Author Topic: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments  (Read 417069 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1100 on: April 09, 2018, 09:04:35 AM »
If we in the medical field sold patient data for a profit you know where we would be.

I've never been in a jumpsuit.

Maybe Zuck could promote the first jailhouse division of FB.

The medical industry collects our private information including ss nos. and hackers do the selling.
----
Any recommendations anyone for a site that respects privacy to replace facebook?



What are you using Facehugger for?


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1101 on: April 09, 2018, 09:31:18 AM »
What are you using Facehugger for?

I'm not on FB but once in a while I miss something I would like to see. 

It was no victory staying out of FB; I lost all my privacy to Google.  I appreciate the recent post on how to avoid giving everything to these places but they already have quite a bit and, like FB users, I find myself liking their 'free' features.

On the positive side, law enforcement brought sway teams to my rental house last summer, broke the doors and windows all the way up to the third floor attic at dawn and arrested a murderer sleeping with my unknowing tenant.  She was taken too but released.  I thought quite a while about how even this thug's friends and family would know where his girlfriend lived and realized they didn't need to.  Google knows.  Police just got (court order I presume) access to his cellphone and came right over with guns drawn.  They probably knew which room he was in, even which side of the bed depending on GPS accuracy.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1102 on: April 09, 2018, 10:21:08 AM »
What are you using Facehugger for?

I'm not on FB but once in a while I miss something I would like to see. 

It was no victory staying out of FB; I lost all my privacy to Google.  I appreciate the recent post on how to avoid giving everything to these places but they already have quite a bit and, like FB users, I find myself liking their 'free' features.

On the positive side, law enforcement brought sway teams to my rental house last summer, broke the doors and windows all the way up to the third floor attic at dawn and arrested a murderer sleeping with my unknowing tenant.  She was taken too but released.  I thought quite a while about how even this thug's friends and family would know where his girlfriend lived and realized they didn't need to.  Google knows.  Police just got (court order I presume) access to his cellphone and came right over with guns drawn.  They probably knew which room he was in, even which side of the bed depending on GPS accuracy.

Not quite that accurate, but that is a viable investigative option.

You can create a Doug MacG using an alternative ID.

1. Buy a prepaid cell phone with cash from a big box store.

2. Use the number to create a Facehugger account. Keep in mind that Facehugger will collect the MAC address and IP address from every device you use to access it, as well as browser information and cookies. Do not use your own phone for Facehugger access.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1103 on: April 14, 2018, 12:05:31 AM »
"What are you using Facehugger for?"

I am not on it.  Never was.  Some in my family avoid it and some love it to stay in close touch to family members

I guess they don't care that Zuck, and co., and customers are also part of the family.

Probably the intelligence deep state and maybe the DNC too.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1104 on: April 15, 2018, 07:22:28 AM »
See my entries today on the Goolag thread.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1105 on: April 15, 2018, 08:54:34 AM »
See my entries today on the Goolag thread.

From the article:
"In 2016, the European Union passed the
comprehensive General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. The details
of the law are far too complex to explain here, but some of the things
it mandates are that personal data of EU citizens can only be collected
and saved for "specific, explicit, and legitimate purposes," and only
with explicit consent of the user. Consent can't be buried in the terms
and conditions, nor can it be assumed unless the user opts in."

It's not very often that Europe is ahead of us in something good or that I want more government involvement in business but looks very good to me.  In my view, we need to declare our rights -that we own our information, not create new agencies, departments and complicated frameworks.

If you give permission to someone to drive your car, that person cannot give permission to someone else to drive your car.  AThis is a simple concept in law and lnsurance liability.  Isn't your SS# and DOB just as valuable?


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Obama bureaucracy left our private data more vulnerable than ever
« Reply #1108 on: April 23, 2018, 10:10:29 AM »
https://nypost.com/2018/04/21/obama-bureaucracy-left-our-private-data-more-vulnerable-than-ever/

Obama bureaucracy left our private data more vulnerable than ever
By Paul Sperry April 21, 2018 | 9:51am |

Obama bureaucracy left our private data more vulnerable than ever
As it overhauled banking, the feds launched a massive data collection effort.

Without your knowledge or permission, the Obama administration collected and warehoused your most private bank records and continued to sweep them up — despite repeated warnings the data wasn’t being properly protected. Now there’s a good chance your personal information could be in the hands of identity thieves or even terrorists.

The government isn’t sure who has your information. It only knows the Obama-era databases have been breached by outsider threats potentially 1,000-plus times. That’s according to a recent investigation of cyber-intrusions at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where the sensitive information is stored.

The number of confirmed breaches of consumers’ personally identifiable information is “just north of 200,” revealed Mick Mulvaney, the White House budget chief who took control of the CFPB late last year, in testimony to Congress. “We think there’s another 800 [incidents of hacked information] that we suspect might have been lost, but we haven’t been able to nail that down.”

In fact, the bureau has suffered 233 confirmed hack attacks and another 840 suspected hacks, putting at risk the financial information and other personal data — including Social Security numbers and birthdates — of potentially millions of Americans.

Most people don’t know this, but after President Barack Obama created the CFPB, he had the powerful regulatory agency snoop into virtually every financial account held by Americans to assemble a massive and secret government database as part of the post-financial crisis overhaul of the banking industry.

Without asking if customers wanted to opt in, CFPB has collected and stockpiled from banks more than 600 million credit-card accounts and personal data from millions of home, auto, business and student loans.

For the first time, the government vacuumed up extremely sensitive personal finance information that even the IRS doesn’t collect — including credit scores, performance data on loans, telephone numbers, employment records, even your race and ethnicity, in addition to your date of birth, Social Security number and address. At last count, the CFPB had 12 consumer data-mining programs running.

The main purpose of the databases was to find “statistical patterns” of unfair or racially discriminatory lending to help make cases of bias against private lenders and credit agencies.

