Privacy: Laws, practises, opinions at large

[Public'sTwin]

With only a handful of results returning anything useful through multiple searches, I'm startled that I'm unable to find a definitive thread pertaining to the information and discussion of:

-data mining (esp. personal data)

-use of collected data

-non-disclosure of possession of personal information

-public access to personal information

-non-access, non-authority over the possession & use of one's own personal
information

-"targeted advertising", using personal data

-personal information for public and personal benefit (ie. the DNA database
suggested here, reference information for use in hospitals)

-implanted RFID chips - and their associated security risks

-Corporate and other misuse of personal information

-Global/Federal powers pertaining to security (eg. new body-scanners in air-ports, the Security Camera Nation of Britain, Bush's authorization of wiretaps)

-Government misuse of personal information



The Consumerist recently published an article here which provides a list of sites, phone numbers, and emails belonging to bodies containing personally identifiable information. The vast bulk of it, perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly, was amassed with no knowledge or consent of the persons collected from on the grounds that it was collected from public sources.

In it, the article encouraged us to contact these bodies, and respectfully request that they relinquish and terminate the retention of this information. Few will: many will charge you a fee or cite that they have no obligation to respect that request.

The article

The exponential growth of the internet, and the proliferation of connected devices, networks, and services brings the potential for abuse and stockpiling to greater and greater heights. To either our benefit or detriment, it's clear that as time goes on and the structure of these companies begin to rely on the retention of that information, it becomes more and more difficult for us to keep our information, our information.

As well, with corporate pressure on world governments to crack down on piracy - music, film, or videogames - the protection of and personal rights to that information as accessed from the web is steadily diminishing.

As Party A puts pressure on Party B to put pressure on Party C to put pressure on the consumer, who is alleged to have put direct financial pressure on Party A, and inevitable buckling and collapse is almost sure to follow. Where each party is trying to respect its' clients interests and protect them, another party is suggesting that said client is infringing their own and deserves compensation. (As would be the direct case with organizations putting pressure on governments to hold ISPs responsible for punishing their customers based on alleged cybercrimes.)


This only a single facet of the greater problem, and only one of a slew of abuses of financial might.

The Australian Government has even threatened all of its' internet users with persistent surveillance.

Bush's Wiretapping Scandal

Public security cameras

Gov't Issued Universal IDs, required by all US Citizens

Dutch motorists forced into providing GPS details: driving habits

GPS Privacy Discussion Predating thread above

Piracy Enforcement, implications of rights to privacy infringement

Gov't forces Google to hand over users' YouTube viewing habits

When personal banking information goes missing

E-mail not technically private?

Compulsory DNA databases (Almost like the X-Files)

British Muslim women object to full-body scanners

I'm sure there's more: for instance, Google's recent fumble regarding publicizing personal information.

 

[DK]

I can understand the one about the Muslim women objecting to the full body scans. Chances are, it would be very revealing. So much for modesty...

 

[Public'sTwin]

So you don't object to having a GPS track everywhere you go in your car?

 

[Northstar]

So you don't object to having a GPS track everywhere you go in your car?

I don't really have a problem with it, they would just see a line from my work and back with the occasional trip to someone else's house.

I really think this paranoia thing is just funny. I understand not wanting to be wiretapped or censored, but people seem to worry about stupid things. Take the full body scanners for instance, I would rather some guy see my "man parts" than get blown to a million pieces in mid air.

You have to realize that in order to be safe you are going to have to give up some freedoms. I'm not saying the government should put chips in people and track their every move, but I don't see a little problem with them requiring a new form of ID(just as long as you don't have to have it on you at all times) or doing a full body scan at the airport.

 

[Keef]

I don't really have a problem with it, they would just see a line from my work and back with the occasional trip to someone else's house.

This is the reason they do it, because people with that sort of mentality allow it. Just because you don't do anything wrong is not a good reason to allow it. It's the principle that a government doesn't have the right to look into your personal lives that should be upheld. Once you break the law that's a different story, but until then the government should have no business in your personal business. I hate to sound like an asshole, but frankly this is one reason America is falling apart, because people don't care about the principles this land was founded upon.

