Author Topic: Privacy and anonymity  (Read 12439 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #140 on: September 26, 2014, 09:56:16 AM »
But this isn't the internet and a lot of these discussions have occurred. With the exception of turning over your encryption key, most of this is stuff the courts have already decided. This really isn't unknown territory.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #141 on: September 26, 2014, 10:31:42 AM »
I said technology as well. And I meant we, the public, haven't had a proper discussion about how to transition our rights into a new society.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #142 on: September 26, 2014, 11:34:11 AM »
Well we, you and I, have had the discussion numerous times about a variety of issues. In different situations we've both been known to agree that the best option is to start with the very least invasive approach and only allow concessions incrementally and on an as-needed basis, have we not? So from that standpoint isn't the best option the wild west until exceptions are presented as necessary and reasonable? I'd say the issues that have come out regarding governmental oversight have significantly altered the scale of what people are willing to consider reasonable.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #143 on: September 26, 2014, 06:58:42 PM »

"So from that standpoint isn't the best option the wild west until exceptions are presented as necessary and reasonable?"

I think that's fair, but I think we too often disregard any necessity or what is reasonable. I remember some years back that I pointed out quick google searches could land you illegal torrents for just about anything. Pointing out how this is a very reasonable spot to take measures to stop theft got me a response that I was trouncing upon personal liberties and free speech and blah blah blah. It's a kind of rule we would have for other print and media, but somehow applying it to the internet is somehow new and wrong. And I guess that's the emphasis for the point I'm trying to make. Yes, the government is to blame for going too far in spying on American's and invading our Bill of Rights. I just think at the same time, and in other instances, too many people just seem unwilling or unable to accept their theft of IP.

To go back a sec, you pointed out that judges have covered this issue. To put it one way, I feel like the entire issue needs legislative action.



Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #144 on: September 26, 2014, 07:02:59 PM »
Don't recall the google search discussion or whether I was a part of it. All I can really say is that I trust judges a little more than legislators as at least they occasionally do something right. Congress is always inept. Furthermore, the last area any of us should trust congress is understanding the constitution.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #145 on: September 26, 2014, 07:14:05 PM »
Mostly fair points I wouldn't disagree with. I would stress the "occasionally" doing the right thing. And I would also say that one problem with judges is that they're often old, so dealing with new technology is not going to necessarily be their forte. Didn't the Daily Show have some hilarious clips from the Supreme Court a few years ago demonstrating their general misunderstanding of technology?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #146 on: September 26, 2014, 07:38:17 PM »
Yeah, not all of them are fully up on new tech, but they're not as inept as you might think. I listened to the arguments for the two cellphone search cases and they seemed to have a pretty good grasp on the subject matter. But here's the thing: often times relating these sorts of things back to older, simpler circumstances is a pretty good approach. If you look into any search and seizure case you'll usually run into Katz. It dealt with the expectation of privacy when using a phone booth (the conversation is protected as you had reason to believe that the phone booth didn't have an FBI recording device taped to the outside). When looking at modern tech such as GPS trackers and infrared cameras on pork choppers they'll often use Katz as the basis for sorting it out. It's not the technology that matters in as much as the rationale. Sometimes it's better for them to work from simpler angles than trying to break down the complexity of newer devices.

And by the way, in the cellphone cases they were acutely aware of the issues of encryption and understood fully that it could brick important evidence. I'd actually be quite surprised if they didn't have in evidence an amicus brief from Comey. So as for today his concerns were already given a pretty resounding "eh, fuck'em" from The Court, as well.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #147 on: September 27, 2014, 10:46:31 AM »
I'll mostly have to defer to your knowledge on this, as this is something you have a keen interest in.

That said, I think conservative practices are good, I just don't think it can always battle new issues and technologies. Such as the ability to store information nearly indefinitely, and how there isn't a good corollary in history for this. It seems like in this, judges have largely given the government the go-ahead to store and track people in a way which it seems like most people take exception to. If you say this isn't so, I'd be a little surprised (though it does play into what I'm saying), but mainly I think you'd give me a lot more confidence in them than I used to have.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #148 on: September 27, 2014, 11:14:26 AM »
A serious discussion about the internet, technology and privacy has never been done...