CFPB maintained in regulatory notices buried in the Federal Register that all this personal information would be safely stored in “locked file rooms, locked file cabinets” inside a building with “security cameras” and 24-hour security guards and that the computerized records would be “safeguarded through use of access codes.”

But it turns out the agency also shared the codes and files with outside agencies and contractors, including state attorneys general, trial lawyers and civil-rights organizations interested in filing class-action lawsuits against banks, according to regulatory documents and congressional testimony.

In 2015, the bureau’s inspector general warned that sharing the massive databases with outside contractors and storing sensitive private information on unsecured data clouds made the data vulnerable to hacking, identity theft and fraud.

I am very much concerned about the privacy of that data, about the use of that data
 - Mick Mulvaney
Among other things, inspector general Mark Bialek found that CFPB failed to ensure that the data it was collecting on credit-card accounts and loans followed new cyber-security safeguards in the wake of the massive hacking of the US Office of Personnel Management by the Chinese, which compromised the personal information — including fingerprints — of current and former federal employees. He also found that the bureau was using an “outdated encryption mechanism to secure remote access to its information technology infrastructure.”

“CFPB has not yet fully implemented a number of privacy-control steps and information-security practices,” warned Bialek in a 10-page memo to then-CFPB Director Richard Cordray.

Also, the agency failed to perform background checks on outside contractors with “privileged access” to the computer system and databases, nor had it adequately trained employees to avoid falling for e-mail “phishing” scams that hackers use to break into government computer systems, Bialek further warned in 2017.

But the warnings largely fell on deaf ears. The full extent of the security breaches were only uncovered and disclosed after the Trump administration recently took over the agency, which Obama made sure would be shielded from congressional oversight and audit. The new director testified that “everything” the agency keeps on file is subject to being obtained by malicious third parties.

“I am very much concerned about the privacy of that data, about the use of that data,” Mulvaney testified earlier this month before the Senate Banking Committee. “I am not satisfied with the data security right now in the bureau.”

He says he has put a “data collection freeze” into effect to stop the automatic electronic transfer of bank records to the government until “we fix our systems.” Meanwhile, he is working with the Defense Department to “test our vulnerabilities.”

Even now, it’s unclear who has your data. But one thing is for sure: These breaches demand an independent audit and criminal investigation to fully assess the damage to consumer privacy. Until then, CFPB clearly cannot be trusted to gather and handle any more data that’s personally identifiable.

Paul Sperry is a former Hoover Institution media fellow and author of the bestseller “Infiltration.”


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
Stratfor: What the GDPR means
« Reply #1110 on: May 28, 2018, 08:49:54 AM »
   Not all EU member states have enacted national laws on data protection, and many will have difficulty shouldering the costs of doing so.
    The second half of 2018 will provide early indicators of how much the European Union can influence large technology companies to address the privacy concerns of EU citizens.
    Uncertainty regarding the severity of national enforcement could influence the regional development of technology, especially in terms of small and medium-sized enterprises.

 
The Big Picture

In preparation for Stratfor's upcoming 2018 Third-Quarter Forecast, we are releasing a series of supporting analyses, focusing on critical topics, regions and sectors. These assessments have been designed specifically to contextualize and augment the upcoming quarterly global forecast.

 

Data privacy and protection regulations have become increasingly critical elements of corporate strategy, especially as more sectors integrate artificial intelligence (AI). Just before the start of the third quarter of 2018, the European Union will begin enforcing sweeping modifications to its personal data privacy protections, giving the first indications regarding the enforcement of the policy across the Continent and how companies and member states will approach implementation.
See 2018 Annual Forecast

The Details of the GDPR

In an effort to allay the privacy concerns of EU citizens and make data privacy laws consistent across members' borders, the European Union began enforcing its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on May 25. For two years, companies worldwide have been preparing for the changes, which will be widespread and significantly impact their day-to-day operations.

The new regulations deepen data protection for European citizens in several ways. First, they expand the scope of the definition of personal data and provide avenues to enforce greater transparency at all stages of data collection and use. The regulations emphasize informed consent (through simple, understandable language) and grant more control to the individual, including the right to be forgotten and the right to access all collected data. The regulations also lay out strict data storage requirements and set a time limit (72 hours) for the issue of  breach notifications. Finally, the GDPR includes language that makes the reuse of data by third parties difficult, while also stipulating severe fines for violations.

How Will Countries Implement the GDPR?

Though the GDPR standardizes data protection policies across the European Union, each individual member state must place its own language into national law, leaving the door open for countries to interpret and implement the regulations in different ways. This process is meant to streamline the regulation and legislation of data privacy, making the country in question the single authority on the matter within its borders. But in practice, this means countries across the European Union can all monitor and fine businesses in different ways.

The regulatory and financial limitations of EU member states will be the primary factors determining how each proceeds in implementing the GDPR. Several countries did not even pass national GDPR bills before May 25, and according to a Reuters survey, a majority of the participants don't believe they'll have the funding or power to enforce the legislation they do eventually establish.

A map of Europe's GDPR enforcement across various countries

Portuguese authorities have been vocal about their inability to afford the costs of enforcing the data privacy regulations, and authorities from France and the Netherlands have already indicated that they will be lenient in the initial months after the GDPR goes into effect. Traditionally, Berlin has had stricter data privacy protection legislation. Germany was among the first countries to implement national laws with regards to GDPR and will likely continue to be on the stricter end of the spectrum in terms of enforcement.

How Will Companies Handle the GDPR?

For businesses, simply bringing their security measures and customer interfaces up to the new standards of the GDPR will be an expensive task. Companies of all size are reportedly behind schedule on implementing the necessary changes, and starting in the third quarter, it will be important to keep an eye on how countries levy fines against companies based on size, region of operation and the location of their headquarters.

Smaller companies will face the biggest challenge, as they will have a larger per employee cost of implementation, though the record-processing requirements are somewhat relaxed for companies employing fewer than 250 people. For companies small enough that they operate in a single country, the European Union's country-by-country implementation strategy will have a massive impact. Nations with looser enforcement and more forgiving penalties will offer potential areas where smaller technology companies in Europe can still thrive.

