Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 27, 2015, 11:10:29 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
85047 Posts in 2266 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* 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 ... 18 19 [20] Print
Author Topic: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments  (Read 126050 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #950 on: September 25, 2014, 02:52:35 PM »



http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/los-angeles-collects-information-on-citizens-via-traffic-cameras-3000000-a-week/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4356


« Reply #951 on: September 25, 2014, 08:57:57 PM »

I know someone who is being surveillance by organized crime.  At least one local cop is part of the equation.  Nice to know they have broad power to surveillance.

 I am very glad apple and hopefully the rest of the "masters of the universe" are/will come out with devices to keep government officals out.

Everything is not always in the name of terrorism.

Problem who is watching the "master's of the universe"  including Apple.  (using Sen Session's name).


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #952 on: September 27, 2014, 08:39:42 PM »



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/technology/iphone-locks-out-the-nsa-signaling-a-post-snowden-era-.html?emc=edit_th_20140927&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12338


« Reply #953 on: September 28, 2014, 11:13:23 AM »


Don't believe the hype.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #954 on: September 30, 2014, 11:09:37 AM »

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-defend-your-privacy-online/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12338


« Reply #955 on: October 07, 2014, 03:24:11 PM »

http://lasvegassun.com/youre-being-watched/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #956 on: December 14, 2014, 09:21:48 AM »

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/breaking-congress-secretly-okd-nsa-spying-domestic-criminal-cases-focused-torture/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12338


« Reply #957 on: December 16, 2014, 01:07:21 PM »

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141214/06590429436/verizon-offers-encrypted-calling-with-nsa-backdoor-no-additional-charge.shtml
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #958 on: December 19, 2014, 04:55:06 AM »

Ain't that cute , , , angry
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12338


« Reply #959 on: December 23, 2014, 10:12:36 PM »

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/12/the-webcam-hacking-epidemic/383998/?single_page=true
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #960 on: December 24, 2014, 01:03:52 PM »

 cry angry
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #961 on: December 27, 2014, 11:08:42 PM »




HAYMARKET, Va. — FOUR years ago, the Federal Trade Commission announced, with fanfare, a plan to let American consumers decide whether to let companies track their online browsing and buying habits. The plan would let users opt out of the collection of data about their habits through a setting in their web browsers, without having to decide on a site-by-site basis.

The idea, known as “Do Not Track,” and modeled on the popular “Do Not Call” rule that protects consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls, is simple. But the details are anything but.

Although many digital advertising companies agreed to the idea in principle, the debate over the definition, scope and application of “Do Not Track” has been raging for several years.

Now, finally, an industry working group is expected to propose detailed rules governing how the privacy switch should work. The group includes experts but is dominated by Internet giants like Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google and Yahoo. It is poised to recommend a carve-out that would effectively free them from honoring “Do Not Track” requests.

If regulators go along, the rules would allow the largest Internet giants to continue scooping up data about users on their own sites and on other sites that include their plug-ins, such as Facebook’s “Like” button or an embedded YouTube video. This giant loophole would make “Do Not Track” meaningless.

How did we get into this mess?

For starters, the Federal Trade Commission doesn’t seem to fully understand the nature of the Internet.

Online companies typically make money by utilizing data gleaned from their users to sell targeted ads. If the flow of user data slows down, so does the money. A study commissioned by the Interactive Advertising Bureau with researchers from Harvard Business School underscores the point: at least half of the Internet’s economic value is based on the collection of individual user data, and nearly all commercial content on the Internet relies on advertising to some extent. Digital advertising grew to a $42.8 billion business last year, a sum that already exceeds spending on broadcast television advertising.

Essentially, the collection of user data makes possible the free access to maps, email, games, music, social networks and other services.

Digital privacy advocates, understandably, view the online ecosystem differently. They are alarmed by the growth of the surveillance economy, in which companies compile and store information about what a user reads, looks for, clicks on or buys. In this world, disclosure is fairly meaningless, because almost no one reads the terms of service that define the relationship between the customer and the company.

The regulatory process is the wrong way to address this fundamental tension. If the government wants to shift the Internet economy away from a “barter” system (exchanging personal data for free services) toward a subscription-based system, Congress should take charge.

