- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

California Supreme court prohibits recording Californians
by Ethan Ackerman 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

without their consent - regardless of where you are. Greetings Dave, Many people, especially reporters, are familiar with state laws prohibiting phone conversations from being recorded without the consent of one or both parties to the call. Some states, and federal law, require only 1 party to consent, other states require both or all parties to consent. California is one such 'all-party' consent state. (Think Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinsky talking about her boss, or the floridian couple recording Newt Gingrich coordinating his ethics probe with John Boehner, as past examples of this distinction.) Well today, the California Supreme Court found that Georgia-based employees of the Solomon Smith Barney brokerage who were taping California customers with out notice or consent violated California laws, even if they might have been complying with Georgia's '1 party' consernt laws. While the court refused to fine the brokers, finding their reliance on Georgia law reasonable, it did enjoin them from taping Californians in the future. Case is here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S124739.PDF This decision will likely have a large impact on investigative reporting, and has definite impacts on other areas of privacy and consumer protection law as well. -Ethan ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[IP] California Supreme court prohibits recording Californians without their consent - regardless of where you are.
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

<nettime> moderate conclusions drawn from squire young's letter [WAS:Re: free speech and financialisation]
by Erich M. 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On 11/25/2011 06:02 PM, John Young wrote: > "Free speech" has come to mean to protect your wallet for > that enterpise has been "financialized" by media, academia > and NGOs -- and whistleblowers, not to overlook > documentary makers and once honorable alt media. > > Assange is a courageous and creative person, don't smirk > at the journo-formulaic cheap shot, but from the beginning > he has put fund-raising first on the WL agenda, exaggerated > WL uniqueness, overstated (with coy understatement) > its influence, and misrepresents WL's inept security. > My early critique of those fatal flaws is still valid 'tis true, methinks, companero John et al. By the end of the "crypto wars" [end of the nineties] an Australian website sported by far the best up to date overview of [changing] crypto laws worldwide. Site was run by a newbie named Julian Assange, funds: apparently none. EPIC then had already tapped Soros & c funding and produced the best in depth insight into global crypto laws - but yet mostly on dead trees: booklets, books, brochures. Within months more of historical value. During the Wassenaar and the iCrypto campaigns 1998 that marked the end of the "crypto wars" in EU [except for the Brits] the Australians played a significant role there. Afterwards? One would meet Julian now and then at the ccc congresses. Another gifted and rebellious hacker amongst [hopefully] more, preferrably astray. Guy like companero Jaromil here on the list. When they came up with the WL concept you could understand the basic flaw at a glance: That was in scaling, as always. - If WL became somewhat moderately successful, possible growth should be very slow, because funds would be only trickling in, if even so. Best outcome would be a "cryptome2" with a different geographical focus and leaking program. Good enough, though. - if WL really would take off, they'd need money: editors _skilled_ in publishing leaked doqs. Pretty rare species, indeed. Even for good money. - After a somewhat unspectacular and therefore regular starting phase - WL took of. Cash poured in. I have a rough idea about how much during that phase. Unprecedented for that project but far from spectacular. Compared to the fundings of some [honoric] US civil liberties orgs: real starvation rate limited to a year. Future unknown. - WL could neither cope with the growth in editing requirements - so they had to take to journalist prominence around the world. High level talks to the chief editors' offices where yesterdays news are sold on dead trees. This was the beginning of the end. - And then the cash flow was shut down. All at sudden. - All WLs main financing lines were under control of the US. The primary fallback channel based in Germany, where General von Clausewitz might have sighed and turned around in his grave. A German bank account. Blocked by all US and major international online payment systems. - The only option WL had left was to release truly massive fireworks finally. All ammunition left at once. V2 style. Spare random and neglible targets were hit. Now all is up to the courts in The UK, Sweden and the US. Bradley Manning and Julian Assange [not mentioned the other harrassed crew] face "wild west winds" driving "pestilence-stricken multitudes". Press coverage is fading slowly to level0. The more fading the more the guys are in danger who had the guts to risk loosing their asses: First of all Manning, second Assange. We need not worry much about Daniel Domscheit-Berg. He was last seen here this week in Vienna touring the wisecrack & higher level panels. ;) If the only main media news topic worldwide - the economic meltdown - persists for a while, both of them are doomed. Nobody will care. They There is such a crowd of worldwide communicators on this list enjoying access to all kinds of media other than silly fuqbook kampaigns due for a praecox breakdown. Analysis is good. Assistance is better under circumstances given. Erich -- cu Erich M. NEW PGP KEY 0xEA7DC174 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xACC6A796EA7DC174 --... ...-- -.. . . .-. .. -.-. .... --- . ...-- . -- -... # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)kein.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [tor-talk] Tor and HTTPS graphic