Large, international companies, meanwhile, will be obliged to keep track of the different legislation throughout the European Union. But they will also have the money both to implement the new changes fairly easily and to fight any eventual fines in court.

The GDPR is likely to hit the middle tier of companies in the European technology sector the hardest. These businesses are large enough that they operate across multiple borders, but they don't have the financial heft to fight the legislation long term.

The GDPR's Impact on AI Development

The European Union recently released a road map plotting the future of artificial intelligence (AI) in the bloc. France is leading the charge, as well as promoting a start-up culture within the country itself. But an extensive study from the Center of Data Innovation indicates that the GDPR has the potential to delay or disrupt AI development in Europe. Data – corporate, personal and more – fuels AI, and the more the GDPR limits the sharing repurposing and reusing of data, the higher the cost will be for various AI applications.

The criteria that European countries develop to enforce data privacy will be a good indicator of whether the Continent prioritizes the GDPR or the somewhat incongruent goals of AI development. France, in particular, will be important to watch closely due to the stated goals of President Emmanuel Macron's government. The same goes for Germany, given that it has traditionally functioned as a strict enforcer of data privacy and protection.

Implications Beyond the European Union

How massive international tech companies handle the new regulations will indicate the degree to which the GDPR impacts the global market and the European Union's place within it. If companies such as Apple, Google and Facebook begin separating their European market from others by applying the privacy standards on the Continent alone, that would spell trouble for the European Union's ability to develop AI and keep pace with North American and Asian competitors. However, if these big corporations begin applying the privacy standards of the GDPR more broadly (Facebook already plans to offer EU safeguards to users globally), the European Union will be able to set the tone for future data privacy discussions and regulations on an international level.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
WSJ: GDPR kicks in
« Reply #1111 on: May 30, 2018, 07:03:29 AM »
U.S. Websites Go Dark in Europe as GDPR Data Rules Kick In
New European law foresees steep fines for companies that don’t comply with rules
GDPR: What Is It and How Might It Affect You?
The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation on data privacy came into force on Friday. This video explains how it could affect you, even if you don't live in the EU.
By Sam Schechner and
Natalia Drozdiak
Updated May 25, 2018 12:31 p.m. ET
149 COMMENTS

BRUSSELS—A new European privacy law took effect Friday, causing several major U.S. news websites to suspend access across the region as privacy activists filed complaints and data-protection regulators prepared to brandish their new enforcement powers.

Tronc Inc., TRNC +0.79% publisher of the Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News and other U.S. newspapers, was among those that blocked readers in the European Union from accessing sites, as they scrambled to comply with the sweeping regulation.

“We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market,” Tronc said in notices it displayed when users attempted to access its news sites from the EU on Friday morning. A spokeswoman didn’t elaborate when asked for details.

Some U.S. regional newspapers owned by Lee Enterprises Inc. LEE 1.02% were also blocking access in the EU on Friday. Bookmarking app Instapaper, owned by Pinterest. Inc., said it was “temporarily unavailable” while the services makes changes “in light of” GDPR.

A spokesman for Lee Enterprises said that European traffic to its sites “is de minimis, and we believe blocking that traffic is in the best interest of our local media clients.”

The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation authorizes steep fines for companies that don’t comply with the new rules, aimed at giving Europe-based users more control over the data about them that companies hold. As of Friday, firms that violate the EU’s privacy rules risk fines as high as 4% of their global revenue.
A screenshot shows a message to users trying to access the Los Angeles Times from Europe on Friday.
A screenshot shows a message to users trying to access the Los Angeles Times from Europe on Friday. Photo: George Downs for The Wall Street Journal

Businesses have raced to comply with the new law, but surveys indicate that a majority may not be ready. Some appear to be deciding it is safer to suspend access in Europe, at least temporarily, rather than risk sanctions, which the EU’s top privacy regulator this week warned could come soon.

“I’m sure you won’t have to wait for a couple of months,” said Andrea Jelinek, who heads the new European Data Protection Board, which includes national data-protection regulators from each of the EU’s member countries.

Speaking about companies’ decision to block their websites from operating in the EU, Ms. Jelinek said Friday that she expects the impact to be limited. “I’m convinced that the loss of information won’t be that big because I’m sure that the Los Angeles Times will reopen their website—I’m sure,” she said.


News sites weren’t alone in feeling heat from GDPR on Friday. Privacy activists were quick to take aim Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google, using the new law’s provisions allowing consumer groups to file collective complaints. On Friday, a litigation initiative started by activist Max Schrems alleged that the companies demand “forced consent” from users by applying new take-it-or-leave-it privacy policies.

Those complaints will be reviewed by Helen Dixon, Ireland’s data protection commissioner, who is the lead regulator for Google and Facebook because they make their EU headquarters in Ireland. Ms. Dixon’s office is already reviewing along with other regulators what data companies can legitimately demand as necessary to fulfill a contract with consumers.

“This is an issue we will be looking at immediately,” Ms. Dixon said on Friday. “We are going to have a lot on our plate.”

What Data You Agree to Surrender

Erin Egan, Facebook’s chief privacy officer, said the company has worked to comply with GDPR, updating policies and privacy settings, and will continue to do so. “Our work to improve people’s privacy doesn’t stop on May 25th.”

A Google spokesman said the company has updated its products to give users more control, adding: “We build privacy and security into our products from the very earliest stages and are committed to complying” with the GDPR.

GDPR arrives as Facebook is still struggling to contain the fallout from revelations that data-analytics firm Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained the personal information of as many as 87 million users of the social network.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg visited European Parliament this past week to answer questions about the scandal, which EU officials say only reconfirmed the need for the new privacy rules and helped promote the legislation to the broader public.