Even worse, the Federal Trade Commission has abandoned responsibility, all but throwing up its hands. Instead of leading the effort to write good rules, based on the broadest public participation, the commission has basically surrendered control of the process to the industry panel, the “tracking protection working group” of the World Wide Web Consortium, or W3C.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

The outcome could be worse than doing nothing at all.
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
John
11 hours ago

Something needs to be done. How is it possible that if I want to use any little insignificant app on my phone, I have to let them have...
Mick
11 hours ago

Those who believe "...the regulatory process is the wrong way to address this..." sure are well represented in the NYT. And look where it's...
Robin Muench
11 hours ago

There are more than enough software fixes out there to deter nearly all tracking. For a start, use Firefox as a browser, then add in Adblock...

    See All Comments

The industry recommendation is expected to distinguish between companies that have a “first party” relationship with users — consumer-facing Internet content providers and Internet service providers — and “third party” companies, which include most small advertising-technology companies.

First-party relationships would be created if the user “intends to interact” with the web company (or a service provider acting on behalf of that company). For example, logging into Facebook would count as a “user action” that would allow Facebook to track your activity “across multiple distinct contexts,” including other websites.

In contrast, companies with third-party relationships would have far more limited tracking abilities. For example, if a user visits a site that integrates an advertisement with content from other sources, the ad server would not be able to place a tracking “cookie” for marketing purposes on your device without your consent.

This dubious distinction would harm competition in the online ad market by turning “Do Not Track” into “Do Not Track for small ad companies only.” Google, Facebook and other large companies that operate both first- and third-party businesses would be able to use data they gather through their first-party relationships to compete in the third-party ad market. Smaller ad tech companies would be at a severe competitive disadvantage and could even be driven out of the market.

The Federal Trade Commission shouldn’t help pick winners and losers through a murky process that has devolved into an effort to protect the positions of Internet giants. It should stay focused on policing the behavior of companies that short-shrift consumers or restrict competition. If the industry group recommends a lopsided version of “Do Not Track,” as expected, the commission should not go along with it. The correct balance between privacy and competition is a decision better left to Congress than to a feckless regulator.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12338


« Reply #962 on: January 01, 2015, 04:38:16 PM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2889860/Hackers-steal-fingerprint-PHOTO-Copycat-print-used-criminals-fool-security-systems.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12338


« Reply #963 on: January 14, 2015, 02:56:09 PM »

http://venturebeat.com/2015/01/12/this-usb-wall-charger-secretly-logs-keystrokes-from-microsoft-wireless-keyboards-nearby/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4356


« Reply #964 on: January 14, 2015, 06:15:31 PM »

If I hear one more person tell me organized crime is defunct......

Just because we don't don't see them using Tommy guns ala Valentine's Day doesn't mean white collar organized crime is not rampant it is.

Because most people can't see it they don't understand, believe, or think it effects them.

They're wrong.   

What is law enforcement doing about it?  Thanks to our feckless politicians as far as I can tell, very little.

One even has to ask how much our politicians or those who support them are directly involved.

It isn't just illegals they are not doing nothing about.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12338


« Reply #965 on: January 14, 2015, 09:31:20 PM »

Generally, there must be a complaintant for law enforcement to open an investigation. Illegal surveillance is by it's nature, very difficult to detect.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #966 on: January 19, 2015, 09:02:56 PM »

Well!  This is profoundly disconcerting!!! 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/ 

 angry angry angry
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12338


« Reply #967 on: January 19, 2015, 09:05:32 PM »


Why?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #968 on: January 19, 2015, 09:40:05 PM »

C'mon GM, you're not only a very bright guy, you are also very well versed in the issues appearing here.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12338


« Reply #969 on: January 19, 2015, 09:48:51 PM »

It's one thing if officers were driving down the street with virtual X-ray glasses looking through every house they drive by, another if a specific house where a fugitive with a valid arrest warrant is believed to be hiding, or a hostage rescue scenario.

A reasonable expectation of privacy differs in each case.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #970 on: January 19, 2015, 11:12:58 PM »

I didn't get that the use of these was limited to serving warrants GM.  Indeed, the courts here seem more than a little surprised that the technology exists.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12338


« Reply #971 on: February 11, 2015, 04:58:06 AM »

http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/08/telescreen/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32546


« Reply #972 on: February 11, 2015, 11:04:27 PM »

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sleuthing-search-engine-even-better-than-google-1423703464?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

n the run-up to Super Bowl XLIX, a team of social workers in Glendale, Ariz. spent two weeks combing through local classified ads sites. They were looking for listings posted by sex traffickers.

Criminal networks that exploit women often advertise on local sites around events that draw large numbers of transient visitors. “It’s like a flood,” said Dominique Roe-Sepowitz, who headed the Glendale effort.

Dr. Roe-Sepowitz is director of the Office of Sex Trafficking Intervention Research at Arizona State University. She has worked for five years with authorities in Houston, Las Vegas and Phoenix to find and hunt down traffickers.

