They're Watching You
 

Of course, you're not allowed to know about any of this despite the pending lawsuits. It would threaten 'merica.

So the people who are surfing legitimately under their own IP addresses can be watched, but the ones who are sneaking around under cloaking services (and probably doing less than legitmate stuff) won't have records of their movements. Now if I were going to go out and set up a subversive site or promote illegal acts, I certainly wouldn't go do it under my own, very traceable IP address.

So what is the point?

Stormie

Welcome to the USSR, comrades.

The data would be worth billions. And there will be folks lined up to buy it. And we won't know a thing.

Thank you, Kitsune for your efforts to support the hygiene of the previous thread.

The links to the quotes did not survive the transition, so here they are

Mercury News story. Many others like it.

The Eternal Value of Privacy.

They're all fairly short, please read them. Then weep.

We are all potential criminals, we are all potential terrorists.

Most importantly, we're giving them an inch so, later on, they can take a mile. A year ago everyone found it okay to monitor international phone calls because the government wasn't doing anything with domestic ones. Now we find it okay to have our call logs monitored because, well, they're not actually listening to the conversations. No one is concerned that their search engine requests are being noted because the government isn't sifting through all of the e-mail we send. When it is made public that the government is tagging conversations and e-mails for key words, no one will mind so much because they were already keeping tabs on who you called and when and, besides, everyone knows your phone isn't a secure method of communication. To do that, you should meet with the person face-to-face, since it is obvious that the government would never place warrantless taps in your house...

No one will be upset unless the government forces the cancellation of American Idol, anyways. The American people are complacent and accepting of big government.

Stormie:

The point is that tracking everyone's information in the hopes that a evidence of a crime will be found is akin to stopping everyone on the road, looking for, well, looking for whatever they want to find.
Do you want your ISP to hand over six lines of your writing to Cardinal Gonzales?

My point (obviously not well made) is that the truely intelligent criminals capable of catastrophic harm won't be traceable or trackable online.

So this effort by the Justice Department will net them nothing much other than the stupid people who can't be bothered or don't know how to stealth. Or, as you say, they will gain information worth millions which can be used to influence, prejudice, coerce, bully or brainwash the public.

I am 110% against such a thing as I agree that no good can come of it and it is indeed a slippery slope to complete loss of freedom. I've lived in countries where freedom was extremely curtailed, and know exactly how it feels.

Stormie

Of all the "sky is falling" messages to come out in the last ten years, this is the first one to really worry me. Maybe it's because I'm such a techno-geek. Maybe it's because it came so soon after the domestic call logging news. But this is just the sort of thing that will be innocent-seeming to some, but could very well be the first whisper from the voice of big brother.

I'd hate to be their position though. People want them to take action, but there is just no way they have the resources to catch the really dangerous ones that would make the program worthwhile. Plus, if people are getting angery over something capable of only catching your average person, can you imagine the response to a government electronic surveillance program with the power to catch professional hackers??

9th Engineer:

I have never been to prison. I don't know about you, but I reckon we both have read and watched enough to get a common read on how much liberty, privacy and freedom the inmates enjoy. Practically zero, am I right? Do we agree? 100 percent monitoring of communications, movement, actions, everything, all the time, forever and ever. And it's freaking expensive too. Costs more to jail someone in federal prison than to send them a student to college. (No, I don't have the numbers to four significant digits.)

And still, crime happens in prison. Inmates are terrorized by other inmates. There are well documented cases of horrible abuses of power by the jailers. There is no escaping evil in human society, regardless of how tightly constrained that society is. It is not possible.

When I hear you or others say "I want the government to take action" or "Protect me!!", my response is that life is dangerous. The very perfume of freedom flows from the secret, delicate centers of two of our great nations most precious flowers, liberty and privacy. As my analogy hopefully illustrates, taking away the flowers deprives us of the pleasure of the pefume without protecting us from any of the danger.

You're right. I'm pissed off now, and more would be worse. Tragically, there is no amount of surveillance that will accomplish the putative goal. Already we're crushing the living heart of what makes us Americans, the land of the free and home of the brave, by surrendering our freedoms and capitulating to fear.