 

[Dotini]

The tragedy is that there was once a time when we did not have to give up freedoms for safety. Now we take it for granted that we must give up freedoms for safety, and there is no going back. So much for progress - it's a crock.

 

[Keef]

The tragedy is that there was once a time when we did not have to give up freedoms for safety. Now we take it for granted that we must give up freedoms for safety, and there is no going back. So much for progress - it's a crock.

It might not be a problem if people recognized what "freedoms" were to begin with. But they don't even bother with that terminology and so don't realize when things are being taken away. I understand your point but disagree that people are taking things for granted because they're oblivious to it in the first place.

The stories my dad tells of his childhood are inspiring that one day we'll be able to get back to the old rules where Big Brother wasn't watching your every move. Back then it seems everything was dandy until someone else got hurt. Nowaday's you're bound to get in trouble for hurting yourself.

 

[Dotini]

one day we'll be able to get back

Nonsense! Technology only goes one way: forward.

 

[Nicksfix]

Privacy =

At this very time of writing this,Uncle Sam is probably reading word for word what I just wrote.He's also monitoring you reading this thread as well.

Electronics,communication devices,GPS's,Onstar,things of the sort give you away.

Here's something to think about concerning TV. How do they know how many people watched the Super Bowl ? How do they know how many viewers there were watching the Daytona 500 ? How do they know which broadcasting company has the best ratings whether it be ABC,CBS.NBC ?

Todays technology gives you away. To make this a valid point,I have a friend in the military who told me this.At any given time,the government can peek into your house and read the morning newspaper with you and watch you eat your bowl of Cheerios.

Believe this ? You should.

Why else would the Goodyear Aerospace building in Akron,Ohio be built out of some "secret material" that can't be spied upon with satellites ? Your house,apartment,condo is not made from these "special materials" is it ?

Makes you wonder .

 

[Northstar]

The stories my dad tells of his childhood are inspiring that one day we'll be able to get back to the old rules where Big Brother wasn't watching your every move. Back then it seems everything was dandy until someone else got hurt. Nowaday's you're bound to get in trouble for hurting yourself.

We're not even at that point yet. Just people that are overly paranoid about nothing really. Beleive it or not the constitution is still enforced. If you need an example a few years ago we had red light camera's. Someone sued the state and it went all the way to the state supreme court where they were deemed illegal. The city of St. Paul converted those to "Shot Spotter" cameras where they would take a pic if it detected gunfire. This has saved lives and helped take criminals off the street. Of course I guess you think that they are bad and should be taken down.

Thing is that the days of being able to trust people is pretty much gone and never coming back. Technology(mainly the internet) can really be blamed for it, before it came along there wasn't as much of a problem with things like ID theft, scams and child pornography(it's amazing how many sickos there are in this world) like there is now. Thing is as these problems grow and become more widespread the govt. has to adapt and grow with it. If they were just to take a hands off approach the problems would get out of hand before they even knew about them. It's not like they are going to track every Google search you make, but if there is a pattern on "how to make bombs" and related things chances are some red flags are going to be raised.

Again I'm not saying they should be allowed to chart every move of every person, but there is a give/take type thing that you have to accept. It really is a balancing act, with too much Govt. control you get a dictatorship, too little you get complete anarchy.

 

[Keef]

If you need an example a few years ago we had red light camera's. Someone sued the state and it went all the way to the state supreme court where they were deemed illegal. The city of St. Paul converted those to "Shot Spotter" cameras where they would take a pic if it detected gunfire. This has saved lives and helped take criminals off the street. Of course I guess you think that they are bad and should be taken down.

Red light cameras are still legal in Ohio and are utilized heavily down the main road here in West Carrollton. About half of Dayton's red light camera fines have gone unpaid for various reasons, one of which is surely that more than 2/3 of the fine money goes to the private company who operates them, and not the city. Arizona's problems have been widely publicized and now apparently rising up against the system of speed cameras. They're still there because law enforcement likes them. Politicians have taken notice though.

It's not like they are going to track every Google search you make...

How can you be so sure? I'm sure you've heard about people whom you give an inch and they take a mile, and it's probably happened in your life at some point. Who's to say that the government wouldn't go out of their way to spy and simply not tell you? They are the people who make the rules, after all. If you allow them a little bit the line between responsible use and abuse gets very blurry.

