PDA

View Full Version : Privacy - How important is it for you?


Flightfreak
14-05-2006, 06:01 PM
delete

BrunoJA
14-05-2006, 06:15 PM
It's the government's right as long as it's legal and there isn't anything shifty going on. No vague objectives about capturing terrorists. Information like that should only be gathered with the people's consent and even then it's a dangerous thing to have all that data in one place. Needless to say, I don't trust those in power.

Foeni
14-05-2006, 06:34 PM
I have nothing to hide that could interest the authorities, so quite frankly they can keep track of who I call if they like. I trust the police and intelligence agencies to not use the data unless they really have to. Ideologically, I'm against the idea, but seen in the times we live in, I'll have to accept that drastic actions are needed. If tracking all calls can catch a terrorist/criminal and thereby save human lifes, it's fine by me.

How come I just knew you would be the one to start this thread, Pete?

duckula
14-05-2006, 06:37 PM
I have nothing to hide but I strongly believe in the right to privacy.

BrunoJA
14-05-2006, 06:56 PM
Yes, I have nothing to hide...but the people in power now (who are bad enough) won't necessarily be in power in the future. I might not want them monitoring my actions.

The point is, we have to be careful...

kingdumbass
14-05-2006, 07:00 PM
Fuck the government....
The terrorists already won.

Foeni
14-05-2006, 08:27 PM
What's being monitored by the US Goverment is who you call. Not the entire conversation. I highly doubt that they read your mail or track your actions on the internet. It would take too many resources. The only time they are going to use the information about who you call, is if you for some reason should be accused of terrorism.

Foeni
14-05-2006, 08:43 PM
I hardly think they record every phone conversation. Of course laws can be different, but in Denmark that's not legal.
I've heard of the keyword thing, but only in the phones, and only in the us. They can't do that in e-mails, not now.

Foeni
14-05-2006, 09:06 PM
This Directive shall apply to traffic and location data on both legal entities and natural persons and to the related data necessary to identify the subscriber or registered user. It shall not apply to the
content of electronic communications, including information consulted using an electronic communications network.
The content would take way to many resources. If it can save lives, I don't mind the authorities knowing that I call my friends and family.

Foeni
14-05-2006, 09:21 PM
My point by showing that that quote is that the content isn't being kept. Only the facts of the call/mail etc.

ryan
15-05-2006, 02:10 AM
aided by my interest and training in computer security, pretty much any kind of sensitive data i need to transmit is encrypted.
read/listen all you want!

deviljet88
15-05-2006, 09:55 AM
aided by my interest and training in computer security, pretty much any kind of sensitive data i need to transmit is encrypted.
read/listen all you want!
Where there's an encryption, there's a decryption.

But if they want to look at my boring 16 year old angsty msn convos, they can go for it. Why would they even aim at your regular folk, they do need to pay government officials so you'd be thinking they'd aim at something worth their effort. Using the ignorant stance, I don't care and they can do it.

ryan
15-05-2006, 11:54 AM
Where there's an encryption, there's a decryption.

But if they want to look at my boring 16 year old angsty msn convos, they can go for it. Why would they even aim at your regular folk, they do need to pay government officials so you'd be thinking they'd aim at something worth their effort. Using the ignorant stance, I don't care and they can do it.

surely, but in a 1024-bit public key encryption system, it will take a very, very long time and a lot of resources to decrypt messages. besides, the work i do now is for the military/dod anyway. if they want to know what im up to, im sure they could figure out.

hasselbrad
15-05-2006, 01:26 PM
Haha, well what can i say.

I don't like the idea of a government watching my back.

I'm sure you work / worked for a boss Foeni, do you speak absolutely freely in a meeting with your boss and colleagues? Do you say it when you question his knowledge as a boss in comparison with his pay?
You don't because we both know what would happen if you did.

For the same reason i don't like a government tapping my phone, reading my mail, track my actions on the internet, check what books i read from the library, what i study...

I don't like it because i want to be able to question my superiors, my government with out being targeted.

