Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 30, 2017, 01:47:31 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101313 Posts in 2372 Topics by 1088 Members
Latest Member: Michael Yon
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] Print
Author Topic: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments  (Read 267541 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1000 on: October 25, 2015, 10:34:48 PM »

Well, given all the photos out there due to my line of work, I am thoroughly fuct!
 tongue tongue tongue  angry angry angry
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8615


« Reply #1001 on: November 12, 2015, 12:29:39 PM »

Video at the link:
http://www.thewhatifconference.com/wi/technology_has_killed_privacy

A famous professor speaks to his class on a crucial topic.
Dr. Tobias Gibson, Westminster College, Fulton MO
(Some here may recognize him.)
I am impressed with the way his class is paying attention.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2015, 02:26:00 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1002 on: November 14, 2015, 02:25:38 PM »

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/state-of-california-secretly-collecting-blooddna-of-all-babies-since-1983/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1003 on: November 17, 2015, 01:09:58 AM »

Urban Terror will Usher in Next Gen Surveillance State
Posted: 16 Nov 2015 02:45 PM PST
The effectiveness of blood and guts terrorism isn't found in the physical and psychological damage it does.
It's found in the reaction it provokes.
With this in mind, will the Paris attacks provoke a reaction that makes them effective?
I think so.
Over the long run, the Paris attacks of 2015 (and those that follow) will be seen as the start of a shift to the next generation surveillance state in the US, China, and Europe.
Due to a revolutionary technological change currently underway, it will be possible to add pervasive physical surveillance to the proven systems of electronic surveillance (voice, email, chat, etc.) already in use.
This new capability will make it possible to deploy a cognitive sensor network that will:
1. "know" who everyone in an urban area is (if you ever had a picture taken, it will likely "know" who you are),
2. simultaneously track where everyone in a city is (and has been), and
3. understand what everyone in the city is doing (from voice to behavior capture/analysis).
Further, this network will learn. It will get continuously better with experience.
It will also be proactive. For example, if it finds a gap in its coverage, it can actively move cognitive sensors to cover the gap (even penetrating structures to gather information).
Sincerely,
John Robb
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1004 on: November 17, 2015, 10:27:07 AM »

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-about-paris-to-blame-snowden-distract-from-actual-culprits-who-empowered-isis/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8615


« Reply #1005 on: November 21, 2015, 02:09:12 PM »

Some followup on the Ted Cruz Intel discussion...

The intel experts say the metadata, in conjunction wit other resources, has value, so the issue of concern is privacy.

I wish for all the privacy from government (and from corporations) that I can get.  And that I have lost 99.9% of it already doesn't justify losing more.

Look at what privacy that belongs to us that government already has access to.  Has anyone ever been audited by the IRS?  It's been a while for me, but don't they already have the power to know everything about every dollar that came in from every source and all the details about all potential income producing assets you own.  Has anyone ever been through FAFSA process (federal student loan program)?  They go further and get to know even about your non-income producing assets.  Most families really can't just decline the process when the product is priced such that 97% of the applicants (at some schools) need and receive assistance.  I've been audited by the US Dept of HUD.  What they are allowed to ask of me is amazing and scary and once they opened an inquiry it went full course even though I could easily prove the allegation false.  In my case, who are all the people you've rented to at all your properties, who are all your ownership partners and let's open an investigation against them too, in light of the fact that the original complaint could be proven false in minutes.

So-called Metadata is so voluminous that it is worthless (IMO) to the nefarious compared to other much more specific data that is within a much easier reach.

From the other thread:  "Balance that [intel and security interests] against Hillary having access to everyone's phone calls and emails."

Mis-use of the metadata is a Federal crime.  Yes there are Snowdens (He would be in a US prison by now if we had a President).  Yes there are bureaucratic bunglings of safeguards and the potential for worse.  But I think in terms of violation our privacy, this is a small loss and worth it IF it has value tracking terror connections in conjunction with other resources.  

For more than 10 years, NSA has had the database of what numbers connected to what numbers, what emails connected to what emails.  Meanwhile your carrier (and Google, Apple, etc.) had the content of those communications as well as your current location and location history, everything you have searched and everywhere you have visited on the internet.  Your device/smartphone carries most of that same information or access to it and is an easier source to it for your potential enemy/adversary than NSA metadata.  To me, that is where the main risk of mis-use lies.

I have as big a mistrust of government and as big a revulsion of our privacy loss as anyone (I think), but I don't see this piece of the puzzle at anywhere near the level of concern that people like Rand Paul make it out to be.  My distrust extends to the giant carriers as well, so containing our lost privacy over there, where the government has access to it anyway, is a Pyrrhic victory, IMHO.  

If there is something in the metadata to be tracked for terror connections, I want it tracked and tracked better, not made harder to track without giving back any of our lost privacy..  But that's just me...


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1006 on: November 21, 2015, 02:32:29 PM »

For future reference bringing GM's post over to here-- this is some very interesting stuff!

