They're Watching You

[wolf]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

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.

[Kitsune]

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

[wolf]

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

And I like flying.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

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

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[tw]

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