Are you trying to be ironic here?
You are willing to allow government to completely control your healthcare, thereby granting them access to your medical records, but you have a problem with them knowing who you talked to. Not what you talked about, just who was on the other end of the line.
I don't have a problem with the government monitoring who may be talking to terrorists abroad, which is what is going on here. The tinfoil beanie crowd would have you believe that big-brother is listening to every single conversation that is taking place, but it simply isn't the case. I think the figure is something like 200,000,000 minutes of international phonecalls are placed every month from the United States. Do you really think they are listening to every single one of these calls?

BrunoJA
15-05-2006, 01:40 PM
I don't think anyone's foolish enough to believe that...

hasselbrad
15-05-2006, 11:47 PM
My government has no access to my medical records, the only ones that have, are my doctors and my self. The government pays the bill but has no access to my medical files.

I have my doubts about that in any situation, whether it's our system or yours.
If they are footing the bill, it wouldn't surprise me if there aren't some sort of oversights to monitor issues of frequency of care and what doctors are performing what procedures. They may not be sitting there looking at your records, per se, but it isn't any more intrusive than what our government is doing with regard to phone monitoring.

I don't think anyone's foolish enough to believe that...

You'd be surprised. The number of calls I quoted was from a January press conference given by the nominee to head the CIA, Gen. Michael Hayden, I saw on C-Span the other day. It was cited by him in reference to a question by a member of the tinfoil beanie brigade who was trying, unsuccessfully, to draw him into a debate with others of the tinfoil ilk. The guy appeared to be wearing a Songebob Squarepants shirt and was all in a lather about the NSA listening to his conversations. :icon_err:

dave
16-05-2006, 01:39 AM
<snip> I think the figure is something like 200,000,000 minutes of international phonecalls are placed every month from the United States. Do you really think they are listening to every single one of these calls?
As a matter of fact, they are recording them. During the 9/11 aftermath they admitted that they had recorded the conversations of the terrorists but had not thought they were important enough to investigate. This is the main reason why every politician and policeman in the world is afraid of VOIP. Since it is TCP/IP based, they can't intercept it reliably, and it is trivial to encrypt. You know those scrambled phones you see in the movies? Three guesses how they work... There was a brief period of time when overseas phone calls began to go via satellites that the Feds didn't quite know how to intercept them all. Back then you could listen to overseas telephone calls via satellite, yourself, with your "big dish". I did. Boring. What makes you think you have any privacy when you are going between countries? Remember when Rush Limbaugh had so much trouble because someone recorded his cellular phone calls down in Florida? Guess why all Scanners sold in the US are "blocked" in the 800 mHz band. But if you buy your Sony R1 over in Europe, there's no blocking.

My government has no access to my medical records, the only ones that have, are my doctors and my self. The government pays the bill but has no access to my medical files.<snip>
For more than ten years now the law (over here) has been that EVERY class C prescription must be reported DAILY to a "clearing house". It is not a government agency so all the politicians can deny that the Government Knows. However, every Doctor has access to that data base. Do you know the one profession with the highest number of Suicides and Drug addiction?

Incidentally, you can't get access to your records on that particular database. Whyever would you think you could?

dave
19-05-2006, 12:41 AM
Subject: [Caspian-newsletter-l] Spychipped Levi's Brand Jeans Hit the U.S.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 27, 2006


SPYCHIPPED LEVI'S BRAND JEANS HIT THE U.S.
Levi Strauss Confirms RFID Test, Refuses to Disclose Location


It may be time to ditch your Dockers and lay off the Levi's, say privacy
activists Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre. New information confirms
that Levi Strauss & Co. is violating a call for a moratorium on
item-level RFID by spychipping its clothing. What's more, the company is
refusing to disclose the location of its U.S. test.


Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is a controversial technology that
uses tiny microchips to track items from a distance. These RFID
microchips have earned the nickname "spychips" because each contains a
unique identification number, like a Social Security number for things,
that can be read silently and invisibly by radio waves. Over 40 of the
world's leading privacy and civil liberties organizations have called
for a moratorium on chipping individual consumer items because the
technology can be used to track people without their knowledge or
consent.


Jeffrey Beckman, Director of Worldwide and U.S. Communications for Levi
Strauss, confirmed his company's chipping program in an email exhange
with McIntyre, saying "a retail customer is testing RFID at one location
[in the U.S.]...on a few of our larger-volume core men's Levi's jeans
styles." However, he refused to name the location.


"Out of respect for our customer's wishes, we are not going to discuss
any specifics about their test," he said. Beckman also confirmed the
company is tagging Levi Strauss clothing products, including Dockers
brand pants, at two of its franchise locations in Mexico.


McIntyre was tipped off to the activity by a mention in an industry
publication. The article indicated Levi Strauss was looking for
additional RFID "test partners."


Albrecht believes the companies are keeping mum about the U.S. test
location in order to prevent a consumer backlash. Clothing retailer
Benetton was hit hard by a consumer boycott led by Albrecht in 2003 when
the company announced plans to embed RFID tags in its Sisley line of
women's clothing. The resulting consumer outcry forced the company to
retreat from its plans and disclaim its intentions.


Levi Strauss can little afford similar problems with consumers. It is
one of the world's largest brand-name apparel marketers with a presence
in more than 110 countries, but has suffered through several years of
declining sales as younger consumers gravitate to new brands. The
company has also been hurt by Wal-Mart's decision to cut back on
inventory in a bid to shore up its own declining sales.


While Levi Strauss reports that its current RFID trials use external
RFID "hang tags" that can be clipped from the clothes and the focus is
on inventory management, not customer tracking, the company isn't
guaranteeing how it will use RFID in the future.


"Companies like Levi Strauss are painting their RFID trials as
innocuous," observes Albrecht. "But this technology is extraordinarily
dangerous. There is a reason why we have asked companies not to spychip
clothing. Few things are more intimately connected with an individual
than the clothes they wear."


"Once clothing manufacturers begin applying RFID to hang tags, the
floodgates will open and we'll soon find these things sewn into the hem
of our jeans," Albrecht adds. "The problem with RFID is that it is
tracking technology, plain and simple."


Albrecht and McIntyre point out that tracking people through the things
they wear and carry is more than mere speculation. In their book
"Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your
Every Move with RFID," they reveal sworn patent documents that describe
ways to link the unique serial numbers on RFID-tagged items with the
people who purchase them.


One of the most graphic examples is IBM's "Identification and Tracking
of Persons Using RFID-Tagged Items." In that patent application, IBM
inventors suggest tracking consumers for marketing and advertising
purposes.


"That's enough to steam most consumers," says McIntyre."But IBM's
proposal that the government track people through RFID tags on the
things they wear and carry should send a cold chill down our spines."


IBM inventors detail how the government could use RFID tags to track
people in public places like shopping malls, museums, libraries, sports
arenas, elevators, and even restrooms.


"Make no mistake," McIntyre adds. "Today's RFID inventory tags could
evolve into embedded homing beacons. Unchecked, this technology could
become a Big Brother bonanza and a civil liberties nightmare."


================================================== ===================


ABOUT THE BOOK


"Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track your
Every Move with RFID" (Nelson Current) was released in October 2005.
Already in its fifth printing, "Spychips" is the winner of the 2006
Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty and has
received wide critical acclaim. Authored by Harvard doctoral researcher
Katherine Albrecht and former bank examiner Liz McIntyre, the book is
meticulously researched, drawing on patent documents, corporate source
materials, conference proceedings, and firsthand interviews to paint a
convincing -- and frightening -- picture of the threat posed by RFID.


Despite its hundreds of footnotes and academic-level accuracy, the book
remains lively and readable according to critics, who have called it a
"techno-thriller" and "a masterpiece of technocriticism."


================================================== ===================


CASPIAN: Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering
Opposing retail surveillance schemes since 1999.


http://www.spychips.com/
http://www.nocards.org/


You're welcome to duplicate and distribute this message to others who
may find it of interest.


================================================== ===================


To subscribe or unsubscribe to the Caspian-newsletter-l mailing list,
click the following link or copy and paste it into your browser:
http://mailman.nocards.org/mailman/listinfo/caspian-newsletter-l


If you have difficulty with the web-based interface, you may also
subscribe or unsubscribe via email by writing to:
admin@nocards.org

================================================== ===================
And now your Jeans will tell on you...

