or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Right To Privacy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Right To Privacy

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Privacy is the right to control your own living space, as in the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Privacy is the right to control your own identity, as in the right to be known by a name of your own choice and not a number, the right to choose your own hair and dress styles, the right to personality. Privacy is the right to control informa- tion about yourself, as in the right to prevent disclosure of private facts or the right to know which information is kept on you and how it is used.

http://alumnimag.waldenu.edu/Alumni_...e/Chapter8.pdf

One of the downsides of technology is the loss of privacy. What can be done to preserve the right to privacy? How much interference is too much?

Some cases:

Cell Phone and Other GPS tracking

Quote:
For a relatively small fee you can contact a cell phone provider and turn a portable phone into a surveillance and tracking device. But in most countries surveillance of an individual without their explicit consent is against the law. Whether it be monitoring whom you call, the contents of the conversation or your location it is a violation of privacy laws in just about all civilized countries around the world. Unfortunately the new technology is being used illegally far to often.

...It appears that watches will be the next big item to integrate GPS surveillance and tracking. Even today you can buy any of a dozen or more Timex watches that have integrated GPS tracking and surveillance. But along with this incredible micro technology goes a huge legal problem. Currently the software for these GPS surveillance devices does not contain significant safeguards against legal and privacy abuses but hopefully that will change before things get out of control

http://ezinearticles.com/?Cell-Phone...ance&id=510569


OnStar

Quote:
True to its name, the OnStar is always on. Like a psychotic stalker, its simply unwilling to hang up that is, unless youre willing to take a hammer to your brand new Cadillac, because the GM dealership wont help you either.

The simplistic approach continues to be used in an attempt of silencing any concerns over our ever-diminishing rights to privacy: Only criminals are concerned with being watched if you have nothing to hide, dont worry about your privacy. If only it were this simple.

OnStar will track your car and hand over all of your information at their disposal to the feds, as long as they get a subpoena or a court order. Unbeknownst to you, somewhere in court a miscellaneous motion is being heard, entitled "In the Matter of the Application of the United States of America for an Order Authorizing the Monitoring of a Mobile Tracking Device as a Physical Surveillance Aid on a Motor Vehicle Registered to [your name], [your vehicles year, model and VIN number]. This application will be based upon Title 18 USC § 3123, including provisions that Upon an application made under section 3122 (a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

It gets even better. You (the subject of surveillance) may never know any of this took place, because the surveillance order will be sealed by court, specifically ordering OnStar NOT to disclose its existence to you, the subscriber. What will OnStar tell you if you subpoena this information? Simply put, they will lie. They will claim there was no order and no tracking. Of course, thats what the court order told them to do and now theyre obligated to lie. Its in their best interests, since the same court order indemnifies OnStar from being held accountable for allowing its systems to be used by the government, violating your privacy.

http://www.departmentofhomelandsecur...m/cccp_002.htm

FBI and Home Land Security

Quote:
Yasir Afifi, a 20-year-old computer salesman and community college student, took his car in for an oil change earlier this month and his mechanic spotted an odd wire hanging from the undercarriage.

The wire was attached to a strange magnetic device that puzzled Afifi and the mechanic. They freed it from the car and posted images of it online, asking for help in identifying it.

Two days later, FBI agents arrived at Afifi's Santa Clara apartment and demanded the return of their property a global positioning system tracking device now at the center of a raging legal debate over privacy rights.

One federal judge wrote that the widespread use of the device was straight out of George Orwell's novel, "1984".

Quote:
"By holding that this kind of surveillance doesn't impair an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, the panel hands the government the power to track the movements of every one of us, every day of our lives,"

wrote Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a blistering dissent in which a three-judge panel from his court ruled that search warrants weren't necessary for GPS tracking.

That investigators don't need a warrant to use GPS tracking devices in California troubles privacy advocates, technophiles, criminal defense attorneys and others.

The federal appeals court based in Washington D.C. said in August that investigators must obtain a warrant for GPS in tossing out the conviction and life sentence of Antoine Jones, a nightclub owner convicted of operating a cocaine distribution ring.

The Obama administration last month asked the D.C. federal appeals court to change its ruling, calling the decision "vague and unworkable" and arguing that investigators will lose access to a tool they now use "with great frequency."

Legal scholars predict the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately resolve the issue since so many courts disagree.

George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr said the issue boils down to public vs. private. As long as the GPS devices are attached to vehicles on public roads, Kerr believes the U.S. Supreme Court will decide no warrant is needed. To decide otherwise, he said, would ignore a long line of previous 4th Amendment decisions allowing for warrantless searches as long as they're conducted on public property.

"The historic line is that public surveillance is not covered by the 4th Amendment," Kerr said.

All of which makes Afifi's lawyer pessimistic that he has much of a chance to file a successful lawsuit challenging the FBI's actions. Afifi is represented by Zahra Billoo of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country's largest Islamic civil rights group.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/...cking_warrants

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2 of 26
Obama would never do that.
post #3 of 26
Thread Starter 
Obama the Master Spy -- of Us
by Nat Hentoff
This article appeared on Cato.org on October 6, 2010.

Quote:
Before his forced resignation, President Richard Nixon declared,
Quote:
"When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."



Our current chief executive, however, speaking this year at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, said of our terrorist enemies:
Quote:
"They may seek to exploit our freedoms, but we will not sacrifice the liberties we cherish or hunker down behind walls of suspicion and distrust."

By contrast, on Sept. 27, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Charlie Savage, the press's Paul Revere guardian of those cherished liberties, broke a story in The New York Times that next year President Obama will send Congress "sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is 'going dark' as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone."

And this is how our individual privacy, already on life support, is going to be further violated, not only on the Internet, as former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald reports (Salon.com, Sept. 27), relying on Savage's disclosure:

Quote:
Commander Obama "would require all communications, including ones over the Internet, to be built so as to enable the U.S. government to intercept and monitor them at any time when the law permits."

Keep in mind that next year after the midterm elections, it will be that Congress determining what the law is.

If Obama's lockstep Democrats are still in control next year, Glenn Greenwald continues,
Quote:
"Internet services could legally exist only insofar as there would be no such thing as truly private communications; all must contain a 'back door' to enable government officials to eavesdrop."

Would this still be America?

There's more to Obama's euthanizing of the Fourth Amendment in Charlie Savage's reporting:
Quote:
"Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services (ALL services) that enable communications including encrypted e-mail transmitters like Blackberry, social-networking sites like Facebook, and software that allows direct 'peer-to-peer' messaging like Skype to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap. The mandate would include (the government) being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages."

As Sen. Frank Church said long ago when he was the first to discover the omnipresent spying on us of the National Security Agency (NSA), eventually, "no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. ... There would be no place to hide."

Not at all surprisingly, President Obama has extended the reach and just about total lack of accountability of the NSA.

But if the Republicans take control of Congress after the midterm elections and then under a new Republican president in 2012 is there any certainty that we may begin to be under the protection of the Fourth Amendment again?

Insofar as the tea partiers will continue to be an influence on the Republicans having already been instrumental this year in re-electing some I have not, as I've reported, seen much concern among them about our vanishing privacy (though I admire the tea partiers declared devotion to the Constitution).

As of this writing, I have no idea who will be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, but I'm not aware that any of the potential leading Republican candidates are impassioned about the Fourth Amendment.

Even if she's not a candidate, the perennial newsmaker Sarah Palin will be an influence on the 2012 elections. She probably doesn't remember, but I was the first national columnist to recommend to John McCain that she be on his ticket, having read of her independence of party orthodoxy in Michael Barone's invaluable Almanac of American Politics, as governor of Alaska. Anyway, I strongly recommend to firebrand Palin what Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in his dissent in the first Supreme Court wiretapping case, Olmstead vs. United States (1928):

Quote:
"Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, with means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet. ... The progress of science in furnishing the Government with means of espionage (on American citizens) is not likely to stop with wiretapping."

Was he ever right!

Quote:
"Ways may some day be developed," Brandeis continued, "by which the Government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court."

(He didn't foresee the Patriot Act's giving the FBI permission to sneak into our homes when we aren't there and photograph those papers.)

The time did come, as Brandeis prophesied, when the Government "will be enabled to expose to a jury the intimate occurrences of the home" and any of our communications in almost any form, if this Obama legislation becomes and remains law.

What Brandeis also warned and this should be remembered during the midterm and 2012 elections:
Quote:
"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. ... They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."

And must be deemed as being at the core of what Barack Obama continuously subverts in "the liberties we cherish."

I deeply hope the tea partiers will add Justice Louis Brandeis to their reading as they work to restore the Constitution's separation of powers. Consider the effect on new generations growing up under government insisting on back doors into what we say, feel and think. Sending Obama and any Democrat or Republican who supports his "big brother" mentality back into private life is the change we must believe in to get our basic freedoms back.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12203
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #4 of 26
Thread Starter 
By ThirdAge News Staff
Posted October 18, 2010 12:26 PM

Quote:
Internet privacy and security reports state that popular Facebook applications like FarmVille and FrontierVille are feeding users' data to marketers. The Wall Street Journal reports that the issue affects tens of millions of Facebook "app" users, even those who set their profiles to the strictest privacy settings. The practice breaks Facebook's rules and raises new questions about its ability to keep identifiable information secure.

An industry has arisen of companies that build databases on people to track them online, the Journal reported.

A Facebook spokesman Sunday said it is taking steps to "dramatically limit" exposure of personal information.

Quote:
"A Facebook user ID may be inadvertently shared by a user's Internet browser or by an application," the spokesman said, but that "does not permit access to anyone's private information on Facebook."

He added that the company will introduce technology to contain the problem.

"Apps" are pieces of software that let Facebook's 500 million users play games or share common interests with one another. The Journal found all of the 10 most popular apps were transmitting users' IDs to outside companies.

http://www.thirdage.com/news/interne...ook_10-18-2010
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #5 of 26
Officials Push to Bolster Law on Wiretapping

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, citing lapses in compliance with surveillance orders, are pushing to overhaul a federal law that requires phone and broadband carriers to ensure that their networks can be wiretapped, federal officials say.
Enlarge This Image

The officials say tougher legislation is needed because some telecommunications companies in recent years have begun new services and made system upgrades that caused technical problems for surveillance. They want to increase legal incentives and penalties aimed at pushing carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to ensure that any network changes will not disrupt their ability to conduct wiretaps.

An Obama administration task force that includes officials from the Justice and Commerce Departments, the F.B.I. and other agencies recently began working on draft legislation to strengthen and expand the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, a 1994 law that says telephone and broadband companies must design their services so that they can begin conducting surveillance of a target immediately after being presented with a court order.

There is not yet agreement over the details, according to officials familiar with the deliberations, but they said the administration intends to submit a package to Congress next year.

Albert Gidari Jr., a lawyer who represents telecommunications firms, said corporations were likely to object to increased government intervention in the design or launch of services. Such a change, he said, could have major repercussions for industry innovation, costs and competitiveness.

“The government’s answer is ‘don’t deploy the new services — wait until the government catches up,’ ” Mr. Gidari said. “But that’s not how it works. Too many services develop too quickly, and there are just too many players in this now.”

To bolster their case that telecom companies should face greater pressure to stay compliant, security agencies are citing two previously undisclosed episodes in which investigators were stymied from carrying out court-approved surveillance for weeks or even months because of technical problems with two major carriers.

The disclosure that the administration is seeking ways to increase the government’s leverage over carriers already subject to the 1994 law comes less than a month after The New York Times reported on a related part of the effort: a plan to bring Internet companies that enable communications — like Gmail, Facebook, Blackberry and Skype — under the law’s mandates for the first time, a demand that would require major changes to some services’ technical designs and business models.

The push to expand and the 1994 law is the latest example of a dilemma over how to balance Internet freedom with security needs in an era of rapidly evolving — and globalized — technology. The issue has added importance because the surveillance technologies developed by the United States to hunt for terrorists and drug traffickers can be also used by repressive regimes to hunt for political dissidents.

An F.B.I. spokesman said the bureau would not comment about the telecom proposal, citing the sensitivity of internal deliberations. But last month, in response to questions about the Internet communications services proposal, Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I.’s general counsel, emphasized that the government was seeking only to prevent its surveillance power from eroding.

Starting in late 2008 and lasting into 2009, another law enforcement official said, a “major” communications carrier was unable to carry out more than 100 court wiretap orders. The initial interruptions lasted eight months, the official said, and a second lapse lasted nine days.

This year, another major carrier experienced interruptions ranging from nine days to six weeks and was unable to comply with 14 wiretap orders. Its interception system “works sporadically and typically fails when the carrier makes any upgrade to its network,” the official said.

In both cases, the F.B.I. sent engineers to help the companies fix the problems. The bureau spends about $20 million a year on such efforts.

The official declined to name the companies, saying it would be unwise to advertise which networks have problems or to risk damaging the cooperative relationships the government has with them. For similar reasons, the government has not sought to penalize carriers over wiretapping problems.

Under current law, if a carrier meets the industry-set standard for compliance — providing the content of a call or e-mail, along with identifying information like its recipient, time and location — it achieves “safe harbor” and cannot be fined. If the company fails to meet the standard, it can be fined by a judge or the Federal Communication Commission.

But in practice, law enforcement officials say, neither option is ever invoked. When problems come to light, officials are reluctant to make formal complaints against companies because their overriding goal is to work with their technicians to fix the problem.
Related

That dynamic can create an incentive to let problems linger: Once a carrier’s interception capability is restored — even if it was fixed at taxpayer expense — its service is compliant again with the 1994 law, so the issue is moot.

The F.C.C. also moves slowly, officials complain, in handling disputes over the “safe harbor” standard. For example, in 2007 the F.B.I. asked for more than a dozen changes, like adding a mandate to turn over additional details about cellphone locations. The F.C.C. has still not acted on that petition.

Civil liberties groups contend that the agency has been far too willing on other occasions to expand the reach of the 1994 law.

“We think that the F.C.C. has already conceded too much to the bureau,” said Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “The F.B.I.’s ability to have such broad reach over technical standard-setting was never anticipated in the 1994 act.”

The Obama administration is circulating several ideas for legislation that would increase the government’s leverage over carriers, officials familiar with the deliberations say.

One proposal is to increase the likelihood that a firm pays a financial penalty over wiretapping lapses — like imposing retroactive fines after problems are fixed, or billing companies for the cost of government technicians that were brought in to help.

Another proposal would create an incentive for companies to show new systems to the F.B.I. before deployment. Under the plan, an agreement with the bureau certifying that the system is acceptable would be an alternative “safe harbor,” ensuring the firm could not be fined.

The proposal may also modify how the “safe harbor” standard is established. Five years ago, the F.B.I. drafted legislation that would have given the Justice Department greater power over the standard while requiring the F.C.C. to act more quickly on petitions. That bill, however, was not ultimately filed.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #6 of 26
Thread Starter 

Street View cars accidentally collected wi-fi data

Google's accidental collection of personal data as part of its Street View project has been branded a "serious violation" of privacy laws.

Quote:
[T]he conclusion of an investigation by the Canadian privacy commissioner, Jenny Stoddart.

"Our investigation shows that Google did capture personal information - and, in some cases, highly sensitive personal information such as complete e-mails, e-mail addresses, usernames and passwords," she said.

"This incident was a serious violation of Canadians' privacy rights," she concluded.

The investigation found that thousands of Canadians were affected by the incident and that some very sensitive data, including a list of names of people suffering from certain medical conditions, and telephone numbers and addresses, was collected.

Google said that it had "been working with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in its investigation and will continue to answer the commissioners questions and concerns".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11577588


無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #7 of 26
How about a woman's uterus, is that private?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #8 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

How about a woman's uterus, is that private?

To answer this would be outside the scope of this thread. This thread is concerned how technologyGPS, Internet, celular phones, etc are creating a loss of privacy.

However, to give a short answer, in Griswold v. Connecticut the Supremes defined the right to privacy through various guarantees within the Bill of Rights that create penumbra or zones, that establish a right to privacy.

Quote:
.....Those cases involved more than the "right of assembly" - a right that extends to all irrespective of their race or ideology. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 . The right of "association," like the right of belief (Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 ), is more than the right to attend a meeting; it includes the right to express one's attitudes or philosophies by membership in a group or by affiliation with it or by other lawful means. Association in that context is a form of expression of opinion; and while it is not expressly included in the First Amendment its existence is necessary in making the express guarantees fully meaningful. [381 U.S. 479, 484] *

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516 -522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 , as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." * We recently referred [381 U.S. 479, 485] * in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656 , to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U. L. Rev. 216 (1960)......

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [381 U.S. 479, 486] * very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship

.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=381&invol=479

Then there's Roe v. Wade---but that's a topic of another thread.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #9 of 26
Every email and website to be stored

Quote:
Every email, phone call and website visit is to be recorded and stored after the Coalition Government revived controversial Big Brother snooping plans.

It will allow security services and the police to spy on the activities of every Briton who uses a phone or the internet.

Moves to make every communications provider store details for at least a year will be unveiled later this year sparking fresh fears over a return of the surveillance state.

The plans were shelved by the Labour Government last December but the Home Office is now ready to revive them.

It comes despite the Coalition Agreement promised to "end the storage of internet and email records without good reason".

Any suggestion of a central "super database" has been ruled out but the plans are expected to involve service providers storing all users details for a set period of time.

That will allow the security and police authorities to track every phone call, email, text message and website visit made by the public if they argue it is needed to tackle crime or terrorism.

The information will include who is contacting whom, when and where and which websites are visited, but not the content of the conversations or messages.

The move was buried in the Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review, which revealed: "We will introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communication data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework.

"This programme is required to keep up with changing technology and to maintain capabilities that are vital to the work these agencies do to protect the public.

"Communications data provides evidence in court to secure convictions of those engaged in activities that cause serious harm. It has played a role in every major Security Service counter terrorism operation and in 95 per cent of all serious organised crime investigations.

"We will legislate to put in place the necessary regulations and safeguards to ensure that our response to this technology challenge is compatible with the Government’s approach to information storage and civil liberties."

But Isabella Sankey, director of policy at Liberty, said: "One of the early and welcome promises of the new Government was to ‘end the blanket storage of internet and email records’.

"Any move to amass more of our sensitive data and increase powers for processing would amount to a significant U-turn. The terrifying ambitions of a group of senior Whitehall technocrats must not trump the personal privacy of law abiding Britons.”

Guy Herbert, general secretary of the No2ID campaign group, said: "We should not be surprised that the interests of bureaucratic empires outrank liberty.

"It is disappointing that the new ministers seem to be continuing their predecessors' tradition of credulousness."

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #10 of 26
Thread Starter 
By Marina Landis, CNN
October 23, 2010 12:08 a.m. EDT

Quote:
New York (CNN) -- Google admitted in a blog post Friday that external regulators have discovered that e-mails, URLs and passwords were collected and stored in a technical mishap, while the vehicles for Google's Street View service were out documenting roadway locations.
According to Google, data was mistakenly collected in more than 30 countries, including the United States, Canada, Mexico, some of Europe, and parts of Asia.

In the blog, posted by Alan Eustace, senior vice president of engineering and research, he noted "we failed badly here" and added that Google has spent months analyzing how to strengthen their internal privacy and security practices.

Quote:
"We want to delete this data as soon as possible, and I would like to apologize again for the fact that we collected it in the first place," Eustace wrote.



Google announced in May that it had collected unencrypted WiFi data by mistake through its Street View service, but the severity of the situation was unknown.

According to a Google spokesperson, the company first became aware of the problem when the Data Protection Authority in Germany asked Google to review all of the data collected through its Street View cars as part of a routine check. The spokesperson added that in addition to street locations, Street View cars also collect WiFi data about hot spots in order to improve the location database for things such as Google Maps for mobile.

When Google went back and looked at the data, it turned out that in addition to WiFi hot spots, they were mistakenly collecting information that was being sent across unencrypted networks.

For the information to have been collected by Google, a person had to have been sending something over an unencrypted network at the same time that a Street View car was collecting data in that same location.

According to Google, the vast majority of the data is in fragments, but in the past week several countries have issued reports that they have found entire emails and passwords.

The data has since been segregated and secured, and WiFi data is no longer being collected from Street View cars.

Google has deleted the data collected from Ireland, Austria, Denmark and Hong Kong, but other countries have opened their own investigations, and Google has not been given permission from authorities to delete the data.

In a statement, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said,
Quote:
"This alarming admission that Google collected entire e-mails and passwords validates and heightens our significant concerns. Our multistate investigation, led by Connecticut, into Google's alleged invasion of privacy through wireless networks is continuing."



In the blog post, Eustace outlined the steps that Google is taking to strengthen its internal privacy and security practices including appointing a director of privacy across both engineering and product management and enhancing the core training that engineers and employees responsible for data collection receive.

Quote:
"We are mortified by what happened, but confident that these changes to our processes and structure will significantly improve our internal privacy and security practices for the benefit of all our users,"

Eustace wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/10/...ols/index.html

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #11 of 26
To be totally honest, I'm far less concerned about my privacy being invaded by private companies like Google or Facebook (who I have a choice to deal with, or not) than I am about the government who can read my emails, listen to my phone calls, gat all record of my phone calls and text messages, get all of my banking information, get any medical information about me they want all without me ever even knowing about...not to mention the private information they demand from me every year on April 15th.

Google's got nothing on these guys.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #12 of 26

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #13 of 26

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #14 of 26
Thread Starter 
EU calls for stronger Internet privacy laws
Drew Singer on November 4, 2010 10:36 AM ET

Quote:
[JURIST] The European Commission on Thursday released a 20-page document outlining recommendations for stronger Internet privacy laws. The recommendations come after a review of its 15 year-old privacy laws. The document addresses issues including "improving the coherence of the data protection legal framework," "enhancing control over one's own data" and "ensuring informed and free consent." If followed, the proposed measures could make it easier for people to delete information about themselves on the Internet and increase enforcement for websites that breach their users' privacy. The writers also argued for why the new measures are necessary:

Quote:
Like technology, the way our personal data is used and shared in our society is changing all the time. The challenge this poses to legislators is to establish a legislative framework that will stand the test of time. At the end of the reform process, Europe's data protection rules should continue to guarantee a high level of protection and provide legal certainty to individuals, public administrations and businesses in the internal market alike for several generations. No matter how complex the situation or how sophisticated the technology, clarity must exist on the applicable rules and standards that national authorities have to enforce and that businesses and technology developers must comply with. Individuals should also have clarity about the rights they enjoy.

Next year, the Commission will propose legislation aimed at revising the legal framework for data protection, the report says.

In September, the Commission announced that it would refer the UK to the European Court of Justice for not fully complying with EU regulations that protect the privacy of electronic communications. The EU has found UK law in breach of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/ECand the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, regulations regarding consent to interception and the role of enforcement and supervisory committees. Specifically, current UK law does not provide for an independent national authority to supervise the interception of some communications, it allows for communications to be received without fulfilling the EU definition of consent and it does not have a mechanism that ensures sanctions for unlawful unintentional interception, as required by EU law. The EC formally notified the UK in April 2009 that it was starting infringement proceedings for failure to follow EU Internet privacy and data protection rules.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #15 of 26
Jesus Christ, FineTunes, please stop spamming the thread. Post after post of quotes. LINK if you must. Don't bomb the damn thread.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #16 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Jesus Christ, FineTunes, please stop spamming the thread. Post after post of quotes. LINK if you must. Don't bomb the damn thread.

Goes to the Freedom of Speech and of the Press. You don't have to read what is posted.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Goes to the Freedom of Speech and of the Press. You don't have to read what is posted.

It might be time for ignore.

Come on FT, a link and a paragraph are more than sufficient. Pick the best and if that doesn't make someone want to read more then you did your best to convey info. Also it is a DISCUSSION forum. Add something from you buddy.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #18 of 26
Thread Starter 
Groups applaud push to boost policing of web privacy

Quote:
Advocacy groups have welcomed reports that the US government plans to boost the policing of online privacy with new laws and a new watchdog.

Google and Facebook have been at the forefront of consumer privacy concerns.....

In the summer, Facebook - the world's biggest social network with 500 million users - simplified its privacy settings following criticism from US senators, the European Union and civil liberty groups.
Google has more recently been in the firing line for its inadvertent collection of user data via its Street View cars.

It has been the subject of scrutiny from data protection agencies around the world as a result.....

The US does not have a comprehensive law on the books to deal with internet privacy.

Last week the European Union said it was also looking for tougher laws to control how personal information is used on the internet.

As long as the policing is watching privacy and not monitoring people's activities--sounds good in theory.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #19 of 26
Thread Starter 
Complaint
and
Request
for
Injunction,
Request
 for
Investigation
and
for
Other
Relief


Quote:
This 
complaint
 concerns 
privacy
 and
 security risks 
associated 
with 
the
 provision
 of
 Cloud
 Computing
 Services
 by 
Google ,
Inc. 
to
American
 consumers,
 businesses,
 and
 federal agencies 
of 
the United
 States
 government. 
Recent 
reports 
indicate 
that 
Google does 
not 
adequately
 safeguard 
the
 confidential
 information
 that 
it 
obtains.....
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #20 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
The Department of Homeland Security has released the Privacy Office 2010 Annual Report. The Agency's Chief Privacy Officer must prepare an annual report to Congress that details activities of the Department that affect privacy, including complaints of privacy violations, and DHS compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974. This years report details the establishment of privacy officers within each component of the Agency. The report also provides updates on Fusion Centers, Cybersecurity, and Cloud Computing activities of the agency.