To Read New GDPR Privacy Policies You'll Need a Football Field
Those updated privacy policies flooding your inbox due to Europe's GDPR compliance deadline on May 25 are so long that if you print out the ones from 30-some most-used apps, you could span a football field. Really. WSJ's Joanna Stern provides tips on how to tackle the gibberish.

On Thursday, Mr. Zuckerberg told a tech conference in Paris that his company has worked hard to comply with GDPR, including by giving users the option of seeing targeted ads on Facebook based on their use of other websites and apps.

“The vast majority of people choose to opt in,” he said, “because the reality is, if you’re going to see ads on a service, you want them to be relevant and good ads.”

On Friday, Ms. Jelinek, head of the EU privacy board, said that regulators won’t be “sanctioning machines” and that they will use other tools like warnings to ensure compliance.

Companies say, however, that the potential for aggressive penalties is likely to affect some business decisions. Large enterprises acquiring small startups that use personal data might decide against launching a service in Europe, out of concern that the startup could expose the parent to a fine based on the entire enterprise’s revenue.

“If I could choose between [launching a data-related business] in Paris and in New York…I’m going to at least advise the business people to do it in New York,” said David Hoffman, global privacy officer at Intel Corp.

Write to Sam Schechner at sam.schechner@wsj.com and Natalia Drozdiak at natalia.drozdiak@wsj.com


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
Amazon Prime
« Reply #1113 on: June 20, 2018, 12:18:46 PM »
Amazon Prime is seriously tempting me to sign up but I fear it spying on me (they even want my phone number!), selling my data, etc.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Amazon Prime
« Reply #1114 on: June 21, 2018, 10:19:12 AM »
Amazon Prime is seriously tempting me to sign up but I fear it spying on me (they even want my phone number!), selling my data, etc.

Use a burner phone and a private PO box service. Use a name like Michael Dennis to set up the account and view the movies on your laptop using you VPN.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
SCOTUS: LE needs warrant to search cell phone data
« Reply #1115 on: June 22, 2018, 08:43:28 AM »
I looked into burner phones; as best as I can tell I would have to pay a shitload of money every month.

Can I just lie about my phone number?

What would Amazon do with my real number anyway?

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

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/393629-supreme-court-rules-law-enforcement-needs-warrant-to-search?userid=188403

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1116 on: June 22, 2018, 12:00:19 PM »
Just go to Walmart and buy the cheapest prepaid phone with cash. Keep in mind a true burner phone would never be activated at your home or business.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Avoiding Orwellian surveillance
« Reply #1120 on: July 15, 2018, 07:24:20 PM »
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/worried-facial-recognition-technology-juggalo-makeup-prevents-involuntary-surveillance-232354372.html

When I was working gangs, interviewing Juggalos was always the least desirable assignment.

I know more about that subculture than I ever wanted to.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1121 on: July 16, 2018, 06:52:46 AM »
"Juggalos "

They paint their faces?

what is this about?

BTW do you know anything about professional crooks in the music business?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1122 on: July 16, 2018, 08:31:16 AM »
"Juggalos "

They paint their faces?

what is this about?

BTW do you know anything about professional crooks in the music business?

There is a music duo known as the Insane Clown Posse. Their fans are known as Juggalos. The loyalty to the performers and the subculture that has developed around it has been the Nexus for violent gang like crimes nationwide. ICP typically performs wearing face paint.

Not my area of expertise, but it's my understanding that organized crime has had it's connections with the music industry since at least when Sinatra first hit the charts, if not before then.




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1124 on: February 07, 2019, 10:59:48 AM »
Not really new, just a new package.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
1984 is 2019
« Reply #1125 on: February 18, 2019, 03:51:19 PM »
February 18, 2019
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

"Sometimes [two and two are four], Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

One of the key themes from George Orwell’s dystopic novel 1984 is that the Party can do and say whatever it wants.

And more importantly, you must believe it, with all your heart. No matter how absurd.

That’s doublethink. It is impossible for two plus two to equal three, four, and five simultaneously. But if the Party says it is so, it is so.

If you can’t make yourself believe two contradictory facts simultaneously, that makes you a thought criminal -- an enemy of the Party.

Thoughtcrime is thinking any thought that contradicts the Party.

Facecrime is when you have the wrong expression on your face. For instance, if captured enemy soldiers are being paraded through the streets, looking sympathetic is a facecrime.

Newspeak is the language of the Party--one that has painstakingly been removed of unnecessary words, or words that might contradict the Party’s ideals.

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

During daily two minutes hate, citizens shout and curse whatever enemies the Party shows them.

And the face of the Party, Big Brother, is watching you. He helps you be a better citizen.

This isn’t just some random literature lesson. Understanding Orwell’s 1984 will help you understand 2019 America.

For instance, one California state senator is working on her own version of Newspeak.

She has banned the members of her committee from using gender pronouns, such as he, she, her, and him. Instead they must use “they and them” to respect non-binary gender choices.

So Billy Joel’s famous song “She’s always a woman” would become “They’re always a non-binary gender. . .” Somehow that just doesn’t ring with the same sweetness.

Last month a high school student famously committed a facecrime when he stood, apparently smirking, while a Native American activist beat a drum in his face.

The 16-year-old was then subjected to “two minutes hate” by the entire nation. The Party labeled him an enemy, and Twitter obliged.

Of course when I reference the ‘Party’, I don’t mean to imply that all these Orwellian developments are coming from a single political party.

They’ve ALL done their parts to advance Orwellian dystopia and make it a reality.

Senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders want to limit corporate stock buybacks and share payouts. But the tax code already has the accumulated profits tax, which punishes corporations for NOT engaging in stock buybacks and share payouts…

It’s like doublethink… you have to simultaneously pay and not pay out dividends.

Same goes for cops will pull you over for speeding, but also for “suspicious” textbook perfect driving.

The #MeToo movement made it a thoughtcrime to not immediately believe the accuser and condemn the accused, no evidence required.

When Matt Damon pointed out that we should not conflate a pat on the butt with rape, he was met with “two minutes hate” for expressing the wrong opinion.

On college campuses, some students are upset that white students are using multicultural spaces. Apparently “multicultural” is Newspeak for “no whites allowed.”

And when a controversy over offensive Halloween costumes erupted at Yale a few years ago, it was a student free speech group which suppressed any debate on the topic.

It’s amazing how they want you to celebrate diversity… as long as its not intellectual diversity.

1984 was supposed to be a warning. Instead, it has become an instruction manual.

To your freedom,

 Signature
Simon Black,

Founder, SovereignMan.com

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Very disturbing story
« Reply #1126 on: March 12, 2019, 07:58:56 PM »
http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/encryption-battle

Encryption Battle
BY FULL MEASURE STAFF SUNDAY, MARCH 13TH 2016
 
 
March 13, 2016 — As soon as you set a passcode on your Apple iPhone, it sets off a feverish encryption process.

If a hacker tries to get data off the memory chips, it just looks like a scrambled mess.

But the same feature that's protecting your security, is keeping the FBI locked out of any secrets held in a terrorist's iPhone after he killed 14 people in California last December.

A federal judge has ordered Apple to create software to unlock the iPhone.

Apple is fighting the order.

Full Measure has an extraordinary story that predates the Apple conundrum. In fact, it predates what most understand to be the beginning of widespread surveillance of U.S. citizens after 9/11.

In October of 1997, Joe Nacchio was CEO of Qwest Communications, a major phone company out West.

One of his vice presidents told him he had an unexpected visitor.

Joe Nacchio: He came in and he said, 'Joe, we have a general downstairs who wants to meet you.' Which I thought was pretty surprising, because you know generals don't just drop by. It was a three-star.

Sharyl: Who was the general?

Nacchio: Well, his name is classified believe it or not. Who it was, I'm not, I'm still not allowed to disclose.

The general was from a U.S. intelligence agency interested in paying Qwest to use its cutting-edge global fiber optics network for classified programs.

But to learn more, Nacchio first needed a top-secret security clearance.

Nacchio: I had my clearance by January of 1998. We received that contract shortly thereafter and that led to us working with multiple intelligence agencies.

Nacchio's job as CEO of Qwest became steeped in a secretive world of classified meetings and clandestine government contracts. He's still barred from saying exactly what the projects involved.

Nacchio: So you could either put equipment in, you could either monitor, there's a whole bunch of things you can do.

Sharyl: As head of a telecom company, you were meeting with top spy agency people?

Nacchio: Yes. I'm allowed to say that I worked with four clandestine security agencies and senior government officials.

For several years, Nacchio says, government requests to monitor and surveil Qwest customers came with proper legal authority and brought Qwest lots of cash.

Sharyl: The telecom companies, they make a lot of money off these contracts when they cooperate with the intel agencies?

Nacchio: It's all done in a classified way that nobody sees it. So yes, we made money. And again, as a CEO of a public corporation, that's good business, besides being patriotic.

Sharyl: Was it hundreds of millions of dollars over the years?

Nacchio: Oh, easily yes.

The mutually beneficial relationship continued until February 27, 2001, when Nacchio says he got an astonishing request at a meeting at the headquarters for the National Security Agency or NSA.

Nacchio: I fly into Washington. My guys meet me, take me to a SCIF that we have that's in Maryland. A SCIF is one of those rooms that are designed to specs that you can't have eavesdropping in. When I grew up, and we used to watch Maxwell Smart on television, it was the cone of silence thing. I go in there, I get briefed, and then at the end, which was very surprising, a new request is made of us.

Sharyl: By whom?

Nacchio: By someone across the table. I was supposed to meet with (General) Hayden that day. He didn't show up at the last minute, which should have put yellow flashing lights in my

Sharyl: He was head of the NSA at the time.

Nacchio: He was head of the NSA. He was a three-star, head of the NSA, who Bush later appoints to be four-stars and runs the CIA. So when that request came, I was a little bit surprised. It didn't sound right to me. As a matter of fact, it sounded very wrong to me.

Sharyl: What was the request?

Nacchio: Well, it was a request to do something that under the law I didn't believe the foreign intelligence agencies, particularly the NSA, had, were authorized to do unless they had a FISA warrant.

A FISA warrant would come from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and would authorize the NSA to do something that was otherwise illegal for it to do: collect data in the U.S.

Sharyl: And you can't say exactly what they asked you?

Nacchio: No, that remains classified. But anyway, something was asked. I asked if they had a FISA warrant. They said it wasn't required. I thought that was pretty strange.

If there was no warrant, he says, he asked if the White House had given executive authority for the project.

Nacchio: They said that theyit wasn't required.

Sharyl: This was under President Bush?

Nacchio: Yes, this was under President Bush and this was prior to 9/11. So I said that we couldn't do it, and we wouldn't do it.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks are often cited as justification for the government's controversial programs to collect information on Americans without court warrants.

But the NSA proposition to Qwest was nearly seven months before 9/11, according to Nacchio.

Nacchio: After that meeting, there were repeated requests over the next several months, and I continued to answer the request by saying, 'look, show me legal authority and we'll be happy to do it. Okay, but I can't do it without legal authority.' You know, in other words, I can be sued civilly but the government can't.

Sharyl: How did you begin to understand that you were becoming odd man out?

Nacchio: It was June 5th of 2001, about four months later. And I'm sitting next to Dick Clark, and Dick leans over to me and he says, kind of incidental to the purpose of the meeting, 'Joe, you know that contract that you thought you guys were getting?' And I said, 'yeah,' and he said, 'well it's going to someone else.' And I was a little bit surprised, 'cause we had been on this a long time.

Dick or Richard Clarke was a key White House Advisor for Cybersecurity. He didn't respond to our requests for comment. He's shown in a photo from 2002, giving Nacchio a Presidential Certificate.

In another photo, Nacchio and other CEOs are shown with Clarke, being sworn in on the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee.

Nacchio says that contract Qwest wasn't getting after all, dealt a major blow.

Sharyl: A valuable contract?

Nacchio: Yeah, yeah, we're talking, we're talking in the hundreds of millions, okay. We're not talking 10 million. We're talking a big deal contract. Well, what ends up over the next several months is about four or five contracts we thought we were going to get, we never got. We didn't get.

Nacchio viewed it as reprisal for his refusal to take part in what he viewed as an illegal program.

Nacchio: It was in excess of $500 million that I was counting on that didn't come in that year, in 2001 alone.

Nacchio left Qwest the following year without mending that fence. Then, three years later, in August of 2005, he got a call. The Justice Department was investigating him for insider trading of Qwest stock four years earlier.

Nacchio claims the government was targeting him in retaliation, something the government strongly denies. His defense hinged on telling the jury how his relationship with the spy agencies had gone sour. But there was a catch: it was all top secret.

Nacchio lost his case.

Nacchio: I'm barred under the law from bringing any of it up. I'm barred from the contracts. I'm barred from naming the agencies. I'm barred from naming who I was with. I was even barred from saying the meeting on February 27th happened.

Some of it would later become public.

About the time of Nacchio's trial, the government's controversial programs were revealed for the first time.

President George W. Bush, Dec. 17, 2005: This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security.

The New York Times reported the NSA had been using phone companies to collect private information of U.S. citizens without court warrants.

Snowden, June 6, 2013: The NSA specifically targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default.

Later, NSA contractor Edward Snowden blew the whistle in this explosive interview with The Guardian. He exposed the Obama administration's vast expansion of data collection.

Snowden: But I, sitting at my desk, certainly had authorities to wiretap anyone from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President, if I had a personal e-mail.

It was Snowden's example of a federal judge that hit home with Nacchio. By then, he was serving a four and a half year prison sentence.

In a bizarre twist, the judge in Nacchio's case, Edward Nottingham, was soon embroiled in scandal, accused of soliciting prostitutes and allegedly asking one to lie to investigators. He resigned and apologized, but wasn't prosecuted.

After his dealing with the spy agencies, Nacchio wonders if they knew about Nottingham's private scandal. Could that have been held over the judge's head as he ruled for the government against Nacchio?

Nacchio: Look, I think the intelligence agencies in that time frame were wiretapping government officials, judges, I mean they were just monitoring everything.

Government officials call Nacchio a convicted felon whose speculation can't be believed. Nottingham firmly denies anyone spoke to him about his personal scandals during Nacchio's trial.

President Bush's NSA and CIA Chief Michael Hayden, Nacchio's point of contact back then, didn't respond to our requests for comment, but has championed the controversial surveillance.

Michael Hayden, May 12, 2006 Press Conference: Everything we've done has been lawful. It's been briefed to the appropriate members of Congress. The only purpose of the Agency's activities is to preserve the security and liberty of the American people, and I think we have done that.

President Obama also defends the government's mass data collection.

President Obama, June 19, 2013: Nobody is listening to your phone calls. That's not what this program's about.

Nacchio: My advice to people is, put nothing on the Internet that you wouldn't take a billboard out on 42nd Street and Broadway, and publicize. You have your bank records, your health records, you're looking at porn sites, you're illegal dating or whatever you're doing, is all known.

Sharyl: By the government?

Nacchio: And by their agents. Now, let's remember who the agents are. The agents are the telephone companies, the agents are the banks, the agents are Apple, the agents are Google, and the agents are Facebook. They're all involved.

Sharyl: What do you tell Apple if they were to call you and ask for advice?

Nacchio: I would have said, keep this very quiet and cooperate. Because you're going to lose this one in court, and what's going to happen to you when this is all over is, for the next five years of your life, every federal agency that has some jurisdiction on you, it's going to be crawling all over Apple. And that's what they do.

Nacchio's conviction was overturned on appeal in a decision that found Judge Nottingham made key errors.

But the government got the conviction reinstated by a split judges' panel.

A hearing on the Apple case is scheduled for next month.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1127 on: March 13, 2019, 03:10:28 PM »
That is a remarkable article.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1128 on: March 13, 2019, 04:59:33 PM »
That is a remarkable article.

Funny how it’s being ignored by our professional journalists.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1129 on: March 14, 2019, 04:40:19 AM »
That is a remarkable article.

Yes.  Much to learn and discuss there. We better keep an eye on Sharyl Attkisson.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1130 on: March 14, 2019, 10:57:51 PM »
Remember she was at the tip of the spear on reporting on Fast & Furious too.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother,4th & 9th Amendments, Sharyl Attkisson
« Reply #1131 on: March 15, 2019, 07:24:45 AM »
Remember she was at the tip of the spear on reporting on Fast & Furious too.

Like the Nacchio refusal, that might be exactly what went wrong for her.

The Nacchio story started before 9/11/01.  He ran the 'phone company' where Zacaria Moussaoui, 12th hijacker, was operating.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui
Between August 2001 when he was arrested and Sept 11 when our country was attacked, they did not 'connect the dots'.

So much good could be done if intel agencies used but did not abuse bulk data.
 Before the current FISA warrant scandal, I favored greater intelligence to keep us safe and wasn't aware of any abuses.  Naive of me.

In the Obama administration and their allies in the deep state agencies, abuse of power is just what they do.  We haven't uncovered the tip of the iceberg yet in the FBI DOJ abuse.  We don't even know who directed Susan Rice's lies or who was pulling Samantha Power's strings.  No one has paid a price for it.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/samantha-power-sought-to-unmask-americans-on-almost-daily-basis-sources-say
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 07:26:59 AM by DougMacG »



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1135 on: May 09, 2019, 08:58:20 AM »
Witty rejoinder noted, but the question remains  :lol:

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1136 on: May 09, 2019, 08:41:07 PM »
Witty rejoinder noted, but the question remains  :lol:

The only reason they want to ban facial recognition is so crimes by Antifa and masses of "youths" can't be effectively investigated/prosecuted.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1137 on: May 10, 2019, 08:09:36 AM »
OTOH I don't like the Orwellian nature of such a system at all.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: San F. and Oakland may ban facial recognition tech
« Reply #1138 on: May 13, 2019, 08:14:17 AM »
What say we to this?

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/san-francisco-oakland-could-be-first-cities-in-nation-to-ban-facial-recognition/

It used to be that conservatives and libertarians were the ones opposed to national ID cards and all the tracking.  Not really removed from govt, google, facebook and the like are tracking our everything including our images.  Take a look at the new Chinese government system of tracking AND RATING everyone's loyalty to the regime, and the possibility of doing that here - as if they weren't already.  Track, log and map out gunowners?  Already in progress.  Now add facial recognition to it all.  What could go wrong for liberty and privacy enthusiasts we used to call Americans.

There are issues where the left and right can agree.  Good to see Bay area liberals taking an interest in privacy, an unenumerated right.

Limiting the ability of law enforcement to use all tools available to solve crimes is and unfortunate but foreseeable result of the recent abuses of the NSA and FISA systems.

OTOH, with plastic surgery rampant, how will they track us?  For example, who is this and what computer could pick him out of a lineup?

« Last Edit: May 13, 2019, 08:33:12 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Is your cell phone wiretapping you?
« Reply #1139 on: May 17, 2019, 08:16:14 PM »
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/05/14/whatsapps-cybersecurity-breach-phones-hit-with-israeli-spyware-over-voice-calls/#1f3f169d5549

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5200661/Is-phone-listening-word-say.html

Is your phone listening to your every word and WATCHING you through your phone's camera? How thousands of people are convinced 'coincidence' adverts are anything but
Writer Jen Lewis posted viral image to Twitter of a Facebook ad featuring women wearing identical outfit to her
Tweet went viral with hundreds sharing their stories of social networks 'listening in' on conversations
Journalist Julia Lawrence (with the help of daughter Lois) investigated the powers of online advertising for the Daily Mail 
By JULIA LAWRENCE FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 20:44 EST, 20 December 2017 | UPDATED: 08:52 EST, 21 December 2017


We were sitting in a rooftop restaurant, 30 storeys up, overlooking the Empire State building in New York, when my daughter confessed that she thought she was being spied on by a professional network of cyberspooks.

‘Look at this,’ said Lois, presenting me with her smartphone, where an advert for a snazzy little instamatic camera was displayed. It had popped up a few seconds earlier, when she’d logged on to Instagram.

She met my quizzical ‘so what?’ face with exasperation.

‘What were we talking about? Just now? In the street, down there?’ she said.

Picture perfect: Jen Lewis (left) and the alarmingly similar advert sent on Facebook shortly after    +5
Picture perfect: Jen Lewis (left) and the alarmingly similar advert sent on Facebook shortly after

Sure enough, we’d been window shopping before our lunch reservation, and spotted a little gadget shop. I remembered Lois had commented on the instamatic cameras on display (dropping a few hints for her forthcoming 21st birthday, I suspected).

We’d had a brief conversation about how they were all the rage in the Eighties, and how one of my memories of Christmas parties at my parents’ house was listening to that familiar ‘whirrr’ and watching the wealthier guests flapping about the instant photos, as everyone waited for them to dry.

RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
2
Next

She's aging backwards! Pettifleur Berenger unveils her...

'Pokemon Go' gets real: Niantic reveals new version of hit...

Mystery of the gigantic snake-like cosmic filament found...
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
They were the selfies of their day, and good fun (if you could afford the camera film). How lovely that they were making a comeback, I commented. And we moved on.

Then, less than 20 minutes later, an advert popped up on Lois’s phone, for the exact same product. Same colour, same model, same everything.

‘They’re listening, they’re watching,’ she said.

‘Oh don’t be daft,’ I replied. ‘Who’s listening? Who’d want to listen to us?’

‘I’m serious,’ said Lois. ‘This keeps happening. This is no coincidence. Someone is listening to our conversations. Advertisers. They’re listening via our phones’ microphones.’

Our activity on websites and apps and demographic information is gathered using increasingly sophisticated technology to bring us personalised adverts (stock image)    +5
Our activity on websites and apps and demographic information is gathered using increasingly sophisticated technology to bring us personalised adverts (stock image)

A little melodramatic and paranoid, you might think. I certainly did. I assumed Lois had simply been researching the product online before we flew to New York, and had forgotten.

We all know ‘targeted advertising’ has been prevalent for some years now, via our social media apps and search engines. Facebook was one of the first to introduce it four years ago. It’s no big secret: go on the John Lewis website and choose a blouse, or Google Nigella’s smart eye-level oven, and the next time you log on to Facebook or Instagram, there’s a good chance they’ll pop up as adverts there.

While it felt a little uncomfortable and intrusive to begin with, we’ve all sort of got used to it.

Our activity on websites and apps and demographic information is gathered using increasingly sophisticated technology to bring us personalised adverts.

People’s electronic markers — known as ‘cookies’ — from websites they visit are gathered and passed to advertisers so they can target us with products relevant to our tastes and interests (and ones we’re more likely to buy).

Facebook categorically denies it uses smartphone microphones to gather information for the purposes of targeted advertising    +5
Facebook categorically denies it uses smartphone microphones to gather information for the purposes of targeted advertising

It is not illegal. Although under the Data Protection Act 1998, a person has to actively consent to their data being collected and the purpose for which it’s used, few people actually take time to police what they consent to.

The terms and conditions and privacy statements you sign up to when you buy a smartphone or download an app are rarely scrutinised before we tick the box and wade in.

But Lois swore she hadn’t Googled an instamatic camera. That was the first time she’d ever had a conversation about them. ‘I’m telling you, they’re listening,’ she said, and I admit I stuffed my own phone a little deeper into my bag. Could she be right?

Well, hundreds of other people seem to think so. Stories on Twitter of these ‘blind coincidence’ adverts are abundant.

