Fw: Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to screw you
I was subjected on a number of occasions to what should have been illegal GPS-tracker use. This kind of tracker use was finally declared a "search" within the meaning of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution in a January 2012 US Supreme Court case, US v. Jones. The 9th Circuit Court case which the government would presumably try to use to justify that tracking was called U.S. v. McIver (9th Cir. 1999), where such a GPS tracking device was put on a vehicle seen at a location where a marijuana-grow was in operation. http://www.patc.com/enewsletter/legal-answers/4-oct08.shtml (Note: This reference to the McIver case was written in 2008, 4 years prior to US v. Jones.) A Third Circuit case from 2013 that addresses this matter (and comes to the correct conclusion) is US v. Katzin (3rd Cir. 2013). www.eff.org/files/2013/10/22/katzin_opinion.pdf The use of the McIver case to justify the placement of the tracking device on my car(s) in 1998 and 2000 should not have worked, because unlike the McIver situation, I was actually not suspected of any crime, neither in 1998 nor 2000: I was, in effect, being stalked by Federal agents who were engaging in criminal activity against me. (Assault by Federal informant Ryan Thomas Lund, on November 25, 1997, and promulgation of a forged, fake, fraudulent "appeals" case 99-30210 from about June 20, 1999 through April 2000, and well beyond.) One quirk was my allegation (which due to corruption of the Tanner court as well as corrupt lawyer Robert Leen) that the Feds had actually placed a GPS tracking device on my car, shortly after my release on April 13, 2000. Eventually, in late October, 2000, they petitioned a Federal court for a warrant to place a DIFFERENT GPS tracking device, WITHOUT alerting that court that the previous device was present. This omission of that relevant information constituted fraud on that court, because the Feds presumably argued that they 'needed' the information to find out where I was going: Since they already had one such device on my car, they obviously already knew what I was doing. And, if they would have argued that placing such a device on my car was 'legal', then why would they have had to obtain a warrant in late October 2000? Why not simply use the information they had obtained from April 2000-October 2000? The answer, in hindsight, is simple: The Feds had no justification at all to place a tracking device on my car during and after April 2000: For them to use that information about October 2000, they would have had to explain why the tracking device had been placed as early as April 2000. That they could not do, unless they admitted that they had no articulateable reason to track me during that time. Note: On about November 21, 2000 I told my (corrupt, appointed) lawyer Robert Leen about my suspicion that they had been tracking me from April-October 2000; I had a right to have all such information available to me at my "trial". But, Leen wasn't really acting as my 'first line of defense': Leen was acting as the GOVERNMENT'S 'first line of offense'. Because Leen wouldn't act to obtain that (secret) trackig device information in 'discovery' (legal term of art, requiring government to turn over information before trial) I sent a letter about December 8, 2000 to Judge Tanner, telling him that I 'fired' Leen for his deliberate negligence. Tanner did not allow me to fire Leen, and I was denied the ability to present this (and essentially any other) evidence at the "trial". While you may have heard snippets about how my trial was 'fixed', the reality was far worse than that. Any questions? Jim Bell http://www.infowars.com/feds-may-require-vehicle-location-tracking-in-new-ca... Feds Consider Vehicle Location Tracking in New Cars * Proposal may lead to more accidents, mileage taxes and tickets for “recorded traffic violations” Kit Daniels Infowars.com January 1, 2014 In a few weeks, federal officials may require new vehicles to have trackable GPS “safety” devices which could be hacked to cause automobile accidents and may even usher in mileage taxes. With the V2V device, the GPS location for all new cars could be recorded. Credit: Minesweeper via Wiki The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is spending the next couple of weeks mulling over its decision to install vehicle-to-vehicle communications – known as V2V for short – into new vehicles which would allow them to “talk” to each other through GPS data under the guise of “accident prevention,” according to ABC News. However, one official involved with the government study of the devices admitted that hackers could abuse the system to create mass havoc on the road. “Who has access and how do you secure the data?” David Wise of the Government Accountability Office asked. He even said that the V2V would rely on GPS data that can be used to easily track a vehicle – and thus the occupants inside. “Privacy is a real challenge,” Wise said. This is refreshing honesty from a government official. The fact that the V2V system could be hacked to cause high-speed pile-ups exposes the political lie that these devices were designed to prevent accidents. In fact, bureaucrats want the V2V installed in vehicles in order to track Americans like animals in another sick extension of the domestic spy grid pioneered by the NSA. With vehicle tracking, big government politicians could also accomplish their goal of taxing drivers by every mile driven. Lawmakers could even use this sort of technology to pass laws that allow local governments to mail drivers tickets for “recorded traffic violations” as they already do with red light cameras. And to really stick it into drivers even further, the costs for the GPS technology will be tacked onto the price of new cars – forcing Americans to pay for their own enslavement. Take a look at the following articles to see for yourself the hidden agenda behind the V2V technology:=======================end of quote============================
Any questions?