DHS Privacy Office 2010 Annual Report

Quote:
The Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office (DHS Privacy Office or Office) is the first statutorily created privacy office in any federal agency, as set forth in Section 222 of the Homeland Security Act, as amended.1\tThe mission of the DHS Privacy Office is to preserve and enhance privacy protections for all individuals, to promote transparency of DHS operations, and to serve as a leader in the federal privacy and international community.....
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #21 of 26
Huh. Still not one mention about the TSA here. But Google...they are the real threat.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #22 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Huh. Still not one mention about the TSA here. But Google...they are the real threat.

Sorry, you don't have a reasonable expectation of not having your junk touched when out in public.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #23 of 26
Wasn't sure whether to post in this thread or the "Government is the problem" thread. I'll start here.

ARE THEY SPYING ON YOU?

Quote:
Do you remember the good old days the when it used to be illegal for governments to spy on their citizens? I dont either but Im told that it used to be illegal. Oh how times have changed.

Quote:
In the latest (publicized) perversion of government power, federal agents are now ordering real-time tracking of credit card transactions, travel information pretty much anything right down to what brand of peanut butter you buy, and all without judicial or citizen oversight.

Known as hotwatch orders, government agents are able to write their own administrative subpoenas to surveil US citizens; they request the records of phone companies, Internet service providers, video rentals, and even frequent flier / customer loyalty programs at airlines and grocery stores.

Without court oversight, the subpoenas do not even need to be part of an ongoing investigation or suspicion of criminal wrongdoing; US federal agents can simply decide that a particular individual should be tracked, and then compel private companies to provide a real time feed of his/her activities.

Frequently, the administrative subpoenas are accompanied by gag orders that prevent the company from notifying its customer that they had been served with a subpoena. More than likely, the customer will never know that his/her records are being instantaneously relayed to a federal agent.

The thing is, these hotwatch orders are not expressly authorized under US law; federal agents are capitalizing on loose language in existing laws that allow them to write administrative subpoenas in certain instances and theyre taking that limited authority to extremes.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 26
Thread Starter 
Federal appeals court rules valid search warrant required for e-mail search
Brian Jackson on December 15, 2010 9:23 AM ET
Quote:
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled Tuesday that e-mail is entitled to Fourth Amendment protection. The 98-page opinion overturned the prison sentence of Steven Warshak, the founder of Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals Inc., who was convicted on 93 counts of conspiracy, money laundering and fraud in 2008. The court held that government reliance on the Stored Communications Act; 18 USC §§ 2701 et seq materials did not warrant overturning Warshak's conviction, but that the government violated Warshak's Fourth Amendment rights when it ordered his Internet service provider (ISP) to turn over his e-mails. In finding this violation, the court acknowledged that Warshak enjoyed "a reasonable expectation of privacy" in his e-mails by comparing e-mail to more traditional forms of communication, such as telephone conversations, found to be protected in United States v. Katz. The court stated:
Quote:
Given the fundamental similarities between email and traditional forms of communication, it would defy common sense to afford emails lesser Fourth Amendment protection. Email is the technological scion of tangible mail, and it plays an indispensable part in the Information Age. Over the last decade, email has become 'so pervasive that some persons may consider [it] to be [an] essential means or necessary instrument[] for self-expression, even self-identification.' It follows that email requires strong protection under the Fourth Amendment; otherwise, the Fourth Amendment would prove an ineffective guardian of private communication, an essential purpose it has long been recognized to serve.
The case was ultimately remanded for a recalculation of Warshak's prison sentence, but his conviction and $45 million fine were affirmed.

The application of the Fourth Amendment to new technologies has created a number of issues that have recently come before the courts. In late November, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined a request by the US Department of Justice to rehear a case in which that court found that the government could not use GPS to track suspects without a warrant. In September, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that at times the government might need a warrant to obtain cell phone data to track a person's location. In June, the US Supreme Court unanimously held that, even if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in work-issued electronic devices, that an employer's search of private text messages does not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the search is not excessive and is pursuant to a legitimate work-related purpose. Last year, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that police must obtain a warrant before searching data stored in a cell phone.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #25 of 26
Thread Starter 
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #26 of 26
Thread Starter 
California high court rules no warrant needed to search cell phone text messages
Quote:
[JURIST] The Supreme Court of California [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Monday that law enforcement officers can legally search text messages on a suspect's cell phone without a warrant incident to a lawful custodial arrest.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Right To Privacy