And not just restricted to voice snooping either — some are convinced their phones are spying on them via their cameras, too.

Last month, a creepy story swept social media about an American woman called Jen Lewis who was shown an advert on Facebook for a bra — featuring a model wearing exactly the same clothes she was wearing at that moment. The same pink shirt and skinny jeans.

Lewis, a writer and designer, recreated the model’s pose and posted the near-identical pictures side-by-side on Twitter where they went viral with more than 20,000 likes.

While Facebook insisted the ad was a coincidence, hundreds of horrified social media users commented — many suggesting the ad could have been targeted with image recognition software, using Jen’s laptop or smartphone camera as a spy window into her life. ‘Seriously, cover up your camera lens,’ warned one, as stories were swapped of people receiving adverts for wedding planners, minutes after popping the question, and cat food after merely discussing whether to buy a cat.

People’s electronic markers — known as ‘cookies’ — from websites they visit are gathered and passed to advertisers so they can target us with products relevant to our tastes  (stock image)   +5
People’s electronic markers — known as ‘cookies’ — from websites they visit are gathered and passed to advertisers so they can target us with products relevant to our tastes  (stock image)

One Facebook user is so convinced his conversations are being monitored that he switched off the microphone on his smartphone — and, sure enough, there haven’t been any more ‘strange coincidences’ since.

Tom Crewe, 28, a marketing manager from Bournemouth, was immediately suspicious in March when he noticed an advert on Facebook for beard transplant surgery. Only hours earlier he’d joked with a colleague about them both getting one, as they remained smooth-faced, despite their age.

‘I had my phone’s Facebook app switched on at the time. Within a few hours, an ad came through for hair and beard transplants,’ he says.

‘I just thought: “Why have I been targeted?” I’d never Googled “hair or beard transplants” or sent an email to anyone about it or talked about it on Facebook.’

The fact that the ad for beard transplants was so unusual and specific made him suspect his phone had been eavesdropping.

He became convinced when later that month he received an advert to his phone — again weirdly and quite specifically — for Peperami sausages.

Companies have developed algorithms that can look for patterns and determine potentially useful things about your behaviour and interests (stock image)    +5
Companies have developed algorithms that can look for patterns and determine potentially useful things about your behaviour and interests (stock image)

‘Again, it was a casual conversation in the office. I’d just eaten a Peperami, and it was a few hours before lunch, and a colleague joked how he didn’t think this was a particularly good thing to have for breakfast.

‘Again, I’d never Googled the product or mentioned it on Facebook or anywhere online. It’s just something I buy during my twice-a-week shop at Tesco.

‘Then I get an advert for it. This happened within two weeks of the beard incident.’

It so disturbed him that he researched it and saw others talking about it.

‘I saw articles and got information and turned off the Facebook app’s access to my phone’s microphone. I’ve not noticed it happening since then.’

Facebook categorically denies it uses smartphone microphones to gather information for the purposes of targeted advertising.

A spokesperson said being targeted with an advert for a beard transplant was just an example of heightened perception, or the phenomenon whereby people notice things they’ve talked about.

With 1.7 billion users being served tens of adverts a day, there’s always going to be something uncanny. Google and WhatsApp also categorically deny bugging private conversations, describing the anecdotal evidence as pure coincidence.

One thing technology experts agree on, though, is that the ability to create technology that can randomly sweep millions of conversations for repeated phrases or identifiable names, definitely exists.

Companies have developed algorithms that can look for patterns and determine potentially useful things about your behaviour and interests. Whether they are being used by the companies with access to your phone, however, remains unproven.

Not convinced? Consider the Siri or Google Assistant functions, designed to understand your voice and pick out key phrases, and with a huge vocabulary in their grasp.

I saw articles and got information and turned off the Facebook app’s access to my phone’s microphone. I’ve not noticed it happening since then
It’s not too big a stretch to think of this technology developed to sweep conversations as a marketing tool. ‘Smartphones are small tracking devices,’ says Michelle De Mooy, acting director for the U.S.’s Democracy and Technology Privacy and Data project.

‘We may not think of them like that because they’re very personal devices — they travel with us, they sleep next to us. But they are, in fact, collectors of a vast amount of information including audio information. When you are using a free service, you are basically paying for it with information.’

As yet, however, there’s no concrete evidence that we are being listened to. Any complaints about spying would be dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which handles legislation governing how personal information is stored and shared across the UK.

They say no one has complained officially. Tales of cybersnooping haven’t gone beyond ‘shaggy dog stories’ on Twitter and Facebook.

When approached by the Mail, an ICO spokesman said: ‘We haven’t received any complaints on the issue of Facebook listening to people’s conversations.

‘Businesses and organisations operating in the UK are required by law to process personal data fairly and lawfully, this means being clear and open with individuals about how information will be used.’

That law, however, is struggling to keep up with technology, according to Ewa Luger, a researcher and specialist in the ethical design of intelligent machines, at the University of Edinburgh. ‘I think this is a problem ethically,’ she says. ‘If I had an expectation that this application was recording what I was saying, that’s one thing, but if I don’t, then it’s ethically questionable. I may be having private conversations and taking my phone into the bathroom.

‘This is a new area of research — voice assistance technology. We have only been looking at this for 12 months. It takes a while for research to catch up.’

In the meantime, Lois and I have turned off our microphones. It’s easy to do via your phone’s Settings.

To be honest, I don’t think there are people with earphones in a bunker, desperate to know what car I’m thinking of buying, but I’d rather, in this increasingly public world, maintain a bit of privacy. You really don’t know who’s listening.

■ Additional reporting Stephanie Condron



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1142 on: July 31, 2019, 03:16:46 PM »
"There are counter stingray techniques"

what are they?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« Reply #1143 on: July 31, 2019, 04:47:56 PM »
"There are counter stingray techniques"

what are they?

Stingray detection apps, burner and pseudo burner phones and the use of Faraday bags as part of a structured OPSEC plan.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile