Privacy

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Obama supports Bush warrantless wiretaps:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid ... 23/1744250

"New boss," people, "new boss."

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Not that surprising that Bell and Rogers would give up your identity at the drop of a hat:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/12/ ... york-univ/

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Secret GPS tracking now allowed in Massachusetts:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/17/ ... art_pos=21

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

How much your information from your ISP costs:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Site ... ing-105832

Site Leaks Yahoo, Verizon Fed Data Share Pricing
Yahoo issues DMCA takedown, ensuring even more attention...
02:22PM Monday Dec 07 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: legal · business · privacy · Verizon FIOS · Verizon Wireless Broadband
Last week privacy activist Chris Soghoian wrote a blog entry detailing how carriers share or sell user data to the government. While Sprint's system of sharing GPS data saw the brunt of the publicity, Soghoian's article also discussed how he filed a FOIA request for info on the sharing practices of companies like Verizon and Yahoo. Yahoo and Verizon denied the request for access to how much they charge the government for access to user data, claiming the details of such programs would "shock and confuse" customers.



Interestingly, Techdirt notes that this week those pricing lists have been leaked anyway, and a slew of documents relating to the issue have now been posted to the whistleblower website Cryptome. The website has posted both Verizon (pdf) and Yahoo's (pdf) user data sharing and pricing guides for law enforcement. Sprint's pricing breakdown is here:
•Basic subscriber records: approx. $20 for the first ID, $10 per ID thereafter
•Basic Group Information (including information about moderators): approx. $20 for a group with a
single moderator
•Contents of subscriber accounts, including email: approx. $30-$40 per user
•Contents of Groups: approx. $40 - $80 per group
Anyone really shocked or confused?

Needless to say, Yahoo isn't too happy with the whole thing and has filed a DMCA takedown request to try and get the document pulled from the website. Cryptome's response? They've simply now posted the takedown request itself (pdf) to the website, along with their e-mail discussion with Yahoo's lawyers. Verizon has yet to filed their own takedown request -- but that could be because the Verizon document is from 2002.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Google = Big Brother?

http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/01/08/how ... -internet/

Not as far-fetched as you might think.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Why seizing laptops at the border should be fought as an invasion of privacy:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/14/ ... ed-Laptops

One excellent point is:

The officer searching you probably searches thousands of people a day. It's not like he's going to go through your data files and memorize all the important business/legal documents and then report them to your competitors. The policy document indicates that all electronic searches take place in your presence and with a supervisor present.

Allow me to introduce you to the basis for the majority of my privacy opinions: "Lack of feasibility to infringe on a large scale does not make the initial power just."

Or in simple terms: "Just because they can't now, doesn't mean they won't later."

What you have is a herd mentality that follows the same logic as, "That wolf can't eat all the sheep". If I give ONE person in the country the authority to execute unwarranted searches at their whim, simply because they cannot search EVERYONE does not make the authority I granted just.

ALWAYS consider the way in which a power may be abused, because eventually, it will be.

Thirty years ago if you suggested that the government could monitor and process all of the phone conversations in the United States simultaneously it wouldn't have been possible. However, with conversations being digitized and the development of new technology, it is becoming possible, and in 20-30 years? Just because they can't now, doesn't mean they won't later.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Surprise:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/19/ ... ?art_pos=7

FBI illegally tapped a whole bunch of phone conversations.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

CNET has an article on why privacy isn't cared about anymore:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20000336-38.html

Comments tell a completely different story:

No one? No one person cares? So if we find one person who does then how does that set? Simply because a few don't care doesn't mean others don't. What isn't published is how many people are not using Buzz or privacy settings period or how many falsify them like myself. Because it works for some does not mean it works for all. That is a false logic.

Still to say that simply because 4 million people love to broadcast their status doesn't mean every one does. What then of those that need privacy, like battered women? What happens of you get called to a high profile court case? Is privacy then a special status bestowed upon the privileged that need it due to some legal status? But then it is too late. Everyone knows you who are. Do you only get privacy if you have something like a PPO? Or witness protection? How then do you regulate such a thing how do you define such a thing? More work and money for lawyers!

The comment from the judge is wrong. How can you say that you ask?! Simple. Any fool can make a law and any fool can follow it. Social good is an elusive thing and like privacy takes on a different aspect determined by the person. What constitutes social good? If you believe that there is a social good then you must also believe there is a social evil. What determines the difference better still who determines the difference? Google's "do no evil" mentality is false logic. For what constitutes evil is determined only by themselves. How do they determine good vs evil? A balance sheet? The reaction of their users? what if that changes? China believes themselves to be acting in the social good. Should we not uphold that? If we are rejecting or redefining these values such as privacy then how are we applying them to others?

Each must be allowed to make this decision for themselves and not have it thrust upon them. It may be true that some find broadcasting their status to the world a benefit. Yet it is also true that there are those that do not. The majority nor the minority have the right to make decisions that effect the whole. Choice is the only thing we have. To take that choice away means I no longer have the right to self-determination.

