribute recordings easier and save them longer. What I'm asking is, what's changed that makes it necessary to redefine what people can record and what they can't? The only thing I can see changing is the level of embarrassment someone experiences when they do something stupid in public.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[nabsltd]

For what it's worth, in the situation you outline here, I would agree that a warrant would be necessary. But based on such slim information, I can't imagine it would ever be granted.

Which is exactly my point.

Instead of trying (and failing) to get a warrant, the agent merely writes a bunch of subpoenas and sends them to every credit card company. Since the credit card companies are basically rubber-stamping these requests and sending the info along, if the information given (name, ZIP code, etc.) is enough to match a single account, it's likely the agent would get it. If one credit card company says "we need more information", the agent can use what they learned from the other subpoenas.

The real issue is what else law enforcement is discovering with just a "friendly request" when they really need a warrant. If the accused doesn't have a very good lawyer, they may never know that the information needed a warrant. It's likely the prosecution said "we subpoenaed the information from company X and they gave it to us...we didn't need a warrant because of ruling A, B, and C", never going into the exact details of the content of the subpoena.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

I agree that with the scenario you pose above, they'd need to, at least, socially engineer (and that's being kind) the information out of credit card companies. However, as I said, the most likely scenario is they already have an idea of what they're looking for, and are just looking to find someone who bought the items.

Example: They find a victim who was dumped in the woods in a certain kind of trash bag. They examine the bag for a lot number, and contact the company who sells the bag to find out where those bags are sold. Then they contact the store and get the date and time when the bags with that particular number were sold. That's the kind of use that I can envision being both fruitful (i.e., not a complete waste of time) and no requiring a warrant for a specific person's records.

Same here but

[abbynormal brain]

add hackers, identity thieves, and Mr. Cumba (or whatever his name is from all those "I want to deposit money in your US account" e-mails) to your list of "watchers"

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[girlintraining]

We don't have privacy because we don't deserve it.

We don't have privacy because we don't fight for it. Subtle difference. In this political climate, speaking out against the government gets you on the list. Going to a protest gets you on another. Flying a plane, depositing your pay check (if it's too big, or on the wrong date), going to the pharmacy to get cold medication -- you're on a list. buy your groceries? List. Subscribe to a magazine or newspaper? List. check out subversive books at the library? List. Use facebook? Download porn? Check your email? More lists.

All accessible to the government for two reasons: First, people don't know, and two, those who know usually don't care. They might care more if they knew how many innocent people were in jail, or on death row, victims of coincidence and circumstantial evidence gained by such methods. We are moving into a world in which being a statistical anomaly is a criminal offense.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Locke2005]

By his own words, that guy meets all the requirements for a paranoid schizophrenic diagnosis. I had a girlfriend once who complained that her ex used to break into her house on a regular basis and inventory her underwear drawer. Logic dictates that the costs/benefits of paying a staff to do 24/7 harassment of an ex-employee just don't make sense.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Sponge Bath]

Was her ex really short, bearded, and wearing a funny hat?

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[elucido]

By his own words, that guy meets all the requirements for a paranoid schizophrenic diagnosis. I had a girlfriend once who complained that her ex used to break into her house on a regular basis and inventory her underwear drawer. Logic dictates that the costs/benefits of paying a staff to do 24/7 harassment of an ex-employee just don't make sense.

That depends on who you work for. I'm sure a bank or the feds would have the money to do 24/7 surveillance on anyone they choose. That includes you.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have privacy because we don't deserve it. We must accept that we are peasants to large financial institutions. They own our souls.

We sold them our souls.

We let (|ourselves be (lulled|fooled) into letting) Congress sell them our souls.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that warrantless wiretapping hasn't stopped, right?

Prove it.

I work in the telecomm industry. Why do you think I'm posting anonymously? I can't prove it though, that would require leaking documents, and I'm not really prepared to do that.

Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy.

[elucido]

He is fighting against it. The government is cracking down because if fears guys like him and Jim Bell.

A records subpoena is a court order.

[blair1q]

Business records are not your personal "papers and effects", so they don't really live under the 4th amendment, but even if they did they're covered because subpoenas of records are issued by the court; they're merely requested by the prosecutor. This is a non-issue.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[the_raptor]

Business records aren't "papers"? Are you clinically retarded or just a Big Brother Lover? Business records is exactly the kind of thing the Founding Fathers were thinking about, not your collection of Japanese scat porn.

The records detailing the service provided by your credit card provider/bank should be just as private as the records of a business you run. The whole point of the 4th amendment is to stop Government fishing expeditions (by requiring evidence of probable cause) which is exactly what this is.

The only way you can defend this is if you are a short sighted fool who thinks unlimited surveillance by the Government is the only way to stop the terrorists taking your freedoms (at least this objective would be achieved as the terrorists wouldn't want your freedoms after the Government has left muddy boot prints all over them).

Also get back to me when politicians, police, and prosecutors give disclosure of their business records on request so the public can be sure they aren't taking money from criminal activity. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[Anonymous Coward]

Five year old credit card records are business records. Two month old credit card records are business records.
Real time monitoring of credit cards records is following you, and it's creepy.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[GodfatherofSoul]

This is a REAL issue. The 4th amendment implies protection of *all* of your data, not just that sitting in your night table. The founding fathers had no clue your personal information could be virtualized and quickly copied, but the protection is there in the 4th amendment. Somehow, law enforcement (and the public) has construed the boundary of your rights to end at your front door.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Even your persons (i.e. your body) are protected from warrant-less searches. Now, that doesn't stop law enforcement from violating your rights. Google NYC's "stop and frisk" laws.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[twebb72]

Where in the article do you see it state business records? Article states 'individuals', as in persons. Not business entities.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[DragonWriter]

Business records aren't "papers"?

Your creditor's business records aren't your papers, and thus you don't have a Fourth Amendment right to protect them.

While the creditor whose records are sought may or may not have a Fourth Amendment right protecting them from seizure without a warrant, they generally have no incentive to assert any such right.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[Attila Dimedici]

As I replied to another poster, not all subpoenas are issued by a court. From the article, "For credit cards, agents can get real-time information on a person’s purchases by writing their own subpoena, ..."

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[Anonymous Coward]

The credit card company's records of your mutual transactions are the credit card companies "papers" not your "papers" (you have your own coppy but that doesn't mean the credit card company's coppy is yours as well). As such the credit card company can waive it's right to be protected from search, or be targeted by a legal order to surrender the records without any requiernment that you be informed or have given concent.

The 4th amendment means that you can't be forced to show law enforcment your records unless they have a warrent or you choose to waive the relevent rite. It does not mean the government isn't allowed to know anything you don't want them to know about you.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[blair1q]

Business records aren't your papers.

The only interpersonal information that is protected is your communications with your lawyer and your doctor and your immediate family.

I can defend this just by saying that I believe in justice and the Constitution.

You can request anyone's credit records by filling out a form to get a subpoena. Many government officials are required by law to regularly file statements as to their financial activities. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out how to access them.

and I'll take that "clinically retarded" crack as an example of projection. You're not free at all when you're so vastly ignorant of the actual limits on your freedom. You're just a criminal act and a jail sentence waiting to happen.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[blueg3]

They're "papers", but that's not what he said. He said, "business records are not your personal papers and effects". That is, business records maintained by a business B concerning that business's dealings with person P are the property of the business. They are not the personal papers of person P. Now, the person's business records of their dealings with the business B are P's property.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[blair1q]

You're all confused.

Of course the founding fathers knew that business records could be kept in locations other than your own house and by people other than yourself. Business and business law and prosecutorial procedure weren't brand-new to them. They didn't invent the idea of a warrant.

The point of the 4th Amendment is to protect your person and your home from fishing expeditions, not to prevent the gathering of evidence. If your evidence is in someone else's hands, all they have to do is ask for it. In fact, they could just ask you for it. You can refuse to provide it. They then need a warrant, which means they need to attest to probable cause. The difference is, there's no reason your credit-card company would refuse to comply, so a warrant to forcibly seize the information is unnecessary.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[Anonymous Coward]

and I'll take that "clinically retarded" crack as an example of projection. You're not free at all when you're so vastly ignorant of the actual limits on your freedom. You're just a criminal act and a jail sentence waiting to happen.

Are you saying he must be a criminal??

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[AarghVark]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Nobody does, which is whole point.

If more people had been paying attention it never would have gotten this far.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[blair1q]

I'm saying if you don't know where your rights end and the law starts, and you exhibit traces of believing your rights are more expansive than they are, there is a significant chance you will end up a defendant for something you will argue you had a right to do. But, as they say, ignorance is not an excuse.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[blair1q]

Everyone writes their own subpoena. For record subpoenas the court vets it and authorizes it before it's served. For witness subpoenas the court doesn't have to get involved until the witness doesn't show up to be deposed.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been surprised at how many people I've met who would gladly accept unlimited surveillance by the government in order stop terrorists.

Took me a while to figure out that saying "I'd rather be free, even if it were riskier" makes someone a socialist hippy or something.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[Anonymous Coward]

Business records are not your personal "papers and effects", so they don't really live under the 4th amendment, but even if they did they're covered because subpoenas of records are issued by the court; they're merely requested by the prosecutor. This is a non-issue.

This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. Just because someone else owns a piece of paper or a database containing information about you does not make it "not private data". Many laws and legal decisions recognize this very fact, just try getting ahold of someone else's medical records or financial data.

I love arm chair lawyers, simplistic to a fault. There's no way anyone would ever need a law degree, just read slashdot!

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[Qzukk]

This is a non-issue.

Medical records were a "non-issue" too, but then we passed a law saying that doctors can't just pass the photos of my surgery around their friends to have a good laugh.

If we don't like this, we can certainly press for the same level of legal protection for credit card records.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[moeinvt]

If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that a law enforcement officer can, with NO search warrant, and with no intervention whatsoever by a court:

- Track every credit card purchase that I've ever made up to the present moment
- Search through the history of transactions I've made at my local library
- See records of all of my telephone calls
- view my accountant's copy of all of my tax records
- review any and all personal correspondences that I've sent to friends
- see my complete transaction history at my bank
- review all of the stock/bond transactions that I've made with my broker. ...

I certainly hope that no court would subscribe to your bizarre interpretation of the Fourth Amendement.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> Business records aren't "papers"? Are you clinically retarded or just a Big Brother Lover? Business records is exactly the kind of thing the Founding Fathers were thinking about...

It is possible he just happens to know something about the law. Also, ad hominem attacks aren't very useful--because they are more likely to reinforce groupthink than to help anyone learn.

What the founding fathers were thinking about rarely helps directly--it only helps if the law isn't well-settled, and even then it is the original understanding--i.e. how the Constitution would have been interpreted when it was originally passed, rather than what the founding fathers thought, that would matter. It is really freaking hard to figure out how a bunch of gentlemen two hundred years dead thought about a problem that arises two hundred years later, especially when you only have one perspective-tinted set of notes.

Also, they would only have protected you against the federal government, since it took the 14th amendment and a century of jurisprudence to make the bill of rights applicable to the states. The Fourth Amendment, in particular, wasn't applicable against them until Mapp v. Ohio in 1969, as I recall.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[EvilBudMan]

I don't even think they drug test the police around here but don't quote me on that. If they do that a WalMart then surely the police should be checked out before hiring fer sure.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[Anonymous Coward]

They do around here....at least pre-employment.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[Anonymous Coward]

you should be put up against a wall and executed you stupid fascist

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The only way you can defend this is if you are a short sighted fool who thinks unlimited surveillance by the Government is the only way to stop the terrorists taking your freedoms

The only way you could jump to this conclusion is if you were some inbred hillbilly hick. What? Why should my statements have to make sense if yours don't?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

We do. How do you think we managed to come across this information in the first place?

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[cenobyte40k]

But your missing the point. The govt is not forcing this, this companies are willingly giving this information. I can willingly tell the police anything I want and they can ask me for anything they want (I just don't have to give it to them without a court order) and I am 100% free to give it to them. This companies are happy to work with law enforcement and they own the data.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the free and we're united, make our destiny, we take control,
yeah, never divided, we got the power and we'll never be, divided we fall,
oh yeah, land of the free, free to conspire, control destiny,
oh yeah, you're gonna see, no use resistin',
you're livin' in the land of the free, free to control your life,
land of the free, free to control your mind, land of the free?

Land of the free, United Nations of hypocrisy, profit's our goal,
we're incorporated, it's big business and oil companies controlling us all,
oh yeah, land of the free, free to conspire, control destiny,
oh yeah, you're gonna see, no use resistin',
you're livin' in the land of the free, free to control your life,
land of the free, free to control your mind, land of the free?

I'd like to pray to the flag of the United States of hypocrisy
and see the republic for which it stands, one day we'll seize control,
3000 AD and justice for all

Land of the free, free to control your life, land of the free,
free to control your mind, land of the free, land of the free,
free to control your life, land of the free, free to control your mind,
land of the free?

Yeah, right

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Lumpy]

You can have privacy, it's just getting a lot more expensive to do so.

Here are some steps for you.

1 - cash only. Yes kiddies, saving for and buying your item.
2 - Used only. This one works really well. Buying used from a private party leaves no paper trail.
3 - when presed for information give randomized false information. Giving the same false info builds a profile. Use incredibly common names, large apartment complexes as address, etc..
4 - Dress to blend in. Honestly, you need to be forgettable and blend in. You cant have a 4 foot tall bright red mohawk and expect privacy.
5 - Keep your mouth shut. Loose lips sink ships and give away your information.
6 - reassess and reevaluate your practices regularly. Keeps you from getting sloppy.

Is it easy? not a chance, it sucks. But it also works if you want to be "invisible". And that is exactly what you need to do. Live as if you are on the run and need to hide.
That said, I know people that live that way, but most of them are nutty.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[Barefoot Monkey]

He is fighting against it. The government is cracking down because if fears guys like him and Jim Bell.

That... does not follow at all.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well not that I don't agree with you and all - I do - but really, what's the bad thing that happens by being on any of those lists?

I'm probably on, for example, the grocery store list. So some entity I've never heard of knows that I just bought some ground beef and peppers. So what? That fact doesn't seem to impact me in any way I can tell. Whoever they are, I don't see any adverts related to those products. I'm honestly not able to see any difference in my life between them knowing, and them not knowing.

Or let's take another example: I don't use facebook, but I have a lot of friends who do. What's the problem? Yeah, OK, FB knows who they email. So what? It doesn't seem to impact them adversely.

Or your "cold meds" example. OK, some database somewhere knows that I bought cold meds. So? I've yet to see a single targeted ad for cold meds, and even if I did... how does that actually hurt me?

To be clear I'm on the side of privacy myself, but it seems like a hard thing to argue for when people don't see anything bad that happens by giving it up.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[countertrolling]

We are moving into a world in which being a statistical anomaly is a criminal offense.

We already live in a world in which being a statistical minority is a criminal offense.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[megaditto]

Our current commander-in-chief is the guy that signed the previous warrant-less wiretap pardon. Link

This is a democracy. You people voted for it all, now bend over and take it.

Cash will be outlawed..

[Anonymous Coward]

Its already illegal to travel with more then 10,000$, but there is no restriction to carrying a credit card worth ten times that.

Its not your money, citizen. We only lend it to you.

/"we" used be "the people" but is now "the moneyed elite who got that way by graft and corruption" which used to be "by earning it"

Re:Cash will be outlawed..

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. It is not illegal to travel with cash. If you enter the U.S. with more, you have to declare it (also true for checks and money orders). But it's not illegal.
Similar in the EU for more than 10k Euro.

Domestically, you can carry as much cash around as you want anyways. No reporting requirement, not illegal.

Re:Cash will be outlawed..

[Qzukk]

Domestically, you can carry as much cash around as you want anyways. No reporting requirement, not illegal.

Civil forfeiture, look it up some time. Sure, you can do the spastic pedant dance and yap about how it's not "illegal", but when the cops can just seize your money and hold it for you forever, it's functionally illegal to carry large amounts of money around.

Of course, separate from that is when the cops actually charge your money with a crime, in which case it's "illegal money" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[elucido]

Actually it's a Republic. Bush did not win the popular vote.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[postbigbang]

And sadly none of that should have to be the norm for living free, and living in a country founded on liberty and privacy and mutual respect.

In another note, we've traced you through our subpoena to /. message databases, and we found your IP. I'd watch what you download, if I were you.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we voted for it because both McCain and Obama support it. You're trying to make it sound like if we had elected McCain anything would be different. Do you forget that this is a program designed by the previous Republican administration don't you? Why you're upset about only now baffles me. It was a problem under Bush and it's still a problem under Obama. But what are you going to do? Vote for a Republican who will continue doing it then claim it's ok because he's an R? It's a problem whoever does it. The bigger problem is that most of the US populace think it's only a problem when "the other guy" does it.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[maxume]

There are less than 4,000 innocent people on death row. Something like that many people die from medical mistakes each month.

So it seems like a pretty ridiculous example of a society gone hopelessly wrong.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[seandhi]

There are more than Republicans and Democrats... Do you not vote for the other parties because they're 'not electable'?

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[Loadmaster]

Jim Bell is a hack. Art Bell, now there's a truth teller. Assange said they have some UFO stuff to produce. I cannot wait until I see the cables showing what the US government thinks of Art Bell.

what do you expect?

[circletimessquare]

when you use an electronic network, your default assumption should be that anything communicated on it will be snooped on, backed up as data, and exploited. this applies to the internet as much as using your credit card

if you don't like that, use cash

but don't depend upon the government... to protect you from the government. that's absurd. besides, its not only the government that does this, all sorts of unscrupulous activity goes on with your data outside their purview. and i'm not talking about hackers and criminals and mafia. i'm talking about the merchants themselves: they freely offer your info up for advertising and data mining and targeted offers and other intrusive purposes. you know this already. facebook does the same thing. you are basically giving facebook the means to exploit you when you use facebook

there's money to be made in taking advantage of your data. so why do you think rules will ever be passed against the exploitation of your data, and even if there were rules made about that, why do you expect the players to respect those rules? so don't feed your data to the beast

don't depend upon the government to protect you from the government

don't depend upon corporations to protect you from corporations

depend upon YOURSELF and alter your own behavior

use cash. and stop blabbing about your social life to a beast which exists for the expressed business purpose to take your info and use it to market, track, and otherwise deny you your privacy. if you continue to use facebook, and you know that, THEN YOU ONLY HAVE YOURSELF TO BLAME

but if it's too inconvenient for you to stop using facebook and credit cards, then stop complaining, because that lack of effort on your part reveals how unimportant to you these concerns really are to you. sure, you'll cry high holy indignation here on slashdot, but you won't change your behavior will you? lots of people talk a good game, and back it up with no action whatsoever

so either you are horrified that the feds know what you buy at the grocery store, or you don't. put your money where your mouth is, and take responsibility for your privacy. if you put it on a network, whether facebook, or using your credit card, you WILL be violated and exploited. now you know. so choose. its as simple as that

but don't look at the exploiters as your protectors or express surprise when they do what already know they will do. it's absurd to expect privacy on a network. so stop being surprised when you find out you don't have any

Re:what do you expect?

[h4rr4r]

You can't use cash only. Trying buying car that way, anything over 10k means traceable forms when you get it out and when you make your purchase. If the cops stop you on the way expect to have your money seized since only criminals carry that much cash.

Re:what do you expect?

[Ephemeriis]

Yup.

Nothing new here.

You don't want a record of your spending habits? Use cash.

It isn't that complicated.

Re:what do you expect?

[circletimessquare]

well then stop caring if the government knows you bought extra small condoms at the pharmacy. or continue using cash FOR SMALL INCIDENTAL PURCHASES that you are actually interested in keeping secret. large transactions are always traceable, cash or no cash

Re:what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a local sandwich shop that operates almost entirely with cash. Prices (after included tax) are rounded to 25c. At lunch time there are usually several piles of bills and coins on the counter, and customers often make their own change. If someone doesn't have cash they just pay the next day rather than using debit/cc.

I find it quite charming.

Re:what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

lots of people talk a good game, and back it up with no action whatsoever

This is exactly what happened with all of the furor and talk of protest over the TSA body scanners and invasive patdowns. Lots of talk of protests and shutting down airports over the holiday, but few people actually went through with it. Talk is cheap, especially pseudo-anonymous ranting on the web. When it comes down to it, people will whine and complain, but few will actually do anything. Cowards, I say.

Posted as AC just for the irony of it.

Re:what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a car, with cash, for about 13 thousand dollars

I'm not a criminal, I just worked for tips for a very long time

Re:what do you expect?

[misexistentialist]

The government already tracks cash, hence the need to launder it. Associating banknotes to individuals probably occurs more often than we think, and universal cash monitoring wouldn't be that difficult, though once the costs are calculated it would probably be decided to hasten the phase-out of cash instead.

Re:what do you expect?

[EvilBudMan]

--if you don't like that, use cash--

Maybe gold. I think people will take that.

Re:what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

when you use an electronic network, your default assumption should be that anything communicated on it will be snooped on, backed up as data, and exploited. this applies to the internet as much as using your credit card

if you don't like that, use cash

Ah. Come one. Seriously: how long do you imagine that cash will be legal?

One day you won't be allowed to buy much of anything with it. After all, unless you have something to hide, why would you need an anonymous vehicle like cash?

Obviously, terrorists and pedophiles are the only people who use cash!

Re:what do you expect?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

but don't depend upon the government... to protect you from the government. that's absurd.

Absurd as the constitution, eh?

Re:what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are officially part of the problem.

when you use an electronic network, your default assumption should be that anything communicated on it will be snooped on, backed up as data, and exploited. this applies to the internet as much as using your credit card

Of course people we don't want to see our private data will inevitably need access to it. For example, the technician upgraded the email system. However, they are required to sign confidentiality agreements. The government could never be bound to such, and your data, when fished, will stay on record somewhere with the government, trust me. So even if you did nothing wrong, the government is slowly building a profile on you even if you never do anything wrong in your life, thereby making you a permanent suspect. The government is simply asking for access as a fishing expedition, and are no better morally than the phishers on AOL 10 years ago. If the government was NOT fishing, then they could easily obtain a warrant as they would have evidence of wrong doing.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[blair1q]

Pardoning people for something they did under the idiot who previously held the office is not proof that the thing is ongoing. Nor is continuing to litigae in the government's defense in cases brought by people who were wiretapped under said idiot.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[19thNervousBreakdown]

You realize that site is either a fake or the work of a schizophrenic, right?

If you don't realize that, watch out. Because you're next.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

prove that i didn't hump your mom.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[mrchaotica]

Julian Assange is fighting against the government's privacy, not ours. The difference? Unlike individual private citizens, the government doesn't deserve privacy!

Uh oh, shouldn't have just ordered fertilizer

[alta]

Well, I live in alabama. I have a garden. I have a good excuse to order 50 lbs of fertizlier.

Now what was really probably a bad idea was just now before I started writing this, I just looked up fertilizer bomb on google, then read about it on wikipedia.

Let me just add a few keywords here to make this a complete post.. I can see their sensors going crazy now.

goverment
explosion
christians
islam
jihad

(disclaimer: I have no intention of creating any sort of explosion, doing anything terrorist, hurting anyone. I didn't even really buy any fertilizer. This is all just to get a +1 funny... but thanks to this disclaimer I probably won't even get that.)

Re:Uh oh, shouldn't have just ordered fertilizer

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all just to get a +1 funny

Judge: Do you have anything to say in your defense?
alta: I did it for the lulz.

Re:Uh oh, shouldn't have just ordered fertilizer

[Anonymous Coward]

I can haz IED?

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[blair1q]

No, really. What's Santa bringing me this year, Rudolph?

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Obfuscant]

We don't have privacy because we don't deserve it. We must accept that we are peasants to large financial institutions. They own our souls.

You don't have privacy because you agreed to the terms and conditions when you accepted the credit card offer from the "large financial institution.". They didn't have to give you credit, and you didn't have to take it when they offered. It was your choice.

Similarly, you don't have privacy at the grocery store because you accepted the terms and conditions of that "club card" when they offered it. They didn't have to offer it to you, and you didn't have to accept. You have to know they're getting something FROM you when they let you buy their stuff for less money when you have that card. Why do you think they do that, because they are altruistic and nice and like you?

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Lumpy]

Found my IP of my VPN service overseas.... :Luckily I paid them with a prepaid credit card that is not attached to my real name or address..

Muahahaha.... Oh crap, I just gave all that away...

DAMMIT!

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Dishevel]

In the US at least you are correct. We as a people do not deserve the freedoms we once had. We sold them for a sense of security and a government check.

So feel secure, cash your check and shut the fuck up.

Exactly the same as "warrantless wiretapping"

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't own the fact that your phone was called by someone else's, either. That's phone company billing data.

One wonders how many people who agree with your statement were also crazily upset about "BOOOSH trampling all over the Constitution" with "illegal warrantless wiretaps".

But now that Obama's in charge, it's OK?

WTF

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Samalie]

Independants/3rd party candidates are all but un-electable.

I mean sure, one or two slip in from time to time. But the majority of the time, by supporting a 3rd party candidate you are directly syphoning votes away from the person who is the "lesser of two evils" in your mind, making it easier for the "greater of two evils" to get the most votes.

Not to mention having many parties just fucks to hell with the vote. Here in Canada, a haven of multi-party politics, our last election the ruling party got 37% of the vote. 37-fucking-percent.

Remember the uproar when George won with 47% of the vote in 2000? Selected, not elected? Imagine he got the presidency with 37% of the popular vote. People would freak the fuck out.

Don't get me wrong...I think multi-party is better than the 2-party system that ya'all have. But to make it work in the US, IMHO you'll have to entirely overhaul the entire electoral system. Otherwise you're just asking for chaos.

Old news...

[sgt_doom]

..although I appreciate the the post and update.

This first started online and realtime when First Data (whose CEO at the time was on the Council on Foreign Relations, I forget the twit's name) offered Bush administration that info for free (back in either 2001, but really around 2000).

Now First Data and TransUnion are government contractors, and together with 90 or so other private government contractors, the NSA, DIA, CIFA and NGA, make up the Total Information Awareness, actually begun under the auspices of the banksters' Regulatory DataCorp (RDC) and their Global Regulatory Information Database, or G.R.I.D.

If you don't believe me, try to crack their firewall setups, and research them.

Re:Old news...

[scribblej]

You don't have to research anything. I work for a company that's closely related to First Data Corp and I have been in the industry for over a decade. OF COURSE FDC reports to the Fed. First off, from a pure logistics standpoint, there's no reasonable way for FDC to deposit funds in the merchant's account without doing it though the Fed. This is so obvious it hardly bears stating. But then there's other laws recently that also require us to report all merchant activity to the IRS... so... one way or another the "G-men" have all this info. Obviously. Whether they can correlate it, use it to track you, etc, I will not speculate.

For those of you not in the business, I don't have the actual numbers but I wouldn't blink an eye if you told me FDC processes over 75% of all credit card transactions in the United States.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[ToasterMonkey]

Julian Assange is fighting against the government's privacy, not ours. The difference? Unlike individual private citizens, the government doesn't deserve privacy!

Where is this in the Constitution? Where does our Constitution compel the Federal Government to be fully transparent?

States protecting their secrets is old as dirt.
http://suntzusaid.com/book/13

Secrets are important for national security, PERIOD, END OF LINE

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[compro01]

Cash? More than $10k and you've got a paper/electron trail. Good luck buying a house or anything more than a quite old or very basic car.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Aldanga]

Even 1 innocent person on death row is too many and a travesty.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Shakrai]

1 - cash only. Yes kiddies, saving for and buying your item.

Having the money in hand before you buy something? That's crazy talk.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[drinkypoo]

I don't know about you, but I try to make all large purchases with cash just for this reason. I'd rather not have any trail on such things. Let my trivial economic activity be logged, if they want to know I'm ordering aquarium thermometers from China or DVD players from Amazon so be it.

I always kind of assumed this data was available without a warrant, and getting a warrant isn't usually all that hard anyway.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right.

Except the Financial Reform Bill just signed by Pres. Obama includes the ability to spy on your cellphone transaction and follow its location in near real-time. New face; same spying. It never ends. Clinton had the "Know Your Customer" act which required banks to report all transactions above $10,000. Then George Duh Bush with his Patriot Act. And now Obama is on the same path.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[operagost]

I tell you what, if someone comes to my house and unwinds my guitar strings I'M GOING POSTAL.

Conspiracy Theorists

[Anonymous Coward]

How else are they supposed to track sales of Catcher in the Rye?

and they call Assange a criminal?!?!?

[Phizzle]

As law abiding citizens we get sexually assaulted by the TSA, and have our privacy constantly violated by every 3 letter government parasite, and when we complain we are told that its all in the name of "Greater Good" and the ole Family Guy "Everything changed on 911..... EVERYTHING!!!", but when guy like Assange basically does what American news agencies do for ratings suddenly even the most staunch conservatives call for his head ignoring our own constitution and the international laws. Boooooooogles teh mind!

Re:and they call Assange a criminal?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Boooooooogles teh mind!"

Push your finger up there a little deeper. I'm sure they'll come out.

Re:and they call Assange a criminal?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your concerns have been noted... citizen.

Re:and they call Assange a criminal?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

they're scum. that solve your moral dilemma. now take the time to scrape'm off your boot.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[drinkypoo]

Where is this in the Constitution? Where does our Constitution compel the Federal Government to be fully transparent?

That's a silly thing to say. Where in the constitution is your right to privacy described? Nowhere, but the Supremes ruled that you had to have privacy to have any of those other rights which aren't supposed to be a strict enumeration of your rights anyway, so now you have a constitutional right to privacy! Isn't that neat? By the same token, you can't verify your democracy is operating democratically unless you have a certain amount of openness. As it turns out from the leaks we've received, it is telling us it is doing one thing while it is doing another.

Secrets are important for national security, PERIOD, END OF LINE

Openness is necessary for Democracy, period, END OF FILE

Um..

[joeslugg]

A 10-page Powerpoint presentation (PDF)

Did anybody else kinda wince at that?

Re:Um..

[RealGrouchy]

A 10-page Powerpoint presentation (PDF)

Did anybody else kinda wince at that?

Yes.

Once it's converted to PDF, it's no longer a Powerpoint presentation, it's just a presentation. Or a slideshow, or a slide deck. Powerpoint is just the name of the MS Office software used to create slideshows.

If I print out a report I made in MS Word, it's not a "Word report".

- RG>

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[postbigbang]

And you used your 5-digit /. account #. Wait, ok, we have you now. You should wear pants when you post and turn your cam off.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[pspahn]

37%, 10%, 100%, completely irrelevant if elected officials actually did the things people want them to do. If someone wins with 37%, well that's great and all, but that doesn't mean that the other 63% are going to disagree with everything that person does. There is too much importance placed on the election, and very little importance placed on what the elected subsequently do.

I vote third party precisely because I want to siphon votes away from either a Demican or a Republocrat. There is no "lesser of two evils". They are both equally shitty.

Let's change that argument a little....

[Anonymous Coward]

This videotape of you and your wife is my data, not yours, because I made it with my own video camera, so it's totally not an invasion of your privacy because it's not your data.

Same goes for the time you walked through my nude scanner. I hope you don't mind me uploading that so that everyone can see what a small penis you have.

Re:Let's change that argument a little....

[bhartman34]

If you videotaped me and my hypothetical wife out in public, it is your data. No argument there. The violation would come if you videotaped us in private. If you did that, you'd be recording our actions, which by definition, aren't yours. That's why there are laws against surreptitious video recording. The credit card companies aren't surreptitiously recording your purchases. They're doing it as part of the business practice you agreed to when you signed up for the card. Moreover, they're doing it as a necessary part of doing business. Without recording your transactions, they wouldn't know how much you owed them.

As far as your body scanner goes, was I forced to walk through it? If not, then I walked through it voluntarily, knowing that my nude image would be recorded. I'm honestly not sure what recourse there would be. Are you familiar with Facebook? I'm fairly certain not everyone in every picture on Facebook gave their permission for their image to be on there.

This is why I don't use credit cards...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it isn't the government then it's the card companies mining data and selling intelligence to most effeciently extract every last cent possible out of the customer. Both situations suck.

Go to the ATM get some cash and pay for stuff that way without swiping your card everywhere. The businesses keep more of their money and there is no easy paper trail detailing your activities. It's a no loose situation.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[pantherace]

If that's so... where's my sense of security and government check?

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Culture20]

"Someone in the FDIC" didn't want him working at that bank! And social drama in bars is directed at him! Snookie and The Situation are driving him craaaazy!

Just because you're not paranoid...

[Anonymous Coward]

...doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[maxume]

So are deadly medical errors. And they happen something like 10,000 times as often.

Re:FuckEr

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking weak.

I want the original goatse.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Anonymous Coward]

i think that's the point he was making when he said:

we don't deserve it

Because what you say is true, we've all agreed to these things voluntarily.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Lumpy]

Bet you $10,000 I can get $100,000 without a paper trail.

Does money when in a large enough pile suddenly call home? nope.

In fact I could carry around $20,000,000 and the feds not know about it.

What you need to say is ,"withdraw from a bank more than $10,000 and you have a trail." and this is still incorrect. My sister who works at a ban says they report transactions over $2500.00

Quite old car? I can buy a 2007 car right now for less than $10,000.

Home? what idiot would buy a home? that guarantees you get to be tracked. IF you want privacy, you dont stay in one location long enough to buy land and a house. Buy a RV (Gasp a USED ONE!) and live anywhere with a lot of conveniences.. My old RV even would let you watch DishTV while driving down the road.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Threni]

Prove it isn't.

Oh, and they have all your emails, text messages, pager messages to. You know that, right? No, I'm not going to prove it to you. But ask yourself - do they want to read them? Can they get hold of them? Is there some technical problem obtaining/storing/searching them?

Of course not. Read up on the last 50 years or so of what the relevant bodies have been doing, why they want this data etc.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[TrisexualPuppy]

I don't get where you are going with this. Even if he had, it would still be a republic.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[Stu_28]

By the same token, you can't verify your democracy is operating democratically unless you have a certain amount of openness. As it turns out from the leaks we've received, it is telling us it is doing one thing while it is doing another.

Secrets are important for national security, PERIOD, END OF LINE

Openness is necessary for Democracy, period, END OF FILE

Good argument, if this were a democracy. But, it is a republic. Therefore, technically, only our elected representatives require the government to be transparent to them.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Oriumpor]

One need only attend Security conferences to know the hardware and software vendors are required to provide this sort of (audited mind you) access to LE. They can do pretty much whatever they want by contacting their internal liason. Do a little research on "lawful" interception.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[drinkypoo]

Good argument, if this were a democracy. But, it is a republic. Therefore, technically, only our elected representatives require the government to be transparent to them.

As long as they keep crowing about how democratic it all is (I do definitely appreciate and understand the difference! Athens was a republic too!) then I reserve the right to complain about how open it isn't.

I do believe that we need to have one vote for one [wo]man. I also believe that we should end the disenfranchisement of felons. Unfortunately, the people who most agree with me can't vote.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[AK Marc]

It has been proven it was done before. It can't be disproven (because it's essentially illegal to do so). And it can't be proven (that's explicitly illegal). And there's no reason to believe that they stopped doing it, just that they stopped getting caught.

Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

What You didn't read the PatAct II?

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Gilmoure]

I don't get the profit motive.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[AK Marc]

Where does our Constitution compel the Federal Government to be fully transparent?

The government has no "rights" and thus no right to privacy. There are some areas where secrets are justified. When they aren't justified, the freedom of speech of the employees exceeds all the "rights" of the government.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[aristotle-dude]

"Independants/3rd party candidates are all but un-electable."

If you really believe that then you get exactly what you deserve. Democracy dies when people stop believing in it and just do what they are told.

Imagine if everyone started voting by their conscience instead of blindly voting for a party or strategically.

You can get a multi-party system by just voting for a party and encouraging everyone to vote for the party that actually represents their desires.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a baby boomer? It's coming.

Are you the child of a baby boomer? Your greedy parents screwed you, sorry.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Dishevel]

Security we were sold a sense of security not actual security. So your job is to just feel secure. As for the check. You will be receiving that at age 65.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[tgrigsby]

Was her ex really short, bearded, and wearing a funny hat?

His ex dated Santa Claus?

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[AK Marc]

In fact I could carry around $20,000,000 and the feds not know about it.

That's about 440 lbs of paper. Aside from the great difficulty of getting that much cash together, I do not think you could carry that around at all, let alone without the feds knowing about it.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is this in the Constitution? Where does our Constitution compel the Federal Government to be fully transparent?

Danger, Will Robinson! Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the government the power to keep a secret, and the only powers the government has are the ones explicitly granted to it.

Now, I'm sure you'll pull something out of your ass like how secrets are interstate commerce, just like growing pot in your own backyard.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

No, really. What's Santa bringing me this year, Rudolph?

A heaping bag of reality ... mixed with shit to make it smell better.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

prove that i didn't hump your mom.

She's still smiling ... which means she never had to endure your presence.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

The first time. He did the second time.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

I left her smiling? How awesome is that?!!!

Fourth Amendment Limitation

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> Honestly the data isn't private protected data, it belongs to the companies we did business with and they can do what they want with it.

Close. The Government can steal it, legally (so as to be not stealing at all) because there is no fourth amendment protection. Absent other privacy laws protecting us, at least.

There is no Fourth Amendment protection because we have to communicate our purchases to the credit card company; thus we cannot expect the information to remain private. That is how the law reasons. Because we can't expect it to remain private, we have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and the Fourth Amendment only protects us against unreasonable searches.

That being said, I don't know that the issue has ever been analyzed at an appellate level when the company in question had a privacy policy--the old rulings predate those by some years. There is a slight chance one could expand the Fourth Amendment by pointing to privacy policies.

Although privacy policies often have the doublespeak "will not share your information unless required or permitted by law..."

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[mcgrew]

Independants/3rd party candidates are all but un-electable.

That's because you've been spoon-fed the lie that a vote for them is a wasted vote. If voting for a loser is a wasted vote, then all those people who voted for McCain wasted their votes.

If you gamble, hire hookers (or are one), or smoke pot, then a vote for a Democrat or a Republican is far worse than wasted -- they want you in jail. Better to vote for a losing Green or Libertarian who doesn't want you in prison.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Anonymous Coward]

Except our founding fathers lived exactly as the "nuts" today do. Cash only, buy everything with little to no paper trail, run around in all the same style powder wigs, etc. The only thing that's changed is our expectation of how we live our lives. We think we need to use credit or take out loans or fly in planes or anything that adds you to a list. If your life demands you do things that don't meet your expectation of privacy then get a new life that does. I hear Arizona is hurting for fruit pickers this season.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[b4dc0d3r]

Nah, just change the strings, and wait for someone to come back to re-wind them. It's the guitar fairy reminding you that old strings are bad strings.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[ffreeloader]

I see this argument all over the place. It sounds really good too. The problem is it's basically impossible to guarantee no innocent person ever gets punished and just as impossible to guarantee that no guilty person goes unpunished. Like most things in life this is a trade off between the ideal and reality, a process that works in a timely fashion and a process that is so drawn out that no one gets justice.

Until we have a world full of perfect people and perfect processes this problem will exist. As perfect people and processes have never existed before in human history, and I see no evidence of the human race moving towards perfection, then this is just the way life is, and always will be. It's sad but true.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote third party precisely because I want to siphon votes away from either a Demican or a Republocrat. There is no "lesser of two evils". They are both equally shitty.

I'm glad you did.

People commonly say "OMG 3rd party you are throwing your vote away!!!"

What they fail to realize is that statistics, focus groups, and models determines how the "big two" act. They really don't care about the minutiae of what the people actually want or need.

So, when Joe Republican or Jane Democrat campaign, they do so to maximize the amount of votes that they have. Both sides try to poach the so-called "independent" and "third-party" voters.

You realize, just like I realize, that the bigger the 3rd party turnout is, the more that the big two will try to pander to our needs. We won't get 100% of what we want... but maybe. Just maybe. we might get 5%.

But 5% is better than voting for either side, as you will likely get zero or less percentage of what you want from them. Just the nature of the beast.

So thanks for "sticking to your guns" as opposed to "voting for the less of two equal evils". If only more people were so aware.

We're approaching a frightening new place

[Anonymous Coward]

It is obvious that as computing power gets cheaper and government gets bigger, we're heading towards a world where it's hard to keep our privacy intact. But I think that most people don't realize how bad it could get.

Before long, it will be possible for "them" to know easily and automatically a vast amount of information... material that is technically public already, but can be sliced and diced into sinister forms.

There are already traffic cameras that read license plates and issue speeding tickets if the calculated travel time between two points is too fast.

Imagine that kind of thinking applied to...

* Your credit card records
* Your internet traffic
* The location of your car, of course
* Your location, thanks to iris scans
* Other information that a third party collects about you that isn't in a privileged class
* Things you say and do in public

Eventually, if it is cheap and legal for the gov't to have a data set, they're going to be checking it. That will inevitably grow into fishing expeditions.

This won't happen soon... but governments tend to grow in size and scope and technology gets cheaper. When a camera that can recognize your car and send a sighting to a database costs only a few bucks, they'll put them everywhere. Eventually they'll be smart enough to understand what you're saying and listen for keywords.

I don't think this is paranoia. This is just observing the trend.

If we want to avoid being "protected" in this way we need to fight the first baby steps now, because once the surveillance state is in place it will be impossible to dislodge.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[cayenne8]

"Similarly, you don't have privacy at the grocery store because you accepted the terms and conditions of that "club card" when they offered it. They didn't have to offer it to you, and you didn't have to accept. You have to know they're getting something FROM you when they let you buy their stuff for less money when you have that card. Why do you think they do that, because they are altruistic and nice and like you?"

And really....who said you had to give them real information on that club card?

Some of mine think my purchases are by an elderly hispanic lady named Ulga from Sweden.

That one HAS to skew their profiles just a little with her unexpected purchases....hahaha. And yes, I do use cash when I used those.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[mrchaotica]

Where is this in the Constitution? Where does our Constitution compel the Federal Government to be fully transparent?

The US Government is "of the people, by the people, [and] for the people," which means that the people need to know what's going on or the whole thing turns into a schizophrenic psychopath, metaphorically speaking. (And yes, I realize the quote is from the Gettysburg Address, not the Constitution... it still counts as an official assessment of what our government is supposed to be.)

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it isn't.

<morbo>Burdens of proof do not work that way! Goodnight!</morbo>

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[LuxMaker]

Looks like this guy is a classic victim of COINTELPRO. Anyone who calls this guy paranoid schizophrenic or the like is probably in on the action.

Also this should be a lesson not to just piss off banks and financial institutions of America but anyone powerful in government for they can and will ruin you.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[ZFox]

Bearer bonds are lighter.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[postbigbang]

The founding fathers only had cash (often only coins) and script. Barter did well, because needs were small and consumerism hadn't taken hold. The reason to get rid of cash in society is to cut the cost of managing it (printing, minting, etc.) and then track it as in for taxes, etc.

I have to fly a lot, and put up with the indignities. I've been slowly desensitized to the madness, but others hit obstacle after needless obstacle. The reason that many undocumented people don't fly is just that- no documentation. So they drive. That's not liberty. Neither is the indignity I face flying.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[haruchai]

Don't be naive. Most secrets are to cover some individual's ass. What Diplomat X says about Foreign Leader Y should not be a state secret; same for flagrant violations of international law.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess... you never scored well on the reading comprehension portion of exams?

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[wealthychef]

The solution to this is called Instant Runoff Voting. Here is their incredibly lame website, which explains the details.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[fyngyrz]

old strings are bad strings.

...maybe so, but new strings make dogs bark.

Well more properly

[Sycraft-fu]

It is somewhat up to the business. How much they cooperate with the government they can decide. It could be that they are just nice about it, a call from an agent is all it takes. They could require a court to actually compel them to give up the data.

At work we've run in to this a couple times. The FBI has wanted e-mails for an investigation. In all cases we were happy to provide them, but being a university we have to have a subpoena, a court order, compelling us to release them. This perplexed them on more than one occasion. They didn't get mad and threatening, they just couldn't get their shit together to go get the documentation quickly. Wouldn't be hard to get, our lawyers wouldn't content it, we wanted to give them the data, however our own policies require a subpoena. They are often used to just having to ask. It is up to the companies and their internal policies what their release requirements are, unless there's a law in place restricting it.

However I'll note that what is being talked about here ARE subpoena requests which is all that is required. For people who think a warrant is needed, you need to go read up on the law. Warrants protect you from searches of your property without cause. If the police believe you've committed a crime and the evidence is in your house, they need a warrant. However they don't need a warrant to make you come testify in court. If they believe you saw someone commit a crime they can ask you to testify, refuse and they can subpoena you, compel you to testify. Same with the defense. That also doesn't run afoul of self-incrimination. The law says you cannot be made to bear witness against YOURSELF. You can be made to bear witness against others.

Document subpoenas are the same kind of thing. If you have a document that is relevant to a civil or criminal case that you aren't a party of, they can make you give over a copy so that it can be used. As I said, this isn't just a prosecution thing, this is a defense thing. Suppose you were accused of murder, but you know for a fact you are on security cameras at the time at a location that proves you couldn't have done it. However the owner of the cameras doesn't like you and refuses to hand over the tapes. Your lawyer can have the court issue a subpoena and compel the tapes to be handed over to be used in your defense.

When you look at the protections afforded for defendants, and relevant case law, what it comes down to is that your personal effects have more protection than anything else and you can never be made to testify against yourself if you don't want to. They protect a person from having to participate in prosecuting themselves basically. They do not protect people from having to help the prosecution (or the defense) in cases that don't involve you.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[fyngyrz]

Unfortunately, the people who most agree with me can't vote.

That's part of the mechanism to create a permanent underclass. Add that to the social conditioning that felons can no longer be forgiven, and they become un-hirable, have more trouble finding places to live, cannot advance... which of course leads them to the (correct) conclusion that the only way to actually get ahead is crime.

One of the nasty facets of this is that many "felons" were only guilty of consensual "crimes"; they really were zero danger to other people. But now, in order to have some measure of material success, crime is the only door that remains open.

One of our more serious social errors, born of hysteria and foolishness.

Tracking leads to trouble

[fyngyrz]

Or your "cold meds" example. OK, some database somewhere knows that I bought cold meds. So? I've yet to see a single targeted ad for cold meds, and even if I did... how does that actually hurt me?

Step 1: Buy a bottle of original NyQuil from a pharmacy
Step 2: Drive across town.
Step 3: Buy another bottle of original NyQuil from different pharmacy
Step 4: Learn how it hurts you

The answer, to save you the trouble, is you get arrested, you pay bail (if you can), you pay lawyers (if you can... if you can't, you're going to jail for a long time, because you're now an easy notch on some prosecutor's stick.) You meth-head, you.

"Oh, but I would never do that"

There are other things, and combinations of things, that can get you a serious, guns-pulled, door-breaking visit from your local gendarmes. Even trying to buy an Erlenmeyer flask or glass tubing can do it in some jurisdictions. Odds are hugely in favor of you having done these things innocently. That won't reduce your legal bills, though.

It's worth looking into.

Re:Tracking leads to trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

> The answer, to save you the trouble, is you get arrested,

Citation? I've never heard of that happening, and a bit of googling didn't turn up anyone who's been arrested for buying two bottles of Nyquil at different pharmacies.

Re:Tracking leads to trouble

[xrobertcmx]

Actually, since they scan your license at most stores now, you can't buy any "D" drugs over your allotted limit. I know, I take 1 12 hour allergy pill every day, and on those silly occasions I thought I should pick them up before I ran out (3 pills left), I was denied my medication. I did once buy them early at "Safeway", but they only required me to sign the book, but unless they take 3 years to audit such things I probably won't be arrested for a few weeks yet. Besides, do you have any idea the amount of those silly pills you would need to buy in order to make Meth? My understanding is that it requires something in the range of a pallet, and while I have no idea how many little boxes with their safety packaging would fit on that (I can't imagine some meth head popping out 1 pill at a time), I do have pallets of computers at work, and that would be a lot. Making a case against a person for unreasonably trying to buy a 1 month supply of allergy medication with a working decongestant would be a bit difficult, and before you get all defensive, 2 bottles of NyQuil would also be a hard case. Especially given how this person did this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn#2007_arrest

Re:Tracking leads to trouble

[fyngyrz]

You're coming at this the wrong way. The laws are written to make purchasing certain quantities a crime. They don't have to make the case that you made meth; they just have to show that you bought more than you were allowed to. The reason these laws were put into place was the usual "for the children" nonsense with an eye towards meth manufacture, but that doesn't mean they even have to bring it up. All they have to do is say the limit is 2, you bought three, case closed. I posted some reference info here.

Re:Tracking leads to trouble

[fyngyrz]

Citation?

here's an example

Re:Tracking leads to trouble

[fyngyrz]

also informative

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[fyngyrz]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

It is a falsehood to claim that because bad situation A is worse than unrelated bad situation B, that B is therefore acceptable. As you would be well aware if you had been falsely accused of anything.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[he-sk]

No, the solution is to enable the citizens to become lawmakers themselves by cutting out the middlemen and letting them vote on the issues directly if they desire to.

The problem with elected politicians is that their number one priority is staying in power.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[he-sk]

I don't care about national security. At all. Again and again, "national security" is invoked to cover up malfeasance by government officials which are supposed to be accountable to us. How can there be accountability in government if the government decides what information to share and what not?

What I do care about is personal security. Big difference.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Independants/3rd party candidates are all but un-electable."

I don't know if the poster who said that meant in general, or if it was intended in the sense of "the actual candidates we've had aren't president/congressman material". I disagree with the former (we've had successful parties besides D and R in the past), but I would have to agree with the latter. Current and recent US third parties have been fringe not due to some structural issue or conspiracy, but because they're fucking horrible candidates.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[wealthychef]

Direct democracy is a mistake.

I am a hooker and pornographic entertainer.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are watching me, then I will send the RIAA and MPAA at you for not doing governmental work.

--all of a sudden, everyone is whoring just like meh--

PRIVATE!

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[shutdown -p now]

Good argument, if this were a democracy. But, it is a republic. Therefore, technically, only our elected representatives require the government to be transparent to them.

Well then, maybe that's part of your problem? If your political system doesn't work so well for you, then why stick to it so stubbornly?

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[he-sk]

Great retort.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Moonrazor]

Imagine if everyone started voting by their conscience instead of blindly voting for a party or strategically.

The majority of people do.....that's why they don't vote at all.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[zippthorne]

But medical mistakes aren't deliberate killings. "Death Row" implies that we are deliberately ending the lives of the people on it.

Further, you can divide the number of deaths due to medical mistakes by the number of attempted procedures and get the ratio of accidental deaths to improved or lengthened lives. You can delve deeper, by examining the likelihoods of improvement. There are a lot of people whose lives are improved by medical interventions every year, so the fraction of accidental deaths is going to be quite low.

Now, there aren't a lot of people on death row. If there really are 4,000 innocent people there, that represents a *much* larger fraction of the total number of attempts at justice than the medical death fraction. Further, every one of those deaths is a avoidable.

That IS what it means...

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that a law enforcement officer can, with NO search warrant, and with no intervention whatsoever by a court:

- Track every credit card purchase that I've ever made up to the present moment
- Search through the history of transactions I've made at my local library
- See records of all of my telephone calls
- view my accountant's copy of all of my tax records
- review any and all personal correspondences that I've sent to friends
- see my complete transaction history at my bank
- review all of the stock/bond transactions that I've made with my broker. ...

I certainly hope that no court would subscribe to your bizarre interpretation of the Fourth Amendement.

Actually, disturbingly, this is close to a more or less accurate interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Other laws may prevent police from doing the things you list, and the police can't break laws while doing those things--but the Fourth Amendment does not usually protect information you have communicated to other people. Maryland v. Smith, IIRC, allows them to use telephone numbers you call against you in court without a warrant because you have to communicate those numbers to the telephone company, so you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in them. California v. Greenwood is another big case in this area.

"Unreasonable search" doesn't mean "unreasonable search," it means what judges and justices, over decades of argument (most of the important stuff since 1969's Mapp v. Ohio), have reasoned out that "unreasonable search" means. Constitutional Law works like that--there's a debate over what something means, and the appointed and confirmed judge listens to both sides and then has a clerk write an opinion that becomes law. Then someone appeals, and it happens again, only this time with references to the prior opinions. Each opinion usually changes or refines the meaning at least slightly.

Also, "unreasonable search" means something different today than it did 200 years ago.

And this is a surprize because...

[crovira]

How can we in the tech community be surprised that that "the powers that be"©® are taking advantage of everything that we make available to them.

The problem is that they aren't taking full multi-dimensional advantage of the information available to them.

Otherwise the TSA would KNOW when you are flying, or riding the rail, or sailing, or taking the bus, (paid for by whom on which credit card,) where you are going to and why... (So much for airport security. Its just some theater to see just how much bullshit you'll put up with.)

Otherwise the Feds, the NIS, the NSA, the FDA, the FAT and a whole host of three letter acronyms which are running pieces of this country would not be rattling your cage (and you are in a cage,) every chance they get.

You sheeple are such dupes you don't even know which way to run, which way the hills are, nor how you're being led.

The fact is that you are even paying for the abuse you are railing against while asking for more of the same.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[hairyfeet]

You and the other "just vote third party man" types seem to be forgetting one of the most powerful weapons in the world is against you, and that is the MSM propaganda machine. Just look at how Perot got treated when it looked like he might have had a snowball's chance in hell. They made him look like he was one step away from the nut house.

Here is what you are up against: The MSM will not allow your candidate a chance to speak in the debates, the MSM will not allow them to have equal time on talk shows, or even have them on at all, the MSM will not allow any rally they have to be televised, unless it is "look at those fucking kooks!"

So I'm sorry, maybe a century ago a third party might have been viable but since the creation of the MSM just after WWII the chances now are slim to none. The populace is not gonna vote for someone they have never heard of, whom they have no clue what they stand for, and whom they have never seen debate in public. That is why the MSM can insure those in power stay there. Hell just look at how many in the MSM were practically calling for the execution of Assange. This is the same bunch from which Woodward and Bernstein came from? No, this is multinational corporations that have a vested interest in making sure things stay the same. You expecting to change it by voting is like expecting to win that game of Three Card Monty if you really keep your eye on the lady. It just ain't gonna happen friend, sorry.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the free? Home of the brave?

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[maxume]

The point is more that spending $1 fixing miscarriages of medicine is going to save a lot more lives than spending $1 fixing miscarriages of justice.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[maxume]

There are less than 4,000 people in total on death row. So there must be less than 4,000 innocent people there.

And personally, I'd be fine with just making them all serve life sentences.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[AK Marc]

Bearer bonds aren't "cash."

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Welcome to /. groupthink. Please restrict your scepticism to certain approved topics. Questioning the groupthink position on other topics will be treated swiftly and harshly.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[bell.colin]

You mean like voting yourselves freebie entitlements with no money to pay for itand not voting the taxes to fund it?

It's called California and it's been near bankruptcy for years, It does NOT work.

Our country is a republic because tyranny of the majority has more problems.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[BillX]

They are getting smarter with those cards (in the US, anyway). Rather than provide the "discount" at the point of use, more and more structure it so that they *mail* your "rewards" (requiring a valid address) or else provide the lion's share of the "discount" in a non-cash form, e.g. points toward lower-priced fuel at a participating gas station (so no more card-swapping or using the cashier's own card...)

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[elucido]

Have you heard of infraguard? This is why some guy at a bank would have the power to do that.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[bhartman34]

Bush losing the popular vote isn't the point. As the previous poster mentioned, Obama signed the warrentless wiretap pardon. And I seem to recall that Obama did win the popular vote.

Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use credit, eftpos, gift card, loyalty card, movie cash etc then the transaction will be recorded and analysed by someone. If you use cash it still might, but it probably won't be worth the effort for the watcher. Basically if you want to have a hope of privacy then use cash, give a false name and details if asked, and if someone asks for ID then just dump whatever you wanted to buy on the counter and walk out.

Not saying I like it, but that's the simple truth of the matter.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[puterg33k]

You guys are just finding out about this now? LOL OWNED
- US GOV

It varies from state to state. Reference:

[fyngyrz]

RESTRICTIONS ON OVER-THE-COUNTER SALES/PURCHASES OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING PSEUDOEPHEDRINE
STATE LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS
A review of 2005 state bills and/or regulations establishing or enhancing existing restrictions on over-the-counter sales/purchases of pseudoephedrine products. For comparative purposes, applicable provisions of existing laws which were enhanced in 2005 are included. Also included is a review of 2006 state bills enacted by November 3, 2006.
MAJORITY OF STATES TAKE ACTION
41 states in 2005 and to date in 2006 passed measures establishing or enhancing restrictions on over-the-counter sales of pseudoephedrine products.
35 states passed bills in 2005 1 state – Virginia- issued an Executive Order requiring the state
Department of Health (DH) to establish restrictions; The DH issued an emergency order effective until July 1, 2006. Virginia’ 2006 bill will take effective on July 1, 2006 as the emergency order ceases to be effective.
Alaska, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina and Vermont enacted bills implementing new restrictions; Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, South Dakota and Wisconsin passed amendments to their 2005 laws.
Michigan passed HB 5822 in 2006 which bans Internet and mail-order sales of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine products.
COMMON THEMES
Restrictions on the Over-the-Counter Sales/Transfers or Purchases of Pseudoephedrine Products
Four (4) general categories of restrictions on the over-the-counter sales/purchases of pseudoephedrine products are found:
1. Restrictions on the display or offer of the products for sale.
2. Restrictions on who can sell/transfer and/or who can purchase the products, and the requirement to maintain a log/record of the transaction.
3. Restrictions on the quantity of a product that can be sold/transferred or purchased within a specified time frame.
© 2007 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR MODEL STATE DRUG LAWS (NAMSDL). 700 North Fairfax Street, Suite 306, Alexandria, VA 22314. (703) 836-6100. Research current as of November 3, 2006. This document will be updated as NAMSDL receives additional information about state legislative and policy activities regarding precursor chemicals and sales/purchases of pseudoephedrine products.
1
4. Restrictions on packaging of the products. Restrictions on the Display or Offer of the Products for Sale/Transfer
1. Scheduling of pseudoephedrine as a controlled substance:11 states
Schedule V – Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia (sole-active pseudoephedrine), Wisconsin
Schedule III – Oregon; requires a prescription for all pseudoephedrine products
2. Placement of pseudoephedrine products in specified locations.
State legislative language often lists the methods below as options, requiring only that one option be used. However, in certain circumstances multiple placement methods must be used conjunctively.
a. Behind a counter or in an area inaccessible to the public without assistance of an employee.
b. In a locked display case or other locked location. c. Within the direct line of sight of a staffed counter. d. Within specified feet of a counter.
10 feet – Missouri 20 feet – Michigan 25 feet – Tennessee
30 feet – Indiana (convenience packages), Louisiana, Maine (applies only to 60 mg. single dose packages), Mississippi (multi- active), Texas, Virginia (multi-active), Wyoming
e. In an area subject to constant video monitoring/surveillance.
f. Use of anti-theft mechanism or alarm system.
g. Use of restricted shelving which allows a pseudoephedrine product to be released only every 15 seconds.

Display of a limited number of packages of a brand or type in a public area.
No more than 1 package of any brand or type in a public area – North Dakota
No more than 3 packages or 9 grams of each stocked product can be placed on shelf – Louisiana
Restrictions on Who can Sell/Transfer and/or Who can Purchas

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[fyngyrz]

My point is that this comparison is irrelevant. Money should be spent on both, they're completely independent of one another.

Your point, taken to the limit, would have to be read as: The only thing worth spending money on is the one thing that saves the most lives, and all lesser life-saving efforts should be abandoned so that all effort could be concentrated on that maximally efficient effort to save lives.

But it isn't about efficiency; it's about trying to fix things in general. A society that only tried to fix one wrong thing, even if it is the largest wrong thing, would be pitiful. Likewise, a society that abandons the wrongly convicted would be pitiful.

Re:An alternative

[symbolic]

I agree with all your points. However, being off the radar, they (the people engaging in illegal stalking/spying) may not even know that you exist, so to speak. If you really want to give them something to stew about, you can engage in "trackable" things only occasionally. Then they'll get their panties in a wad about what else you might be doing that they don't know about. This method tends to be a little more satisfying for those being illegally surveilled.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Bankers don't waste money.

Either this guy is a serious hacktivist (Assange types) or he is sick.

The one remote possibility that exists is that some dickhead agency is running some kind of sociology experiment on random ordinary citizens to see how much pressure can be applied at what stage to give so-and-so results. This possibility is very remote even though it is real (secret sociology experiments are real - Stanley Milgram, various Black Ops)

That said, "having things in the home replaced" looks straight like the Truman Show complex - disorder that needs help.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[sjames]

What check? I didn't get a check.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Wildclaw]

You mean like voting yourselves freebie entitlements with no money to pay for itand not voting the taxes to fund it?

A good direct democratic system will not allow for that. There are several ways to prevent it, the simplest being to require all government spending bills to be percentages of the total income of the government. If you vote to increase the spending percentage of one area, all other areas gets reduced.

Our country is a republic because tyranny of the majority has more problems.

It isn't like your republic run government has been doing any better. The only reason it is in a better shape than California is because it can print its own money. If it couldn't it would be even worse of.

As for the tyranny of the majority. That is just a made up philosophical deception. The tyranny of the majority has never proven to be any worse than the tyranny of the minority.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. Lots of accusations, no evidence. He even makes the classic argument lack of evidence is proof of the conspiracy.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, I got an 800 on the SAT. 0 in the English section.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Anonymous Coward]

37% or not, democracy works better in Canada than here in America. The fact that they got 37% of the vote only underscores your success in nurturing a multi-party system. So what if a non-majority takes the cabinet? They still have to work with the rest of the elected representatives or face themselves being sloshed in Parliament. Over here, either side can give the other the finger and we have to be content with hopeless bickering. Our 'democracy' is just a collection of archaic practices that most other democracies in the world have moved on from. And calling ourselves a 'republic' doesn't change a fucking thing.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[he-sk]

You mean like voting yourselves freebie entitlements with no money to pay for itand not voting the taxes to fund it?

I know of two studies which suggest differently. They are mentioned in the following white paper (in German), which summarizes data from Germany, Switzerland and the US and concludes that the people are fiscally more responsive than their elected politicians: http://www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/md/pdf/diskussionspapiere/du12-wirtschaft.pdf

One important aspect of direct democracy is the public discussion that should precede every law enacted by initiative. This makes it more likely that cost-effective alternatives are realized.

Our country is a republic because tyranny of the majority has more problems.

You are simply parroting conservative talking-points without showing any understanding. The concepts of republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. The former describes some aspects of the organization of a state while the latter simply means that the people have a say in how they are governed. A modern democracy (unlike the ancient Greek) includes the rule of law and universal suffrage -- two ideas that are much more effective in preventing tyranny than some idealized notion of "republic".

Finally, direct and representative democracy are not mutually exclusive as well, although it is true that direct elements weaken the parliament. But that's the whole point -- it is meant as a check on elected officials. As Americans take so much stock in their so-called "checks and balances" one would hope that this concept would not be lost on them.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[cayenne8]

Interesting..I've not seen that usage of them.

Actually down here where I live....only one store, Winn-Dixie, still uses the damned cards. Other grocery stores here proudly advertise NO courtesy cards used or required.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Lumpy]

You can fly without documentation.

In fact I regularly fly without going through metal detectors or even looking at a TSA agent.

Fly private or corporate. They are not near the terminal and require you to suffer with horible indignities like carrying your own luggage, no stewardess to server you, and GASP, no skymall magazine or inflight movie.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a LOT of $1,000 bill in circulation. I come across them a Lot from private individuals. $100's are far more common though. You seem to have zero concept of money without a bank. Lumpy was spot on when he said that there are no secret transmitters that instantly alert the feds when a mass of money congregates into one location, so the feds cant tell if you have that money if you received it under their radar. Also, 440 lbs is not hard to transport with just a car.

Let me guess, you cant stand being proved wrong.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[postbigbang]

Sure. I have the budget for that. Why didn't I think of it? Better still, I'll just rent a Citation and fly it myself!

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[AK Marc]

Are you asserting that bearer bonds are cash? If not, then you agree with the post you are replying to, but doing so in a very disagreeable manner.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Lumpy]

I fly at the same prices or slightly higher than Commercial, so you cant afford what you are flying already.

Non Stop JFK to DET on a LearJet was $225.00 for me last time I came back from NYC... That was $25.00 more than Flying Delta, I arrived 2 hours earlier than Delta, and was out of the airport with my stuff in 8 minutes.

And No I'm not sharing. Last thing I need is a lot of other people figuring out my tricks and booking up the planes I fly on. It takes more effort, you cant buy a "round trip" ticket wither.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[mcgrew]

You and the other "just vote third party man" types seem to be forgetting one of the most powerful weapons in the world is against you, and that is the MSM propaganda machine.

How does that conflict with "you've been spoon-fed the lie that a vote for them is a wasted vote"? The MSM are the ones who perpetrate that lie, for the reasons you state. All we can do is to point out to anyone who will listen (and the MSM will drown us out) that a vote for a major party candidate is a vote for corporate interests and against your own.

Subpoenas, Warrants, Big Government, Big Business,

[Transaction7]

As a retired lawyer, I know, and any junior high civics student should know, that subpoenas are issued as a matter of right and a routine, ministerial act by court clerks or, for that matter, by attorneys and Notaries Public, in both private and governmental civil as well as criminal cases. The judge normally doesn't even know about them until later if at all. Search warrants, on the other hand, are issued only on some actual or alleged showing of probable cause and may be issued either by a judge or by a mere magistrate, which is a legally trained person in the federal system but can be the town mayor, who knows no law, in state law. Very, very few applications for search or arrest warrants are turned down either in the federal or state legal systems according to the available statistical data. The government got the Supreme Court to hold, a generation ago, that bank, credit card, and other records even of your more intimate personal transactions are the institution's records, not yours, and they can obtain them without even notifying you and order the institution not to tell you. See also the paradoxically named federal Privacy Act, which mostly requires that you be notified that they can pretty much get whatever they want. The American voting public let them get by with this, instead of demanding enactment of real privacy protection, without even much of a whimper from most people. I have not found the document mentioned or other evidence indicating precisely what credit card records are being tracked by the government, for what purposes, and subject to what, if any, internal safeguards. Hopefully, even the federal government has some limitation upon its technical capacity to monitor everyone’s credit card and financial activity, and would only go to the trouble of doing this, with or without a warrant, in kidnapping, missing persons, terrorism, imminent threat to human life, major organized crime, major fugitive, and other such cases in which a court would likely find the process reasonable and thus Constitutional and lawful. But it would be safer if we had the protection of warrant requirements before they could track such records. By the way, the new AACA, “Obamacare,” health care bill requires even the smallest businesses to file IRS Form 1099 for either single or aggregate purchases of $600.00 or more, a great burden, allegedly to catch $19 Billion in alleged tax evasion. There are those who would love to see the government track every transaction. Of course, that would give them your religious, ideological, and political information, a detailed picture of your personal and business relationships, and a virtual dictatorship. It is far past time that the ACLU, if it really stands for what it claims to stand for rather than a leftist totalitarianism, some of the conservative groups that really care about conservative principles and liberty rather than just the profits of big contributors, the privacy advocates, etc., wake up, see where this is heading or could end up whether or not actually so intended, and get together and defend personal privacy, without which liberty cannot exist. If you think that only guilty people have anything to fear from government or corporate invasions of privacy, you’re wrong. I was put on a CIA list of suspected Soviet sympathizers and spies as the result of a ‘Mail cover” in which the courts hold that the government may monitor and keep dossiers and databases on who we correspond with and who writes to us, especially from outside the U. S., by old-fashioned “snail mail,” and now by Email, etc. They did this so clumsily that we learned about it right away, so any real spy would have, too, but they lied to my U. S. Senator and me about this whole sordid affair until 1983. If our much-vaunted CIA can’t tell the difference between a conservative college student doing research into the Russian-Argentine balances of trade and payments for an economics research paper, with the full knowledge and active cooperation o