Again I'm not saying they should be allowed to chart every move of every person, but there is a give/take type thing that you have to accept. It really is a balancing act, with too much Govt. control you get a dictatorship, too little you get complete anarchy.

This balancing act is called the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", as stated in the 10th amendment. That means that the Feds only have the powers specifically given to them by the Constitution, and the States or People get everything else except what is specifically prohibited. That's why the biggest changes to our government have to begin at the bottom, influenced by the People in local and State governments. There's not much room for change at the Federal level because they've only got so many specific powers to work with, but the changes they can make are made very difficult so as to discourage changes from being made at all.

The majority of Americans don't understand that last part. They expect all changes to be made at the Federal level. When that happens we get the Patriot Act, national healthcare, and the Federal Reserve, all unconstitutional in one way or another.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

The stories my dad tells of his childhood are inspiring that one day we'll be able to get back to the old rules where Big Brother wasn't watching your every move. Back then it seems everything was dandy until someone else got hurt. Nowaday's you're bound to get in trouble for hurting yourself.

I think it's somewhat useful to point out here that, in the days of your father's childhood, it wasn't really neccessary for 'Big Brother' to watch your every move given the prevailing mindset of the time. Nor, obviously, was it technically possible. Despite that, I think mid-century America would have been far more willing to submit to such technology, had it been available, than we are today. These are the people, after all, who built fully-provisioned bomb shelters in their backyards.

That said, I do tend to agree with you on the general and vital importance of privacy, and the equally important distinction between federal and local action.

As for speed cameras, I think we have a flawed example. Speed cameras monitor public roads, where public safety is a legitimate concern. As much as I may personally hate the idea of speed cameras, I understand that as part of the contract I make with my government, I allow them to monitor aspects of life in public settings that influence my safety and the safety of those around me. This is a simply a small-scale version of the justification for the public allowing the government to organize a military for the common defense. Specific details of such cameras are certainly up for debate - who can access their data? How, and under what circumstances? What are the expectations I may reasonably have regarding what they see of me? These are questions that courts and voters can and must address, but as loathe as I am to say it, I have a hard time saying that speed cameras are unconstitutional on their face.

 

[Keef]

...I have a hard time saying that speed cameras are unconstitutional on their face.

Would the fact that they presume a person guilty until proven[/URL] innocent persuade you? They leave the burden of proof on the defendant, and there is no arguing that it's backwards. If people would take a stand and think about these issues more thoroughly, upfront instead of years later, the government wouldn't be given the chance to abuse their new found power at all. But people don't care about freedom anymore, they just want to make it to work on time and go out to the club Friday night.

 

[Northstar]

Would the fact that they presume a person guilty until proven innocent

This is why they were removed here.

 

[Joel]

I don't like the whole "in the interest of security" thing has come. What really gets me, especially because the family car's a Buick, is when thatOnStar commercial comes on, and they advertise that they can remotely shut a stolen car down. I do not like that. "Oh, it's ok, you're just paranoid". They can shut you car down remotely. I'm not going to
chill. In fact, it scares the living 🤬 out of me that people think it's a good thing.

 

[Keef]

I don't like the whole "in the interest of security" thing has come. What really gets me, especially because the family car's a Buick, is when thatOnStar commercial comes on, and they advertise that they can remotely shut a stolen car down. I do not like that. "Oh, it's ok, you're just paranoid". They can shut you car down remotely. I'm not going to
chill. In fact, it scares the living 🤬 out of me that people think it's a good thing.

OnStar is a private company implementing that technology, not a government, and by you signing the contract to buy the car you accept the service and the possibility that they might accidentally shut your car down on you.

But I don't know the legal implications of that sort of service. Anyone got any information on that? Obviously it's legal because they've been doing it for years, but how does it tie into the government if at all?

 

[Northstar]

I think the only way they can shut down the car is if it's reported stolen. It's not like there is a "shut down" button. I would guess they would have to put some sort of password in before the command would go through.

 

[Public'sTwin]

OnStar is a private company implementing that technology, not a government, and by you signing the contract to buy the car you accept the service and the possibility that they might accidentally shut your car down on you.