The ONLY answer is to stop drinking the kool-aid. Don't be afraid. Do be diligent in retaining your rights. Don't give terrorists the victory over America by giving away the traits that make us Americans.

Okay, now that's just frackin' brilliant. I hereby announce my intention to use that analogy with great abandon for the forseeable future.

And prisoners always fall into their roles. It makes me wonder what will happen to American society if they all know they're being watched, being listened to, being monitored. What role will people fall into when you treat everyone like a criminal?

I'd suspect it would be the same as the Soviet Union or Cuba with everyone snitching on their neighbors to the building or block capo.:mad:

That is Rush Limbaugh hype. Do you learn facts from 11 September - and not from George Jr propaganda? Who fired this nation's number one anti-terrorism investigator who was even on the trail of some 11 September attackers (had their names)? A fact posted so many times that, well, you name him.

Let's see. Without all those security resources, two CIA agents specifically warned (George Jr's 6 August PDB entitled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.”) of an attack we now call 911. At least four FBI investigation teams were tracking down those attackers. How can this be if resources were insufficient? Why did administration officials stop each investigation? Why did administration officials yell at two FBI agents in Chicago, "You will not start a criminal investigation!" Maybe so that you might promote Rush Limbaugh propaganda? How many times must I post facts?

America has always had more than sufficient resources. But to mask administration incompetence, spin instead blames CIA, FBI, and other intelligence organizations for failure. Failure? They could not get political extremists in George Jr's administration to even believe Al Qaeda existed. Did Rush Limbaugh forget to mention that reality when Rush was high on drugs?

Fact: there was no shortage of resources to stop terrorism. Instead, those resources (such as Richard Clark's Counterterrorism Security Group) were demoted, disempowered, and ignored.

So what does an incompetent MBA do? He hires more subordinates; creates more layers of bureaucracy. Are we any safer because George Jr added layers of bureaucracy called Fatherland Security and Intelligence Czar? Of course not. Katrina is just another example of what more bureaucracy did. Potter Goss was still wasting his productive days personally briefing a president who does not read his PDBs.

Where does top management incompetence get corrected by more layers of bureaucracy and dictatorship powers? We have an intelligence failure. We have a president who does not even read his memos.

Having been warned 6 weeks earlier in a PDB, then Andy Card whispers into his ear, "A second plane has just struck the World Trade Center. America is under attack." What does a real leader do? Ask any questions? No. Issue any orders? No. Authorized fighter aircraft to protect America? No - not once. Get up and discover what is happening? No. Instead he just sits there for 15 minutes reading a children's book; waiting for someone to tell him what to do. Why will a big security agency solve this presidential intelligence failure?

America has always had sufficient resources to protect Americans. Clinton stopped an LAX bombing, attacks on Americans in Egypt, the bombing of Aman Radisson, and maybe attacks on NY Times Square and Toronto. All these attacks to occur simultaneously - 1 Jan 2000 - were stopped because a president had intelligence. All these attacks stopped because America has always had sufficient resources to avert terrorism. These are well published facts. Knowing these facts, then where did America not have sufficient security? Without using Rush Limbaugh propaganda, where is this security failure?

The United States has always had more than enough resources to stop terrorism - once hype and myth from Rush Limbaugh propaganda is eliminated. Think like an engineer. When did America not have sufficient security? When the president does not even read and then lies - blames CIA, FBI and others who actually did their job. Why do some Americans think the CIA failed. Too many Americans still listen to Rush Limbaugh propaganda. The CIA, et al properly warned and tried to stop impending attacks. One was even fired for doing his job. In each case, a mental midget administration help create 11 September.

We never needed more security. We have an intelligence failure - in the brain of our president.

Is it bad I really think all this monitoring is being done just so GWB can amass the biggest porn collection on earth?

Y'know, I wouldn't be suprised...

I'm afraid that we already have that kind of stuff in certain areas. A friend of mine dug up a temporary access road he had through a field (gravel over plastic) so he could plant. He made the mistake of dumping the gravel and plastic next to his driveway, in preparation to adding it to the driveway surface. Unfortunately, it was where local do gooders could see it. Next thing you know the DEC is on his case... We will just have a new bunch of snitches assuming the worst about their neighbors to add to the ones we already have. :(

I believe that the Brits are under more constant video surveillance than the average American.

