US Official Urges Americans To Reconsider Privacy 515
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr. Kurt Opsahl of the EFF said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing information in exchange for a service. "There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties. We shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their privacy." Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, requiring a court order for surveillance on U.S. soil. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering.
Sounds good to me (Score:2)
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you can't get total privacy, get what you can, and don't give up easily. Those who are trying to replace privacy with trusting large organizations are doing so because large organizations can be threatened by larger or more powerful (or even just more committed) organizations.
P.S.: Remember that "Do Not Call" list? That one shares your phone number with all telemarketers, so they'll know who not to call. It expires next year, and they've got your number.
I, for one... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I, for one... (Score:5, Informative)
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html [blogspot.com]
Re:I, for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
A big problem with that point of view is that it makes the government a puppet for whoever screams most loudly, at the expense of everybody else. And since the loudest voice is constantly changing, we end up with the worst of all worlds, more tangled laws and regulations than a reasonable person will ever read, and a rapidly growing government.
"Ron Paul's Congressional whack-nuttery" is the first real chance to break away from that in a very long time, and his claims are only further backed up by your link. I could run through that list of proposed bills one by one, if you like, but this really isn't the forum for that.
If you have another reason for believing that the misrepresentations on the page linked are evidence of a real problem with Ron Paul's record, I'd love to hear them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I, for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's get a few things straight:
1) Refusing to finance a given decision does NOT mean you are against having choice in the matter
2) Shifting power from the Federal government to the state governments does NOT equal fascism
3) Refusing to subsidize something does NOT equate to being against it
4) Being thrifty when it's not your money does NOT equate to being a religious whackjob
5) The US Consitution still defines the role of the Federal government. Since the Federal government has proven many times over that it only does well the jobs laid out for it by the US Constitution, it makes sense that we restrict its roles thereto.
Ron Paul isn't a nut - he's just thinking far beyond the average member of the body politic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know that I disagree with Paul about a few things, but even of the things where we disagree, a lot of these bills really look like he's attempting to get the Feds to defer to states on the issues. In many instances, it looks like he might just be grumpy that the Feds have exceeded their constitutional powers. The fact that the Feds happen to be [ab]using their power in a way that is popular, is beside the point.
If you establish that an relatively unaccountable party should be omnipotent, then that's on
Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
This guy really should be fired. Out of a cannon. At a wall.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing with privacy is, if you want to retain any part of your privacy, you simply have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I, for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
If he were elected, I'm not sure how much of his own agenda he'd be able to accomplish since he can only propose new legislation & veto things he disagrees with, but he could make it VERY difficult for Congress to pass things that there wasn't unanimous agreement about, and he wouldn't be giving the protection of the President's Office to those agents of the executive branch who are blatantly violating the Constitution.
Ron Paul (Score:3, Insightful)
If he were elected, I'm not sure how much of his own agenda he'd be able to accomplish since he can only propose new legislation & veto things he disagrees with, but he could make it VERY difficult for Congress to pass things that there wasn't unanimous agreement about, and he wouldn't be giving the protection of the President's Office to those agents of the executive branch who are blatantly violating the Constitution.
The veto is anyone who wants to be president most powerful weapon. I'd love to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
he would not continue to expand the government.
he would not continue to take our civil rights and privacy
he would not continue to raise the cost of government
he would do what he says he would and has a long voting record showing he does do what he says.
Right now- all other republican and democratic are lying so badly that we are literally voting for mystery men owned by the corporations.
RvW can go down for ten or twenty years so we do not lose the entire count
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am afraid he would since many of his "morality" proposals require wide-spread governmental powers. Same for his militaristic (which he denies while actively foting for them) and many other aspirations. He simply wants the big governmental powers in places different from where they are now. This is in actuality the same problem most of the "small government" conservatives have, they all come with pet wacko social dogmas, enforcement of which is completely at
Re:I, for one... (Score:4, Insightful)
The basic organization of the US is to recognize that people disagree- and yet we can work together. When you force every single damn issue to the national level, then you leave people no chance to move away from areas they disagree with and they start getting pretty pissy and intolerant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You always have freedom to leave. You can *walk* across the country in 150 days. You can hop a bus for under $150 to cut most of that time off.
However, if the laws are the same everywhere, then freedom to move doesn't make much of a difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
nd as for the bit about having my own "like minded state", that's the last thing I want. Diversity breeds challenge and adversity. They in turn make life interesting and lead to new discoveries and developments. Diversity encourages constant change, and it is without a doubt a huge advantage that western nations have over more isolationist countries. It's also perhaps the best reason I can think of for NOT allowing states to become miniature nations - such a system would encourage further isolation and alie
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because some fringe radicals support a particular candidate doesn't mean that candidate is "wrong" or somehow less deserving of support.
"[abortion] is not a decision to be made by individual states. It's a human rights issue . .
I believe that a woman should be free to make that decision, but abortion is not a "right" in the same sense as the "Rights" gu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. I'm speechless.
Security Through Obscurity (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr.
Try telling that to John Smith.
Yea, Googling my name, first and last, I got almost 300,000 results. Adding a middle initial I still got almost 2000. Spelling out the middle name I still got more than 100. And I'm a nobody.
FalconApologies to Emily Dickinson (Score:5, Funny)
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us - don't tell!
They'd waterboard us, you know.
Re:Security Through Obscurity (Score:4, Interesting)
I have yet to see anything turn up relating to me via my legal name (and variations) on Google. I don't know whether to be relieved or insulted.....
Basically, the more public the life you lead, the more apt you are to be found on Google. I've led a very hermit-like life and am very, very careful about who gets my personal information and why. Google knows me not -- I've never been the subject of or quoted in any news stories, I have not worked for any company or belonged to any organization that might put a staff or membership list online, etc., etc. Even if you try the various public records searches, my name will pop up occasionally, but 95% of what turns up is outdated information anyway, and what is there could be found without the Internet via a trip to the courthouse. I am well aware that the tide is turning (has turned) and that you can't totally hide in this day and age. But at the same time, that doesn't mean I'm going to hand over the details of my life on a silver platter. I understand that if someone really wanted to find me, they could. But at least they will have to work hard to do so.
"Fundamentally different" (Score:5, Insightful)
"There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties."
The difference being that while I trust no one, I trust the government with the information even less, because they have the power to screw me over to such a greater degree.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Fundamentally different" (Score:5, Insightful)
Private companies answer only to a limited number of customers; government (in theory) answers to all the voting population.
Of course, when oversight (the checks and balances) is removed, government no longer answers to the people, and the potential for harm is exponentially greater, simply because the amount of potential power is greater.
Government CAN be on the side of the angels. But without checks such as anonymity, it can be democracy and freedom's worst enemy.
Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, lets 'redfine' privacy to mean "we know what you do, we will just be responsible with the information"
Re: (Score:2)
The government already knows. FBI, they know. CIA, they know. Google, MS, IBM, AT&T, Visa, MasterCard, the list goes on and on.
The million dollar question is, what is wrong with people that they'd sacrifice the ability to also know what is actually going on if it will prevent the neighbour from knowing what they do with their weekends, when people are already using that same knowledge to conspire agai
Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, that pretty much constitutes the definition of "trust". You share secrets with people you trust. What these political trolls are asking us to do is trust the government---yet on nearly every occasion in the past, they have proven utterly unworthy of that trust. Hell, they can't even keep computers from walking away from Lawrence Livermore National Labs. If we can't even trust them to keep their own nuclear secrets safe, how can we possibly be expected to trust them to keep our private information safe?
This is literally the epitome of the phrase "wolf guarding the henhouse". The entire purpose of large parts of our Bill of Rights is to protect the citizens from our own government---to ensure that the government cannot do precisely what this person is asking us to let it do.
So my question to anyone seriously considering his statement is this: What ever happened to "I... will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? Are those mere words, or do they mean something? Because if we give in to this tyranny, we are saying that those are mere words---that the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, of the Bill of Rights---indeed, the spirit of America---is nothing more than a statement of naive ideals to be respected only when it is convenient.
No, this is not the time to cave in. Indeed, it is when we are most threatened that we must most firmly cling to our principles. It is easy to do the right thing when it is convenient; only the truly good continue to do good when it is hard. It is time that we as a nation stand up and tell the world, "This is what we believe. This is who we are as a nation." Are we going to be a nation of fear? Are we going to be a nation of paranoia, not trusting our neighbors and telling the government every time they sneeze in the interests of protecting ourselves? Are we going to be a nation of terrified little children who cower in our beds out of fear that the big bad terrorist boogeyman will get us? Or are we going to be a proud nation standing strong as a beacon of freedom and light to a darkened world?
