Interesting People mailing list archives
No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye!
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:46:47 -0500
Orwell was an amateur djf ------ Forwarded Message From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:38:28 -0800 To: <dave () farber net> Cc: <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> Reply-To: Gregory Hicks <ghicks () cadence com> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:42:03 -0800 (PST) To: <dave () farber net> Cc: <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 ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! David Farber (Jan 12)