by grarpamp 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> Thanks to Mark Klein, we know that the NSA wiretaps in the US are > passive in nature, not active. We know that *back then* *one* of their possible tap systems was passive. All thanks due of course. > But who knows what they do [...] ... today, to whoever. > I don't think The Man can correlate millions of simultaneous web > page views and expect to have certainty over who is viewing what > at all times. At some point, you simply run out of differentiating > bits to extract from size and timing information to properly > segment the userbase. It's now possible to do well timed rx/tx at 10Gb line rate on a single commodity system (FreeBSD, Linux)... http://www.ntop.org/products/nprobe/ http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/netmap/ http://www.ntop.org/products/pf_ring/ http://www.ntop.org/blog/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Time_Protocol _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[liberationtech] Skype redux
by Jacob Appelbaum 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi, In light of the recent thread on journalism, I wanted to share this link about Skype: https://en.greatfire.org/blog/2012/dec/china-listening-skype-microsoft-assu… "With 250 million monthly connected users, Skype is one of the most popular services for making phone calls as well as chatting over the Internet. If you have friends, family or business contacts abroad, chances are you are using Skype to keep in contact. Having said that, you are probably not aware that all your phone calls and text chats can be monitored by the censorship authorities in China. And if you are aware, chances are that you do not consent to such surveillence. Microsoft, however, assumes that you do consent, as expressed in their Privacy Policy: "Skype, Skype's local partner, or the operator or company facilitating your communication may provide personal data, communications content and/or traffic data to an appropriate judicial, law enforcement or government authority lawfully requesting such information. Skype will provide reasonable assistance and information to fulfill this request and you hereby consent to such disclosure. All the best, Jacob -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [serval-project-dev] Smart Phone Ad-Hoc Networks
by Jeremy Lakeman 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

We are already aware of the SPAN project and have been communicating with them. On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Lachlan Musicman <datakid(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I saw this article and thought you might be interested. > > "A new prototype backup network connects Android phones through a mesh > network established with the phones' Wi-Fi chips, which can come in handy > during emergency situations. > " > > http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/android-phones-are-connecting-wi… > > Unfortunately I'm not able to read it atm but it looks interesting. > > cheers > L. > > -- > So the future isn't a boot stamping on a human face, forever. It's a person > in a beige business outfit advocating beige policies that nobody wants (but > nobody can quite articulate a coherent alternative to) with a false mandate > obtained by performing rituals of representative democracy that offer as > much actual choice as a Stalinist one-party state. And resistance is futile, > because if you succeed in overthrowing the beige dictatorship, you will > become that which you opposed. > > http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/02/political-failure-modes… > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Serval Project Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to serval-project-developers+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to > serval-project-developers(a)googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Serval Project Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to serval-project-developers+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to serval-project-developers(a)googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case
by EEkid＠aol.com 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case By Kevin Poulsen 02:00 AM Sep. 20, 2005 PT When New England inventor Philip French had his epiphany 15 years ago, he didn't dream it would lead to an invention that would be pressed into service in a top-secret government project, or spawn an epic court battle over the limits of executive power. He was just admiring a tennis ball. The ball's seam, with its two symmetrical halves embracing each other in a graceful curve, intrigued him. "I thought, my god, I bet you can do something with that kind of shape," he recalls. He was right. French and two colleagues went on to design and patent a device now called the Crater Coupler, a simple, foolproof connector for linking one pipe or cable to another without nut threads or bolted flanges. The device is interesting on its own, but the broader legal legacy of the invention may be more important. In a little-noticed opinion this month, a federal appeals court ruled against the Crater Coupler patent holders and upheld a sweeping interpretation of the controversial "state secrets privilege" -- an executive power handed down from the English throne under common law that lets the government effectively kill civil lawsuits deemed a threat to national security, even if the state is not a party to the suit. The ruling is notable as a rare appellate interpretation of the state secrets privilege as