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/isis-opsec-encryption-manuals-reveal-terrorist-group-security-protocols/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/08/world-of-jihadcraft
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Guest
« Reply #1007 on: November 24, 2015, 09:49:00 AM »

They'll keep tilting at windmills nonetheless, because that's what political elites do:

https://reason.com/archives/2015/11/24/ban-encryption-its-an-impossible-idea-wh
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #1008 on: November 26, 2015, 09:49:13 AM »

http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2015/11/kids-toys-are-recording-and.html?m=1

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1009 on: November 26, 2015, 11:32:56 AM »

 shocked shocked shocked angry angry angry
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #1010 on: November 27, 2015, 10:43:28 PM »

https://medium.com/@nselby/los-angeles-just-proposed-the-worst-use-of-license-plate-reader-data-in-history-702c35733b50#.v2683bt29

Los Angeles Just Proposed the Worst Use of License Plate Reader Data in History.

Last month, when I spoke on a panel called “Spying in Public: Policy and Practice” at the 25th Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference in Washington, DC, we were embroiled in a discussion of license plate readers. As a law enforcement technologist, and a working police detective, I generally support the use of license plate readers. I discussed at the conference a child pornography case in which the suspect (now indicted) had fled the city and the police located him using the technology.
From the back of the room came the comment, “The issue is the potentially chilling effect that this technology has on freedom of association and freedom of transportation.”
That’s literally the phrase that leapt into my mind when I read the monumentally over-reaching idea posed by Nury Martinez, a 6th district Los Angeles city councilwoman, to access a database of license plates captured in certain places around the city, translate these license plates to obtain the name and address of each owner, and send to that owner a letter explaining that the vehicle was seen in, “an area known for prostitution.”

Councilwoman Nury Martinez
Councilwoman Martinez feels that prostitution is not a “victimless” crime, and that by discouraging johns, the incidence of the crime can be reduced. Martinez told CBS Los Angeles, “If you aren’t soliciting, you have no reason to worry about finding one of these letters in your mailbox. But if you are, these letters will discourage you from returning. Soliciting for sex in our neighborhoods is not OK.”
The Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to ask the office of the District Attorney for their help implementing the plan.
Have Ms. Martinez and the Los Angeles City Council taken leave of their senses? This scheme makes, literally, a state issue out of legal travel to arbitrary places deemed by some — but not by a court, and without due process — to be “related” to crime in general, not to any specific crime.
There isn’t “potential” for abuse here, this is a legislated abuse of technology that is already controversial when it’s used by police for the purpose of seeking stolen vehicles, tracking down fugitives and solving specific crimes.
It is theoretically possible that a law enforcement officer could observe an area he understands to be known for prostitution, and, upon seeing a vehicle driving in a certain manner, or stopping in front of suspected or known prostitutes, based on his reasonable suspicion that he bases on his analysis of the totality of these specific circumstances, the officer could speak with the driver to investigate. This is very uncommon, because it would take a huge amount of manpower and time.
The City Council and Ms. Martinez seek to “automate” this process of reasonable suspicion (reducing it to mere presence at a certain place), and deploy it on a massive scale. They then seek to take this much further, through a highly irresponsible (and probably illegal) action that could have significant consequences on the recipient of such a letter — and they have absolutely no legal standing to write, let alone send it. There are grave issues of freedom of transportation and freedom of association here.
Guilt by association would be a higher standard.
Worse, they seek to use municipal funds to take action against those guilty of nothing other than traveling legally on city streets, then access the state-funded Department of Motor Vehicle registration records to resolve the owner data, then use municipal moneys to write, package and pay the United States Postal Service to deliver a letter that is at best a physical manifestation of the worst kind of Digital McCarthyism. There are clearly Constitutional issues here.
Oh, and what happens to those records once they are committed to paper? As letters sent by the District Attorney or City Council, they would be rightly subject to Freedom of Information Laws. And mandatory retention periods that exceed those of automated license plate data, even though no investigation has been consummated.
Which means that, under Councilwoman Martinez’ scheme, anyone will be able to get a list of all vehicles driving in certain parts of town merely by requesting “all ‘John’ letters sent” between a date range.
Far from serving as, in the words of one proponent, a private “wake-up call,” these letters will surely be the basis of insurance, medical, employment and other decisions, and such a list can be re-sold to public records companies, advertising mailing list companies…the list is, literally, endless.
This wrong-headed law has, out of the gate, a chilling effect on association and transport.
No non-fascist state should ever allow this to happen.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1011 on: December 17, 2015, 01:15:46 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/senatormikelee/videos/1051049141593445/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1012 on: December 21, 2015, 09:06:02 AM »

 By L. Gordon Crovitz
Dec. 20, 2015 4:15 p.m. ET
50 COMMENTS

The massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., came a few days after a law went into effect banning access by intelligence agencies to key digital communications. It is time for the U.S. to get ahead of terrorism by finally allowing its intelligence agents to use digital tools before the next attack.

Soon after the San Bernardino massacre, law-enforcement agents discovered digital records left behind by Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik. If intelligence agencies had been allowed access to the information in real time, the terrorist attack might have been prevented.

Politics forces the National Security Agency to operate with blinders. The Obama administration blocked the agency from its post-9/11 practice of collecting metadata—tracking digital data on an anonymous basis, and then seeking a court order if Americans are involved—for emails and other digital communications. The law that went into effect just before the San Bernardino killings ended direct NSA access to historic phone records.