But I don't know the legal implications of that sort of service. Anyone got any information on that? Obviously it's legal because they've been doing it for years, but how does it tie into the government if at all?

It doesn't matter if it ties into the government; that's not what this thread is about.

I also recall a case where a Cadillac owners' club had taken their cars to a track day. OnStar detected the excess speeds and "unusual" driving behaviour and they were all remotely shut down. Needless to say, the owners were quite upset.

 

[Keef]

I also recall a case where a Cadillac owners' club had taken their cars to a track day. OnStar detected the excess speeds and "unusual" driving behaviour and they were all remotely shut down. Needless to say, the owners were quite upset.

On the other hand, that behavior may have been covered in their original contracts. Lawyers aren't stupid, you know. All the owners can do now is sue OnStar for whatever damages they may have caused and somehow reach an agreement concerning performance driving. Or are you suggesting the government should place limitations on private businesses "spying" on consumers?

I've had my bank card locked on me after a perfectly legitimate online purchase. I was annoyed, yes, but I didn't go rallying in front of Congress because when I signed up for my accounts they included fraud protection. Whether or not the service benefits me, I accepted the deal.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Or are you suggesting the government should place limitations on private businesses "spying" on consumers?

I'm not suggesting anything like that. Abuse, misuse, and violations of the rights of citizens' privacy can exist in either private or publicly owned corporations, or world (or local) governments alike. For the purposes of this thread, there is no delineation made in who commits acts.

Google, after all, is not a world government.


Yet.

Edit:

To answer your question more directly, my opinion is that they shouldn't have that power at all, until the very circumstance when the owner grants permission to activate/use a feature like that.

 

[Keef]

To answer your question more directly, my opinion is that they shouldn't have that power at all, until the very circumstance when the owner grants permission to activate/use a feature like that.

Right, and usually that's the case in the form of contracts and the like. I understand your point that I didn't give Google permission to photograph my house in Street View, and it's certainly possible that that information could be used in all sorts of negative ways.

I would ask what people say should be done about it, but why were they allowed to do that in the first place?

 

[Public'sTwin]

In the case of photographing houses, it's understood to be acceptable if the shot was taken from public property. That is, since the house is visible to all, then photographic documentation of it would only be a violation if that person had to step on to your property to obtain the photograph.

I agree with this, insofar as a photograph in itself is harmless. Were they to study the photograph and use it for nefarious purposes - what objection could I take since they could just sit on the sidewalk all day and do the same thing?

 

[Azuremen]

Justin, move to the UK already. You sound like you'd fit right in.

This is America. The land of the free. The land where you are assumed innocent till proven guilty. These ideas of "tracking you for security" and so on directly violate that principle because it is assuming you very may well do something wrong. Being complacent with the idea of "some monitoring" will just escalate things out more and more. Just look at several Common Wealth nations that continue pass laws with almost no thought in the interest of "your protection."

What I see here is people that are too afraid to be accountable for their own safety and want something or someone else to blame it on. Thus, you delegate power to Big Brother to watch over and serve you. However, I can see this leading into 1984 or The Giver or V for Vendetta with time, where everyone follows a protocol for their "safety." Life has risks, and we have certainly progressed in minimizing them, but if you continue to restrict people in order to protect them, you will just crush individuality and, ultimately, human nature.

Of course, this goes with the mindset I see more and more, where people think the government should regulate more. I know people that think smoking should be illegal for almost all intents because it is just harmful to the person. Or drinking. Or junk food, etc. Of course, we could just let Utah run the Union if we wanted that.

 

[Keef]

Of course, we could just let Utah run the Union if we wanted that.

Don't let the government hear that. I'm sure they'd welcome the 8x increase in divorce fees with open arms.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Would the fact that they presume a person guilty until proven[/URL] innocent persuade you? They leave the burden of proof on the defendant, and there is no arguing that it's backwards. If people would take a stand and think about these issues more thoroughly, upfront instead of years later, the government wouldn't be given the chance to abuse their new found power at all. But people don't care about freedom anymore, they just want to make it to work on time and go out to the club Friday night.