A time of great tribulation is upon us. Everyone must choose a side. Will you choose the side of right---of freedom---or the side of wrong---of tyranny, oppression, and fear? Only you can decide. As for me, I choose the side of truth. To Mr. Kerr, I'm sorry if the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are inconvenient for you, but maybe, just maybe, that is because you're doing something you shouldn't be doing in the first place. If you can't see that, I pity you.
Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
What is intolerable, however, is for government officials to have a lot of information on private citizens, but for private citizens to have little information on the government.
Is this guy joking? (Score:5, Interesting)
Definitely. For one, I can choose not to interact with certain private parties if they piss me off. But I probably can't choose to ignore the government and have to interact with it on some level.
Also, private parties can't demand I hand over certain private information -- sure, they might decide not to do business with me, but the government seems to think it's priviledged to anything and everything since the Patriot Act. Good luck turning them down.
Now it's no longer based on evidence that a crime was done -- we are welcomed to the pre-emptive society. Pre-emptive wars. Pre-emptive invasion of my privacy (without warrant) based on crimes that might happen. I'm just waiting to be pre-emptively thrown in jail.
I find it interesting that this government official is trying to sell us on the government safeguarding our information. HAH! What a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone post the 5 nastiest links of information abuse so we can mod them +6 Informative and shut this thread down and go to the next story.
Here's an example of Kerr's logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, I don't need to read beyond this. Does the US have a privacy problem with personal data held by corporations without regulation? Yes. Does the US have a privacy problem with novel government surveillance methods without (serious) oversight? Hell Yes. Can one be used to excuse the other in any way shape or form? Hell no!
This guy should not be the standard bearer for the dialog that the US needs to have over privacy in the age of information technology.
Re:Here's an example of Kerr's logic (Score:4, Insightful)
The government on the other hand can do far worse to me. The government can realize that I am a fan of a radical centrist group and start keeping tabs on my every move. While they can't prove that I have done anything wrong in terms of being a radical terrorist, they can easily keep track of the laws I break and hit me all at once for them. As they track my GPS they can dish out a fine each time I touch above the speed limit, charge me the full $250,000 per son each time I let a friend borrow a CD, castrate me for drinking on the sabbath, toss me in jail for illegal drug possession when I pop one of my girlfriends anti-allergy pills, and in general make my life a miserable hell.
Attend Next Spring's Political Caucuses (Score:5, Insightful)
Attend your local caucus or convention and try to get elected as a delegate to the state convention.
Introduce resolutions that value freedom and privacy. Lobby to get them passed.
Send a message to Washington: Privacy is important. Anonymity is an essential part of privacy.
Legal terms to promote privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nor do I believe that as an employer anything you choose to reveal about yourself should not be used in a decision whether or not to hire you. If you rave on and on online endlessly about how all businesses are evil and the US government is out to get us all, you're not a candidate for any job I have. If you rave on and on about what great drugs you got last weekend and how you spent the entire time watching pretty patterns on the ceiling, you're not a can
Trespass and Trespass to Chattel (Score:3, Insightful)
Traditionally, tortious trespass is trespass, regardless of whether or not there is a sign. Now, it's not trespass if you're thrown on to the private property, or if you run there to take cover from an act of god. But if you are wandering around and merely do
Re: (Score:2)
The article notes that kids reveal much private information about themselves on myspace and facebook.
The thing that articles like this neglect to mention is that kids lie on their profiles and chats. Here's an article from "Business Week" about "Marketing to Teens Online" [businessweek.com]. One of the reasons they give for kids lying is "Kids also lie on the Web to avoid creepy predators. One parent told me her 13-year-old son's MySpace profile says he's 26 and married with two kids. Teens, sometimes with parental enc
If you believe ... (Score:2)
If you main fear is the US government, think again. Your information is a marketable commodity and nobody is doiung anything to prevent commerce using that commodity. How many businesses are involved in trading information that you believe should be private? Do you believe the government should put an end to all such activity?
It isn't going to happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you believe you can have privacy, security and anonyminity you are wrong. You might get any two of those. Maybe.
Privacy and anonymity are essentially the same thing. A USSC ruling even stated this in the early 1800s. If a person couldn't reasonable expect to keep their privacy then freedom of political speech didn't mean anything. Without remaining anonymous people wouldn't be willing to talk openly about politics for fear what they say can be used against them. I think the appropriate third word
Google my pseudonym (Score:2)
Surveillance on U.S. soil (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, about googling your own name; I just did that and although there were over 1.5 million results, none of them were about me as far as I could tell
I guess I should be relieved, although I'm kind of disappointed that I'm not important enough to have my privacy violated.
He does have a point (Score:3, Insightful)
More than this
Outlawing google also seems like a stupid thing to do.
He just makes the point that we can't have it both ways. We can't have a searchable internet and the privacy standards of 1960. It just doesn't compute.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Having Google show you all kinds of things that link back to your identity is a very good thing. After I saw how accurately Google showed how many, and there were many, places my private information was bouncing around the net I was able to quickly pull the plug on every business and social site that was leaking my info.
Now when I do a search I find nothing about myself even after digging through 20 or 30 pages of Google search results.
Now why can't the US governm
Is It January 20th, 2009, Yet? (Score:2, Offtopic)
The Bush administration is systematically perverting the American Constitution.
I swear I would vote for anyone that said they would restore and enforce the Constitution, who would prosecute those who have subverted and raped it, and who would roll back the stoled powers of the Executive branch.
Even better, if they would turn the current system of campaign contributions by corporations into treasonous acts and punish all involved in the harshest possible manner.
We have
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really care for Ron Paul's politics on abortion (since I consider matters of reproduction an inalienable right), but I feel he's probably the only one who would remotely consider these actions. In fact, as a fairly liberal/libertarian person, he'd earn my vote in a heartbeat if he made
Barry (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Donald Kerr
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
-- Barry Goldwater
It's official - google is evil according to Gov't (Score:5, Funny)
"Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr."
Great! We should give Kerr a dose of his own medicine by posting about how "Donald Kerr likes having sex with a sheep", "Donald Kerr was arrested for soliciting sex in a public washroom", "Donald Kerr was indicted for embezzling $5 million dollars", "Donald Kerr was convicted of sexually assaulting an 82-year-old woman after tazering her", "Donald Kerr helped funnel funds to Al-Quaida", "Donald Kerr was found wandering naked in a local park, claiming to have been abducted by aliens, who then probed his body", "Donald Kerr is a vocal proponent of scientology", "Donald Kerr is president of the Washington Brittney Speares fan club", "Donald Kerr controls a bot-net of 250,000 PCs", "Donald Kerr accepted 'gifts' of $4.5m from Microsoft", "Donald Kerr wants to track people via bluetooth".
After all, Google is now a "good source" for Donald Kerr.
(Note to the humour-impaired - the above is fair comment satire directed at a public officials' political policy statements, and in no way is an endorsement of Mr. Kerr's positions on privacy OR sex with a sheep)
Re:It's official - google is evil according to Gov (Score:3, Funny)
US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bush administration has shit all over the Constitution and this country. They have committed treason.
Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas (Score:5, Insightful)
What scares us is that you shitheads let them get away with it. You almost impeached a president for lying about a blowjob, but you don't take down an administration that is actively dismantling everything your ancestors fought and died for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Irrelevant. He was elected, however barely.
2. The minor protests were retarded, and the larger protests are late to the party - not to mention, about the wrong problem. They're certainly no credit to America.
3. You're kidding, right? If you didn't get the idea that Bush was going to send the US down the shitter before 2004, you weren't paying attention.
4. Irrelevant. Pointing out someone else's problems is no way to advance the discussion.
5. Treating the maj
Government having private data... (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy is basically advertising a surveilance state, were everybody has to trust the government without reserve. Not a good idea. Historically that has always lead to a catastrophy. Unfortunately there will not be any allied armies to free the US population. I advise to stop this now with all possible legal means. A free society has to live with a real risk of terrorism. That is what makes it free: People have the freedom to go bad. If you remove that freedom, you cause much, much more damage that terrorists ever could do directly. All this "war on terror" is really a power-grap in disguise by power-hungry people without even a shred of ethics. You do not want to be ruled by this type of evil.
This man is a coward. (Score:5, Insightful)
We will struggle, those that believe in liberty and freedom, against the tides that would try to drown us with rationalisms, excuses, and the madness of fealty to the corrupt and mindless sycophants of government.
There was a reason the founding fathers worded their documents they way that they did-- there was another King George that tried to shove fealty down our throats. This minor duke in his administration would have us believe that liberty and freedom != anonymity. He is wrong.
Re:This man is a coward. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me tell you about the other heros that also protested the Viet Nam War for the travesty it had become as others were conscripted (and enslaved) to fight. Or perhaps those that looked with incredulity at the hoaxed evidence of 'WMD' in Iraq-- knowing that many thousands of soldier lives would be lost in vain, not to mention Afgani and Iraqi lives-- and the lives of US allies.
Let me tell you about having principles, not a squishy bowl of jelly for guts in the face of those that would compromise liberty, civil rights, and freedom with responsibility for these.
Many people have, and will understand the value of liberty, once lost. Should you wish subjugation, sit still and don't do anything.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Given the choice of living in slavery or death, which do you think most people would choose? Do you really expect people to say "yes, kill me please"?
There's another choice, you can fight for freedom. You may die but you can take some oppressors out with you. As Thomas Jefferson [bartleby.com] said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." However as with past civilizations, people have become lazy and fearful.
Falcon
...and? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
security? (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefox add-on (Score:5, Interesting)
For further information go on: http://sourceforge.net/projects/fuzzy-search/ [sourceforge.net]
It's a beta version and any comments are appreciated.
Re:Firefox add-on (Score:4, Insightful)
If your plugin still works as described, then I'd say it's very imperfect. I don't think the approach is completely wrong though, but it could use improvements.
This reminds me of the old idea of randomly embedding key words like "president", "nuke", etc in mail and usenet posts, to mess with with Echelon/Carnivore. A mail with random key words inserted in places would work for triggering the data gathering, but look obviously unrelated to a human who reads the message, as the extra stuff would be inserted in nonsensical places.
Now if your plugin happens to google for "raping virgins" how will you prove this wasn't a real search you tried to hide among a heap of a lot of grammatically incorrect ones? Searches that make grammatical sense will be a minority, and with a list like that there's a high chance that they won't be things normal people google about.
Then there's that it doesn't seem it actually follows any links from the searches, so if the ISP is doing logging it's easy enough to tell what is being actually used.
This seems to me like going to a library, and borrowing 20 books at once, including the Anarchist Cookbook and Mein Kampf, to try hide your actual and much more harmless interest in reading a book on say, Neopaganism. If your history is checked, all that extra stuff you didn't read isn't going to help you any, because there's no way to tell that most of your history was intended to be padding and you haven't even opened it.
I agree with Kerr (Score:2)
If we want to protect our privacy in the new age of information, we must have policies in place which reflect the real world, not a fantasy world where you can be an anonymous citizen (which is impossible BTW) who simply goes about his/her business without interference fro
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Jews in Nazi Germany in the 30s were free to do what they wanted without fear, so long as they didn't break any laws.
Of course walking around with a Star of David on your clothes kind of sucked later on when being a Jew became a capital offence.
Need link to StreetView of Kerr's house (Score:5, Funny)
Is Donald Kerr's house in Google StreetView? What's the link?
And very subtly, very delicately... (Score:2, Insightful)
How about trying something different? (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion, software as a service and registration based software are two of the biggest perpetrators of data and privacy violations. They take away your right to manage who knows what about you, forcing you to provide whatever data the "service provider" chooses or dictates that they "need".
1) Make it illegal to force consumers to turn over private information unless it's a functional requirement of the process (not just data mining or marketing enhancement)
2) Make it illegal for companies to sell or share ANY personally identifiable data they collect, even names, phone numbers, and addresses.
3) Dismantle companies that violate privacy laws, retain identifiable customer data, or insist on data that is not a necessity to do business.
It's pretty simple! You own YOUR OWN data. No one else has a right to it. No one can force you to turn it over to do business with them unless it's a functional necessity of doing business and not just a preference. Anyone that violates privacy laws is dismantled.