Does that mean we need to bring ours up to match their level of paranoia?

We have to make up the surveillance gap!

At least the Brits are honest enough to tell everyone what they are doing. And they are only monitoring public spaces. They are only doing what is even constitutional in the US. The British don't even have such constitutional rights.

How would it be done under George Jr? If you told the press that a camera was watching people on the corner of Main and Springfield, then Federal agents might arrest you for divulging government secrets. An exaggeration? Well then why, after being expose for bugging Americans without judicial review, then why does this president instead blame leakers – American patriots - rather than corrupt administration officials?

The British have a fairly impressive data mining organization. I can't find the article on it, now, but some years ago they used cross referenced, private billing information to find the location of where a kidnapped individual was being held and rescued them. Shortly after the person had been kidnapped, the government started running analysis on electricity, water, and phone usage -- all gained without warrants. Only two previously dormant structures had "come alive" with electricity and water usage around the time of the crime. Of course, one of the abandoned houses was being used by the criminals.

Interesting stuff.

Americans do same to locate criminals, but with judicial review. So why does that suggest surveillance cams are equivalent to wiretapping in violation of the US Constitution? Why does that British procedure (that all know about and that is legal) somehow become equivalent to illegal and secretive bugging by George Jr’s administration of innocent Americans? Somehow because Rush Limbaugh hype has promoted fear, then suddenly violations of the Constitution are acceptable?

The British don't have a Bill of Rights. Are you saying we should scrap the American Bill of Rights because British demonstrate the Bill is unnecessary?

I was saying the British have an interesting data mining organization that uses their skills to track down criminal activity, but I guess you're free to read whatever slant you want into it and spin it with the politics you desire.

Being legal doesn't necessarily make it right.

Remember, I am the person that won't buy EZPass.

Yep.

There is no slant. There are these questions as to why you would praise what also exists in America? Put your post into perspective? It leaves at least three ways to interpret. Which one were you trying to suggest? Which interpretation makes your post consistent with what is the context of this thread?

No spin. Just total confusion; why citing in Britain what also exists in America?

Are you saying it is legal but not right for government to track your car?

Re-read my post. Notice I imply nothing, notice I take no stance on it. Pardon me for pointing out something I considered interesting and relevant to the conversation.

I said: "Hey look, other countries do this, too!"
I did not say: "Other countries do this, too, and that makes it the right thing! I feel so strongly about this, in fact, that I feel we should throw out the fourth amendment and let the police state run wild!"

I agree with your point of view and you still managed to attack me.

Kitsune - I attacked no one. I did as I always do. I make no effort to be polite -becaouse only children need everything polite. Instead I am blunt honest. I only asked a question as to how your post related to the subject. Why? Because it could be interpreted many different ways. Why is it relevant what the British do when we do same thing? Provided was how your post could be interpreted in the context of this dicussion.

Reread that post. It only asks a question and demonstrates ways of interpreting how your post fits into context. You assumed an attack only because of word selection with is never ever choosen to be polite or politically correct. I just asked a question. If I attacked you, it would have been stated bluntly as an attack. A perfect oppurtunity for you to clarify your intentions of that post, which to me were not entirely clear. Why then do you assume an attack? This is me. I never waste words with political correctness. What I have posted is only what I have posted with nothing implied. I don't imply. If I think you are an asshole, then I say so. If I had attacked your thought process, then you would see sentences such as "Kitsune rewrites history for his own personal agenda".

If it is not bluntly stated, then an attack does not exist. Post is nothing more than a simple question. So are you suggesting we should scrap the Bill of Rights? Should I assume your answer is NO due to your last post that only discusses the Fourth Amendment?

They *are* watching us...

On the road this morning I noticed a snarl of one inch wire rope with thimbles on the ends, maybe 25-30 feet long, lying in the left hand lane of the on ramp to the freeway. I was fortunate enough to drive by safely in the right hand lane without incident, but I could see others in my rear view mirror taking evasive action instead of looking down the road. Anyway.

I called 911, got connected to the state patrol and explained what I saw. As we were describing where the hazard was, I drove through a tunnel and lost the dispatcher. At the end of the tunnel, I called back and interestingly got the same dispatcher and we picked up our conversation right away. Once she got the location right, she asked me a weird question, "Matthew, what's your last name?" :confused: My name isn't Matthew. I was calling from the phone my new employer issued to me, and the previous holder of the phone was named Matthew. I gave her my first and last name, and I confirmed her statement of the number I was calling from, and we ended the call.

Why the question? It seems she knew my "name", she definitely knew the phone number from which I was calling, why would she ask for my last name? It felt like a test, to confirm that my answer to the question would let her verify what was already on the screen, or contradict it and "tell" her something else. In any event, it was all rightquick, and the cross reference from the callerid data seemed surreal. I just did a test and this phone only transmits the area code and phone number, not the name. That data came from somewhere else. I do indeed feel watched. It is not an especially reasurring feeling.

Well, duh. That's what 911 does. :eyebrow:

Most of the time 911 has to go through an assortment of hoops to get that data. I've had to have them track down a couple of suicides based only on a cell phone number off the caller ID. It's a pain in the ass when you're trying to save some dumbass' life, because the 911 dispatch supervisor has to send paperwork to the cell carrier before the carrier will release the information, and with number portability, the original carrier for the number might not have the data you need.

Personally, I'd be tempted to write it off as coincidence. Matthew is a pretty common name. She may have been talking to a Matthew earlier, or just misremembered your name if you did tell her early in the conversation. I would think if it's a company cell phone the company's name would be associated with it anyway, or at least the name of the one person in charge of all the cell phone contracts.

Which goes right back to the same question: Are you saying it is legal but not right for government to track your car with EZ-Pass?

Well, it isn't right, but here's a secret: without EZ-Pass, they still track you.

How besides license plate and cell phone?

But this all goes right back to a bigger question we don't ask. It therefore only festers. What is and is not considered private? I you file taxes electronically, that company can now sell your information? Is it really legal? Is it right?

In essence, there are two questions here. One is the definition of privacy. The other is the definition of identity protection. We are still doing nothing (except kludge patchwork laws) to address either.

Hopefully, (and due to an identity program foolishly based in SS numbers) with the theft of the identity of every serviceman's SS and other information, now we will decide to address the problem of identity protection. And with that program is its cousin that cannot be ignored - a definition of what is and is not private.

But again, I ask wolf a basic question: Are you saying it is legal but not right for government to track your car with EZ-Pass?

When you pass through a toll, you are logged, even if you pay with cash. Your license plate is captured via camera and the software pulls the letters. If you pass through the booth and no coins are detected, you are sent a fine. If I'm not mistaken, the government isn't tracking your car, but the contractor that handles the tolls certainly is.

Since the records may be retrieved by the government, should there be a requirement that will permit transportation anonymously? Of course, you are always welcome to take toll-free roads, but how long before that changes? After all, if people love the convenience of EZ-Pass, perhaps they'd love a system that also keeps their roads safe. Tolls, Speeding tickets, stolen cars, all controlled by a little box that could be required to drive the roads. If the people don't love it, the government will.

Besides, what do you care if people know where you go and how fast, right? As long as you're not doing anything wrong...

If the toll is paid, why would the contractors go to the bother and expense to keep a record of the hundreds of millions of cars passing through toll booths every day?
Software pulling plate numbers won't stand up in court, they need a photograph and in some places the photograph must show the drivers face.
I doubt if they have enough people to chase that they can't process the plate pictures manually.:eyebrow:

If the equipment is there, why wouldn't they? Especially if it might aid law enforcement/court case.

But with the system in place, they have both the photograph and plate number. The mailing system is automated. And if you have an EZ-Pass, you might want to read up on the fine print. In Florida, the EZ-Pass is the owner's responsibility and is tied to your car by plate and tied to the owner by DL number. They aren't intended to be transferred from vehicle to vehicle and, should another person use yours to blow through tolls with an empty account, the owner is responsible for handling the fines. With every parking lot filled with cars displaying a little white box on their windshield, you know this might become a big problem.