I think you've confounded citation and judgement. I mentioned the due process of law before my conclusion for this reason. Police everywhere issue citations everyday presuming guilt in this sense - if the smokey on my six loses line-of-sight with me over a hill for a second before he pulls me over, he can't strictly prove that I'm the same white Outback he clocked doing 80 in a 65, but he can still pull me over and cite me. The distinction has to be adjudicated in court. This may make speed cameras somewhat impractical as it's likely rare that they capture a fair image of the driver of a vehicle, but it doesn't make them inherently unconsitutional - just a waste of resources.

 

[Keef]

Police everywhere issue citations everyday presuming guilt in this sense

Just the other day a police officer reminded me, as I already knew, that by signing my name on the ticket I was not admitting guilt. I'm not guilty yet. I've been charged with a crime but I'm given an opportunity to go to court and tell my side of the story and the burden of proof is on the System. They're proof is the citation that was issued by an officer of the law, as he must have witnessed the incident to issue the citation. I can contest the evidence and the police officer in court, and if the officer isn't there to refute my argument then it may be dismissed by the judge. That won't happen very often because the evidence is pretty infallible, after all, the cop did give the ticket in the first place, but it still stands that you are innocent until proven guilty.

A traffic camera doesn't work like that. A camera takes a picture based on whatever programming a private company has given it. When a car trips the sensors the camera takes its picture--the car, license plate, one of the setting to show the light was red. The photos are processed by an officer to make sure everything's right, and then mailed to you. People are questioning the legitimacy of these citations because an officer did not witness the crime. There is simply a picture without an officer to stand behind it. Did it really happen? Was it a coincidence? Did the light malfunction? Whatever the situation you are assumed guilty until proven innocent, and the burden of proof is on you, as in the links I provided. Saying the camera's are never wrong isn't a legitimate argument because that's simply not true, and the cameras never gave an oath to uphold the law like a police officer did. By that oath an officer simply can't be wrong, and if there's any doubt the situation will be fully investigated by the department. But there's nothing to stand behind the camera except the company who is raking in two thirds of its profit.

It's true that you are innocent until proven guilty in normal traffic citations given by police officers, but that rule is broken by traffic cameras.

 

[Veprman]

I don't really have a problem with it, they would just see a line from my work and back with the occasional trip to someone else's house.

I really think this paranoia thing is just funny. I understand not wanting to be wiretapped or censored, but people seem to worry about stupid things. Take the full body scanners for instance, I would rather some guy see my "man parts" than get blown to a million pieces in mid air.

You have to realize that in order to be safe you are going to have to give up some freedoms. I'm not saying the government should put chips in people and track their every move, but I don't see a little problem with them requiring a new form of ID(just as long as you don't have to have it on you at all times) or doing a full body scan at the airport.

I don't think the body scanners are that detailed. They may be capable of it but I saw them on tv and you couldent see anything tasty. If they leave out the details then I guess they are ok, but if they don't then there are not. I don't want some douchbag getting off looking at my junk or my familys privates. I don't know why you would be ok with a new form of ID. What we have now is fine.

This quote says it best.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Frankin.

 

[DK]

Would the fact that they presume a person guilty until proven[/URL] innocent persuade you?

Let me guess, the guy involved was a minority?

 

[Public'sTwin]

A strange case of votes being made public

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - The Michigan Court of Appeals says the secretary of state's office can't refuse to show individual voting records from the state's 2008 presidential primary to an East Lansing political consultant.

By a 2-1 vote, the court said in an opinion released Wednesday that Mark Grebner of Practical Political Consulting can see the votes because they're public records under the state's Freedom of Information Act.

Judges William Whitbeck and Stephen Borrello upheld Grebner's rights to the voting records. Judge Kirsten Frank Kelly dissented. She says the public's interest is outweighed by the voters' right to privacy.

Election officials kept track of presidential primary voters' names and whether they took Democratic or GOP ballots. That information normally is private.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.

I'm not sure about America - but one of the most fundamental and sacred rights of Canadians is the private vote: our country was literally founded upon it when Sir John A. McDonald was voted in. How, in this case, can "public interest" equally negate the public's right to privacy?

 

[Keef]

We don't really talk about Michigan anymore. They're among the states that are in the first round of layoffs.