Not true; Lawrence Lessig has essentially made a career out of the serious discussion of the internet, technology, and privacy.  Not saying it solved anything, but it has been occurring. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #149 on: October 23, 2014, 03:08:21 PM »
And by the way, in the cellphone cases they (SCOTUS) were acutely aware of the issues of encryption and understood fully that it could brick important evidence. I'd actually be quite surprised if they didn't have in evidence an amicus brief from Comey. So as for today his concerns were already given a pretty resounding "eh, fuck'em" from The Court, as well.
And here we now have the "eh, fuck'em" from Congress, as well. Comey came out and said that Congress had to craft legislation mandating LEA access to encrypted cellphones and Congress fired back with a resounding "uh, we don't have to do shit! and there's no way we're doing that." :lol


Quote
"To FBI Director Comey and the Admin on criticisms of legitimate businesses using encryption: you reap what you sow," California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa tweeted. "The FBI and Justice Department must be more accountable—tough sell for them to now ask the American people for more surveillance power."
Hell, I'd even consider voting for that asshole.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #150 on: October 24, 2014, 10:45:50 AM »
I have one giant problem with Issa's comment:

If the FBI et al aren't earning the public trust, REFORM THEM. He's acting as if the FBI et al. are permanent institutions that cannot be changed or reformed. Ya, we don't have much reason to trust the FBI et al. with accessing cyber-information - but to then use this as a reason for letting people completely hide information via encryption is assinine, in my opinion. Reform the FBI, and our law enforcement agencies (which Congress and the President have the power to do) and give that new reformed authority the power everyone seems to think is reasonable. I frankly don't see why past egregious behavior is a reason for why we should do opposing egregious behavior.


Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #151 on: October 24, 2014, 11:55:08 AM »
That seems to be the only avenue left, and it's the only avenue there's been for ages. Congress couldn't pass an anti-USAPATRIOT Act in a million years, and even if they could Obama would veto it. Back in the real world the tide will ebb and flow. Bad people will encrypt stuff (which isn't anything new at all) and LEA will still find ways to nab people. Even with iPhones encrypting by default rather than by user action Johnny will still have more and more tools made available to him.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #152 on: October 24, 2014, 12:14:11 PM »
What avenue is that? Reform?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #153 on: October 24, 2014, 12:23:36 PM »
What avenue is that? Reform?
The corner of Push St. and Push Back Ave.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #154 on: October 24, 2014, 12:47:44 PM »
Yes, well, I think we should stay at the corner of that, and not head all the way down one of the streets. I've heard both lead to some bad neighborhoods.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #155 on: October 24, 2014, 01:22:33 PM »
That's where we are. Apple and Google are pushing back by offering encrypted phones after The Man has spent 10 years pushing forward. Congress seems willing to allow a push back, for once.


edit: and where this is going to lead us both is that after a while you just can't tell who's pushing and who's resisting. At this particularly point of time after however many years of NSA abuses I'd say that The Man has pushed resistance free for long enough that we all have quite a bit of ground to reclaim before we get back to that intersection.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #156 on: October 24, 2014, 03:13:29 PM »
In that case, I think I'm not getting your analogy.

If you're saying the pendulum is going to swing the other way, I agree. If you're saying the pendulum is going to go past equilibrium, I still agree. If you're saying the pendulum is going to go to the other extreme, well, then I reach the point where I can only talk about what I think should happen, and hope that it does.

And I guess where I'm confused, is what you think should happen. I think I at least understand what you think will happen. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #157 on: October 24, 2014, 03:42:11 PM »
In that case, I think I'm not getting your analogy.

If you're saying the pendulum is going to swing the other way, I agree. If you're saying the pendulum is going to go past equilibrium, I still agree. If you're saying the pendulum is going to go to the other extreme, well, then I reach the point where I can only talk about what I think should happen, and hope that it does.

And I guess where I'm confused, is what you think should happen. I think I at least understand what you think will happen.
I think the pendulum is pegged all the way to the LEA side right now. It needs quite a bit of pushing to get it back to normal. If that requires the criminal element, or just people who recognize a police state when they see one to do the pushing doesn't really matter to me.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #158 on: October 24, 2014, 06:18:15 PM »
I think it's pegged way too far to the LEA side, but it seems a little hyperbolic to say it's all the way. Things could be a lot worse.

And to be clear, I'm fine with tuning our laws so the "criminal element" "gains" something in the process.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #159 on: October 24, 2014, 06:57:50 PM »
I think it's pegged way too far to the LEA side, but it seems a little hyperbolic to say it's all the way. Things could be a lot worse.

And to be clear, I'm fine with tuning our laws so the "criminal element" "gains" something in the process.
Seems to me that it's been pushing that direction for 10-12 years with almost no resistance whatsoever. I don't know if there actually is a peg, but a pendulum can only swing so far.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #160 on: October 25, 2014, 10:29:39 AM »
These are just thoughts, ideas, to contribute, not a full-on "position" (yet):

First, I find it interesting to say that one is okay with "fine with tuning our laws so the "criminal element" "gains" something in the process."  Wouldn't it depend - fully - on what the gain is?

Second, doesn't the "pendulum" referenced above (i.e. the one swinging in LEA's direction the last 10-12 years) have to have started at equilibrium for their to be a problem?   In some ways, we were starting from deep in criminal territory.  Though that sort of invites the next question, which is...

Third, isn't it really more accurate to say there are multiple pendulii being swung?  I get the idea that in some cases there are advantages being gained by LEA, but there are just as many situations where criminals - even those who's guilt is either admitted to or in little practical doubt - are being given leeway that effectively undermines the entire point of the system to start with?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #161 on: October 25, 2014, 10:58:43 AM »
First, I find it interesting to say that one is okay with "fine with tuning our laws so the "criminal element" "gains" something in the process."  Wouldn't it depend - fully - on what the gain is?

Certainly. Nobody's suggesting anarchy here. In my case, and likely Scheavo's too, I'm just not troubled by laws that help the bad guys if the function serves to protect the good guys from unnecessary bullshit. I guess we can add that to the list of reasons I'm a lousy American.

Quote
Second, doesn't the "pendulum" referenced above (i.e. the one swinging in LEA's direction the last 10-12 years) have to have started at equilibrium for their to be a problem?   In some ways, we were starting from deep in criminal territory.  Though that sort of invites the next question, which is...

Third, isn't it really more accurate to say there are multiple pendulii being swung?  I get the idea that in some cases there are advantages being gained by LEA, but there are just as many situations where criminals - even those who's guilt is either admitted to or in little practical doubt - are being given leeway that effectively undermines the entire point of the system to start with?
Well, is it the case that the founding fathers started this whole thing with criminals in mind? And I don't mean that to say ruffians, miscreants and buggerers, mind you. Only that declaring someone a criminal and treating them according them was supposed to be a laborious thing to do. While I have no doubt that they fully wanted highwaymen and chicken thieves flogged or hanged, I think they probably wanted it to be a somewhat inefficient processes to both assure guilt and protect the rights of everybody else. In the meantime we've seen it turn into a very efficient iPod factory of CJ.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #162 on: October 25, 2014, 11:30:49 AM »
First, I find it interesting to say that one is okay with "fine with tuning our laws so the "criminal element" "gains" something in the process."  Wouldn't it depend - fully - on what the gain is?

Certainly. Nobody's suggesting anarchy here. In my case, and likely Scheavo's too, I'm just not troubled by laws that help the bad guys if the function serves to protect the good guys from unnecessary bullshit. I guess we can add that to the list of reasons I'm a lousy American.

No, no; I'm not calling you on that, I truly don't understand.  And I hardly think you're a lousy American (actually just the opposite; read the ACA and Hobby Lobby thread; you actually understand how things work, even if we don't always agree on what the causes and consequences are).