Despite concerns that terrorists can use encryption to stay dark, the unencrypted digital records make clear that Farook and Malik could have been discovered if the NSA had been allowed access to metadata:

At least since 2010, Farook and his neighbor Enrique Marquez watched Islamist videos on the Internet and read online magazines published by overseas terror groups. A few weeks before the massacre, Mr. Marquez said on Facebook, “My life turned ridiculous,” including becoming “involved in terrorist plots.” He was arrested last week on charges including conspiring to support terrorists. Intelligence agencies could have monitored his trail of videos, online magazines and Facebook posts.

Malik left her own digital tracks disclosing her Islamist beliefs and terrorist intentions before she applied for a visa to move to the U.S. Authorities have found messages Malik sent to friends on Facebook in 2012 and 2014 pledging support for jihad and for joining the fight.

The New York Times recently cited intelligence sources describing the couple bonding over jihad before they met, sharing their commitment to terror “on an online messaging platform, as well as emails and communications on a dating site.” FBI Director James Comey said the couple was “communicating online, showing signs in that communication of their joint commitment to jihad and martyrdom.”

A former undersecretary at the Department of Homeland Security, John Cohen, last week disclosed to ABC News that “immigration officials were not allowed to use or view social media as part of the screening process” when Malik’s application was processed. The agency, he said, worried about the “optics” of monitoring digital communications. A DHS spokesman said the policy is under review, while still taking “into account civil rights and civil liberties and privacy protections.” The DHS apparently doesn’t know that foreigners seeking visas have no such rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Metadata was a hot topic in last week’s Republican presidential debate, with Marco Rubio blasting Ted Cruz and Rand Paul for supporting the Obama bill limiting access to phone records, which Hillary Clinton also supported. This increasingly looks like a wedge issue on the Republican side.

Much of the criticism of metadata collection came in the wake of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s feverish accusations against U.S. intelligence in 2013. But despite the many stolen documents he revealed, Mr. Snowden showed no wrongdoing by NSA employees using metadata. Only 22 NSA officials had this authority, overseen by 300 compliance officers, a special court and the political branches of government.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans only from “unreasonable” searches. The Founders intended reasonableness based on the circumstances. Courts have ruled that citizens have no expectation of privacy for bank records, phone calls, fingerprints, DNA or Facebook posts. In 2013 New York Federal Appeals Court Judge William Pauley confirmed the legality of collecting telephone metadata, noting in his opinion that such collection doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment—and he went out of his way to say that 9/11 might haven been prevented if intelligence agencies had been collecting and analyzing metadata before the terror attacks.

Americans lose no privacy by allowing access to anonymous data, which when used properly only identifies suspects for courts to consider. “This blunt tool only works because it collects everything,” Judge Pauley wrote. “Without all the data points, the government cannot be certain it connected the pertinent ones.”

The choice is more metadata or more San Bernardinos.

Voters can now compare candidates according to their view of reasonableness: Is it more reasonable to let terrorists plan in secret or to let intelligence agencies have access to tools that could be at their disposal? Is it more reasonable to have intelligence agents gather data before attacks happen or only when it is too late?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1013 on: January 11, 2016, 12:08:29 AM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/the-new-way-police-are-surveilling-you-calculating-your-threat-score/2016/01/10/e42bccac-8e15-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html?tid=ss_fb-bottom
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #1014 on: January 26, 2016, 09:06:09 AM »

http://www.vocativ.com/news/275331/the-search-engine-for-webcams
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1015 on: February 08, 2016, 08:33:03 PM »

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/feds-banks-inform-law-enforcement-customers-depositingwithdrawing-5000-cash
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1016 on: February 25, 2016, 11:51:38 AM »

Former NSA Chief Skeptical of FBI's Backdoor Demand
 

When news broke last week that the FBI was demanding a backdoor into the iPhone of a San Bernardino terrorist, we cautioned that doing so wasn't just a case of breaking into just this one phone this one time. The FBI was really asking two things: a backdoor to iPhones in general, and a legal precedent for using it. Apple is fighting the demand.

They're not alone. No less than Michael Hayden, the former chief of both the NSA and CIA as well as a retired four-star Air Force general, isn't convinced the government is right. "In this specific case," he said, "I'm trending toward the government, but I've got to tell you in general I oppose the government's effort, personified by FBI Director Jim Comey. Jim would like a backdoor available to American law enforcement in all devices globally. And, frankly, I think on balance that actually harms American safety and security, even though it might make Jim's job a bit easier in some specific circumstances."
Indeed, the government has more phones for Apple to crack.

Hayden also said rather honestly, "Look, I used to run the NSA, okay? Backdoors are good. Please, please, Lord, put back doors in, because I and a whole bunch of other talented security services around the world — even though that back door was not intended for me — that backdoor will make it easier for me to do what I want to do, which is to penetrate. ... But when you step back and look at the whole question of American security and safety writ large, we are a safer, more secure nation without backdoors [because] a lot of other people would take advantage of it."

And speaking of precedents, Apple CEO Tim Cook noted, "If a court can ask us to write this piece of software, think about what else they could ask us to write. Maybe it's an operating system for surveillance. Maybe it's the ability for law enforcement to turn on the camera. I mean I don't know where this stops." In other words, what is the limiting principle for government power?