it applies to patent holders. As such, it is a potentially worrying development for inventors -- particularly those developing weapons, surveillance and anti-terror technologies for government contractors -- who may find infringement claims dismissed without a hearing under the auspices of national security. It also offers a fascinating, if limited, view into the machinery of official secrecy at a time when the privilege is being exercised as never before. "It's the most powerful privilege the government has," says William Weaver, senior adviser to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. "It's the nuclear option. It never fails." French says he and his partners -- Charles Monty and Steven Van Keiren -- got the first inkling of a national security application for the Crater Coupler a decade ago. While shopping the new design around to "a whole mess of quick-disconnect companies," the trio received an intriguing inquiry from Lucent Technologies, the reincarnation of the legendary Bell Labs research center, and at that time still part of AT&T. Lucent wanted to evaluate the Crater Coupler for use as a fiber-optic "wetmate" -- an airtight connector for two fiber-optic cables designed to operate underwater. It was part of a contract with a U.S. government agency that, the company said, would have to remain unnamed. "It was a secret black job, they couldn't divulge what it was for," says French. "Who it was for, the Navy or the CIA, or who knows, they never said." A Lucent spokesman confirmed that the company had contact with French in 1995, but wouldn't discuss the details, citing government secrecy concerns. But according to French, the inventors agreed to help Lucent try to adapt the Crater Coupler to the company's needs, with the expectation that Lucent would license the group's patent if it all worked out. The inventors sent over plans, sketches and a model, and French began consulting and advising a Lucent engineer in monthly phone calls. After about a year of development and testing, Lucent had good news for the inventors: The device passed all the tests, shaming a competing, clunky design that French says resembled an old thermos. But when the inventors got on the phone with Lucent's lawyers to discuss license terms, the company dropped a bomb. "Almost the first thing they said was, 'Well, we don't have to do anything, because this is under some sort of provision for military secret stuff where we don't have to pay anything,'" says French. French felt betrayed. "This was after a year of encouragement, with me helping them and them informing us of their progress," says French. "That was one hell of a shock." Lucent eventually offered the inventors $100,000 for the right to produce 1,000 wetmate couplers. The offer caused a rift between French and his partners: They wanted to make a counteroffer of $500,000, but French -- in his 60s and recently retired -- wanted to take what was on the table. "I said, well, Lucent doesn't have to do a thing, so why don't we take $100,000 and be happy with that?" Unable to agree, French's partners bought him out for a flat $30,000. "I used some of the money to have a garage built," French says. Lucent rejected the remaining inventors' counteroffer, and in 1998 Monty and Van Keiren, now incorporated as Crater Corp., filed a federal lawsuit in eastern Missouri against Lucent alleging patent infringement, trade-secret theft and breach of contract. Crater's attorney, Robert Schultz, says there's a question of basic fairness. "Lucent's made a ton of dough, and my clients are out in the cold," says Schultz. The patent-infringement portion of the case has since been dismissed, under a federal law that says a company can't be sued for infringement if the development was for the exclusive use of the government. After a year of pretrial wrangling, the case had progressed to the point that Schultz could start subpoenaing documents to support his claim, when the government intervened to assert the state secrets privilege. Never passed by Congress, the privilege has its roots in English common law and was cemented into American jurisprudence by a landmark 1953 Supreme Court case titled U.S. v. Reynolds. In Reynolds, the widows of three men who died in a mysterious Air Force crash sued the government, and U.S. officials tried to quash the lawsuit by claiming that they couldn't release any information about the accident without endangering national security. The Supreme Court upheld the claim, establishing a legal precedent that today allows the executive branch to block the release of information in any civil suit -- even if the government isn't the one being sued. According to research by Weaver, an associate professor of political science at the University of Texas, the government invoked the privilege only four more times in the next 23 years. But following the Watergate scandal, the executive branch began applying state secrecy claims more liberally. Between 1977 and 2001, there were at least 51 civil lawsuits in which the government claimed the state secrets privilege -- in every case successfully. "There was more oversight of presidential activity" after Watergate, says Weaver. "In response to that, I think presidents resorted to the state secrets privilege to keep that oversight from cramping their style." Under Reynolds, the head of a federal agency must personally intervene to invoke the privilege. In Crater v. Lucent, it was Richard J. Danzig, then-secretary of the Navy, who did the honors. In a March 1999 declaration, Danzig claimed that permitting Crater to pursue a legal inquiry into the government's alleged use of their coupler would tip off U.S. adversaries to certain highly classified government operations and "could be expected to cause extremely grave damage to national security." "Those operations and programs are currently