In the past, she painstakingly copied and pasted suspicious URLs into a document and looked for patterns that suggested a trafficking ring. This year, she analyzed criminal networks using visual displays from a powerful data-mining tool, one whose capabilities hint at the future of investigations into online criminal networks.

The program, a tool called Memex developed by the U.S. military’s research and development arm, is a search engine on steroids. Rather than endless pages of Web links, it returns sophisticated infographics that represent the relationships between Web pages, including many that a Google search would miss.
Advertisement

For instance, searching the name and phone number that appear in a suspicious ad would result in a diagram that showed separate constellations of dots, representing links to ads that contain the name, the phone number, or both. Such results could suggest a ring in which the same phone number was associated with different women. Clicking on a dot can reveal the physical location of the device that posted the ad and the time it was posted. Another click, and it shows a map of the locations from which the ads were posted. Capabilities like this make it possible to identify criminal networks and understand their operations in powerful new ways.

Unlike a Google search, Memex can search not only for text but also for images and latitude/longitude coordinates encoded in photos. It can decipher numbers that are part of an image, including handwritten numbers in a photo, a technique traffickers often use to mask their contact information. It also recognizes photo backgrounds independently of their subjects, so it can identify pictures of different women that share the same backdrop, such as a hotel room—a telltale sign of sex trafficking, experts say.

Also unlike Google, it can look into, and spot relationships among, not only run-of-the-mill Web pages but online databases such as those offered by government agencies and within online forums (the so-called deep Web) and networks like Tor, whose server addresses are obscured (the so-called dark Web).

Since its release a year ago, Memex has had notable successes in sex-trafficking investigations. New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance said Memex has generated leads in 20 investigations and has been used in eight trials prosecuted by the county’s sex-trafficking division. In a case last June, Mr. Vance said, Memex’s ability to search the posting times of ads that had been taken down helped in a case that resulted in the sentencing of a trafficker to 50 years to life in prison.

The creator of Memex is Christopher White, a Harvard-trained electrical engineer who runs big-data projects for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa. The Defense Department’s center of forward-looking research and development, Darpa put between $10 million and $20 million into building Memex. (The precise amount isn’t disclosed.) Although the tool can be used in any Web-based investigation, Dr. White started with the sex trade because the Defense Department believed its proceeds finance other illegal activities.

Memex is part of a wave of software tools that visualize and organize the rising tide of online information. Unlike many other tools, though, it is free of charge for those who want to download, distribute and modify. Dr. White said he wanted Memex to be free “because taxpayers are paying for it.” Federal agencies have more money to spend, but local law-enforcement agencies often can’t afford the most sophisticated tools, even as more criminal activity moves online.
ENLARGE

Among tools used by law-enforcement agencies, Memex would compete with software from Giant Oak, Decision Lens and Centrifuge Systems. The leader in the field is Palantir Technologies, whose software costs $10 million to $100 million per installation and draws from the user’s proprietary databases rather than from the Web. Palantir didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

Advertisements posted by sex traffickers amount to between $90,000 and $500,000 daily in total revenue to a variety of outlets, according to Darpa.


Memex and similar tools raise serious questions about privacy. Marc Rotenberg, president and executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., said, that when law-enforcement authorities start using powerful data-mining software, “the question that moves in the background is how much of this is actually lawful.” Data-visualization tools like Memex enable enforcers to combine vast amounts of public and private information, but the implications haven’t been fully examined, he said.

Dr. White said he drew a “bright line” around online privacy, designing Memex to index only publicly available information. In anonymous networks like Tor, which hosts many sex ads, Memex finds only the public pages. But since the tool isn't technically controlled by Darpa, independent developers could add capabilities that would make it more invasive, he acknowledged.

Another big question is whether sex traffickers and other malefactors will thwart Memex by changing their tactics. For example, they might blur out photo backgrounds if they knew law enforcement officials were searching for them. For this reason, law-enforcement users will withhold some of the proprietary data they developed while using Memex. “We want it to be free,” said Dr. White. “But there’s always this tension between knowing what people are doing…and alerting them to that fact so they change their behavior.”

Dr. White is starting to test other uses for Memex with law enforcement and government partners, he said, including recognizing connections between shell companies, following the chains of recruitment for foreign fighters drawn to the terrorist group ISIS, mapping the spread of epidemics, and following ads for labor and goods to understand supply chains involved in money laundering.

Write to Elizabeth Dwoskin at elizabeth.dwoskin@wsj.com
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!