Which only seems fair, after all, how many of you said "I don't have "anything" to hide, let them do whatever they want..." Forinstance, DevilJet, at 16 I bought wine in a liquor store... How would you feel if a bell started ringing whenever a pair of jeans reported that a 16 year old was in the store?

Nothing to hide, right?

To see what I mean, every year at the Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta we have several Gas Balloon Races. These Gas Balloons are fitted with GPS receivers and little transponders so you can log onto the website and follow the paths of the individual balloons as they waft across the continent. Now imagine that a policeman wanted to see where you had been on a particular day... Your Jeans would report to various (probably cell phone towers, since they already do that for cell phones... [while I was a driving truck we had many opportunities to call 911, and the 911 service from a cell phone reports your location to the 911 operator who then asks you to give your location to eliminate fraudulent calls.] ) and that data would be easy to keep online for years... Imagine every tiny police precinct having a terabyte of storage just to keep track of Jean's Reports. It would almost eliminate kidnapping and serial rapists, so they have a very good reason to do this...

dave
19-05-2006, 12:56 AM
Subject: [Caspian-newsletter-l] VeriChip Injects Itself into Immigration
Debate


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 18, 2006


VERICHIP INJECTS ITSELF INTO IMMIGRATION DEBATE
Company Pushes RFID Implants for Immigrants, Guest Workers


Scott Silverman, Chairman of the Board of VeriChip Corporation, has
alarmed civil libertarians by promoting the company's subcutaneous human
tracking device as a way to identify immigrants and guest workers. He
appeared on the Fox News Channel earlier this week, the morning after
President Bush called for high-tech measures to clamp down on Mexican
immigrants.


Privacy advocates Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre are warning that a
government-sanctioned chipping program such as that suggested by
Silverman could quickly be expanded to include U.S. citizens, as well.


The VeriChip is a glass encapsulated Radio Frequency Identification tag
that is injected into the flesh to uniquely number and identify people.
The tag can be read silently and invisibly by radio waves from up to a
foot or more away, right through clothing. The highly controversial
device is also being marketed as a way to access secure areas, link to
medical records, and serve as a payment device when associated with a
credit card.


"Makers of VeriChip have been planning for this day. They've lost
millions of dollars trying to sell their invasive product to North
America, and now they see an opportunity in the desperation of the
people of Latin America," Albrecht observes.


VeriChip's Silverman bandied about the idea of chipping foreigners on
national television Tuesday, emboldened by the Bush Administration call
to know "who is in our country and why they are here." He told Fox &
Friends that the VeriChip could be used to register guest workers,
verify their identities as they cross the border, and "be used for
enforcement purposes at the employer level." He added, "We have talked
to many people in Washington about using it...."


Silverman is reportedly also planning to share his vision on CNBC's
Squawk Box if a slot opens up tomorrow (Friday) morning sometime between
6 and 9 AM Eastern Time. He was originally scheduled to appear on the
show this morning, but technical problems at the Florida studio
prevented his appearance.


The numbering and chipping of people seems like a plot from a dystopian
novel, but the company has gotten the buy-in from highly placed current
and former government officials, including Columbian President Alvaro
Uribe. He reportedly told Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) that he would
consider having microchips implanted into Colombian workers before they
are permitted to enter the United States to work on a seasonal basis.


"The mantra 'chip the foreigners' has little appeal once people realize
the company wants to stamp its 'electronic tattoo' into every one of
us," cautions McIntyre. "Electronically branding and tracking visitors
like cattle is VeriChip's excuse to get the government on board. But if
that happens, we'll all be in their sights."


Tommy Thompson, former Secretary of Health and Human Services joined the
board of VeriChip Corporation after leaving his Bush administration
cabinet post. Shortly thereafter, he went on national television
recommending that all Americans get chipped as a way to link to their
medical records. He also suggested the VeriChip could replace military
dog tags, and a spokesman boasted that the company had been in talks
with the Pentagon.


Privacy advocates warn that once people are numbered with a remotely
readable RFID tag like the VeriChip, they can be tracked. Once they can
be tracked, they can be monitored and controlled.


Albrecht and McIntyre, the authors of "Spychips: How Major Corporations
and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID" believe the
world's people will stand firm against chipping. "Our country was
founded on principles of freedom and liberty. We're betting that the
American people will see the end game and buck VeriChip's attempts,"
said Albrecht. "We also believe the people of Latin America will rise up
in opposition once they read our book."



You know, I have a half a terabyte of disc here on this little homemade toy PC. Can you imagine how many people you can keep track of with a half a terabyte? All you need is that RFID number and their GPS location...

When Mike Wolf invented these RFID tags the very first thing he used them for was to tag Elk up here in the Jemez Mountains. Those tags could (Back then) be activated by a small transceiver with a Yagi antenna and read over ten miles away. These "privacy advocates" don't know the history. You could set a transceiver up on a hillside, and scan an entire town to find a particular individual. I suspect you could do it from a satellite... Your world, not mine, I'm too old and too well ensconced in my mountain cabin to be affected by this stuff.

OK, I'll give you one, try Go here and enter an address (http://local.live.com/) now, bring it down to where you can almost see inside some of the buildings... We truck drivers use this to see if we can get to a place (low bridges, etc.) and which is the best way to get to the unloading docks. (which are clearly visible for most buildings.)

Hazzle
20-05-2006, 12:52 AM
Privacy is a communist conspiracy theory designed to bring down the rightful order of things. Trust me, you don't need it.

Rob The BLack Douglas
20-05-2006, 07:12 PM
If you have nothing to hide they shouldn't be looking into your info anyways.

Rob

dave
20-05-2006, 08:45 PM
If you have nothing to hide they shouldn't be looking into your info anyways.

Rob

You do know the difference between "Shouldn't" and "Wouldn't," eh? I had a "Q" clearance for over 30 years with a "crypto" endorsement for about 17. There is nothing about me that the government doesn't know. But that only means that they "wouldn't" bother to follow me around, normally. What they shouldn't do is what we were talking about.

And your saying that "If you have nothing to hide" is a "strawman." A fake argument merely meant to obfuscate the issue. Also it is not true. Just because you have nothing to hide has nothing to do with whether you will be counted, categorized, pummelled into shape, and dismissed as "no trouble here... merely another undereducated Democrat, spouting off..."

Remember, in order for a survey to agree with what you think it should say, 97% of the people counted have to do what you said they were going to do in the first place... So, most of the counting is merely to verify the 97%, the three percent may be who they are "after," but the 97% tells them that they are on the "right track."

Rob The BLack Douglas
21-05-2006, 06:16 AM
You do know the difference between "Shouldn't" and "Wouldn't," eh? I had a "Q" clearance for over 30 years with a "crypto" endorsement for about 17. There is nothing about me that the government doesn't know. But that only means that they "wouldn't" bother to follow me around, normally. What they shouldn't do is what we were talking about.

And your saying that "If you have nothing to hide" is a "strawman." A fake argument merely meant to obfuscate the issue. Also it is not true. Just because you have nothing to hide has nothing to do with whether you will be counted, categorized, pummelled into shape, and dismissed as "no trouble here... merely another undereducated Democrat, spouting off..."

Remember, in order for a survey to agree with what you think it should say, 97% of the people counted have to do what you said they were going to do in the first place... So, most of the counting is merely to verify the 97%, the three percent may be who they are "after," but the 97% tells them that they are on the "right track."

I know it can be fun to throw things oot and see what comes up from time to time :)

Rob

Hazzle
11-06-2006, 10:40 AM
Privacy is for left wing nutcases, it simply is yet another hurdle to effective and strong government. Relinquish your rights people, you don't need them.

Hazzle
11-06-2006, 10:55 AM
Glad you're finally seeing the light Pete. Although I think the US is being far too lenient. If you oppose the government you should be shot on the spot. Damn protestors.

Hazzle
11-06-2006, 02:02 PM
You mean they should bring more than three people too Suicide? :icon_surp

Suicide? No, I want the bitches tortured then shot. All this freedom nonsense. Next you'll be saying you want to give people the freedom to blow smoke in other people's faces...


Oh.

Swordsman
18-06-2006, 06:47 AM
If the government was actually listening then they'd have declared the US as being doomed. All the kids my age and younger and even a little older are fucking stupid. We're so doomed. England, come and claim us back if you want... we'll show you how to cook.