observation: with regard to illegal and fraudulent tactics used in your prosecution, court case, appeal, etc. it is wondered if the corrupt actions of individuals may go beyond a severawl government employees acting this way in isolation, and instead involve a hidden or structural approach, such as a domestic FISA-like program, where their actions are protected and so they are not concerned with issues of their own wrong doing because they are acting as part of a larger organized, coordinated effort. perhaps beyond normal processes though still 'legal' due to secret laws or secret hearings or decisions allowing this activity to occur. it seems more likely that activity like this is signed-off-on by someone with authority than not, unless there is total lawlessness within government and bureaucracy. i do not know enough to know though tend to believe the fraudulent activities must be structural not anomalous, given their coordination and purpose to convict and create endless problems with the bureaucracy. about the V2V cars- what is the likelihood that automobiles are _not tagged in some way, just like computers, given that location or other data is critically important and perhaps more easily accessible or tracked outside of a particular environment, say run-ups to meetings or whatever, the timeliness of data as it approaches a meeting point, thus ramps up in criticality, say if a cellphone conversation decides actions minutes before an encounter. or, to scan a city for someone via satellites, pinging the missing submarine from satellite. given highest priority to own every computer, how likely is it that vehicles are not already being tracked, regardless of 'known technology' that then brings this tracking into the open. even if via passive means, giant RFID in the sky/net, say serial #s that reflect back with vehicle title databases, mapping geographies this way, 100,000 vehicles return signals, as if looking at asphalt and concrete heavens using astronomy software to parse star/car-names. either installed in new vehicles by default, or when serviced if a focused customer. perhaps not advanced beyond passive ping, though are vehicles really driving around autonomously besides redlight cameras and speed traps? doubt it.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:04 AM, brian carroll
Any questions?
about the V2V cars- what is the likelihood that automobiles are _not tagged in some way, just like computers, given that location or other data is critically important and perhaps more easily accessible or tracked outside of a particular environment, say run-ups to meetings or whatever, the timeliness of data as it approaches a meeting point, thus ramps up in criticality, say if a cellphone conversation decides actions minutes before an encounter. or, to scan a city for someone via satellites, pinging the missing submarine from satellite. given highest priority to own every computer, how likely is it that vehicles are not already being tracked, regardless of 'known technology' that then brings this tracking into the open. even if via passive means, giant RFID in the sky/net, say serial #s that reflect back with vehicle title databases, mapping geographies this way, 100,000 vehicles return signals, as if looking at asphalt and concrete heavens using astronomy software to parse star/car-names. either installed in new vehicles by default, or when serviced if a focused customer. perhaps not advanced beyond passive ping, though are vehicles really driving around autonomously besides redlight cameras and speed traps? doubt it.