ongoing," Danzig wrote. "It is therefore my opinion that disclosure of information concerning them would permit potential adversaries to adopt specific measures to defeat or otherwise impair the effectiveness of those operations and programs." Judge E. Richard Webber granted the government's request immediately, and blocked the Crater inventors from obtaining any information from Lucent or the feds about the government's alleged use of the Crater Coupler or any other coupling device. In the legal battle that followed, it emerged that the order covered an astonishing 26,000 documents -- some of which were not only unclassified, but had already been entered into the public record. In 2002, Webber examined those documents in chambers, and concluded that not one of them would be available for Crater's use in pressing its case. Schultz turned to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. This month a divided three-judge panel ruled (.pdf) that the lower court had properly applied the state secrets privilege. "I would have thought that courts would be more hesitant to apply it to the patent area, but in this case there was no hesitancy whatsoever," says Weaver. In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Pauline Newman wrote that the ruling efficiently killed Crater's lawsuit, and argued that a saner solution would have been to proceed with the case behind closed doors -- a procedure already used to protect classified information during criminal espionage prosecutions. "Although there may be areas of such sensitivity that no judicial exposure can be countenanced -- such as, perhaps, the formation of the Manhattan Project -- there is no suggestion that the sensitive information concerning the Crater Coupler cannot be protected by well- established judicial procedures for preserving the security of sensitive information," Newman wrote. Schultz argues that the secrecy order shouldn't apply to documents concerning an unclassified presentation that Lucent held in which it allegedly showed off the Crater Coupler. He plans to ask for a rehearing of the appeal but claims to be optimistic that the case can proceed with or without access to the evidence. If so, it would be a rarity, says Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. "The privilege has worked very effectively for the government," says Aftergood. "In almost every case where they've invoked it, it leads to the termination of litigation." Indeed, the list of cases in which the state secrets privilege has been invoked seems a pantheon of injustice. The privilege was upheld in 1982 to prevent former Vietnam War protestors from learning more about an illegal CIA and NSA electronic surveillance effort that targeted them during the 1970s. In 1991, it was used to stop a lawsuit by a banker who'd unwittingly been roped into an illegal CIA money-laundering operation, and who claimed the agency had ruined his career when he tried to get out. In 1998, workers at the Nevada airbase known colloquially as Area 51 were blocked from learning what chemicals they'd been exposed to during illegal burning of toxic waste by base administrators. In 2004, the Bush administration resorted to the privilege to silence former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who said she was fired from the bureau after reporting security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program. And in perhaps the most disturbing case, this year the Justice Department asserted the privilege to kill a lawsuit by Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who, in 2002, was picked up by U.S. officials as a suspected terrorist while changing planes at JFK, and promptly shipped off to Syria for a year of imprisonment and torture. "Here's a guy who was a victim of a crime, that is, kidnapping, who was sent by us to a foreign country to be tortured to get information for us," says Weaver. "That violates all kinds of laws and the Convention Against Torture and who knows what else." Weaver says the state secrets privilege is a blunt instrument that too often utterly obliterates any further inquiry by the plaintiffs in a civil case. "I'm not saying it's always invoked for evil purposes -- it almost certainly is not. But we can't tell when it is, and that's the problem." He faults Jimmy Carter for being the first president to use the privilege with frequency, and George W. Bush for using it systematically. "This presidency is the first one in history to use the secrecy privilege in a programmatic, organized comprehensive policy," Weaver says. "It's the first secrecy presidency." "It effectively shuts down the judicial process," says Aftergood. "It tells people that they cannot have their day in court because national security will not permit it, and that's a terrible message to send." Justice Department spokeswoman Cynthia Magnuson says the department generally doesn't comment on how the state secrets privilege is applied. "The only thing I can say is it's applied if appropriate only," she says. But if the outcome sometimes seems unjust, it's a necessary trade-off to preserve national security, says Washington attorney Shannen Coffin, a lawyer at Steptoe and Johnson and a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general from 2002 to 2004. "That is the balance the court has struck in certain circumstances," says Coffin. "A lawsuit that relates to monetary damages isn't nearly as important as protecting the security of the American people." While at the Justice Department, Coffin was involved in several cases asserting the privilege. "I've been in meetings with cabinet officials that have invoked the privilege, and they don't take it lightly," Coffin says. If there's been an increase in the exercise of the privilege, "It is simply a recognition that information is a weapon in the modern day and age," says Coffin. "And that is a serious concern for national security." Coffin says bold action, like withholding 26,000 documents in the Crater case, is sometimes necessary to prevent a U.S. adversary from compiling bits and pieces of seemingly harmless, unclassified information into a state secret. That "mosaic theory" of national security is frequently cited in litigation surrounding the privilege, and Department of Justice attorney Lisa Olson raised the argument in the Crater case last year. "The more information that is disclosed, the easier it becomes to disclose more, and soon the floodgates are opened and nothing is secret," Olson told Judge Webber. A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment on the Crater case, but outside experts say it's easy enough to guess the nature of the top- secret project the government is protecting. "It's all but self- evident that it has to do with the clandestine monitoring of fiber- optics communications cables on the ocean floor," says Aftergood. "They've been interested in it since the first fiber-optic cable was ever invented," says James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA. "It's clear that they have a major operation in terms of tapping into sea cables." Fiber-optic cables were well on their way to supplanting less-secure communications technologies at the time that Lucent approached the Crater inventors, and it's been widely reported that the switch threatened to cut off the electronic spies at the NSA. "There's been this huge shift from using satellite communications, which is very easy to tap into, to using both terrestrial and transoceanic fiber- optic cables, and that's presented a major problem for NSA," says Bamford. To counter that problem, and keep the electronic intelligence flowing, NSA has reportedly developed sophisticated techniques for wiretapping undersea cables, relying on specially equipped Navy submarines, the most advanced of which is the newly recommissioned USS Jimmy Carter, fresh from a $1 billion upgrade that reportedly includes state-of-the-art technology for tapping into undersea fiber- optic communications. French, now 74 and living in Maine, is not a party to the case since his partners bought out his interest in the invention. But he still has bad feelings over the affair. "If it had been war time, World War II, I'd have given it to them. But if they're hiding behind some friggin' law, basically to screw somebody...." says French, trailing off. Lucent spokesman John Skalko says the court's secrecy order prevents him from addressing the inventors' claims in depth. "We deny any breach of contract or any misappropriation of trade secrets," says Skalko. "You can't try this case in your publication, it's only to be tried in a court of law," Skalko adds -- a prospect that seems increasingly unlikely. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68894,00.html? tw=wn_story_page_prev2 ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[IP] Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

Re: [IP] When suburban moms embrace the surveillance society
by d f tweney 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

"Sheepdom" hardly seems apt -- what sheep polices the other sheep, after all? That's the dog's job, and in this case the dog wasn't doing it. This is an inevitable result of ubiquitous surveillance. As YouTube proves, we are far more adept at watching each other than the government could possibly be. In the future, it's not "Big Brother" that will be watching us, but millions of Little Brothers. Maybe that's a little creepy. On the other hand it can work both ways. And if the surveillance extends to the halls of government (and those who work in government) then we will have an unprecedented level of transparency into the workings of our democracy. We've already got C-SPAN -- what we need now are a hundred thousand webcams all over Washington. Especially in our representatives' offices. -- Dylan Tweney writer/editor dylan(a)tweney.com http://dylan.tweney.com David Farber wrote: > > >Begin forwarded message: > >From: Greg Brooks <gregb(a)west-third.com> >Date: August 4, 2006 1:36:42 AM EDT >To: dave(a)farber.net >Subject: When suburban moms embrace the surveillance society >Reply-To: gregb(a)west-third.com > >Dave, for IP if you wish. > >There's an interesting piece in the Riverside (CA) Press-Enterprise >[1] about >a woman who got her house toilet papered and decided to hunt down the >culprits. She didn't want to involve the police, reasoning that >they had >better things to do, so she took the following steps: > >* She canvassed local stores to see which one had a run on toilet >paper. > >* She then got the manager of the store to show her surveillance >videos, >allowing her to see the personalized letterman's jacket of one of the >purchasers, as well as the license plate of the vehicle they got into. > >* Finally, she used a high school yearbook (matched to the school >based on >the letterman's jacket) and online databases to get the names, >phone numbers >and addresses of all the teens spotted in the store tapes. > >To me, this is a bit more than a "talker" feature. One takeaway, >IMHO, is >that we're pretty far down the road to sheepdom when average >citizens start >thinking "well, everything's monitored all the time anyway - let's >see if I >can make use of that." > >Warm Regards, >Greg Brooks >West Third Group > >[1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/toilet_paper_caper > > > > >------------------------------------- >You are subscribed as dft(a)tweney.com >To manage your subscription, go to > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip > >Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- >people/ ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[IP] When suburban moms embrace the surveillance society
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0