Quote
Well, is it the case that the founding fathers started this whole thing with criminals in mind? And I don't mean that to say ruffians, miscreants and buggerers, mind you. Only that declaring someone a criminal and treating them according them was supposed to be a laborious thing to do. While I have no doubt that they fully wanted highwaymen and chicken thieves flogged or hanged, I think they probably wanted it to be a somewhat inefficient processes to both assure guilt and protect the rights of everybody else. In the meantime we've seen it turn into a very efficient iPod factory of CJ.

You know, that's an interesting point, that I hadn't thought of.  I have long argued that some of what we call "gridlock" in Washington is really by design, so that laws aren't the flavor du jour (though we've taken it to an unrealistic extreme in recent years).   Perhaps you're right and the same principle applies here.  I have to think about that.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #163 on: October 26, 2014, 06:32:02 PM »
First, I find it interesting to say that one is okay with "fine with tuning our laws so the "criminal element" "gains" something in the process."  Wouldn't it depend - fully - on what the gain is?

Certainly. Nobody's suggesting anarchy here. In my case, and likely Scheavo's too, I'm just not troubled by laws that help the bad guys if the function serves to protect the good guys from unnecessary bullshit. I guess we can add that to the list of reasons I'm a lousy American.

This. And you and I disagree on some of the specifics. I'm sure we agree on Miranda rights. Procedural issues often mean someone is walking free we know to be guilty, and I have no problem with that because their abuse worries me more. But we disagree on issues of encryptions, at least I think we do, as I think that benefits the "criminal element" too much compared to the abusive possibilities (and what abusive possibilities exist I think might generally be due to other laws I don't think we should have on the book to begin with).

Quote
Quote
Second, doesn't the "pendulum" referenced above (i.e. the one swinging in LEA's direction the last 10-12 years) have to have started at equilibrium for their to be a problem?   In some ways, we were starting from deep in criminal territory.  Though that sort of invites the next question, which is...

Third, isn't it really more accurate to say there are multiple pendulii being swung?  I get the idea that in some cases there are advantages being gained by LEA, but there are just as many situations where criminals - even those who's guilt is either admitted to or in little practical doubt - are being given leeway that effectively undermines the entire point of the system to start with?
Well, is it the case that the founding fathers started this whole thing with criminals in mind? And I don't mean that to say ruffians, miscreants and buggerers, mind you. Only that declaring someone a criminal and treating them according them was supposed to be a laborious thing to do. While I have no doubt that they fully wanted highwaymen and chicken thieves flogged or hanged, I think they probably wanted it to be a somewhat inefficient processes to both assure guilt and protect the rights of everybody else. In the meantime we've seen it turn into a very efficient iPod factory of CJ.

One thought I have on this is a little hard to explain, but basically, if you're able to get away with it under reasonable rules, then I'd generally say it's probably not something which should be considered a crime. We could have police going around with drug dogs, checking every door near college Universities, and we'd catch a lot of "criminals." But we have reasonable laws where that doesn't happen, and so in reality, a ton of people are smoking weed near a university right now, and becuase they're not doing anything which get's attention or warrants any attention, I think it should be legal regardless of what the "books" are. A different example would be traffic camera's. If it's 4am, there's a right light, and there's nobody else out, you should be able to just fucking go. A camera might ticket you or that. But since there's no cop there, and it's unreasonable to think there should be, you get away with it, and I think you should. And pragmatically, I'd say it's legal.




Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #164 on: October 26, 2014, 10:31:04 PM »
A couple of notes. Encryption has two different uses insofar as keeeping Johnny's snout out of your business. Yes, it will allow you to conceal evidence. However it's not a sure thing and in most cases the evidence on your phone is not the only hook he's hanging his hat on. I suppose they just have to build a better case. But the other thing is that it keeps him from snooping, which I suspect you dislike as much as I do. Note that Comey isn't worried about the people who will walk. He's worried about the people he'll never know about. It's exactly the case they made in the two SCOTUS cases which were obviously not real compelling. By way of relevant example, if I get busted driving home with two 8ths of bud should he be able to get at all of my contacts and start investigating all of my friends? I consider the loss of some evidence (and again, it's not a given that it won't be unencrypted) acceptable in comparison to the privacy of everybody who's merely a potential avenue of investigation.