Given that a V2V system can only warn of an impending collision with another V2V-equipped vehicle, this seems ludicrous to me. Passive systems like radar and lidar will be cheap enough to be in nearly every new car soon enough. However, even if V2V ends up being mandated, whether it's abusable is very implementation-dependent, and there are already plenty of ways to track vehicles: license plate scanners, toll transponder readers, even just plain old image processing on existing surveillance cameras to track vehicles probabilistically. Oh, and then there's that cellphone you're probably carrying with you. Some of these are easier to avoid than others, and a V2V system could probably be disabled easily. But we're already being tracked, and I doubt there's much incentive for a politician to go out on a limb to make it even easier. If we really want to avoid tracking, it's the efforts to network and database security cameras and ALPRs that we need to go after. Those are much harder to avoid, even if you don't own a cellphone and ride a bicycle or walk everywhere.
Sean Lynch
even if you...ride a bicycle or walk everywhere.
given NSA interdiction of e-commerce shipments to plant bugs and subvert functioning, you really think bicycles are not implanted with bugs of those targeted, for similar tracking, or e-commerce shipped shoes are beyond interest of tracking with implants. it seems highly probable that degree of tracking is going on for those who are targeted via infrastructure. if they can track a cellphone via, say streetlight or traffic light sensor systems, certainly rfid in shoe or other hidden sensors say in bicycles could likewise be very useful, beyond cameras, transponder- like, especially if without phone. i think things are way beyond the limits of visual surveillance, other sensing/tracking involved.
One clue would come from my suspicion that agents of the Federal government, in March 1995, lured away the former resident of 7302 Corregidor (see http://www.redfin.com/WA/Vancouver/7302-Corregidor-Rd-98664/home/14565030 ), the house immediately to the east of mine, and bought that house. (In the picture provided, my house at 7214 Corregidor is just to the left of the house shown.) The prior resident was a local school (high school?) science teacher, and he was hired at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Richland Washington, a Federal government laboratory akin to Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, etc. http://www.pnl.gov/
The purpose of this was to be able to acquire that house, and use it as a spying location against me. (The names ostensibly buying the house were Daniel J. and Dori J. Sabin, and they ran a remodeling operation named "Sundown Development Construction Corporation". http://www.sundowndevelopmentconstruction.com/ ) Note that the date the house was sold is shown as March 10, 1995. (This is odd, because school teachers' lives are oriented around the 'school year', which in most locations in America go from about September 1 to about June 1. They sign contracts with the school to work for that year, and are bound to do so. While I don't recall when the prior, lured occupant left, based on the sale date it appears that he sold that house months before the end of his school year. For a school teacher, this would have been highly unusual.)
The sale price is shown as $180,000, which I think was rather high for that time. (But not unexpected if the government wanted to lure him away quickly. Presumably he got a large raise, as well.) They immediately began an extensive remodeling and enlargement operation on that house, including adding a second floor. As I recall, this remodel took nearly a year; seemingly the house was unoccupied during that time. Further, during a long period very little work was actually being done, as I recall. (This remodeling would have dramatically increased the value of that house; the sale price in 1995 of $180,000 cannot be directly compared with the current value of the much-larger and more-up-to-date house as it exists today.)
While I don't remember precisely the date I published the first part of my AP essay, I believe that it was no more than a few weeks prior to March 10, 1995, on the 'Digitaliberty' discussion area. http://www.skepticfiles.org/hacker/cud6105.htm (Hence my reference to Digitaliberty in the essay; it wasn't until many weeks later that I'd heard of the 'Cypherpunks' list.) My recollection that the person who initiated 'Digitaliberty', Bill Frezza, was interested in the use of technology for the development of 'liberty', although the first part of my AP essay apparently exceeded his tolerance for radicalism. At some point somebody transported Part 1 of the AP essay to Cypherpunks, and informed me of the existence of CP; I acquired Internet access and joined the Cypherpunks list.
The acquisition and operation of nearby government spy locations was/is certainly not new. Consider the case of Robert Hanssen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen While this Wikipedia article does not mention it, I read contemporaneously various news reports (2001) that said the government set up a spy location near Hanssen's house. How far away that location was, those reports did not say. Presumably, this was a standard tactic, and non-controversial. (At least in the case of actual criminality being suspected and investigated.) The difference, in my case, was that not only did they not suspect me of any crime, they knew that I was innocent of any crime. It is obvious, therefore, that they engaged in this activity not because of any crime (which, had it existed, would have made me a 'criminal') but because of my writing and publication of Part 1 of my Assassination Politics essay. (Which made me 'an enemy', 'a
dissident', an opponent of not merely the Federal government, but all governments everywhere.) In other words, the government engaged in activities more appropriate for the former Soviet Union, and seemingly not for America.
One question that should be asked, is: "What what the government did, acquiring that house at surveilling me from it, legal?" They would presumably say, "yes". But why wasn't that "stalking", within the meaning of the criminal statute? After all, in November 21, 2000 I was accused of "Interstate Stalking", simply for going around, looking at various locations, not confronting (nor even seeing) anyone. I was investigating things, because I knew that something was (and had been) happening. Was I less entitled to do what I did, than what the government was to do what it did? An inmate/informant named Ryan Thomas Lund (his recent activity: http://www.localblotter.com/news/oregon/man-detained-on-multiple-counts/8340... ) was instructed to attack me, which he did on November 25, 1997, because I was beginning to resist the plea agreement that I had been offered, and initially accepted.
Don't think that I didn't already suspect the house at 7302 Corregidor during that time. In fact, I informed my (corrupt) attorney Peter Avenia http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/98101-wa-peter-avenia-20216.html of some of my suspicions. (But, of course, I didn't know at that time Avenia was corrupt.) Sometime about December 1, 1997, Avenia visited me at FDC Seatac jail and I told him of Lund's attack. His answer? "I don't know anything about.....that") (Avenia was also Lund's attorney.) And in about July 1998, after I was re-arrested, ostensibly for a 'supervised release violation', the prosecutor Robb London (who is currently the direction of communication at Harvard Law School http://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?orig=SEO_SN&firstName=Robb&lastName=London&trk=SEO_SN ) claimed that I 'said that the government was spying on him' [Jim Bell]. Which, of course, was true: I DID suspect, and say, that the government was spying
on me! Problem is, London was using this bare assertion to justify me being sent to the Federal Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, for a mental evaluation (!). Another problem was, London didn't say I was _wrong_ when I said (or suspected) that. (Without at least an allegation that I was wrong, what justification is it to claim that I asserted that the government was spying on me?!? Is merely saying that I believed the government was spying on me enough to justify sending me to a mental evaluation? Would an American's "suspecting" that all his telephone metadata and email was being copied by the NSA, prior to Snowden's allegations, constitute a justification to send that 'comrade' for a mental evaluation in Siberia...er...Springfield?) And worse, I was not allowed to challenge the (implicit) allegation of falsity in my assertion that the government had been spying on me. However, I used the situation (a hearing) to extract a
promise (only partly kept) from Avenia that he would investigate my allegations. Many months later, perhaps in February 1999, Avenia send investigator Sharon Callas to Vancouver. Mysteriously, Callas was said to have 'disappeared' (or perhaps 'resigned') later. I never saw the results of her investigation. Later, in about April 1999, attorney Avenia resigned, but NOT at my request. I suspected then, and still suspect today, that his resignation was triggered by something that Sharon Callas discovered during that investigation: Perhaps she confirmed enough of my allegations that Avenia knew that I was correct. http://www.shmoo.com/mail/cypherpunks/jun00/msg00154.shtml
So, what had been going on? Presumably, the interest in me (including local spying) was NOT based on allegations of crime, or even suspected future crime, in March 1995. In other words, no government law enforcement agency would have been legally entitled to spy on me. Presumably, the spying that did occur was, itself, illegal: And, had it become exposed (which it should have been if I had not been assaulted by Ryan Thomas Lund on November 25, 1997), the Federal government would have suffered an enormous hit of bad publicity. This corruption must have been at an extremely high level: The forgery of fake appeal case 99-30210, initiated secretly and kept from me for 10 months, with numerous forged documents filed (at least two ostensibly being from me, but they were also forged: You can see them on PACER: www.pacer.gov 9th circuit court. One was docketed about November 10, 1999 and the other was docketed about March 4,
2000: Both dates by my recollection). That would have taken the cooperation of some very powerful people in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, possibly including a few judges. Further, every document filed in that case, from June 1999 through April 2000, was (illegally) not delivered to me when I was at FDC Seatac (until September 3, 1999) and when I was at FCI Phoenix from September 10, 1999 to my release on April 13, 2000. Indeed, there were at least two pieces of certified mail described in the docket for case 99-30210 that were mailed to my then-correct address at FCI Phoenix, which didn't get to me, presumably they were stolen by BOP staff at FCI Phoenix. (Not to mention my allegation that this entire docket was RE-forged once they learned that I had requested an appeal that I hadn't known was already in progress.)
Doesn't this begin to sound like the classic "government conspiracy" that people who don't like to talk about "government conspiracies" argue don't happen. (Except rarely, say the Watergate incident in 1972). One of the reasons that I look (way) down on a few of the doofuses around here (CP list) who don't seem to 'like' me is that they apparently take that position without taking the trouble to read my 2003 lawsuit (02-1052; Portland Federal Court) and learning what I allege the government and its minions did. It will be interesting to see if any of them step up, apologize, and say, "Sorry, Mr. Bell, we didn't know..."
Jim Bell
"jim btc tipjar" 1AzNPQ1NhiD9uG1hU5g5Kdaccb88Dus2Bo
________________________________
From: brian carroll
Any questions?
observation: with regard to illegal and fraudulent tactics used in your prosecution, court case, appeal, etc. it is wondered if the corrupt actions of individuals may go beyond a severawl government employees acting this way in isolation, and instead involve a hidden or structural approach, such as a domestic FISA-like program, where their actions are protected and so they are not concerned with issues of their own wrong doing because they are acting as part of a larger organized, coordinated effort. perhaps beyond normal processes though still 'legal' due to secret laws or secret hearings or decisions allowing this activity to occur. it seems more likely that activity like this is signed-off-on by someone with authority than not, unless there is total lawlessness within government and bureaucracy. i do not know enough to know though tend to believe the fraudulent activities must be structural not anomalous, given their coordination and purpose to convict and create endless problems with the bureaucracy. about the V2V cars- what is the likelihood that automobiles are _not tagged in some way, just like computers, given that location or other data is critically important and perhaps more easily accessible or tracked outside of a particular environment, say run-ups to meetings or whatever, the timeliness of data as it approaches a meeting point, thus ramps up in criticality, say if a cellphone conversation decides actions minutes before an encounter. or, to scan a city for someone via satellites, pinging the missing submarine from satellite. given highest priority to own every computer, how likely is it that vehicles are not already being tracked, regardless of 'known technology' that then brings this tracking into the open. even if via passive means, giant RFID in the sky/net, say serial #s that reflect back with vehicle title databases, mapping geographies this way, 100,000 vehicles return signals, as if looking at asphalt and concrete heavens using astronomy software to parse star/car-names. either installed in new vehicles by default, or when serviced if a focused customer. perhaps not advanced beyond passive ping, though are vehicles really driving around autonomously besides redlight cameras and speed traps? doubt it.
Jim, correct me if i am wrong, what happened sounds like a criminal or conspiratorial prosecution occurring outside or beyond known law, a secret operation perhaps, that was a precursor to rolling-out this type of prosecution program at the larger scale in the present day, perhaps tied into NSA surveillance of populations- a canary in coalmine situation; same tactics, more empowered, nothing to stop it legally, and removing dissidents and unwanted viewpoints bit by bit i think you said this already though wanted to reiterate it in the expanded context, to see if it is an accurate summary (the mental illness trap ubiquitous, if not own families turning on children or each other, then teachers on students, etc. a different approach to forced censorship, silencing, and of reeducation, retraining, reprogramming. the perfect setup for takedown in unaccounted for parameters. labeled crazy without recourse to logically reason viewpoints: doomed.)
I agree with your assessment. But, of the many mistakes they made, the big one is that they underestimated my ability to observe and deduce what was going on at the time. Shortly after the time I was first arrested in mid-April 1997, I concluded that they must have been spying on me from 7302 Corregidor. I had a right to have any such evidence admitted in court, and they couldn't allow that to happen. They had to exercise the collusion of corrupt lawyer Avenia to see that stopped. Then, when I continued to demand evidence in July 1998, they had to further use the next corrupt lawyer, Judith Mandel, to ensure that I could not have evidence entered into the record. Then, when I demanded the appeal that I didn't know I already had (99-30210) they had to employ yet another corrupt lawyer, Jonathan Solovy, to continue to conceal facts from me. Etc. It was an ongoing battle that still isn't over, and won't be over until I have completely
won.
A major place in the "Hall of Shame" must go to Declan McCullagh, who failed and refused to work with me to expose this material in 2001 and 2002. Indeed, I sent a "visitor's form" to him about March 2002, as he said he was visiting San Francisco for some event, and he said that he would visit me at Atwater California. (USP Atwater). In fact, he lied to me: Weeks later, when he hadn't shown up, I called him and he said he couldn't find the time to visit. But I pointed out that in order for him to visit me, he would have had to fill out and mail in the visitor's form at least two weeks prior to the visit. In other words, by failing to fill out the form, that proved that he didn't intend to visit me at all: Therefore, his claim that he "couldn't find the time to visit" wasn't really true. At THAT point, he got really upset! He didn't respond to any of my letters after that.
Another place in the "Hall of Shame" should go to a "60 Minutes" producer named Adam Ciralsky. (He was ex-CIA in 1999, and in fact had a lawsuit against the CIA for religious discrimination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Ciralsky ). Ciralsky sent me an Express Mail letter in December 2000, claiming to want to interview me on video. I smelled a rat, and it turned out I was right. He tried to lure me by saying that Mike Wallace wanted to talk to me. Ciralsky's downfall was the fact that I had been watching "60 Minutes", on and off, since its beginning in 1970. I knew, from his failure to ask questions, that his only interest in getting video was to do a sabotage piece on me. I took advantage of the fact that Seatac FDC had a policy apparently denying video media visits, and basically told Ciralsky, "Put as many questions as you'd like on paper; I will answer all of them". That would appear to be a very friendly
position on my part, right? Not the typical hard-to-interview behavior usually displayed by the 'bad guys' when '60 Minutes' cameramen drop by. But, think about it: If they had put such questions on paper, that would have been analogous to giving them a 'Rorshach test': That would have exposed the position from which they were coming. I wanted to take advantage of this written communication to, in effect, force them to actually investigate the story, rather than put on a hit-piece. Turns out that I never got as many as a single question from Ciralsky!
Jim Bell
________________________________
From: brian carroll
Jim Bell
I agree with your assessment. But, of the many mistakes they made, the big one is that they underestimated my ability to observe and deduce what was going on at the time. Shortly after the time I was first arrested in mid-April 1997, I concluded that they must have been spying on me from 7302 Corregidor. I had a right to have any such evidence admitted in court, and they couldn't allow that to happen. They had to exercise the collusion of corrupt lawyer Avenia to see that stopped. Then, when I continued to demand evidence in July 1998, they had to further use the next corrupt lawyer, Judith Mandel, to ensure that I could not have evidence entered into the record. Then, when I demanded the appeal that I didn't know I already had (99-30210) they had to employ yet another corrupt lawyer, Jonathan Solovy, to continue to conceal facts from me. Etc. It was an ongoing battle that still isn't over, and won't be over until I have completely won.
note: all of this can happens or is allowed because of legal documents and authorizing papers - language - that legitimates this process of law yet its very truth cannot be accounted for, is beyond external accounting except for those in power who share views, agendas, and 'private values'. it is the tyranny of language that stands in for law, power of language over truth, that substitutes for truth, ego of belief replaces thought/mind, default processing of shared self-interest is ~reality via this corrupt path. the warped pseudo-truth shared by the group, as if public, universal pov, then having to submit or be aligned with it, by force or submission, etc. this is subjugation and oppression via language, truth is not basis for law, shared opinions and shared interests in hierarchic authority framework are which amounts to power determining what is true, via relativistic viewpoints, language game, reliant on onesided binary ideological presentation of facts, able to discard, edit, censor, deny, ignore anything outside private boundary (US constitution allows for this. its corruption leads to this corruption) same is true of money, legal tender: Constitution <==> currency (pT) Constitution ---> (pT) money = unfair exchange (F) Constitution ---> (F) money = unfair exchange (T) Constitution ---> (T) money = fair exchange in other words, the corruption is institutionalized, from constitution outward, where its errors then map and scale into other connected structural dynamics. it defines and legally allows these situations to exist in the given parameters, making them into citizen 'rights' (that corporations are equal to human citizens another absurdity, esp. when allowed to function in private self-interest at cost of all)
about the V2V cars- what is the likelihood that automobiles are _not tagged in some way, just like computers, given that location or other data is critically important and perhaps more easily accessible or tracked outside of a particular environment...
If you have a newish car, it has a radio in every tire's valve stem. If I know the radio signature of your car, then my roadside bomb will only miss you if you aren't in the vehicle that day. And that is putting aside all the other wireless goo new cars come with, and the embedded systems some (many) of which can reach that wireless goo, and the fact that people pay to be tracked (OnStar), and the mountain of data that the OBDI (On Board Diagnostic Interface) holds including the VIN, and the hundred startups vying to get their plug in your OBDI and upload your data to their cloud, and the insurers who'll buy your cooperation with monitoring for a few percent off the bill, and the spot to plug your mobile into the car's on-board net, and the automated gizmo to determine if you're driving drunk and kill the engine if you are, and the LED headlamps that can quite easily be pulsing data that your eyeballs will never detect, and the electric car's battery charger that will double as a software (pun) auto-update portal, and the robot that will soon be driving for you, like it or not, because by then the State of California, et al., will know that robots drive greener than you do, etc., etc. Don't buy a model later than 1993... --dan
(perhaps that is it then, if a circling c-130 electronics warfare aircraft can siphon up all signals in a given geography else satellite overhead and access all Vehicle IDs to target and track. thanks for the info) dan@geer.org> wrote:
about the V2V cars- what is the likelihood that automobiles are _not tagged in some way, just like computers, given that location or other data is critically important and perhaps more easily accessible or tracked outside of a particular environment...
If you have a newish car, it has a radio in every tire's valve stem. If I know the radio signature of your car, then my roadside bomb will only miss you if you aren't in the vehicle that day. And that is putting aside all the other wireless goo new cars come with, and the embedded systems some (many) of which can reach that wireless goo, and the fact that people pay to be tracked (OnStar), and the mountain of data that the OBDI (On Board Diagnostic Interface) holds including the VIN, and the hundred startups vying to get their plug in your OBDI and upload your data to their cloud, and the insurers who'll buy your cooperation with monitoring for a few percent off the bill, and the spot to plug your mobile into the car's on-board net, and the automated gizmo to determine if you're driving drunk and kill the engine if you are, and the LED headlamps that can quite easily be pulsing data that your eyeballs will never detect, and the electric car's battery charger that will double as a software (pun) auto-update portal, and the robot that will soon be driving for you, like it or not, because by then the State of California, et al., will know that robots drive greener than you do, etc., etc.
Don't buy a model later than 1993...
--dan
participants (4)
-
brian carroll -
dan＠geer.org -
Jim Bell -
Sean Lynch