BUT! BUT! It won't happen, because we live in a fascist corporate pathocracy where companies and money rule politics, the individual citizen, nay citizens period, are not considered, asked, or involved in any decisions, and THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOUR DATA ALSO. So they can spy on you. It's all to protect YOU from the "terrists" you know.
Nevermind the true terrorists are OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.
Vague "terrorist threats", data mining, advertising, marketing, and "revenue enhancement" ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE REASONS TO DISMANTLE PRIVACY. Money and fear are NEVER reasons to willingly accept oppression or subordination.
Fight for your rights, America. Our rights aren't what some company claims they will recognize, or what our government claims they will 'allow'. These are inherent to our existence, and they are for US to decide, not someone else. Fight for your rights! Wake up before it's too late.
Without Anonymity (Score:3, Insightful)
We do need to redefine privacy - with cryptography (Score:4, Interesting)
That's our real relationship with Comcast, with AT&T and so on. They're snoopy sysadmins on a gigantic scale, and we should treat them like snoopy sysadmins of any other kind: encrypt and tunnel all traffic, and push back technically as hard as we can. P2P has led the way on this, but it's really time we stopped dinking around and started defaulting to HTTPS even on sites like Slashdot.
On the broader level, I did some work on this (ironically, the first draft of the work was done for the USG.)
http://guptaoption.com/4.SIAB-ISA.php [guptaoption.com]
It's a system - built on open source software for the most part (and the remaining stuff could be built) - which provides for a rock solid personal identity card which has three critical properties:
* all your personal data is encrypted, and only a court can decrypt it
* the card has no unique identifiers on it, and you have dozens of cards (that you leave with institutions like your bank to "anchor" your account)
* it's dirt cheap and secure enough to entrust with biometric data like DNA fingerprints.
Concerted effort to produce an open alternative which offers strong security *AND* strong privacy by carrying the debate to a higher technical level than schemes like RealID is long past due.
Phil Zimmerman settled the encryption issue for most of a generation with PGP. It's time for us to consider doing the same for general communications snooping, and then moving out into areas like the poor protection of identity in systems like the Social Security Number-based credit reporting system.
We can do better, and we must.
Re:Finding yourself in Google (Score:5, Funny)
If nothing comes up then you were switched at birth and can find information by typing in your correct name.
I only found out about this when I discovered my real birth name is inanimate carbon rod [google.co.uk].
Re:Finding yourself in Google (Score:5, Funny)
It was a shock when i discovered this, but thankfully measures have been put in place to ensure it never happens again.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
3 years ago 70% of the stuff on the first search page were me, not a single result is today.
I quit posting with any reference to my real name/email. And thanks to recent use in a movie, my pseudonymn is no-longer unique also.
Although you can't delete your online history, it will get diluted quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
It has NOTHING to do with Google. If the government wants to change what privacy means to THEM, they need a constitutional amendment. Unless they simply want to continue to trample the document, which I wouldn't doubt for a moment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look: either the government pervades your life, or it does not.
The debate is healthy, though. Perhaps it will lead to clearer rules of engagement on security and privacy. If you're tasked with ensuring security, you really want
Re:Finding yourself in Google (Score:4, Informative)
This is really far from an "all or nothing" debate. That's what the government wants you to believe: that in order to provide you with services, security and safety, we need to be able to get into every facet of your life. Don't let them convince you that's how it has to be.
There are choices to be made about everything. The government can provide health care without access to specific patient information. They can provide security without reading your email and listening to your phone calls. Do not for a second believe that one comes with the other. We have choices.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here in grown-up land we call that a false dichotomy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If we're going to get anywhere as a country, and as a world, we're going to have to stop swallowing this phony conventional wisdom. I've lived and worked in a few places where the residents enjoy a host of public servi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are they in government to make policy that benefits the people, or the businesses? Look to where they go after stepping through the revolving door the second time to answer that question.
I believe that's what drives government to make statements and decisions that im
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose it can be debated whether some ephemeral electronic impulses in some distant computer apply to the above. In the days this was written, any government agent who did want these, had to physically come to the subject persons house or office and take such persons or items with him/her.
It seems that in this day, the only way to keep anything truly secret, is to not tell anyone, anywhere, by any means and make sure it isn't recorded
Re:Finding yourself in Google (Score:4, Insightful)
The privacy right has been judicially created (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government wants to change what privacy means to THEM, they need a constitutional amendment.
The "right of privacy" is a judicial construct. I'm not saying that it is a bad construct, but you'll never see the word "privacy" in the Constitution. In interpreting the 4th Amendment, the Supreme Court has constructed a Constitutional protection of privacy. Maybe the definition of "activist judges" depends on where you sit. Anyway, the courts have acknowledged that this is an implicit, rather than explicit right.
Legislative acts have also defined privacy in their own ways, but the term "privacy" is a difficult one to define with precision when we're dealing with electronic communications. If the limits of privacy are no longer defined by your physical presence, how far does your right to privacy extend? With so much of our lives being lived online, would excessive provisions for privacy actually extend the doctrine further than it was originally intended?
Another question: We place our trust in Google every time we use its services, but why do we place more trust in a profit-maximizing enterprise than in our own government? Ostensibly we can hold our government accountable through elections, but we have less influence on corporations. Sure, we have the power of the wallet, but when's the last time you saw an effective consumer boycott in the information economy?
No. You're wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is affirmed by the 9th Amendment, although the right exists independently of it.
You're the sort of person for whom the Bill of Rights was added, because you simply don't understand the concept. The Constitution gives the Federal Government no power to intrude on privacy, therefore the right is retained by the people.
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84
Much US "case law," isn't law (in the exact same sense that our current money doesn't have value). It's not founded on any pure principles of ethics or logic, despite the claims of weasly lawyers and congresscritters, but upon convenience and authority through force. It's a history of progressive ursurpations of powers not granted by the people, and is illegitimate. The king has no clothes.
That some judge states "black is white" doesn't make it so, and simply weakens any legitimacy the law once had.
Pushing the right buttons (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems I've hit two of the most sensitive issues on Slashdot: Privacy and the Libertarian Impulse.
You can't question unbridled privacy rights on Slashdot, even as a rhetorical exercise.
You can't question the Libertarian Impulse on Slashdot, at least when referring to Google. Government wields force and is dangerous. Enormously wealthy and powerful public corporation driven solely by profit motive doesn't wield force and is therefore non-dangerous. Simple, binary logic, but it seems to work for many fo
Ninth Amendment is critical to modern 'privacy' (Score:5, Informative)
So although the Ninth does get mentioned far more seldom than it should, its existence is critical and quite central to the current privacy debate. It has not been completely ignored.
If you're interested in reading a layman's introduction to the 'right to privacy' as it has developed through several major USSC cases, I might humbly suggest my own "Right to Privacy Primer [sdf-us.org]" (text version [sdf-us.org]) which I wrote a while back and recently updated.
Re:Ninth Amendment is critical to modern 'privacy' (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about (Score:2, Informative)
That quote is Ben Franklin saying Quakers in Pennsylvania who "g[a]ve up [their] essential liberty" of BEARING ARMS paid for by the government against Indian and French raids during the French and Indian Wars (known in Europe, IIRC, as the "Seven Year War") deserved what they got: killed.
Your oh-so-fucking-precious quote is a small part of a diatribe against blind, stupid pacifism: those that give up their essentia
Re: (Score:2)
The real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The US is not the entire planet. (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is news? America's biggest enemy is definitely within. It is lack of education and an easily terrified populace that can be manipulated with a few "support our troops" and "with us or agin' us" slogans.
I think Osama bin Laden hit the jackpot with his 9/11 attack. He spent some 19 lives and a few tens of thousands of dollars and in return, he, through the current moronic, paranoid, and opportunistic administration, has thoroughly destroyed what used to be the most powerful and respected Nation on earth.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-For the few weeks prior to the event workers at the WTC claim that they saw an increased number of goverment agents in the building, including a massive surge of security near the basement levels of the buildings.
-Forensic architects and demolitions experts found traces of thermite, attributing to how the steel lost its structural integrity. Thermite is not contained in planes, it is placed in demolition charges.
-The "official" story of how the buildings fell (plane im
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Right to Privacy, as put forth by the Constitution of the United States of America, never intended for any one to be anonymous. Anonymous people have no voice in the government because they are unkown and faceless. Only those who stand up to be counted, by their vote and their enumeration in a census, can be a part of the government.
You've got thing switched around. According to USSC rulings without anonymity the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech means nothing. As one USSC ruling said if a person