Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: How Do You Protect Your Privacy When It's Out of Your Control?

An anonymous reader writes "A week ago, Slashdot was asked, "How do you protect your privacy?" The question named many different ways privacy is difficult to secure these days, but almost all of the answers focused on encrypting internet traffic. But what can you do about your image being captured by friends and strangers' cameras (not to mention drones, police cameras, security cameras, etc.)? How about when your personal data is stored by banks and healthcare companies and their IT department sucks? Heck; off-the-shelf tech can see you through your walls. Airport security sniffs your skin. There are countless other ways info on you can be collected that has nothing to do with your internet hygiene. Forget the NSA; how do you protect your privacy from all these others? Can you?"

174 comments

  1. When it's out of your control by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...you can't. That's what "out of your control" means.

    1. Re:When it's out of your control by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      You certainly can't 'control' it. It might be possible to guide it to a small degree. Especially with the ubiquitous use of 'surveillance' cameras which are, at present, fairly low technology, low resolution devices that can be spoofed by various means.

      Maybe a new line of cosmetics that had a lot of reflectivity in the infrared (where most of these cameras have a lot of sensitivity). Change your facial structure oh so slightly, make your hair look different. Perhaps some integrated IR / UV LEDs in your clothing to effect the same thing. Why there could be several millionaires hiding in this er, umm, opportunity. You just have to look at things the right way.

      And of course, you could easily camouflage yourself by wearing baggy pants, a baseball hat and a hoodie, thereby looking like every under 25 male in the developed world.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:When it's out of your control by Kohath · · Score: 0

      You certainly can't 'control' it. It might be possible to guide it to a small degree. Especially with the ubiquitous use of 'surveillance' cameras which are, at present, fairly low technology, low resolution devices that can be spoofed by various means.

      You can also smash them (put on a mask first, obviously). Or shoot them with a shotgun.

    3. Re:When it's out of your control by slartibartfastatp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Although one can always wear a tinfoil hat.

      --
      -- --
    4. Re:When it's out of your control by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can go to insane lengths, but it will make you insane.

      Diligence, tenacity, questioning authority, using pseudonyms, alternate identities (within legal contraints), and being sensible can be rewarding.

      I'm betting your browser doesn't have NoScript or Ghostery.... and your phone is an Apple (some say less tracking, others don't) or an Android (just email your every waking moment to Google and friends) and you can mod both phones to be less tracking.

      Take a deep breath, acknowledge that they track you, then do what you can to stop it. Question the need for SocSec, phone #s, addresses, at each and every turn. Don't use barcode store cards-- or use someone else's. Pay cash for top-up charge cards, and use them once.

      Steal This Book and other tomes (which you'll steal or pay cash for) are great guides to anonymity. Think about them. Don't go crazy.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:When it's out of your control by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow, I'd mod you even higher except the very second I hit this forum /. expired my damned mod points! Oh the humanity.

      I'd expand on your answer. The truth is that the cat is out of the bag. We can't get this sort of privacy back. We probably can't ever get back the CERTAINTY of any sort of privacy. If there's advantage to be had, someone will listen. You will never be SURE that the NSA (which isn't going away) isn't or can't listen to you, get all your facebook data, etc. Even if it isn't them it could be SOMEONE. You can't ever truly know what software any modern computer is running for certain. You absolutely can't be sure that your SSL connections are secure, or that if you use Tor that someone is STILL not tracking you.

      The truth is, we're better if we go with the flow and take control of the situation. Live more in the open. That's what we ARE going to do, but if we do it RIGHT then we put at least SOME controls on things. We need to insure that whatever the government knows, we know. If there isn't some absolute direct reason why given data should be hidden, then it should be open. All data about what people do should belong to the public. It should make the rules. I think we'll all find at that point we want to exercise restraint and life will be able to go on. The alternative is we fight for a losing cause, total privacy, and end up with all our data owned by corporations and stuck in Top Secret NSA vaults, and all these people just listening to everything without the slightest oversight.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    6. Re:When it's out of your control by pigsycyberbully · · Score: 1

      "Antisocial" people avoid this type of surveillance all the time they have two different identities the public one and the private one. Gangster governments do it and illegal immigrants do it and "antisocials" do it. Most of the public do not because they are just keeping their heads down and doing their time until they go into the box, or into the fire.

    7. Re:When it's out of your control by StripedCow · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...you can't. That's what "out of your control" means.

      Well actually, you can. The trick is to inject noise into the system, such that Google/Facebook's statistical classifiers and the such stop working.
      For example, take pictures of yourself, and tag them using a stranger's name.
      Or, take random pictures not featuring yourself, and tag them using your own name.
      Perform fake google searches every day (search for stuff that you have no interest in whatsoever).

      And so forth.

      In fact, I see a business model here.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    8. Re:When it's out of your control by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right. The solution is legislative. I know that's never the answer. But what would happen if a law was passed declaring "Personally identifying information is under the exclusive copyright of the person identified by it. It may be transferred once, but no more, without explicit written consent (and written means on paper). Any personally identifiable information that is shared must be tagged with the source and all destinations. Upon a takedown request, the person issuing the takedown shall be provided with all sources and destinations of the information requested. Keeping information after a lawful takedown is received is a felony."

      Some laws like that, and our privacy will return.

      But such laws would be great for the people and bad for the billionaire business owners who exploit personal information. So it'll never happen until Americans stop voting for Democrats or Republicans.

    9. Re:When it's out of your control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The alternative is we fight for a losing cause, total privacy

      No one is saying anything about total privacy.

      and end up with all our data owned by corporations and stuck in Top Secret NSA vaults, and all these people just listening to everything without the slightest oversight.

      Giving up on privacy will prevent those things? That doesn't follow. Privacy is a basic human need.

    10. Re:When it's out of your control by steelfood · · Score: 1

      What good is protecting your brain only? You need to wear it everywhere. They make Faraday suits that look like hazmat suits. The bonus of wearing that everywhere is that you're completely anonymous since no one can tell who you are underneath (the only downside being that you're now the guy wearing the Faraday suit everywhere).

      Also line your walls with tin foil. Or at least turn your exterior walls into a Faraday cage and put up steel grates over your windows. You won't be able to steal your neighbor's wifi signal, but at least your neighbors won't be able to throw a brick through your window and steal your stuff either.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    11. Re:When it's out of your control by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Perform fake google searches every day (search for stuff that you have no interest in whatsoever)."

      There's even an extension for that..
      http://cs.nyu.edu/trackmenot/

    12. Re:When it's out of your control by cavreader · · Score: 2

      The first thing people should to do is understand the difference between privacy versus anonymity. The former can be somewhat achieved depending on ones actions but not 100% and the latter is impossible to achieve unless you live in a cave and do not use any modern electronic devices while also staying away from anywhere that might be under video surveillance such as stores, ATM's, and even roads. The government has had the ability to track or identify someone long before the Internet came on the scene. SS numbers, birth certificates, drivers licenses, marriage licenses, property deeds,car registry, and the mother load of personal information contained in your federal and state tax filings. Phone metadata has also existed in one form or another by the service providers for billing purposes.

    13. Re:When it's out of your control by Smallpond · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here ya go It's been on the books since 1974. The Federal government is prohibited from collecting personally identifiable on you without notifying you, etc. How's that working out?

    14. Re:When it's out of your control by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure I said this before at some point, but that plugin isn't half as clever as it likes to think it is, and gives a dangerously false sense of security. How hard do you think it will be for someone to note the behaviour of the plugin, spot *any* patterns or discrepancies in the pseudo-randomised "false queries" that make them relatively easy to filter out, or at least flag as dubious?

      If that's possible- and it quite probably is, unless the writers were *very* good at what they did- your past history will then be readable- and mineable- just as if you'd been surfing the web without it active.

      In addition, even if the weakness of the plugin is spotted and the algorithm subsequently improved, your behaviour from before that point is still very probably on record, and can still be checked.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    15. Re:When it's out of your control by number11 · · Score: 1

      What good is protecting your brain only? You need to wear it everywhere. They make Faraday suits that look like hazmat suits. The bonus of wearing that everywhere is that you're completely anonymous since no one can tell who you are underneath (the only downside being that you're now the guy wearing the Faraday suit everywhere).

      Also line your walls with tin foil. Or at least turn your exterior walls into a Faraday cage and put up steel grates over your windows. You won't be able to steal your neighbor's wifi signal, but at least your neighbors won't be able to throw a brick through your window and steal your stuff either.

      Stucco is basically concrete troweled onto steel mesh. If you pay some attention to making sure each piece of steel mesh is electrically connected to the adjoining pieces, and grounded, and used aluminum screen over the windows (or maybe used metallic film coatings on the windows), steel doors, and either installed conductive screen over the attic floor or used steel roofing (the good stuff isn't cheap, but will pretty much last forever, never need to re-roof again), you'd probably have a pretty good Faraday cage.

      Maybe add a whole-house low-pass filter where the power comes in. You could get one that provided whole-house surge protection at the same time.

      Wouldn't be easy to retrofit, but if you were building, or doing major rehab, it probably wouldn't add much cost.

    16. Re:When it's out of your control by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      being sensible can be rewarding

      That is the best advice.

      The best thing you can do when it's out of your control is just get in the way. Make it harder for them to take your privacy.

      First, you have to value that privacy.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:When it's out of your control by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Hrm ... wouldn't it still be Better Than Nothing (tm), though?

    18. Re:When it's out of your control by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMHO, privacy is a part of dignity, a human rather then corporate/political quality. To value dignity is important for people, and corporations/politicos have no need for dignity. The value is important, and it is fought in many marketing memes, PR, and values-- where the almighty currency rules.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    19. Re:When it's out of your control by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      It's kind of like security-by-obscurity. It's not the same as real security.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    20. Re:When it's out of your control by ewieling · · Score: 1

      Make sure to use cash to pay for your tinfoil. Dollar for dollar (pun intended) using cash is one of the most effective ways to increase your privacy. You cannot have total privacy and live in the modern world, but you can drastically reduce your electronic footprint.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    21. Re:When it's out of your control by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The truth is, we're better if we go with the flow and take control of the situation. Live more in the open. (...) All data about what people do should belong to the public.

      You're part of the "we" that like to dictate for everyone else. No, all data about what I do should belong to me. My life is my own and in general it's nobody else's business, I accept that in certain ways aspects of my life is in less than perfect secrecy because it happens in public or around other people or with private or public institutions but my bank account is a private matter between the bank and me. My pay check is a private matter between my employer and me. Where my cell phone is located is a private matter between the cell phone company and me. Life is full of small compartmentalized exchanges of information which together make up the bulk of what we consider privacy. Having sex isn't "private" because those you have sex with can tell other people about it, but I think most would consider an organized collection of that information was an invasion of privacy.

      I'm not interested in living my life "fully in the open" as long as there as busybodies, bigots, rumormongers, besserwissers, peer pressure and so on. It's human nature to meddle in things that are none of their business, even if the NSA was wiped off the face of the earth I'd still want my privacy. Apparently you totally disagree since you want to go in that direction anyway, good for you. Put up webcams and broadcast your life to the world if you want, just don't drag me into it. Don't pretend it's something I want to, should have to or need to. And if you want to share video from a private establishment using Google Glass and is asked to leave, please make a scene so I can cheer when they throw you out. The NSA, well we might not win that fight but everyone with total access is a worse nightmare than just the NSA.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    22. Re:When it's out of your control by plover · · Score: 2

      You mean like CV dazzle makeup?

      It might be popular in Ibiza clubs, but I don't see it walking down Main Street, Anytown, USA.

      --
      John
    23. Re:When it's out of your control by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      Hrm ... wouldn't it still be Better Than Nothing (tm), though?

      No, not- as I said- if it gives people a false sense of security.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    24. Re:When it's out of your control by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Give it time. Give it time. What was once back alley is now mainstream.

      Look at the Kardishans, for instance.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    25. Re:When it's out of your control by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well, I am certainly not running around in a hoodie... Nor I am much interested in makeup. Active jamming is more my style but for now, I mostly live in a place that is so backwater that I doubt even Google understands much about it (too look at their maps of the place anyway).

      And I do have both NoScript and Ghostery up in Firefox. Internet banking is done in a Linux VM off Parallels (mostly for security rather than privacy). I am not terribly worried about this - there are many more pressing issues in our society that will be our undoing, but I'm mostly bemused.

      The Powers That Be could always go after you if they wanted to. If they didn't have any dirt on you, they could just make it up. Never been much of a problem..

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    26. Re:When it's out of your control by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Best to stay under the radar. And remember to vote for those whose interests aren't otherwise lined by the DMA, Google, and others whose business models is anti-privacy.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    27. Re:When it's out of your control by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      As it becomes easier and easier for more and more people to potentially spy on pretty much anyone we will have a society where you can't EVER be sure you are not being watched or listened to. That's just a fact. Nobody will stop that. Lets say however we make it a serious offense to keep your data secret, then we can create values in society that will mostly make people not get too nosy lest they suffer the same fate. Any other set of values just isn't going to work any way you cut it, so we might as well encourage right behavior. If someone damages you, you're still perfectly able to sue them. If someone is a big shot and inevitably someone else spies on them, well hey, they made that bed, they'll just have to sleep in it. Nothing is perfect either. There isn't going to be some utopia, we just need to find the right state of affairs where we can go on functioning as a society. I suspect over time people will simply stop expecting such a high level of privacy, its not like privacy rights are universal invariants in human society either. YOU may not be entirely pleased, but I don't think the evolution of society, or the available choices we have, are made to your order. Life goes on.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    28. Re:When it's out of your control by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You can fight back. Create fake profiles with somewhat similar information, maybe even a blurry photo, but also lots of disinformation. There is a art to doing it which allows potential employers/dates/spies to see immediately that it isn't your profile, but at the same time makes it almost impossible for them to see what does apply to you.

      It is a lot of work too. You have to network those fake profiles, make them friends with some of your real friends even. Look out for newly popular SNS and create profiles on those too, linking them back to your old ones. There are constantly new threats as well, like facial recognition. Photoshopping to adjust the proportions of your face, or just mis-tagging photos en-masse seems to be the best current defence to that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:When it's out of your control by ewieling · · Score: 1

      Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 is a misdemeanor and fined a maximum of $5,000. This is less harsh than the penalty in many states for selling an ounce of weed.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    30. Re:When it's out of your control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just use a search engine that does not track you. Or if you prefer Google search algorithms, the same folks have you covered.

    31. Re:When it's out of your control by dead_user · · Score: 1

      The only downside is now your whole house is a huge lightning rod.

    32. Re:When it's out of your control by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      That doesn't strike you as largely futile and not the way of the future basically? Realistically very few people will do that kind of thing, and even fewer will do it for very long. Look at the end-game, the new status quo. It isn't going to be everyone spending an hour a day making the NSA's life hell. Even if you do all this stuff how effective is it really? You will never know for sure. Not as long as we drive the data collection into the dark alleyways of the digital world.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    33. Re:When it's out of your control by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Also line your walls with tin foil. Or at least turn your exterior walls into a Faraday cage and put up steel grates over your windows. You won't be able to steal your neighbor's wifi signal

      That's what roof-mounted antennas are for!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    34. Re:When it's out of your control by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      The truth is, we're better if we go with the flow and take control of the situation. Live more in the open. That's what we ARE going to do, but if we do it RIGHT then we put at least SOME controls on things. We need to insure that whatever the government knows, we know.

      Quite correct - stick a fork in privacy and turn it over, 'cause it's done. But to ensure that "whatever the government knows, we know", means that the NSA, TSA, and all those other TLA's need to pretty much drop their drawers as well. Snowden, Manning, and others of good conscience have been working on that - their lives are hell right now, and they are pariahs to millions of people, the majority of whom stand to have their lot made better and safer by the whistle blowers they condemn. Making sure that John Q. Public knows what goes on in its own government is a hell of a thankless battle.

      And as long as we're talking about levelling the privacy playing field, we'd better extend it to corporations as well. There again, whistle blowers are getting royally screwed, and enforcement of the laws that ostensibly protect them is a joke.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    35. Re:When it's out of your control by tomkost · · Score: 1

      This is spot on, and the way that this can happen is we need first need the government to re-recognize the right to privacy. Then we can define what controls we want to have on privacy. EG, I own my info, no one else can share if without my express permission. I can demand those who I have given my info delete it when the transaction or relationship is over. There must be harsh financial penalties for breaking these laws. $10k/non compliance incident and $100K + actual damages for theft or fraud using private data.

    36. Re:When it's out of your control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't have said it better. Thank you!

    37. Re:When it's out of your control by CBravo · · Score: 1

      It is like a facial captcha, I guess.

      --
      nosig today
    38. Re:When it's out of your control by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      I think you have the right idea. Privacy needs strong laws, just like we have laws against murder and assault. In some very clear sense, the information about me is part of me. So when someone compromises my privacy it's like they maimed me, that's assault. And if they steal my secrets and impersonate my identity, that's as serious as if they killed me. In some cases they could actually kill me bureaucratically.

      It's obvious that strong laws don't stop EVERYONE from murdering people, or from assaulting people. There are always bad apples. As a society, we hunt them down and put them in jail, or in some countries execute them. But everyone else knows the consequences and refrains from doing these things. With strong laws, everyone else will refrain from assaulting my privacy as well. I'd be happy with that.

      So where to start? Let's start with giving ME copyright over all the data that mentions ME or is about ME. No matter if someone else collected it. It's ME in there, and so it belongs to ME. I'm sure that alone would substantially level the playing field. Afterwards, we can figure out what to do next. (*)

      (*) Yes, I know the likes of facebook and google would denounce it as unworkable. That's the point. They are part of the problem already.

    39. Re:When it's out of your control by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I've said this before elsewhere, but this is the reverse of the spammer coin. All the tricks that spammers use to fill our public information sources with unwanted noise can be "used for good" if the purpose is to poison databases. And there's good money in it, too. Think about how much an advertiser is willing to pay a spammer for their services, and realize that individuals who have a personal stake in getting their records poisoned are going to pay even more. And of course it's not just individuals, but companies too.

    40. Re:When it's out of your control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trick is to inject noise into the system, such that Google/Facebook's statistical classifiers and the such stop working.
      For example, take pictures of yourself, and tag them using a stranger's name.

      Do you have a loyalty card for the shop where you buy groceries ? Exchange it during one month with a friend or parent who shops at the same place. If you have a different profile (age, family, taste...), it will make the system crazy.

    41. Re:When it's out of your control by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

      The thing you really have to remember to change is your shoes. Clothes are often remembered, but shoes are usually the one thing which people don't change, and that is how they identify you.

    42. Re:When it's out of your control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. As someone in the old science fiction mini-series on virtual reality, "Twim Palms", said, "The last secret is there are no secrets."

    43. Re:When it's out of your control by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "security-by-obscurity." is the default security for internet traffic. The sheer amount of traffic alone makes the data hard to analyze unless you know before hand who you are trying to locate. The most advanced keyword algorithms can return millions of hits per day which require additional human attention. Maybe it's why the government stopped trying to collect the bulk internet traffic a few years ago because it required a huge amount of resources but produced no real benefits. Any chance Snowden will release the documents related to scaling down and abandoning the entire program?

    44. Re:When it's out of your control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the solution is practical , we nuke America from orbit to be sure, maybe their poodle Britain and one or two nations.

    45. Re:When it's out of your control by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That only applies to federal agencies. So when a credit agency collects personally identifying information, I have no recourse. And making something a crime by the government is silly. If you can't trust the government, then how can you trust them to find against themselves in court? I want it done by people to be a crime.

    46. Re:When it's out of your control by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's one approach. I don't really have a problem with that conceptually, though of course REALITY matters too, who really does have your data and how to do they actually use it. I'd like to be able to put some restraint on individuals by having like power over them. I protect THEIR privacy as well as they protect mine. If they're spies, well, then they need to insure that they are not only doing the right thing but that we BELIEVE they are doing the right thing. I think moral boundaries in society grow out of needs, they solve problems. I think that if we have a problem where we all, potentially, know too much about each other then some scruples against using that power will arise to keep society working. Things will be different, but there's reasonable hope that we can then have SOME privacy. We just have to guard against a grossly asymmetric situation where only one group ends up with ALL the information and thus all the power. Something like a copyright could potentially be used to embody this desirable behavior with some legal force, but moral force is always needed too.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    47. Re:When it's out of your control by DeathToThePatriarchy · · Score: 1
      I disagree.

      First -- there is a big difference between privacy and anonymity/going off the grid.

      I would agree that the ability to do the latter while participating in first world society is effectively impossible.

      There is a lot that can be done, both by the individual and by governments, to improve the ability of individuals to control how information about and by themselves is used and transmitted.

      Officially (but not enforced to nearly the extent it should be), the EU Data Protection Act states that information about an individual belongs to that individual and there is a basic right to a degree of anonymity. One is supposed to be informed where the data sits, whether it is correct, and how it is being used. We are all learning the extent to which that law is ignored in Europe. It is, however, a beginning and establishes the common sense idea that I own information about myself, including images of myself. The vast majority of countries world-wide have variations of this law.

      The US starts from the assumption that data belongs to those who collect or aggregate it. This means that, in order to provide any privacy (in the sense of controlling data from/about oneself), individual bits of that information have to be defined and exempted from that assumption. This is how we got HIPAA (which is extremely narrow and poorly enforced), the cluster of banking privacy acts (again, poorly enforced). Until this changes, it is really difficult to control how/whether data about yourself is used, by whom, and whether it is accurate.

      There is some privacy. You do not have to have your SSN tattooed on your forehead, nor do you have to give it to everyone who asks. You should protect your banking information and you don't have to tell your employer about any disability unless you want accommodation. Which is all fine in theory, but in practice, few of us take the time to learn the laws and our privacy rights and even fewer of those who want to collect this information bother to learn the rules or abide by them.

      You can go off the grid, but you have to leave everything behind. And, if you really want to, you should find a place to live that uses just paper records.

    48. Re:When it's out of your control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wild Palms...not Twin Palms.

    49. Re:When it's out of your control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone with total access is my most brutal nightmare. I can't tell white lies, I can't have secrets, I cannot be an individual with "my own" choices, my own affairs, my own perversions.
      But there are times when I think that such a scenario would result in a loss of conventional morality, since each one would be guilty. It might cause temporary havoc but after an equilibrium is reached, the world would be way more relaxed.

    50. Re:When it's out of your control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also fight against insidious inches towards profiling you on the internet, and linking that profile to your personal info. When the internet was younger we all went by a thousand separate pseudonyms, now even when they're asking for one, they have separate 'first and last name' fields, misleading you into believing that your real name is required. Worse yet are ones that make an effort to confirm your identity (not as the user you say you are, but as you yourself) via submitting more info, linking to other accounts, or asking for inviolable credentials like ID, CC, or phone numbers.
      Do not let yourself be tracked across the internet the way you are tracked in realspace. Maintain breaks between purely internet activity and everything involving real life identifiers like financial information, identification numbers, physical addresses, phone numbers, or personal history.Also try to segregate your internet activities from each other. Do not let companies build an online profile of you.
      For a good example, try not to link the entirety of the internet to your facebook account, despite how much Zuck wants to rule the interwebs. You do not want your friends to be able to trace you from facebook to a comment on a Beanie Baby forum to pictures of you in a fetishized schoolgirl outfit to videos of you twerking in said outfit. IT corporations can find more.

  2. Fight back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    - Shame people who are doing such activities.
    - Convince others that what they are doing is a bad idea.
    - When all else fails, get violent.

    1. Re:Fight back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or don't use your real identity. Buy a passport and fake ID.

  3. Condom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wear a condom. It works for me.

    1. Re:Condom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wear a condom. It works for me.

      Too bad it didn't work for your father.

  4. By being as boring as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    It worked keeping away a lot of people.

    1. Re:By being as boring as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      gain 120lb and be as unattractive as I can?
      Can you pass me the deep fried butter stick in bacon wrap and the cheese dips please? I can't get up from my couch.

    2. Re:By being as boring as possible by mrclisdue · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I slept through your post and missed it.

  5. Not privacy by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    I'm not entirely sure that any of those things are about privacy, as any right to privacy does not extend to the right to be completely unknown.

    1. Re:Not privacy by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Indeed. It reminds me of the reported fear of photographs shown by various primitive peoples, fearing that it was taking away their souls.

      Fundamentally it's a fear of change. The new seems scary to some. People born to it will just see it as the way things ought to be. Till they in turn get scared by some new technology that arrives in their lifetime.

    2. Re:Not privacy by khallow · · Score: 2

      There were some things that stayed scary even when they don't change for centuries. Nobody gets accustomed to the Spanish Inquisition.

    3. Re:Not privacy by elwinc · · Score: 4, Informative
      Sounds like we need to talk about what privacy really is. A good definition of privacy is "control of your personal information" (probably from This paper.) Of course, keeping personal information entirely secret is the best means of control, but in the modern world, complete secrecy is getting more and more impractical. So what else could we do?

      One option I've heard is a property right, such as ownership (similar to copyright) of personal information. Joe "owns" his name &* address, and he'll loan a copy to Time Magazine for the purpose of delivering the periodical he has paid for. Any other use of Joe's information by Time Magazine is a violation, unless Joe & Time have come to some other agreement. This is very similar to copyright, so let's just call it personal copyright.

      Copyright might be too blunt an instrument though, because remedies mostly involve (expensive) civil suits. A number of European governments passed legislation called Fair Information Practices. These laws basically say that personal information can only be used for the purpose for which it was given, and cannot be repurposed without consent of the person involved. Probably the governments involved have given themselves a loophole for national security, but I haven't investigated the details. This option reduces the cost to the individual, and makes it the job of the government to enforce the law. I see this as a benefit, though some may not.

      Writing Fair Information Practices into law would probably explode the business models of the currently most successful tech companies in the USA, so maybe there's a way to ease into the laws and allow the tech companies time to adjust their business methods...

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    4. Re:Not privacy by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Well, I disagree. There was a time where you could just decide "Fuck it, I don't like people" and walk into the woods. Short of moving to Alaska or Northern Canada, that's pretty much not possible anymore. We lost that right about 100+ years ago. I think that, if there was still an option to do such a thing, we'd likely have fewer of these horrific mass murders. Those that chose to reject society could do so completely and fully without resorting to such violent extremes.

    5. Re:Not privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these horrific mass murders are noise in terms of impact on the human population. they aren't common by any means, just well-publicized

    6. Re:Not privacy by Smallpond · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the phone companies believe that those call records are made on their systems and belong to them. The credit card companies own the transaction records between you and some merchants. Just because your name is in it, they don't believe that it is your information or that you have any control over it. Copyright does not apply to facts and its tough to draw a line anywhere over what should be private.

    7. Re:Not privacy by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      Fundamentally it's a fear of change.

      Not all change is for the better, and some things are worth fearing. Ironically, the best lessons about the future dangers of this kind of technology can be found in history.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:Not privacy by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Lots of room up here. Plenty of space. And if you wait it out long enough the climate will warm up enough to where you might even be able to grow some food.

      An Historical Document for you to peruse if you are interested.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:Not privacy by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You really believe you should have control over public facts about you? That you have the right to never be documented in public in any form? The ability to enforce your whims over your friends?

      There are certain things you should control, and in the UK most of those are covered by the Data Protection Act. But I wouldn't ever consider that I have the right to never, ever be known, to disappear entirely while still in public or to control what my friends can and cannot say about me.

      If you are in public, then you should expect to actually be publicly exposed in some ways and everyone should have the right to record you and your activities when you are in public. Private citizens should equally not be bound by laws meant for corporations, and should be able to record or disseminate any information they know about you. The law isn't there to enforce your perceived rights over whomever you decide to hang around with, or to fix your bad choice of friends.

    10. Re:Not privacy by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      This is very similar to copyright, so let's just call it personal copyright.

      This will not work for the simple reason that in the EULA, you are waiving all your rights away.
      Big companies win again.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    11. Re:Not privacy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yeah. But they don't make the school history books. Everyone thinks the Luddites were being silly, when they were protecting their homes and families as well as they could against an intrusive national government that favored the wealthy and aristocratic. (It didn't work, but I really doubt they had anything available that would work...even in hindsight. The only possible exception is assassination, and that would likely have brought an unselectively violent response from the national government. So it probably wouldn't have worked either. Still, if you and your family are going to die anyway...)

      History is written by the victors. This is especially true of the history that's taught in pre-college schools, and in college to that taught to non-majors.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Not privacy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That only works to the extent that the laws allow the right to be waived. Or, of course, as propaganda. EULAs already frequently claim things that they have no legal right to claim.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:Not privacy by certain+death · · Score: 1

      I think one of the major problems with privacy, is that there are too many opinions on what it is. If we could decide it means what you say it does, then maybe we could get a better handle on protecting it. It is kind of like trying to protect assets on a network...if you don't know what is there, or what it does, how can you protect it?

      --
      "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
    14. Re:Not privacy by elwinc · · Score: 1
      Public facts?

      If I subscribe to magazine X, is that a public fact? If I purchase book Y, is that a public fact? If my car spends time each week in the parking lot of organization Z, is that a public fact? Library borrowings? Video rentals? Websites clicked on? The list of information about us that might be "shared" goes on and on.

      What companies are selling is not just one's info in the phone book, but the association of that info with one's spending habits and one's behavior. I know at present time we have no right to control this associated info, but, yes, I believe we ought to have a right to control it.

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
  6. one quick method.. by waddgodd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First, you stop asking sefl-defeating questions. The question is not "how do you protect privacy when its out of your control", it's "how do I control things in order to increase my privacy" You ask how to maintain your privacy when your friends all have cameras, why do you have friends that pull out a camera at the drop of a hat again? You ask about protecting personal data that's collected by banks and companies that have horrible IT, why are you doing business with them again? Your privacy is literally your own business, and if you don't mind it, someone else will.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
    1. Re:one quick method.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      How do you know the banks and companies you do business with don't have horrible IT? Are you James Bond?

    2. Re:one quick method.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, I feel like the actual question being asked here is, "How quickly will I drive myself insane trying to control everything around me for no real gain?"

    3. Re:one quick method.. by waddgodd · · Score: 1

      In business, they have a standard "due diligence", before any transaction is completed, both parties are given enough time to determine if the transacion is all it seems. On the internet, there's a site called letmegooglethatforyou.com. Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
    4. Re:one quick method.. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I think that you think that you answered his question "How do you know they don't have a terrible IT department?". I don't believe that you did. What you did was say "Well, it's easy to see if there's any readily available public knowledge on the topic." And to that extent you are correct. But that's not answering the question. Some companies, when they've been penetrated, do everything possible to keep it quiet. Some, in addition, try to fix the problem, but not be any means all, and it is my belief that the reality is that most leave the problems unfixed. (But I have no good evidence on which to base that. A few anecdotes is all.)

      So which is better, a business that hasn't any public sign of being penetrated, or one that has been, and has fixed the problems. And how can an outsider tell whether he's dealing with one or the other? (Answer: You can't.)

      (P.S.: The answer isn't really that you can't tell. It's really that the only way to tell is to try to hack the company. If you succeed, it's clearly not someone you want to do business with. Of course, if they catch you...)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  7. Just Put That 666 On My Forehead Already!! by zenlessyank · · Score: 0

    Let's get this show on the road already!!

  8. By giving things up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The premise of the question implies "How can I keep doing everything I'm doing right now but 100% maintain my privacy?". That's a dumb question. Look at the assumptions--how do you maintain your privacy when all your friends take pictures of you all the time and share them online? Gee whiz, how about asking your friends not to take pictures of you? Or consider whether being a socialite and a party animal is compatible with your aim of privacy? How about when personal data are stored by banks? Maybe you should consider reducing the amount of data you give to banks to begin with. Airports? Consider not flying.

    The problem is that making these lifestyle changes actually involve giving things up, which no one wants to do. If you want a quiet, private, contemplative life lived independent of others then make such a life for yourself. If you want to be an interconnected urbanite who takes full advantage of globally connecting technologies, there's going to be a degree of privacy loss.

    I like privacy and I donate to the EFF and I'm for reforming all of the above scenarios to give users more control of their privacy. But given that those reforms haven't happened and the problem is getting worse, at some point you have to change your own behaviour and consider if the goodies you get exceed the value of the privacy you're losing.

    1. Re:By giving things up by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      Funny how the situation has nearly been reversed: going to the bustling Big City was once viewed as a way to achieve anonymity, privacy, and freedom not available in slower-moving small-town life (where your neighbors, employer, and vendors knew everything you were doing). Where do you go today for the mythical idyllic private contemplative life, if you're an ordinary middle-class person without millions of dollars stashed away to live privately with no job or nosy neighbors?

      Creeping technological surveillance doesn't just hit you when you intentionally go out to be a partying socialite. Just walking down the street; taking the bus; picking up some groceries at the grocery store increasingly puts you at risk of having your every move and action entered into tracking DBs. When everyone around you is wearing Google Panopticons, you're not going to get tagged and tracked just for partying with friends --- you'll be tagged and tracked just for standing next to people in line for the mundane (and formerly practically anonymous) activities of daily life. Personal behavioral changes can only go so far when the "niches" available for private life are eroded away from all sides.

  9. Out of your control? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    How Do You Protect Your Privacy When It's Out of Your Control?

    You give it up with a smile and don't, or you hire lawyers.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  10. It's debatable that you can by astralagos · · Score: 5, Insightful
    About 20 years ago, I worked for a private detective firm. At the time, I could call up a consultant who given a couple of pieces of information (name and address), would produce for me a complete dossier on a person - their social security number, credit history, vehicular records, neighbors, etc. This was, at the time, a few hundred bucks and a few days of work. Companies such as spokeo now offer to tell you all that information for about 15 bucks.

    I don't believe that technological privacy is achievable, and I'm skeptical that it's valuable. Whether cryptography actually works (an interesting mathematical question in itself), cryptosystems fail fairly often. Even when they do work, to truly be untraceable or private with them you have to effectively opt out of commerce. Don't logon to anything when you're using Tor, kids; also, don't use Google, since they can always watch your referer tags and see 3/4 of your pages that way. The problem with privacy as we normally talk about it is that it is extremely fragile -- what we've historically taken as 'privacy' was really laziness -- going back to my example from the detective firm above, all this information was already there, it was just split into a couple of dozen different archives and databases. Beforehand, it took time and effort, so you had privacy because unless something was really important, it wasn't worth the effort of searching. Now, it's very easy to record and archive, and we've been focused for many years on making recording and archiving easier, and we elect to be recorded and archived in order to participate with other people -- bank won't serve you if you're wearing a ski mask, visit vegas and you'll see that any table game has very specific gestures and rules to make what you're doing camera-friendly, want a loan you need to have a credit rating.

    So, privacy has to be implemented, which means its going to be a combination of legal, technical and social elements. Technical in the same sense as breaking and entering -- the definition of B&E is that the breaker has to make -an- effort, regardless of how trivial. Lifting a latch is considered B&E, and similarly you need some indication that you're trying to achieve privacy. Legal in the sense of limiting the consequence when your privacy is breached.

    1. Re:It's debatable that you can by swillden · · Score: 2

      It's also worth considering that privacy is a relatively new concept in human history. Until the last few hundred years, at most, the vast majority of humanity lived in small villages or tribes where basically everyone knew everything about everyone else, at least within their village. Secrets could be kept, but only with difficulty and usually not for a long time.

      I think it's worth considering that perhaps privacy is neither necessary nor desirable, and the real problem that we're struggling with isn't privacy but asymmetry of information. In a small village everyone knew everything you did, but you also knew everything they did, so no one was at a disadvantage.

      I'm not saying that's how it should be or even that that's how I want it to be. I really don't know where we're going to go with respect to privacy. The one thing I am sure of is that it can be very bad when people believe they have privacy, and make decisions accordingly, only to later find out that they really didn't.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:It's debatable that you can by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It would be easy, if the databases used by such services were outlawed.

    3. Re:It's debatable that you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy is necessary in a stratified society, the more stratified the more neccessary. The issue is people with power exploiting people with less power. Knowledge is power and anonimity is the antidote.

    4. Re:It's debatable that you can by swillden · · Score: 1

      Or is sous-veillance the antidote? I think there are legitimate questions here, and the answers are neither as simple nor as obvious as you imply.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:It's debatable that you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world has always been a lot bigger than the small village within which you had "no" privacy. Outside that village, you might as well not exist. Contrast with now, when a faceless clerk or a humming corporate computer might "accidentally" destroy your life because it did something with your information based on the data it had, possibly for unrelated reasons. And that's not even counting identity fraud. You did have privacy back when, only you didn't know you did.

      It isn't merely asymmetry, but also power, leverage, transparency, and so on. It's the difference between getting levied for service (in the army, on a ship, what have you) because you looked like you'd do, and getting hunted down by name because someone somewhere singled you out on a logic that perhaps only makes sense to the system itself.

      The former problem is fairly easily dodged as long as you know they're levying, and where. Your village will likely help you with that. The only way to protect you from the latter is to make sure it never ever learns of your existence.

    6. Re:It's debatable that you can by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Until the last few hundred years, at most, the vast majority of humanity lived in small villages or tribes where basically everyone knew everything about everyone else, at least within their village. Secrets could be kept, but only with difficulty and usually not for a long time.

      And there was very little creative output. Cities enabled the privacy that comes with being just another face in the crowd. Some people like to complain that in the city no knows their neighbors. But that very lack of societal pressure enables people to be more adventurous. It lets people take risks because if they do something stupid it won't haunt them for the rest of their life.

      When the pressure to conform is lifted people naturally see the world in new ways because they don't have to worry whether their neighbors agree or not. Take away the freedom that comes with privacy and progress - both artistic and scientific - will come to a near standstill.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:It's debatable that you can by swillden · · Score: 1

      Interesting point, although you can also pin the lack of creative output on the inability to exchange ideas outside of a small sphere. I can't refute your claim, but I see other possibilities as well.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:It's debatable that you can by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      also, don't use Google, since they can always watch your referer tags and see 3/4 of your pages that way.

      It's trivial to spoof or remove referrer tags, but you'll discover it breaks some websites in interesting ways.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:It's debatable that you can by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      you can also pin the lack of creative output on the inability to exchange ideas outside of a small sphere.

      Even then you don't have the freedom to hang out with the weirdos if your neighbors are going to ostracize you for it. Cities definitely bring more than just anonymity, all the pieces are necessary to sustain a culture of developing new ideas.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    10. Re:It's debatable that you can by swillden · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. You make some interesting assertions, but I'm not convinced.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:It's debatable that you can by darronb · · Score: 1

      > Even then you don't have the freedom to hang out with the weirdos if your neighbors are going to ostracize you for it.

      It usually takes us a year after moving to develop more than one or two neighborhood friendships. It's not like the tribe is going to deny you food or won't help you build your hut or something. Neighbors are less important than ever.

      The new 'neighbors' are parents of your kids classmates, people at work, etc. There's also gym friends, hobby friends, virtual communities of all kinds... you can pretty much find like minded people if you look a little bit. (Which is actually a serious problem as we don't seem mentally prepared as a species for feedback loops from too much 'similar thinking' like watching too much Fox, MSNBC, local conspiracy groups, serious new age groups, terrorists, etc)

      There's also the concept that what passes for too weird these days is quite different than it used to be. I'm fairly sure you could be pretty weird these days and very few people would hold it against you or treat you much differently.

    12. Re:It's debatable that you can by zsau · · Score: 1

      Surely for most of history one of the biggest limitations to "creative output" was the fact that people needed to eat. Particularly in villages (i.e. poorer areas) you didn't necessarily have the resources for great artistic displays—unless, at least, they were popular enough everyone could benefit.

      And a significant one would also have been that we just don't highly regard a lot of creative output, because it was done within a theme we would regard as too constrained to be interesting (e.g. English parish churches were decorated by the parish). But just the same, I think a lot of contemporary artistic output is disregarded as uninteresting in even a very short while (i.e. people's lifetimes—think about popular music, the way people laugh at someone for listening to a lot of music from five years ago).

      --
      Look out!
    13. Re:It's debatable that you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I lose my right to take photos of you in public and document your public activities, I'm no longer a free individual and I've become your slave. I'm against privacy. You only have privacy inside your home, with closed windows. When you step into the street, you enter into my environment, and I can record you with my camera, follow you wherever you go, and publish anything I know about you.

    14. Re:It's debatable that you can by swillden · · Score: 1

      That's another good point. I don't think you can attribute a difference in creative output to one cause. And among all of the possible causes, I think the opportunity to hide what you're doing from your neighbors has to rank near the bottom.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:It's debatable that you can by swillden · · Score: 1

      You may overstate the case a bit, but I do strongly agree that public is public. We need to draw that line.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:It's debatable that you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've found that nearly 100% of web sites use google-analytics and tell Google every page you view. Not using Google and blocking referrers does almost nothing to help your privacy.

    17. Re:It's debatable that you can by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can attribute a difference in creative output to one cause.

      It is unhelpful to turn "cities definitely bring more than just anonymity, all the pieces are necessary" into "one cause." The phrase necessary but not sufficient is directly applicable here.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    18. Re:It's debatable that you can by swillden · · Score: 1

      You're the one who has been reducing it to one cause.

      You're arguing that anonymity is an essential component of creativity, and that even if we keep all the rest, tossing that one bit will dramatically reduce creativity. Or perhaps you're arguing that removing any single element will dramatically reduce creativity; it's not clear whether you're saying there is one single point of failure or multiple single points of failure, but you're definitely arguing that anonymity is a single point of failure -- lose that and you've lost creativity. That's a very big assertion.

      In fact, not only do I see countless counterexamples, but I'm not sure I see any examples that you can point to and say "See, if that person hadn't had privacy (s)he wouldn't have been able to create." Examples where access to information is a clear pre-requisite not only abound, I think it's reasonable to say that no one creates anything except by building on what they've learned from others. Similarly, it's easy to look at any creative work that consumes a significant amount of time and it's clear that it could not have been created had the creator had to spend 18 back-breaking hours per day laboring in a field. Those make sense as pre-requisites. Privacy? Not so much.

      I'm not saying you're wrong, just that any truth in your claim is far from obvious, and I don't find your assertions convincing.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:It's debatable that you can by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      You're the one who has been reducing it to one cause.

      If "necessary but not sufficient" isn't clear enough for you, then I have no response that will be better.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  11. You don't by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

    It's over, Johnny. It's over...

    What has to be done then, is the opposite. Deny privacy to everybody... Make the whole world completely and absolutely transparent. Make information worth nothing, where the main reaction is, "eh".. Just don't let anything be used against you. The word has no power, only the act.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:You don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has to be done then, is the opposite. Deny privacy to everybody... Make the whole world completely and absolutely transparent.

      This is not as crazy as it sounds - what if the NSA would release all phone contacts for conngresscritters and CEOs; IRS release all it's banking info? Should prove to provide for some interesting data mining... If we are going to be in fishbowl, the big fish should also.

    2. Re:You don't by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      If we are going to be in fishbowl, the big fish should also.

      Apparently the mods disagree. They'd rather carry on with this little charade. They don't see that every anomaly and 'disturbance' is recorded and can be traced to a source. It is so naive to believe that there is any 'privacy'. The only argument left is what can be done with the info. Right now we give it too much power to too few people. So I'm always for those who can leak it all. Time for those who make the rules to feel the pain.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:You don't by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Very good point fust. Its like Poland or East Germany, Soviet Union or Russia - you know the protest is been filmed. You know the secret intelligence services will catch up with you in their own time.
      If they cant turn you into an informant you face ~'protesting' charges and conviction.
      The optics of been seen protesting leak out and the official lies about events become news.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  12. Check your sources? by feitingen · · Score: 1

    Heck; off-the-shelf tech can see you through your walls.

    If you actually read the article you linked, you could find out that it's custom made hardware made from components which may be used in a wi-fi device, that's not the same as off-the-shelf.
    FTFA:

    "All the components we use are ones typically used in a Wi-Fi handheld device," she said.

    Wi-Vi transmits two Wi-Fi signals, one of which is the inverse of the other.

    Off-the-shelf stuff can't do this, but with components similar to that you can.

    --
    This sig is intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Check your sources? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actually read the article you linked, you could find out that it's custom made hardware made from components which may be used in a wi-fi device, that's not the same as off-the-shelf.

      It's also a custom made wall and room and requires extensive calibration to function. There are much better ways to see through walls than this setup.

  13. Always look on the bright side of life by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    Oh, one more thing.

    If you can't make money fighting the system, you certainly could make some by maintaining all of these electronic / computer gizmos.

    Again, you folks just have to start looking at the bright side of things.

    After all, nothing from nothing....

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Always look on the bright side of life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Somebody's getting paid to study advanced interrogation techniques at Guantanamo. Maybe you should apply.

  14. How tin-foil-hat do you wanna be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Using cash is a start. Not far beyond that is switching buses constantly and hiding your face from cameras; pretty soon you're milking your own goats.

  15. Who needs friends .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is more of a concern for people in the real world. Friends and public security cameras aren't much of concern here. I suspect the few of us that have friends aren't going to have friends who will take photos of us during our late night coding sessions. As far as security cameras are concerned, they generally only apply if you leave your house. In my experience, going outside causes one to get out of the zone for code writing or debugging so I try to avoid it whenever possible. It takes too long to get back into the zone. And as far as strangers are concerned ....Well the only strangers I know of are the Jehovah's Witnesses that come to the door to interrupting my coding session. Usually they don't carry cameras.

  16. Decentralize power by Kohath · · Score: 0

    Since you can't hide from the people who want to hurt you, that leaves only 2 options:

    1. Be the most powerful person, so no one else would dare try to hurt you because you'd hurt them a lot worse in return. Or
    2. Work with others to create a society where no one has enough power to do you much harm. This means carefully limiting all centralized power, especially including the government -- the only power that will send armed men to your house and take you away for disobeying them. Other centralized power structures should also be limited as much as possible.

  17. Those were my photons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those photons that bounced off of me and hit your camera? They were mine. All mine. And someday, I'm going to figure out how to keep you from stealing them.

    Googling: Black Body Raincoat Deal Black Friday

  18. It's too late now. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    The only thing to do is to use misdirection and misleading information to those that collects data if you can't bounce them with stuff like AdBlock or do not call registry.

    Always buy zip-ties and vaseline at the same time. If someone asks - then buy some candy too and tell them that they don't want to know.

    Zip-ties are great when doing some work on your car, vaseline protects electrical connectors and candy is there to keep the blood sugar up for those times when you have been working on the car for too long without food.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  19. Change your name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Change your name to John or Jane Smith. If someone tries to search for your info, they will be literally flooded with false positives. Sometimes I wish I had a common name like that.

    1. Re:Change your name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea. In the US James Smith is more popular having 629 more than John. Jane isn't even in the top ten anymore better to go with Mary. If you want to get a better age demographic match you might try http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/decades/index.html

    2. Re:Change your name by symbolset · · Score: 1

      This is the correct answer. Also, although trite, naming your children after cultural icons that share your family name if possible can help. Your little Dexter Morgan will never be in the top search results as progressive copyright extensions drag the series' exploitation to the end of time, minus a day. No help against government snoops but keeps the idle stalkers at bay. Of course little Dexter may need it explained, lest he find it suggestive...

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    3. Re:Change your name by qbast · · Score: 1

      Until any of John Smiths does anything that puts him on a no-fly or 'domestic extremist' list.

    4. Re:Change your name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Until any of John Smiths does anything that puts him on a no-fly or 'domestic extremist' list.

      You would think that there would be some safety in numbers. If somebody named John Smith suddenly gets added to the no-fly list, I would hope the TSA is not so incompetent as to suddenly deny boarding to the few hundred thousand males in the U.S. that also share this name. Now if you have a relatively unique name that is shared with maybe one or two other people, you could be in for some problems if one of them is added to the no-fly list.

  20. First, disconnect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This means no cell phone, no computer, no credit cards,
    no bank accounts, and no fixed address.

    It can be done, but few are willing to actually do it.

    This article is not even going to be read or commented on by
    people who are protecting their own privacy, because they will
    never see it or care about it.

  21. This general direction by Let's+All+Be+Chinese · · Score: 1

    Not give information out. Keep it to yourself. With or without technological aid.

    The individual trying this out either has to lie a lot (give false information) or risk standing out. That is, in the current environment.

    To make this possible we need our systems (in the broadest sense of the word, so a government keeping records is a "system") to change the working assumptions. For many things you still "need" to give your name when in fact there is no need intrinsic to the function, only convenience, usually for somebody else, like law enforcement. This "convenience" carries risks itself, so it is long term all around better to get rid of it.

    How you'd do this? Well, change the assumptions, change the laws, change how we organise things. Only after that does technology come into play.

    And that technology? Authentication systems that aren't inevitably tied to just one possible identity per person and certainly not systems depending on some selection out of a small number of possible passwords per person with no redress possible, and also not systems that depend on a limited subset of "identity providers", reducing everyone else in the system to second class citizens.

    Come up with designs that address those, and more shortcomings, that empower instead of subjugate. You might even consider deploying DRM around packed-up identity information, giving control back to the owner. Better yet, don't give the information away at all, for example using zero knowledge proofs. There are plenty of tricks ("technologies") and we are employing far too few of them.

    Even the simple act of not requiring everyone to use the same database key for completely unrelated databases is, so far, too hard, and that needs to change. I could go on, but this ought to suffice for now.

    While there is no single silver bullet, there is a clear general direction how we need to change our current systems, how we need to change our very thoughts and assumptions to keep a tenable society. Notice that everything so far governments and corporations have produced and are producing, fail at the very first of assumptions. A good case in point is "NSTIC", who were warned of these issues yet, as is evident in the design, chose to ignore the warnings.

  22. There are several categories, not all uncontrolled by davecb · · Score: 1

    There are truly out-of-control entities, such as criminal gangs, but most snoops have to obey laws, and if they are businesses generally chose to do as a cost-avoidance strategy (;-))

    This large group of commercial snoops are currently trying to capture as many unhappy people as they can, and within a few years are in line for a harsh slapping about from enraged politicians: see the UK for a picture of what happens when newspapers crack people's cell phones. Now imagine what response you get when they start losing snooped credit card numbers.

    Amex is already sensitive to this and related problems seen by their customers, and will issue short-term and single-use credit card numbers for transactions with doubtful merchants. I have every expectation that they will be asked to offer "avatar" cards, and after hemming and hawing, will issue me a card in my pen name, after taking some steps to make sure they can't be blamed if I'm the crook, not the merchant.

    Given that, I'll have an avatar on steam with the ability to buy and sell things without exposing who I am. People named "John Smith" already have lots of avatars, all of whom think they're the real John Smith. This will do nicely for anything on-line or credit-card-centric.

    Physical presence and photos are a different problem: we have weak laws about what used to be called "database matching", and we may need laws against keeping photos of me paying with a credit card any longer than it takes for the credit to clear. Of course, if I "pay" with a shotgun, I have to expect the pictures to be kept until they're thrown my ass in jail (:-))

    Retaining data, and using it without the permission of the person who provided it has been a problem since the printing press was invented. Public libraries found that the were being asked for patron's reading histories, and created the now common policy of retaining the patron-book relationship only until the book was returned or replaced.

    Private photos and lifelogs are harder to manage, but less harmful, as there are so very many of them, and are private to that person...

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  23. Few Tried and True Methods. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1: Put your cash in a safe and buy a few guns. Hackers and Banksters can't steal it if it's in a safe. Additionally thieves are probably going to pass by a well-hidden safe bolted into the furniture or house structure. If you're scared of a corrupt police force, hidden camera's can be installed anywhere.

    2: There are several identity-wipe services available online to take you off of sites like Pipl or Spookeo. Engage them; if you're afraid of identity theft this helps, if you're afraid of psychotic boyfriends, it helps even more.

    3: If you don't want your purchases being tracked, pay in cash.

    4: If you're going to buy something unsultry online and don't want to be tracked, use pre-paid credit cards bought with cash.

    5: I somehow doubt the NSA is buying enough disks to store a decade's worth of internet traffic, but if you're afraid of that, hidemyass.com and proxomitron, or use good proxying agents.

    6: Use multiple identities when working online, don't let them cross over to each other.

    7: Make sure you have a strong, easily findable professional profile online if you need one. Linked-in is good for this.

    8: Use a password Vault for online profiles that use long passwords. Change the passwords to your online accounts once per year. Backup your vault regularly to encrypted flash or optical disk. I use WinZIP with AES256.

    9: Employ Disk Encryption and regularly backup your data to an in-house NAS system.

    1. Re:Few Tried and True Methods. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hidemyass.com LOL Follow the money.

    2. Re:Few Tried and True Methods. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Hi AC Recall http://slashdot.org/story/13/07/03/1952228/mastercard-and-visa-start-banning-vpn-providers
      If the gov knows your using a VPN via your traffic or CC, your IP is found no matter where the 'company' is located.
      The NSA/GCHQ NSA never need enough disks to store bulk internet traffic.
      They track you, your voice print, your cell use, internet use, your friends, your family, your friends friends as points of data, shopping, reading material, health... travel..
      Small points of compressed data per person don't take up much space in any well funded domestic surveillance database.
      Once you start been politically active, go for a gov job, write to the press a more bulk is collected is started.
      The NSA/DEA https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering show what a private company and a few staff could offer over the life span of a consumers phone use to a gov agency with less oversight by US courts.
      Parallel construction seems to be the new 'old' trick.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  24. A: lie by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    Q: How do you protect your ass-cherry from prison rape?

    A: don't go to prison.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  25. Try and change the law. by gallondr00nk · · Score: 2

    Most of the submitter's issues stem from inadequecies in the law. Drones, CCTV etc. can't really be fought with technological measures. Outlawing invasive behaviours (or having strict rules over their use) seems the only option.

    Yes, our technology enables easy mass surveillance. Does that mean we simply accept it? Do we accept a future where those with the most technology and money simply do whatever the fuck they want? That seems to be the conclusion of a lot of people.

    It's a long shot, especially when government seems so authoritarian and adversarial to the populace, but I'd suggest it to be the only solution.

  26. Keep pushing by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    If well it may be pretty hard or near impossible to get 100% privacy, trying to get as close as possible (or at least, at the point you draw the line) worth it. And that is a process, not a static destination.

  27. One word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Berka

  28. Tinfoil Hats by fred911 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And for the TSA, lead condoms with scrotum wings.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  29. One word: twerking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then people will react to info about you by yelling, "G** Dammit, I don't f******g care about "

  30. Like this by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Like this:
    http://users.commspeed.net/guzzi/images/aluman.jpg

    (http://forums.radioreference.com/attachments/general-scanning-discussion/13425d1201360481-aluminum-foil-protective_suit.jpg

  31. keep a low profile by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's something to be said for blending into the background, being "down in the noise", not being whomever they're looking for. Pay cash when possible. (It's still allowed, although maybe not for too much longer.) Be less distinctive in appearance. Build up a really boring persona. Don't make it worth anyone's time to follow you.

    Practice safe computing. I think this is probably more important than CCTVs everywhere. Don't open or click on anything unless you know exactly what it is. If you must do porn or warez, do it on a virtual machine, not the same one on which you do your banking and pay your utilities.

    Beware of social engineering. It works so well that I would be really surprised if it were not used as a surveillance tactic.

    But in general, just be uninteresting.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:keep a low profile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are winning at life, good sir!

    2. Re:keep a low profile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK if you have a "debt" of any description (including, for example, the meal you've just eaten or the petrol you've just put in the car) then if the seller refuses your offer of cash you are no longer obliged to pay. You tried, using legal tender, and they refused your payment. End of story.

    3. Re:keep a low profile by lilz2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you might have to offer exact change, to be able to say they refused payment. The are not obligated to make change.

  32. Mr. Wizard, I don't wanna be surveilled anymore! by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I think the problem for many people is that the privacy horse left the barn a long time ago; you'd need a time machine to send yourself a note in the past telling yourself to implement procedures and countermeasure back then so that you'd be protected today. Much like the Internet doesn't forget, neither does the databases of governments and corporations; once they've got information on someone, they're not going to delete it, ever. The goal would have been to prevent any information about yourself being collected in the first place.

    Going forward, I'm not sure how much damage control can be done. In the real world (i.e. non-internet), there are places where you simply must use your real name and real information, and there's nothing you can do about that. If it's interaction with government agencies, well, we've all collectively screwed the pooch a long time ago in that area, and thanks so much to so many people who voted away our rights to privacy for hollow promises of "security" that nobody can realistically deliver.. but I digress. Limit your exposure/interaction with government agencies as much as possible? Best I can do there. It took decades to dismantle privacy in this country, and it'll take decades to recover it. Banking/financial institutions, legal matters, entering into contractural agreements with any company or corporation (even something as simple as wireless service)? You've got to use your real name and information for those; best you can do there is to be sure who you're dealing with, and see some legal disclaimers in writing that state what your collected information will be used for. Things like "rewards" clubs (Safeway, Walgreens, etc) and organizations like Costco and Sams Club? Someone may correct me on this, but even something as simple as a Safeway rewards club card is entering into a legal contract with Safeway, and I believe that there must be a privacy agreement associated with that, which (believe it or not) people who work at Safeway may never have even seen; just accepting the card itself could be considered your consent to terms of a contract and privacy (or lack thereof) agreement that you never knew existed, and it may well entitle Safeway to collect information on you and your purchasing habits that they otherwise aren't legally allowed to do; same goes for Costco, Sams Club, etc. Healthcare companies? HIPAA is supposed to protect you, but yes the devil is in the (implementation) details, isn't it? They can claim they're HIPAA compliant, and that you're 100% safe, but they can also completely bungle everything (like we've all read about in the news more than once in the last few years) and some asshat scammer has your (and 100,000 other people's) very personal, private data. If someone else has an idea what you can do about this, I'd like to hear it; all hospitals and doctors offices collect data on you in order to treat you medically; I suppose you could insist they keep no records of you, and instead put everything on a flash drive you provide for them -- except most hospitals have IT policies against using portable flash drives for anything. Keeping your friends or strangers from taking pictures of you and posting them somewhere? Speaking from experience, you may have to go so far as alienating some of your friends and acquaintances, who may not share your views on privacy, and think that you're just being a jerk for no reason. Also, how can you control the actions of others? You can't. Airport security/TSA scrutiny? Don't fly anywhere. Rally to the cause of people who want to dismantle the TSA, write your congresscritter, sign petitions, etc. to make the TSA go away, or at least get reigned in to the point where they're not on track to become the Secret Police.

    There are too many things going on this this world for me to address here. The best advice I can give is to stay aware and not stick your head in the sand. It seems like every day there are more and more instances of some government agency or corporation making free with people's privacy. Telev

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  33. Privacy as laziness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think of that as inertia, that in fact was deliberately built into some systems (the US gov't, with its designed-for-inefficiency model), and I agree that it is no longer a viable option. You can see lawmakers the world over fail to realise that when they come up with privacy laws that simply say "you can't do that!" when in fact that finding and collating of information is now easy to do, hard to detect whether it's being done, and very profitable to do even when detected and fined.

    Yes, I agree with the need for a re-think. Or rather a dozen or more. Thing is, it reaches down to the basic assumptions built into just about the entire infrastructure of administration and record keeping. And it's painfully obvious most specialists, who ought to know since they're building the new generations of digital systems to replace the paperwork-based ones, haven't noticed in the least that the rug has been well and truly pulled from under their customary model.

    If this doesn't frighten you, it should.

  34. Revenge by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    It is not possible to protect your privacy anymore. However you may be able to find the source of a leak and take legal action. Keep a ledger and put one piece of data on every site that is different and record when and where you did that. For example if you put data that says you earn $75.500 per annum on one site and that number crops up elsewhere you can know who leaked it. You can also spell out a supposed middle name unique to every site. If the initial of your middle name is A then be Alfred on one site and Albert on the next. Your birth date can be one day different across many sites. One day you may get mail or a phone call that returns a bit of false data. Then get your lawyer busy.

    1. Re:Revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got an ad from a local politician addressed to me and my significant other. Funny my significant other shares the exact same name. Must come from the time I married myself on facebook.

  35. is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Live in basement and have no friends
    2. Wear burka in public
    3. ???
    4. Profit!

  36. What privacy is, and what needs protecting by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Of course, keeping personal information entirely secret is the best means of control, but in the modern world, complete secrecy is getting more and more impractical.

    It's not just impractical; for most people, it's undesirable. You can't interact in many useful ways with people or organisations you'd like to collaborate with unless you inherently give up some degree of personal information. That "loss" of privacy isn't in itself a problem for most people, because it's done willingly and typically for mutual benefit.

    The problems usually start when others get hold of the information, or when information that was willingly shared for one useful purpose then gets reused for something else. Technology makes both of these possibilities increasingly easy, but as always that technology is ethically neutral.

    IMHO, what we need is to establish standards of respect for this kind of personal data, where it's not socially acceptable to share potentially sensitive information about someone without their knowledge and consent. Just because technology means we could do something, it doesn't mean we have to, any more than I have to drink five pints this afternoon and then drive home at 90mph past the park where your kids are playing just because I have money and a car. The common idea that you can't solve social problems with technological measures applies.

    Where necessary, those social norms then need to be backed by force of law, so that organisations with contrary motivations such as businesses and governments are compelled to comply as well.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:What privacy is, and what needs protecting by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      IMHO, what we need is to establish standards of respect for this kind of personal data, where it's not socially acceptable to share potentially sensitive information about someone without their knowledge and consent.

      Once upon a time, parents did teach their children this kind of respect. Over time, fewer parents did so. Mine (and my GF's) parents were probably amoung the last. Sadly, my GF and I are not able to give our daughter anywhere near the amount of privacy as our parents did. Not because we don't want to give her that level of privacy, but because the social climate demands that parents watch their children a lot more closely than prior generations of parents. We watch her get on the school bus in the morning (it stops close to our house and there is a public webcam at the stop, as well as a public webcam in the school bus) and watch her get off and walk home each day. When she visits a neighboring friend, we (and the friend's parents) are watching her go and return from the friend's house. Any further than that, one of us takes her to her destination, then gets her, later. And one of us goes with here when she goes bicycling. Within our house, all tools are in either workshop or the kitchen. When she's working on a project, one of us is watching as well as helping with the potentialy dangerous tools.

      This is not what we think we should be doing. It was what society demands of us.

      In contrast, I was allowed to play outside, roaming all over the neighborhood unsupervised. The only restrictions were that I either be able to hear my parents's bell and return home within 15min, or be where my parents had a phone number to call - and call them to let them know I was there. If I wanted to go beyond the neighborhood, I only had to ask and say how to contact me and about how long I expected to be away. The answer was usually "yes" and I could ride my bike to almost anywhere in town.

      And I know I had almost no supervision as I roamed the neighborhood. There were many wooded areas when my friends and I could gather out of sight and out of hearing - something that would scare nearly all today's parents shitless.

      As for tools, once I demonstrated I could handle a tool safely, I was allowed to use it - even tools my parents were not skilled enough to safely use. Forexample, when I was a Cub Scout, I built all my Pinewood Derby cars myself - no help from anyone and almost no supervision.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
  37. Re:Mr. Wizard, I don't wanna be surveilled anymore by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    well you could start by lobbying with some laws to limit db's about persons.. start by catching up to the eu laws on it.

    which is really the answer to the question: by political action.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  38. Sniffing Skin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Airport security sniffs your skin.

    All hell break loose if they error sniffing hair.

  39. Build a Better Society by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    I know it's difficult when there are so many people who don't give one tenth of one fuck about anyone but themselves, but build a better society, one in which we aren't all looking up each other's arseholes with flashlights unless we're doing a rectal examination. Do anything you can to make the world a better place, and that will have the long-term effects of reducing surveillance.

    You also have to convince at least two other people to do the same, if you really want this to take off... And them, as well, and so on. Eventually, that requirement can be eliminated.

    Now, if we can just agree on what we should do...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Build a Better Society by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      Now, if we can just agree on what we should do...

      Prohibition of advertisement could be a good start.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  40. Asking the wrong question by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    It's not about denying personal information to others, it's about how they use or misuse it once they have it - and making sure they only get the stuff you want them to have.

    You can start by decreasing the amount of data you give away, for free. A second step would be to start reading the EULAs, Ts & Cs, and other annoyances that come between you and ACCEPT and make wiser decisions about which ones you choose. You can falsify some stuff with impunity (does that website really need you phone number or address - or will any random selection of words and numbers do) and you can start using cash again and having multiple bank and credit card accounts (but don't veer into the world of fraud). Just be aware that you'll never shake off the determined tracker / stalker, but hey: you don't have to make it easy for them, either.

    Other than that, cultivate a nickname, nom de plume, start using your mother's maiden name, or just become known in all your social circles as JACKSON. You could also make sure you give your children very, very common names - rather than trying to be unique (like everyone else), so that name searches will throw up so many hits that hand-checking is impractical.

    Apart from that, make sure you have several varied social media accounts (if you really must have any at all) rather than just the stipulated one - and grow a beard, if you can.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  41. Back to the future by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    I doubt very much that most people had much in the way of "privacy" through most of history. Your average Joe in a tribe or village ... well, his neighbors knew what he was doing, and who with, approximately all of the time.

    I happen to like the brief window of modern higher privacy that we had, don't get me wrong ... just saying that it was something of an aberration.

  42. How about CCTVs? by ruir · · Score: 1

    Is it worthwhile to use baseballs caps and dark glasses to foil face recognition technology?

    1. Re:How about CCTVs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure how safe infra red is for your eyes.
      http://www.abrutis.com/video-lunettes+anti+paparazzi-11937.html

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/designers-trying-to-help-people-fight-government-surveillance/2013/08/15/824faf84-0533-11e3-88d6-d5795fab4637_gallery.html

    2. Re:How about CCTVs? by koan · · Score: 1

      Yes it's worth while, however the newest stuff will use your gait, gestures, voice, face, so it becomes harder and harder to hide as the software and camera resolution get better.

      But one day going outside might mean, wig, mask, insert in shoe to make you limp, water filled vest to change your thermal image, never using your hands, never talking, and never going the same way twice.
      Sounds like fun right? But you will be safe from terrorist =)

      I use a hoodie with a mesh fabric that can fold down in front of my face, this stems from a debate we had one night and I rarely use it.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:How about CCTVs? by MildlyTangy · · Score: 1

      Is it worthwhile to use baseballs caps and dark glasses to foil face recognition technology?

      In the end, no.

      Everybody walks differently. You can be tracked and identified by just analysing the way you walk.
      You would have to go to extreme lengths to be anonymous in a heavily surveilled society.....is it worth the hassle?

      You might as well just walk about in the open knowing full well you are monitored and recorded and analysed by whomever controls and has access to the CCTV network.
      To be honest, the thought of living through what the UK experiences is downright creepy and frightening. I'm very surprised that people have not done anything about them. In a Democracy, the people should have the collective power (voting) to reign in what's happening over there.

      But they are not.

      If the vast majority of the citizens of the western world really gave a damn about their privacy, they could enact change.

       

  43. Re:Mr. Wizard, I don't wanna be surveilled anymore by kheldan · · Score: 1

    which is really the answer to the question: by political action.

    Actually as I see it the real problem is convincing enough people that the whole thing matters enough for them to get involved politically over it.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  44. Can't be done by koan · · Score: 1

    What you could do is set up penalties for data loss, but since there is little difference between corporations and government and it benefits them to leave it all exposed you will never be able to bottle this genie again IMO.

    One thing I made for public cameras was my old hoodie with a with a mesh fabric drop down, so it acts like a veil in front of the hoodie but can still be seen through and put away.
    I'm not actually that worried about it yet but we got to talking and started trying stuff... I doubt it work against thermal imaging.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  45. We need to stand up for ourself and each other. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I returned a product at a B&M store recently, the clerk asked me for my name and address otherwise he won't proceed for my refund. I gave a fake name and fake address (it was my name but slightly different pronouncing and spelling and an address close to my real one so if he asked for IDs or something, I can get away with it by saying "you heard it wrong" or "I'm so tired today that I can't even remember how to spell my name, duh!"). I also asked him why he asks for that and told him I think it's a bad practice. He refunded me on my credit card and the system should already know my name and address but that's not the point, the point is conditioning: By questioning their business practices and not agreeing with it and by spreading the word is how we keep ourselves from being conditioned into "answering when asked" from the first person taking the authority over you.

    Also, I did not like the fact that a random minimum-salary clerk in a B&M store takes authority over their customers, waiting for an immediate and clear answer on a question asked, without empathy, just like a police agent. I know you guys will say that I'm just a jerk and that guy is just doing his job, but how can you ask for personal information and identification without saying; "Sorry, but I have too... just give me a fake name, *wink*". If we're conditioned for answering to anyone asking, we will be afraid and it will be badly-perceived not to answer in the future, we need to show resistance to anyone, we need to stand up for ourself all the time.

    WE need to stand up for our neighbor, brothers and sisters, family and friends as well. If a total stranger comes at you and ask: "Who's living there ?" (pointing at your neighbor), will you stand up to protect their privacy and say; "No, I have no business with you." ? The stranger did not even say you "Hello", he just wants you to be an answer-machine. You can also say; "If you want me to answer, it's 50 bucks" and if he really pays you, you either don't take the money and tell him you were kidding and you don't want to do business with him or take the money and just answer with something general and ask for more money, or lie... The point is to show him resistance, not to make a profit out of information. People with authority (or those who think they have) tend to forget that private information is highly valuable, make them remember. Also, no contract was signed and you're not forced to tell the truth, you just said that getting an answer from you cost money, your time is precious.

    That scenario happened to me, a stranger asked me: "Who is this dog's owner", he expected me to answer but I said that "it's not my business", then I went inside my home and I informed my neighbor that "someone was walking around looking at your dog for about an hour and asked me who you are". We found out the guy was the landlord of the property... You see, he had the "authority attitude" and tried to use it on me, it did not work because I protect my neighbor, brothers and sisters, family and friends.

    Private information is valuable, protect it. Stop answering to anyone like a fool, you're not anyone's servant. Stand up to your neighbors, your brothers and sisters, your family and friends.

  46. Add To The List: No SSNs to Health Insurers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never give your SSN to health providers or insurers. They don't need it. If they attempt to deny you coverage based on the MMSEA medicare reporting requirements of USC 42 1395y, point out USC 42 1395b to them.

  47. Wear a mask by JanneM · · Score: 1

    Wear a mask. Not a Halloween prop or anything, but a medical mask, as you would wear when you are running a cold or something. No, it won't really prevent automated face identification, but it will prevent any casual recognition or incidental appearances in other people's online albums.

    As a bonus, if you do happen to carry a cold or the flu at the time, you're also helping prevent the spread.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:Wear a mask by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Newer systems just go for a gait signature (specific walk).
      The online albums aspect is going to be a huge supply of data :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Wear a mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newer systems just go for a gait signature (specific walk).

      A gait is not impossible to modify.

      If you don't believe me, just ask Verbal Kint, or his friend Keyser Söze.

    3. Re:Wear a mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and count the # of people who take your photo because you've altered your appearance for whatever reason and now you're tagged all over with photos on Facebook.

      Unless you live in some part of Asia where this is considered normal.

  48. I'm a photographer and this is what I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have the right to take pictures of you with my camera, and publish or sell them, because this is my freedom of speech right, protected by the First Amendment. You don't have a right over the photons that are reflected off your face. If you don't want me to take a picture of you, just stay in your home. You shouldn't seek to limit my rights, just take care to protect your privacy by staying within your own property and not stepping into public places where cameras may record you.

  49. out of control compared to what? by slick7 · · Score: 1

    What's out of control is the controllers. Can't balance a checkbook, can't stay out of trouble, can't hang around normal people, always looking for a fight with the wrong people. It's all fun and games till someone loses an eye.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  50. Not much to do by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Stay away from the tame US companies - change to 'white' box hardware. Read up on the people who where correct over many years and rethink the academics and trusted coders pushing US brands.
    Open source OS, not on a big US brand file system would help with any malware been sent down to your computer.
    Beyond that its back to open time pads and a computer version of number stations.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  51. Not too difficult... by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Don't use banks (use credit unions). Don't use credit cards (use cash). Don't use Facebook. Don't use Google. Don't buy shit online. Don't buy cable TV.

    Do that, and you're 90% of the way there, in my opinion.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Not too difficult... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And never, never, never connect your name and home address.

  52. Stop Moble GPS tracking with this simple trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Make a pocket for your mobile phone out of tin foil cut to size.
    2. Cover both sides fo the tin foil in duct tape so it wont rip easy.
    3 .Now keep this pocket in the colsole of your car, whenever you go for a drive just pop your phone in the pocket.
          it beats having to remember to turn on/off airplane mode everytime.

    Also, some thicker anti-static bags can to the same trick.

    If you wanna get real fancy, you can sew one of these pockets into your jeans for when your on foot.

    Have fun :D

  53. KISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.lotekcity.com/index.php

    I leave this here in the hope that someone may read it.

  54. Who could possibly believe they have any privacy? by kawabago · · Score: 1

    The NSA scrubs every phone call made anywhere, yours, mine, everyones. Privacy is a luxury of the past.

  55. Looking after the kids by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    For what little it's worth, I agree with almost everything you said there. I don't think we're quite as stuck with "micromanaging" our kids here in the UK yet -- there are still enough of the older generations around to point out when parents are being overly protective and provide a degree of social/political acceptability -- but unfortunately the "fear everything" culture our governments and courts and schools seem determined to push on everyone is relentless.

    Personally, I intend to ignore them anyway and teach my kids to be independent and responsible on their own, just as I'd stop to help a child who was hurt regardless of whether some jobsworth might look at a camera and think I was up to no good because of their rampant paranoia. It's the right thing to do, and I'll be damned if I'm going to raise kids who are afraid to go out of their own house or refuse to help someone else's kids who need it just because politics.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.