For some there is benefit in the social good of broadcasting their status. To others...not so much. Live and let live, do not force. I choose not to live in public. I shouldn't have to.

I agree 100%. With statements like "Of people with an online profile, nearly 40 percent have disabled privacy settings so anyone may view it" we can hardly say "no one cares about privacy anymore".

In fact this would indicate 60% of people do care, and I would say the other 40% will care as soon as something bad happens to them because of their lack of concern.

The title of this article "Why no one cares about privacy anymore" is entirely misleading if not down right inaccurate. This is sensationalist writing and I would only expect to see such in a supermarket tabloid.

This does not bode well for CNET.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

How your web browser rats you out and what you can do about it:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... online.ars

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Researcher of Tor detained at US border because of his association with Wikileaks and the recent war news spilled by them:

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/worl ... .html?_r=1

Gates Cites Peril in Leak of Afghan War Logs by WikiLeaks
By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: August 1, 2010


WASHINGTON — Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said Sunday that an announcement by the Taliban that they were going through classified military dispatches from Afghanistan posted by the Web site WikiLeaks “basically proves the point” that the disclosures put at risk the lives of Afghans who had aided American forces.

Notes from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other areas of conflict in the post-9/11 era. Go to the Blog »
“Growing up in the intelligence business, protecting your sources is sacrosanct,” said Mr. Gates, a former director of the C.I.A. He said that while it was up to the Justice Department to investigate who supplied the documents to the Web site, run by Julian Assange, an Australian activist who is an outspoken opponent of American and NATO involvement in Afghanistan, he had been “mortified, appalled” at Mr. Assange’s willingness to make public documents that listed the names of individual Afghans.

“There’s also a moral culpability,” he told Christiane Amanpour, in her debut as the host of ABC’s “This Week.” “And that’s where I think the verdict is guilty on WikiLeaks. They have put this out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences.”

Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the Pentagon was assessing the disclosure’s impact on operational security in Afghanistan. “There quite clearly was damage,” Mr. Levin said.

The New York Times, The Guardian in London and Der Spiegel in Germany published excerpts of the leaked documents, but excluded those that identified individuals or compromised operations. The Times also agreed to forward a request by the administration urging WikiLeaks not to post any documents that would put informants in jeopardy.

As the authorities continued their investigation into the source of the leaks, a Seattle-based software developer who has volunteered for WikiLeaks said he was detained at Newark Liberty International Airport on Thursday and questioned for three hours. The developer, Jacob Appelbaum, 27, said in an interview that as he was returning from an overseas trip, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and from the Army’s criminal investigation division asked him about Mr. Assange.

Mr. Appelbaum, an American citizen, said the agents also seized his laptop computer and three cellphones. The laptop was later returned, but the phones were not, he said. Officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security, would not comment.

Two American civilians interviewed in recent weeks by the Army’s criminal division said that investigators were focusing in part on a group of friends who know Pfc. Bradley Manning, a leading suspect in the leak. Investigators, the civilians said, apparently believe that the friends, who include students from M.I.T. and Boston University, might have connections to WikiLeaks.

Mr. Appelbaum said Sunday that he was not involved with that group. He also said he never met or communicated with Private Manning, who has been charged in a separate case with disclosing to WikiLeaks a classified video of an American helicopter attack in Iraq.

Mr. Appelbaum said the agents at Newark Airport refused him access to a lawyer and threatened to detain him for similar questioning whenever he re-entered the country after traveling abroad, which he said he did twice a month for a day job as an online software developer.

“They questioned my ability to re-enter the U.S. even though I’m a U.S. citizen,” he said in a telephone interview from Las Vegas. “It’s very troubling to think that every time I cross the border, I’d get this treatment.”

Mr. Appelbaum, who develops software for the Tor Project, a software system that allows people to talk anonymously to each other online, filled in for Mr. Assange at a conference last month, apparently because Mr. Assange did not want to enter the United States. “It seems the only reason they’re bothering me is that Julian is beyond their reach,” Mr. Appelbaum said.

Mr. Appelbaum said he had been a volunteer for WikiLeaks for several months, but was not involved in reviewing information submitted to it. Investigators, however, appear to be examining whether Mr. Assange was assisted by others in obtaining the documents.

A version of this article appeared in print on August 2, 2010, on page A4 of the New York edition.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

A video about Google:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--Ckz_O6oE0

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Motorcycle driver who filmed the exercise will only be charged for his road violations and not wire-tapping:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/09/27 ... ate-Police


Huge win for citizens.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Good thing you voted Democrat:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/09/27/ ... -Authority

Obama wants to wiretap everything without a warrant.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

The thought police are here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/09/29/ ... he-HR-Dept

Seriously.



My response?


http://xkcd.com/137/

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

I2P brings back the option of remaining anonymous:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2P

There's also a p2p client option or modules for popular apps.