Perhaps that's one reason why Apple's already developing a way to thwart the workaround the FBI seeks...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1017 on: March 09, 2016, 04:52:55 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/senatormikelee/videos/1099048543460171/
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Guest
« Reply #1018 on: March 12, 2016, 03:04:22 PM »

So all that spying on Americans that wasn't relevant as all the data just sat there unexamined until a specific national security need arose . . . can now be accessed by law enforcement agencies for investigations not related to national security matters. Who could see that one coming?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/surprise-nsa-data-will-soon-routinely-be-used-for-domestic-policing-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-terrorism/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1019 on: March 12, 2016, 09:30:24 PM »

Some days it can be pretty discouraging , , ,
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #1020 on: March 13, 2016, 07:46:22 AM »

So all that spying on Americans that wasn't relevant as all the data just sat there unexamined until a specific national security need arose . . . can now be accessed by law enforcement agencies for investigations not related to national security matters. Who could see that one coming?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/surprise-nsa-data-will-soon-routinely-be-used-for-domestic-policing-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-terrorism/

First, consider the source. Second, as far as state and local law enforcement goes, the FBI has long been known as a black hole where information goes and none ever emerges from.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Guest
« Reply #1021 on: March 19, 2016, 01:54:07 PM »

Washington's desire to monitor its citizens is nothing new, nor is principled opposition to it:

http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/19/the-man-j-edgar-hoover-blamed
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1022 on: May 02, 2016, 11:38:54 AM »

Manhattan Beach neighbors Hermosa Beach.  This is from the local paper.

http://www.easyreadernews.com/126456/local-government-15/?utm_source=Daily+News&utm_campaign=3fbec38819-Daily_EMAIL_NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b41a925468-3fbec38819-286697493
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1023 on: May 02, 2016, 12:38:22 PM »

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/schumer-spying-billboards-investigate/2016/05/01/id/726605/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #1024 on: May 21, 2016, 09:30:49 AM »

http://www.businessinsider.com/everything-google-knows-about-you-2016-5?r=UK&IR=T


« Last Edit: May 21, 2016, 10:33:58 AM by G M » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #1025 on: May 22, 2016, 12:26:26 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/20/smart-tvs-webcams-allow-access-peeping-toms/

Retro-tech may well be the way to go.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #1026 on: June 03, 2016, 07:20:41 AM »

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/05/25/1457246/facebook-could-be-eavesdropping-on-your-phone-calls

Creepy.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6841


« Reply #1027 on: June 03, 2016, 03:14:50 PM »

I am glad others get to see what it is like to be eavesdropped on all the time.

But this:

 "The results were shocking, as less than 60 seconds later, the first post on her Facebook feed was about a safari story out of nowhere, which was then revealed that the story had been posted three hours earlier. And, after mentioning a jeep, a car ad also appeared on her page.
On a support page, Facebook explains how this feature works: "No, we don't record your conversations. If you choose to turn on this feature, we'll only use your microphone to identify the things you're listening to or watching based on the music and TV matches we're able to identify. If this feature is turned on, it's only active when you're writing a status update." I wonder how many people are actually aware of this."

The explanation on the support page says they don't *record*.  Well they must be using some speech recognition then since the author was hinting around by speaking not listening or watching.

Are you happy that little shit Fucker berg has this much power?  I am not.  These tech companies often try to qualify it as though we have some sort of option to turn it off or opt out when in truth no one ever knows or is for that matter notified that they are eavesdropping.

Frankly I would like to see regulation (I know an ugly word around here) that makes it necessary for users to be made aware of how, when , why we are being surveillanced.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 737


« Reply #1028 on: July 14, 2016, 02:43:57 AM »

Snowden Interview

Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #1029 on: August 22, 2016, 01:21:16 PM »

https://readfomag.com/2016/08/dhs-to-roll-out-new-orwellian-intelligence-program/

DHS to Roll Out New Orwellian Intelligence Program
5912385701_470d2b97ac_b

The Department of Homeland Security is spending $40 million dollars to fund a “quantitative analysis” program for its  Science and Technology Directorate.  In a grant proposal published this month, DHS calls on colleges and universities to submit plans to support the Center for Homeland Security Quantitative Analysis.

According to the documents, grant winners will support “real-time decision making to address homeland security-related threats and hazards” by conducting research and developing “mission-relevant science and technology.”

    “It is DHS’s intent to produce new capabilities and work with partners and stakeholders at all levels to test these capabilities in operational and strategic settings, and then take steps to make these solutions available and useful to agencies at all levels.”

If it sounds Orwellian, it’s because it is Orwellian.  It’s no secret that DHS faces more challenges than it can handle.  When we talk about intelligence and complex problems, I often bring up efficiency.  In order to compete, organizations have to be efficient, otherwise they fall behind, and inefficiencies are a great contributor to falling behind.  Analysis is nearly always the bottleneck in the flow of information to decision makers.  Organizations can collect massive amounts of data, but it’s rarely useful until the information is evaluated by an analyst.  A shortage of analysts typically leads to a shortage of analysis.  When decision makers don’t have evaluated information and insight into the data — what we can call “intelligence” — they often make poor decisions.

    The Center for Homeland Security Quantitative Analysis (CHSQA) shall develop the next generation of mathematical, computational, and statistical theories, as well as algorithms, methods, and tools to advance the quantitative analysis capabilities [of DHS].

