To leave the attributions and headers, or not? --- Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> wrote:

----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave@farber.net> -----

From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:02:03 -0500 To: Ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> Subject: [IP] more on No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye!

Thank you and best wishes - Josh ------------

Josh, thanks for sharing these remarks about privacy. Alas, these folks are falling for the usual trap that has snared so many well-meaning people for the last decade. They are right to worry about creeping Big Brotherism... and vigorously defending the wrong stretch of wall.

I was naive once too.

What weird reflex is it, that makes bright people fall for the trap of seeing SECRECY as a friend of freedom?

As we all know, 'freedom' is a value-neutral term when used on it's own, without a suitable modifier, as in the above.

(Oh, when it's YOUR secrecy you call it "privacy.") To

I imagine that most people, in the fuzzy space of colloquial conceptions, associate 'privacy' with the information security of their own lives, and associate `secrecy' with the concealment of corporate or government information, processes, and assets. But we may use the terms interchangeably if it makes you happy. To wit: I have secrets which I would like to keep from malicious criminals and other government workers.

rail against others seeing, without suggesting any conceivable way that

(1) the technologies could be stopped or (2) how it would help matters to stop govt surveillance even if we could.

As I've emphasized in The Transparent Society, the thing that has kept us free and safe has been to emphasize MORE information flows. To ENHANCE how much average people know.

Ok, that is a nice idea but...

http://www.futurist.com/portal/future_trends/david_brin_empowerment.htm [skimmed]

Given the information-centric disparity that already exists between individuals of varying allegiance or association, how is it possible to assure that most everyone is brought up to speed on the current state- of-the-art in the numerous fields of study and technology that relate to intelligence and counter- intelligence in such a way as to make the playing field level for all? As it stands, with the mutability inherent in the acquisition and interpretation of signals and surveillance data, it is too easy for large masses of people to acquire widespread mis- conceptions about the veracity of the information at their disposal. Put another way: hypothetical well-organised dis-information sophisticates could in theory arrange to give the masses a false sense of security and inclusiveness within a subtly fraudulent framework of public-mediated surveillance and information sharing. Perhaps this could be arranged by building backdoors and covert access points in the public surveillance network which would allow the 'cabal' to diguise their activities while also permitting them to arbitrarily muck about with the publically availble data, subject only to constraints imposed by the actual state-of-the-art -- enhanced on a practical level by virtue of limiting in some ways the technology available to the masses. If that makes sense to you, then it should become obvious that certifying the `public surveillance network' free compromise by privilaged elites of any kind becomes a very difficult task. And as we all know, groups like the NSA and their foreign counterparts already enjoy an indeterminate lead on the public in areas of interest and relation to information technology and surveillance. So, how do we as average citizens mitigate the threat of being lulled into a false sense of security by the flashy newness of some kind of hypothetical BrinWorld public surveillance and sharing network? Clearly this is a large problem, and I certainly don't have the answer. But, I think the idea of BrinWorld is the correct approach, and obviously some very intelligent people think so too. I would refer to the paper entitiled "The Weapon of Openness", by Arthur Kantrowitz, which approaches this issue from a more general perspective. Most likely, there is a solution that we all can live with. Avoiding the risks will, however, be rather difficult. Personally, I wouldn't mind too much living in a total surveillance world if I were assured that everyone else was subject to the same level of scrutiny. This is primarily because I don't engage in activities which are particularly shameful or which are dependent upon the immoral or wanton explotation and subversion of another person's right to pursue interests that do not harm others. I am fully aware that a great many people do engage in such activities, some of which are cultural rites or religious rituals that are validated by the tacit legitimacy given to them by a tyrranical majority. And then there are people who live off the avails of crime because they find that such activities are `manly', stimulating, or otherwise pleasureable in some way.

And yes, this is the one way to protect genuine PRIVACY... though any sensible person knows that the word will be re-defined in a new century flooded with cheap cameras.

I'm not sure that this is the _only_ way, but it is surely the way that looks as though it will acend to the fore in the near term.

(For a look at the near future, see: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1078288485.php)

This inane reflex to try to blind others, instead of empowering citizens to look back, is like a drug,

So goes the psychological theory of the moment. I'm not so sure that the mechanism is quite so simple as to lend itself to a reduction that makes it no different to chemical addiction.

alas. But slowly people are awakening to the facts.

Mmm-hmmm.

The world will be a sea of cameras and vision. But that needn't be a nightmare, if we can hold the watchers accountable by looking BACK.

Well, yes. But we also need to do quite a bit of work to design the *secure* systems, networks, and code to make it all happen as it should. Regards, Steve [remainder left for context]

With cordial regards,

David Brin www.davidbrin.com <http://www.davidbrin.com>

David Farber wrote:

...

Orwell was an amateur djf

------ Forwarded Message From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> <mailto:lauren@vortex.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:38:28 -0800 To: <dave@farber.net> <mailto:dave@farber.net> Cc: <lauren@vortex.com> <mailto:lauren@vortex.com> Subject: No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye!

Dave,

It's time to blow the lid off this "no expectation of privacy in public places" argument that judges and law enforcement now spout out like demented parrots in so many situations.

Technology has rendered that argument meaningless -- unless we intend to permit a pervasive surveillance slave society to become our future -- which apparently is the goal among some parties.

It is incredibly disingenuous to claim that cameras (increasingly tied to face recognition software) and GPS tracking devices (which could end up being standard in new vehicles as part of their instrumentation black boxes), etc. are no different than cops following suspects.

Technology will effectively allow everyone to be followed all of the time. Unless society agrees that everything you do outside the confines of your home and office should be available to authorities on demand -- even retrospectively via archived images and data -- we are going down an incredibly dangerous hole.

I use the "slimy guy in the raincoat" analogy. Let's say the government arranged for everyone to be followed at all times in public by slimy guys in raincoats. Each has a camera and clipboard, and wherever you go in public, they are your shadow. They keep snapping photos of where you go and where you look. They're constantly jotting down the details of your movements. When you go into your home, they wait outside, ready to start shadowing you again as soon as you step off your property. Every day, they report everything they've learned about you to a government database.

Needless to say, most people would presumably feel incredibly violated by such a scenario, even though it's all taking place in that public space where we're told that we have no expectation of privacy.

Technology is creating the largely invisible equivalent of that guy in the raincoat, ready to tail us all in perpetuity. If we don't control him, he will most assuredly control us.

--Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren@pfir.org or lauren@vortex.com or lauren@privacyforum.org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility -

http://www.pfir.org

...

Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com

- - -

...

------ Forwarded Message From: Gregory Hicks <ghicks@cadence.com> <mailto:ghicks@cadence.com> Reply-To: Gregory Hicks <ghicks@cadence.com>

<mailto:ghicks@cadence.com>

...

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:42:03 -0800 (PST) To: <dave@farber.net> <mailto:dave@farber.net> Cc: <ghicks@metis.cadence.com> <mailto:ghicks@metis.cadence.com> Subject: Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS

Dave:

For IP if you wish...

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=322152

Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS Decision allows use of vehicle tracking device without a warrant

By BRENDAN LYONS, Staff writer First published: Tuesday, January 11, 2005

In a decision that could dramatically affect criminal investigations nationwide, a federal judge has ruled police didn't need a warrant when they attached a satellite tracking device to the underbelly of a car being driven by a suspected Hells Angels operative.

[...snip...]

All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2005, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y.

------ End of Forwarded Message

-- Josh Duberman, Pivotalinfo LLC, 15100 SE 38th St. #819, Bellevue, WA 98006; Tel:(425) 746-0050; Cell:(425) 591-8200; pivotalinfo@usa.net; Information For Solutions In Business & Science

------ End of Forwarded Message

------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen@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: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca