Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 25, 2016, 02:38:31 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
95520 Posts in 2314 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* 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 212799 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« 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: 8010


« 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: 37028


« 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: 37028


« 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: 37028


« 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: 8010


« 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: 37028


« 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
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« 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: 13701


« 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: 37028


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

 shocked shocked shocked angry angry angry
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« 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: 37028


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

https://www.facebook.com/senatormikelee/videos/1051049141593445/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« 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: 37028


« 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: 13701


« 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: 37028


« 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: 37028


« 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: 37028


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

https://www.facebook.com/senatormikelee/videos/1099048543460171/
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« 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: 37028


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

Some days it can be pretty discouraging , , ,
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« 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
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« 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: 37028


« 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: 37028


« 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: 13701


« 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: 13701


« 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: 13701


« 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: 5612


« 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
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!