For the past ten years, organizations have been realizing that the solution to that bottleneck is Big Data analytics — or “quantitative analysis”.  The DHS Quantitative Analysis program is a big data approach to problem-solving that requires massive amounts of data (open source information, especially social media) being fed into databases for storage, retrieval, and analysis.  Algorithms will scan and organize data, find patterns, and then direct analysts to high priority data points.  This greatly speeds up the analysis process — removing the traditional bottleneck — because analysts no longer have to sift through all the collected data.  In other words, this technology will help sift through the haystack and deliver some needles to the analyst.

There’s no doubt that DHS is becoming a domestic intelligence agency.  Whatever reason DHS was created — ostensibly to find terrorists and keep the homeland secure — it’s taking steps that should give us pause.  Does DHS really need these capabilities?

But perhaps the most troubling part of this project is that DHS asks:

    At what point do private individuals accept biometrics and data collection as an accepted social process?

Biometrics is going to have a profound and growing impact on American society, as foreshadowed by the desire of DHS to normalize biometric collection of Americans.  I should know.  My last assignment was a Senior Analyst on the Defense Department’s Biometrics Intelligence Program where we tracked down insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By collecting location information (via cell phones, for instance), social media posts and other open source information, along with biometrics, DHS is going to be able to build a pattern of life analysis for any member of the public.  (To see part of what that looks like, see SPACE Analysis.)  America is entering a Brave New World.

Grant proposals for the Center of Excellence for Homeland Security Quantitative Analysis must be submitted by November.  You can download the Grant Opportunity here
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1030 on: August 23, 2016, 06:47:11 AM »

 shocked shocked shocked
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #1031 on: August 25, 2016, 09:14:28 PM »

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2016/08/25/stop-what-youre-doing-and-update-your-iphone-right-now/?singlepage=true
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #1032 on: September 09, 2016, 08:51:22 AM »

http://weaponsman.com/?p=34822

Covert.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1033 on: September 09, 2016, 08:49:56 PM »

 shocked shocked shocked
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6841


« Reply #1034 on: September 20, 2016, 09:09:54 PM »

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/20/evidence-fbi-gathered-while-running-porn-site-thrown-out-again/
« Last Edit: September 20, 2016, 10:23:30 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1035 on: September 20, 2016, 10:24:31 PM »

I'm guessing the courts that held for the FBI said something to the effect that by going to the site the defendants entered into the jurisdiction of the court issuing the warrant.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1036 on: December 10, 2016, 03:06:08 PM »

http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/05/in-key-decision-dc-court-upholds-fourth-amendment/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Top5&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTjJFM1pEZzRaakV3TWpWaCIsInQiOiJmd0daWmhRUloyMHdoNTJxRHdETEFOUzgwNjY0UUJDTkNSd0VkRmVOa3pHaTRWdEt4cmcwcHc3TkRNY1ZRdTBBTWRuSEUzZUgrbkFRYUMyXC8ycllkcHd0bm9sWVRORVdteUVOcjhnVzhudGtTNktqeUZ1VUg0YkVIQUdMVEQ1Nm8ifQ%3D%3D
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1037 on: December 16, 2016, 07:59:51 PM »

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12/16/fl-court-rules-police-can-compel-suspect-to-unlock-cell-phone/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1038 on: January 08, 2017, 12:52:11 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2017/01/08/a-lawyer-rewrote-instagrams-terms-of-use-in-plain-english-so-kids-would-know-their-privacy-rights/?utm_term=.28ec03c5772e&wpisrc=nl_wemost&wpmm=1
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1039 on: January 16, 2017, 11:39:16 PM »



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/01/12/youve-probably-never-heard-of-this-creepy-genealogy-site-but-its-heard-all-about-you/?utm_term=.9e49ab866698&wpisrc=nl_wemost&wpmm=1
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #1040 on: February 26, 2017, 01:35:15 PM »

http://www.kimdutoit.com/2017/02/24/no-just-no/

No. Just… NO.
February 24, 2017 Kim du Toit Bad News

Via Insty, I discovered this little beast lurking in the bushes. The piece is entitled, “The race for autonomous cars is over. Silicon Valley lost” and is about how Silicon Valley won’t be able to challenge Detroit / Wolfsburg / Stuttgart / Tokyo in the manufacture of autonomous cars. Don’t care about any of that. No, the turd in the punchbowl actually comes towards the end of the article:

    There is another area where Silicon Valley could play a dominant role and it’s all about accessing car-based data.

    One billion people get in and out of a car every single day. They go to work, they go home, they shop, they play, they do a billion different things. Knowing where they’re going and what they’re doing can be very valuable. That data can be aggregated, sorted, and packaged. And then it can be sold to anyone.

    Unlike automotive manufacturing, Big Data analytics driven by Artificial Intelligence does not require large capital investments in factories and equipment. That translates into meaty profit margins, reportedly as high as 90%.

    There are basically two sets of data. One set is generated by the car, such as how all the parts and components are performing and how well the car is running. That allows automakers to mine the data for a variety of uses, such as trend analysis to quickly identify warranty issues or learn how to set more effective engineering specifications.