With the "drive-by" system on the Greenway, Beeline, and the other toll highways in and around Orlando, there is plenty of opportunity to abuse the system -- you never pass through a booth, you never stop at a gate. You blow under a metal bar at 70mph and never touch the brake. There are no people involved. Why have a manual system when you can automate it?

And of course, there's the fact that car insurance info is routinely entered in most State's data banks as soon as you hang up the phone with that nice gecko. Cops can pull up behind you and run your plates for ownership of the car, warrents, insurance info, etc. Why not destination and origin of travel, as well? Why not ethnicity?

But, of course, none of us is doing anything wrong...:yeldead:

Currently that technology is limited to places such as Border Patrol controlled crossings. Information is so large that border guards completely ignore cars that are detected by the system as stolen.

But your example defines what I was suggesting. Just because license plate and EZ-Pass recording is not standard today has nothing to do with what will exist tomorrow. Yes, your license plate is public information. However should that informaton behnd that license plate be available to a toll taking institution? The toll authority can report a toll violator. But law enforcement - a separate institution - should only have enough information to fine the violator.

Currently, without specific guidelines for identity protection, we have this hodgepodege of systems that permit outright privacy violations. In short, we have no specific standards to define privacy. AND we have no system for you to protect your privacy (ie quickly discover that day that someone else is using your identity).

Which goes right back to a question that wolf has not answered:
What should and should not be right?

Sorry, missed the first time you asked ...

No, it is not legal for them to track you using EZ-Pass, but it does make it easier for "them" to do so.

One such toll booth picture is a major piece of (not very useful) evidence in a local (probable) murder case ...

Wife of a dentist in Lower Merion Township went missing. A vehicle belonging either to her or to her husband passed through a toll booth on the Penna. Turnpike (I believe at old exit 28 - Philadelphia). The SUV was found abandoned in a McDonald's parking lot.

The toll booth photo shows what appears to be a female slumped toward the window on the passenger side of the vehicle. The driver cannot be seen.

To this day she has not been found.

Is it "legal and not right" for them to demand ID from you before you fly?

I think that one is illegal and not right ... last time I flew, incidentally, was 1986 or 7.

And I like flying.

What I was seeking are reasons - some underlying principles - that define what is and is not right. It is a problem that will only get worse. I just don't see an underlying definition that defines a principle called privacy. As a result, those privacies would only diminish.

For example, one could define no privacy protection of anything one exposes in public - ie a picture of your face. However does that also apply to items owned by that person - ie a car? No one has a right to track you (ie because your clothes contain RFID) but they have a right to track your car? What principle defines a difference?

A credit card is property of that bank. Therefore that bank can track where that credit card goes - where you take it? At what point do we define privacy? At what point do we change laws so that what is legal and illegal agrees with what is right?

I keep asking a fundamental question in a thread entitled "They are watching you". Credit cards, RFID tags, cell phones, remote car keys, fingerprints, DNA, and even electronic keys embedded into skin. Which are and are not protected by constitutional rights of privacy? According to White House mouthpieces, you have no expectation of privacy. Therefore anyone can talk to your credit card if you enter their building? Therefore anyone can take, process, publish, or duplicate your genetic code? At what point can anyone demand personal information?

We discussed identity protection a few years ago. Government meanwhile completely ignored the concept. Now we have virtually every member of the armed forces with irreplaceable personal information lost or in wrong hands - and no way to correct that problem. Once they have one's SS number, birthdate, and name, then one has no identity protection ever again. So virtually every active duty seriveman can have his identity protection permanently violated? It is what happens when a problem is ignored.

Now we have another problem. What is and is not covered by principles that define personal privacy - assuming that constitutional privacy protection even exists. Do we wait for privacy of 10% of Americans to be destructively violated before we even bother to define what is and is not private? Notice the problem. Even here in the Cellar is a widespread fear of addressing this challenge - to define what is and is not right - a definition of what is private. It is a simple question. What are principles - the concepts - that define privacy protection? The answer appears to be too difficult.

Look on the bright side, when the feds know what everyone is doing all the time(1984), there won't be any identity theft problem or indeed, any unsolved crimes at all.:D

Most of this is only known because CA passed a law that requires disclosure:
A Chronology of Data Breaches Reported Since the ChoicePoint Incident