    The other set of data is generated by the people in the car; a massive amount of information flowing in and out about where they’re going and what they’re doing. Last year in the U.S. market alone Chevrolet collected 4,220 terabytes of data from customer’s cars. McKinsey forecasts that this could grow into a $450 to 750 billion market by 2030. Retailers, advertisers, marketers, product planners, financial analysts, government agencies, and so many others will eagerly pay to get access to that information. And it’s a gift that keeps on giving. You can sell the same data again, again and again to a variety of different customers.

I have no absolutely problem with the first data set; if it’s to do with improving the car and its manufacturer’s business, I’m all for it.

I have an enormous problem with the second data set. Here’s why.

As Longtime Readers already know, I used to work in the supermarket loyalty program business; you know, those annoying little cards you have to use to get discounts when you check out of the big supermarkets. (Basically, the supermarket is paying you for your shopping data, which they mostly use to improve things like stock re-ordering, shelf management and pricing strategy. That’s the equivalent of Data Set #1, above.) Let me be perfectly frank about this: I don’t know a great deal about a lot of things, but I know absolutely everything about customer data collection and -marketing. Over a period of five years, I set up data collection methodology and designed databases, reporting systems and marketing programs for a number of supermarket chains all over the United States. Trust me, I know whereof I speak on this topic.

Which is why I look on this Data Set #2 from the automotive industry with alarm and absolute hostility. One of the rules I set up right at the beginning of any loyalty program was that the data didn’t belong to the supermarket chain; it belonged to the customer. Once aggregated, of course, the data became ours — but individual transaction data was absolutely untouchable. We could not release any individual’s data to anyone without that customer’s explicit and specific approval — several times, I refused “requests” (demands) from divorce attorneys and once, yes, from a government agency, to have access to individuals’ shopping data.

Now compare and contrast that policy, if you will, with this breezy attitude towards data sharing:

    Retailers, advertisers, marketers, product planners, financial analysts, government agencies, and so many others will eagerly pay to get access to that information. And it’s a gift that keeps on giving. You can sell the same data again, again and again to a variety of different customers.

I have often cautioned people about this trend towards autonomous cars. Yes, it means that you don’t have to worry your pretty / pointy little head about that messy driving business while you grapple with WOW Level 13 — but what you’re doing, in essence, is giving up control of the car to someone else. (And you can dress it up with all the IT gobbledygook about “algorithms”, “AI” and “predictive planning” you want; I’ll still tell you to blow it out your ass, because at the end of the day, someone not you is going to control your actions.)

Now this. Note that in the excerpt above, the lovely little term “government agencies” is inserted right next to “and so many others” like it’s not just another fucking tool whereby the goddamn government can observe and yes, later control your actions.

One of my heroes is a man named John Cowperthwaite, who was the governor-general of Hong Kong during the late 1950s and early 1960s, and who was responsible for the greatest improvement of a country’s living conditions in history. Here was Cowperthwaite’s take on government data collection (which he expressly forbade, by the way), as told to Milton Friedman:

    “I remember asking [Cowperthwaite] about the paucity of statistics. He answered,’If I let them compute those statistics, they’ll want to use them for planning.'”

If it were just planning, I might be okay with it. But what Cowperthwaite suspected, and what I know for a fact, is that governmental “planning” inevitably leads to government control. Information is everything, and we now live in the Information Age. Sometimes I wish we didn’t, because the vast mass of people just don’t care or are completely ignorant of this danger.

Here’s my last thought (for now) on this topic. The automobile was for decades a symbol of an individual’s independence. In his car, a man could drive wherever he wanted, whenever he wanted, for whatever reason he wanted, and for as long as he wanted — all without anyone but himself being any the wiser. Now, under the guise of “autonomy”, this freedom is going to be taken away from us. (At this point, George Orwell is laughing his ass off. “Freedom is Slavery”, remember?)

I once said that if I could choose the way I die, it would either be in my wife’s arms or on the barricades. Well, that first option has been taken from me, which means that if I die, it will be in a pitched gun battle with government agents who are trying to take away my old car and forcing me to use Government Autonomous Vehicle Mk. VII — and if you think I’m joking, I’m not. Fuck this bullshit.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1041 on: March 02, 2017, 09:19:44 AM »


Papers, Please

Passengers on a domestic flight deplaning in New York were asked to present ID by Customs and Border Protection agents—a likely unenforceable demand that nevertheless diminishes freedom.
Feb 27, 2017 Politics
Subscribe to The Atlantic’s Politics & Policy Daily, a roundup of ideas and events in American politics.

American citizens had their introduction to the Trump-era immigration machine Wednesday, when Customs and Border Protection agents met an airliner that had just landed at New York’s JFK airport after a flight from San Francisco. According to passenger accounts, a flight attendant announced that all passengers would have to show their “documents” as they deplaned, and they did. The reason for the search, Homeland Security officials said, was to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement in a search for a specific immigrant who had received a deportation order after multiple criminal convictions. The target was not on the flight.

After days of research, I can find no legal authority for ICE or CBP to require passengers to show identification  on an entirely domestic fight. The ICE authorizing statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1357, provides that agents can conduct warrantless searches of “any person seeking admission to the United States”—if, that is, the officer has “reasonable cause to suspect” that the individual searched may be deportable. CBP’s statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1467, grants search authority “whenever a vessel from a foreign port or place or from a port or place in any Territory or possession of the United States arrives at a port or place in the United States.” CBP regulations, set out at 19 C.F.R. § 162.6, allow agents to search “persons, baggage, and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof.”

I asked two experts whether I had missed some general exception to the Fourth Amendment for passengers on a domestic flight. After all, passengers on flights entering the U.S. from other countries can expect to be asked for ID, and even searched. Barry Friedman, the Jacob D. Fuchsberg professor of law and affiliated professor of politics at New York University, is the author of Unwarranted: Policing Without Permission, a new book-length study of intrusive police investigation and search practices. “Is this remotely constitutional?” he asked. “I think it isn’t. We all know generally the government can’t come up and demand to see identification.” Officers need to have statutory authority to search and reasonable suspicion that the person to be searched has violated the law, he said. Andre Segura, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, told me that “I’m not aware of any aviation exception” for domestic passengers.

An ID check is a “search” under the law. Passengers on the JFK flight were not “seeking admission”—the flight originated in the U.S. CBP officials told the public after the fact that they were looking for a specific individual believed to be on board. A search for a specific individual cannot include every person on a plane, regardless of sex, race, and age. That is a general paper check of the kind familiar to anyone who has traveled in an authoritarian country. As Segura told me, “We do not live in a ‘show me your papers’ society.”

I asked a CBP spokesperson what legal authority the agency could show for the search. In response, the spokesperson said:

    In this situation, CBP was assisting ICE in locating an individual possibly aboard the flight that was ordered removed from the United States pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. To assist ICE, CBP requested consensual assistance from passengers aboard the flight to determine whether the removable individual in question was in fact aboard the flight. In the course of seeking this assistance, CBP did not compel any of these domestic passengers to show identification. With much-appreciated cooperation from these passengers, CBP was able to resolve the issue with minimal delay to the traveling public.

It's quite legal for law enforcement to ask for “voluntary” cooperation. Anyone who follows criminal-procedure cases, however, knows that “voluntary” in legalese does not mean what ordinary people think it means. Supreme Court caselaw makes clear that officers may block an exit and ask for ID or permission to search. They aren’t required to tell the individual stopped that he or she may refuse, and they have every incentive to act as if refusal may result in arrest. The Supreme Court held in 1984 that “while most citizens will respond to a police request, the fact that people do so, and do so without being told they are free not to respond, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response.” Passengers deplaning after a long flight might reasonably fear they will be “detained” if they anger the law enforcement figure blocking their exit. That officer is under no obligation to tell them they can refuse.

I am a white, English-speaking law professor, affluent, privileged, articulate, and a native-born citizen. Such hair as I have is white and I can hardly seem like a threat to anyone. I have researched the matter, and feel reasonably confident that an agent would have to let me pass if I refused the demand for my papers. If not, I can afford counsel and my family knows excellent lawyers to call.

I am vowing here and now not to show papers in this situation. I know that it will take gumption to follow through if the situation arises. What will be the reaction of ordinary travelers, some with outstanding warrants or other legal worries? Should we expect heroism of people who just want to get off an airplane?

Justice William O. Douglas once wrote that a regime of liberty includes “freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf.”

A shadow is falling over that freedom, both for aliens and for citizens. Its loss will be devastating.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #1042 on: March 18, 2017, 03:01:58 PM »

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/03/whole-point-internet-things-big-brother-can-spy-2.html


The Whole POINT of the Internet of Things Is So Big Brother Can Spy On You
Posted on March 15, 2017 by WashingtonsBlog
No One Wants the Internet of Things …

No one wants the Internet of Things (IoT).

The Washington Post noted in 2014:

No one really wants a “smart” washing machine ….

***

If you’re wondering who would want to buy an Internet-enabled washing machine, you’re not alone. Even Whirlpool’s not so sure.

“We’re a little bit of a hammer looking for a nail right now,” Chris Quatrochi, Whirlpool’s global director of user experience and connectivity, said last week at a conference  hosted by tech blog Gigaom. The buyers of web-connected washers, more than a year after launch, are still “not at all widespread,” he said. “Trying to understand exactly the value proposition that you provide to the consumer,” he said, “has been a little bit of a challenge.”

It’s a big concession from one of the most notable champions of the buzzy “Internet of Things” ….

As Digital Trends blogger John Sciacca put it: “Have we gotten so pathetically lame that you need to be notified by an email that your laundry is done?”

Wired jokes:

Now it seems every kind of thing from dishwashers to doorknobs require an Internet connection, since after all, we all know our dishwashers have long harbored a pent up desire for scintillating conversation with our doorknobs.

… Except Big Brother

The government is already spying on us through spying on us through our computers, phones, cars, buses, streetlights, at airports and on the street, via mobile scanners and drones, through our credit cards and smart meters (see this), television, doll, and in many other ways.

The CIA wants to spy on you through your dishwasher and other “smart” appliances. Slate reported in 2012:

Watch out: the CIA may soon be spying on you—through your beloved, intelligent household appliances, according to Wired.

In early March, at a meeting for the CIA’s venture capital firm In-Q-Tel, CIA Director David Petraeus reportedly noted that “smart appliances” connected to the Internet could someday be used by the CIA to track individuals. If your grocery-list-generating refrigerator knows when you’re home, the CIA could, too, by using geo-location data from your wired appliances, according to SmartPlanet.

“The current ‘Internet of PCs’ will move, of course, toward an ‘Internet of Things’—of devices of all types—50 to 100 billion of which will be connected to the Internet by 2020,” Petraeus said in his speech. He continued:

Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters—all connected to the next-generation Internet using abundant, low cost, and high-power computing—the latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing.

Last year, U.S. Intelligence Boss James Clapper said that the government will spy on Americans through IoT:

In the future, intelligence services might use the [IoT] for identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment, or to gain access to networks or user credentials.

Yves Smith commented at the time:

Oh, come on. The whole point of the IoT is spying. The officialdom is just trying to persuade you that it really is a big consumer benefit to be able to tell your oven to start heating up before you get home.

Wired comments:

Why do you think there are so many buckets of cash pouring into the IoT hope-to-be-a-market? The Big Corporations don’t expect to make a big profit on the devices themselves, oh no. News flash: the Big Money in IoT is in Big Data. As in, Big Data about everything those sensors are learning about you and your nasty habits that you hide from your neighbors.

The value of Big Data, after all, aren’t the data themselves. “Fred’s car told Fred’s thermostat to turn on Fred’s hot tub” doesn’t interest anybody but Fred and perhaps his hot date (if he’s lucky). The value in Big Data, you see, are in the patterns. What shows you watch. What apps you use. Which ads influence your buying behavior. The more IoT you have, the more Big Data they collect, and the more Big Data they collect, the more they know about how you behave. And once they know how you behave, they know how to control how you behave.

The Guardian notes:

As a category, the internet of things is useful to eavesdroppers both official and unofficial for a variety of reasons, the main one being the leakiness of the data.

***

There are a wide variety of devices that can be used to listen in, and some compound devices (like cars) that have enough hardware to form a very effective surveillance suite all by themselves.

***

There’s no getting around the fundamental creepiness of the little pinhole cameras in new smart TVs (and Xbox Kinects, and laptops, and cellphones), but the less-remarked-on aspect – the audio – may actually be more pertinent to anyone with a warrant trying to listen in. Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society observed that Samsung’s voice recognition software in its smart TVs had to routinely send various commands “home” to a server where they were processed for relevant information; their microphones are also always on, in case you’re trying to talk to them. Televisions are also much easier to turn on than they used to be: a feature creeping into higher-end TVs called “wake on LAN” allows users to power on televisions over the internet (this is already standard on many desktop PCs).

***

A cyberattack on toymaker VTech exposed the personal data of 6.4m children last year; it was a sobering reminder of the vulnerability of kids on the web. But technology waits for no man. Mattel’s Hello Barbie doll works the same way the Nest and Samsung voice operators do, by passing kids’ interactions into the cloud and returning verbal responses through a speaker in the doll. HereO manufactures a watch for kids with a GPS chip in it; Fisher-Price makes a WiFi-enabled stuffed animal. Security researchers at Rapid7 looked at both and found that they were easy to compromise on company databases, and in the case of the watch, use to locate the wearer.

In a separate article, the Guardian pointed out:

Just a few weeks ago, a security researcher found that Google’s Nest thermostats were leaking users’ zipcodes over the internet. There’s even an entire search engine for the internet of things called Shodan that allows users to easily search for unsecured webcams that are broadcasting from inside people’s houses without their knowledge.

While people voluntarily use all these devices, the chances are close to zero that they fully understand that a lot of their data is being sent back to various companies to be stored on servers that can either be accessed by governments or hackers.

***

Author and persistent Silicon Valley critic Evgeny Morozov summed up the entire problem with the internet of things and “smart” technology in a tweet last week:

In case you are wondering what “smart” – as in “smart city” or “smart home” – means:

Surveillance
Marketed
As
Revolutionary
Technology

https://twitter.com/evgenymorozov/status/693958196717711362

(And see Amazon Echo and the internet of things that spy on you.)

In the wake of the CIA leaks showing that the agency can remotely turn on our tvs and spy on us using a “fake off” mode so that it looks like the power is off, Tech Dirt wrote in an article called CIA Leaks Unsurprisingly Show The Internet Of Broken Things Is A Spy’s Best Friend:

The security and privacy standards surrounding the internet of (broken) things sit somewhere between high comedy and dogshit.

As security expert Bruce Schneier points out, the entire concept of the IoT is wildly insecure and vulnerable to hacking.  Indeed, Iot is so insecure that it allowed a massive internet outage.

The highest-level NSA whistleblower in history (William Binney) – the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, and managed thousands of NSA employees – reviewed an earlier version of this post, and told Washington’s Blog:


Yep, that summarizes it fairly well. It does not deal with industry or how they will use the data; but, that will probably be an extension of what they do now. This whole idea of monitoring electronic devices is objectionable.

If forced to buy that stuff, I will do my best to disconnect these monitoring devices also look for equipment on the market that is not connected in any way.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1043 on: March 23, 2017, 12:20:13 PM »

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-cell-phone-privacy-searches
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39561


« Reply #1044 on: March 29, 2017, 01:40:08 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/28/two-activists-who-filmed-undercover-videos-of-planned-parenthood-charged-with-15-felonies/?utm_term=.18f7f85d32e7&wpisrc=nl_&wpmm=1
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!