As for the cameras, I know about 40 years ago when they were putting radar cameras on tripods on the side of the highway a judge wrote a decision prohibiting them in which he cited beneficial inconvenience. The reasoning is that a cop's job forces him to always use discretion. A camera can't discern whether or not 63 is reasonable or whether or not stopping before right on red at 0400 is mandatory. A cop by virtue of his time, resources and general giveafuck will always make those considerations. This is better for all except the city coffers.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #165 on: October 27, 2014, 06:55:56 AM »

One thought I have on this is a little hard to explain, but basically, if you're able to get away with it under reasonable rules, then I'd generally say it's probably not something which should be considered a crime. We could have police going around with drug dogs, checking every door near college Universities, and we'd catch a lot of "criminals." But we have reasonable laws where that doesn't happen, and so in reality, a ton of people are smoking weed near a university right now, and becuase they're not doing anything which get's attention or warrants any attention, I think it should be legal regardless of what the "books" are. A different example would be traffic camera's. If it's 4am, there's a right light, and there's nobody else out, you should be able to just fucking go. A camera might ticket you or that. But since there's no cop there, and it's unreasonable to think there should be, you get away with it, and I think you should. And pragmatically, I'd say it's legal.

This ignores two aspects of the law which are critical:

One, the notion that the laws are there for a reason, and if we start to allow for subjective application, then two things tend to happen:  they get less useful as guidelines for behavior, and two, the "creativity", shall we say, of the excuses for failure to comply become more and more inapplicable (the "slippery slope").  I would argue that the camera at the stoplight at 4 am isn't JUST about making sure people don't zoom through the intersection (though I know of one jurisdiction that turns the cameras off for a certain period of the day). 

Two, some laws are in place not because of the underlying action itself, but rather to allow for recourse when those actions infringe on others' rights in some way.  This also applies to the cameras:  your scenario is all well and good for your specific fact pattern, but if there is a pedestrian that is unnoticed by the car, or some other variance to the fact pattern and there is an incident, the camera then has information that can go towards explaining what happened and who owns culpability.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #166 on: October 27, 2014, 12:43:33 PM »
There is already vast discrepancy in law enforcement. But unless you're referring to El Barto, I don't see how a lot of it has to do with discrepancy anyways. Miranda rights or rules for what can and cannot be used has nothing to do with subjective discrepancy. It's just the opposite. It's objective procedure.

But the other thing is that it keeps him from snooping, which I suspect you dislike as much as I do. Note that Comey isn't worried about the people who will walk. He's worried about the people he'll never know about. It's exactly the case they made in the two SCOTUS cases which were obviously not real compelling. By way of relevant example, if I get busted driving home with two 8ths of bud should he be able to get at all of my contacts and start investigating all of my friends? I consider the loss of some evidence (and again, it's not a given that it won't be unencrypted) acceptable in comparison to the privacy of everybody who's merely a potential avenue of investigation.

I just think we could have other laws on the book which prevent the snooping from happening (maybe most importantly by not funding it). It's like not going outside to aviod a sunburn. Yes, that'll work. But so will putting on sunscreen getting into shade every now and then.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #167 on: October 27, 2014, 01:40:39 PM »
Well, bad guys on both sides of the law will always find ways to skirt the law. There are laws that define RS and PC. There are now so many loopholes that any cop with more than 6 hours experience can articulate his way around it. There are searches that require warrants signed by judges, and there are judges specifically tasked with rubberstamping them. If you enact law that says Johnny can't search my phone just because I had some grass in the car, how many exceptions do you think he'd come up with to do it anyway?

Interestingly, just saw this about judicially approved reasonable suspicions for airline pax:

    Being the first person off a plane
    Being the last person off a plane
    Someone authorities believe has tried to blend in to the middle of exiting passengers

    Booking a nonstop flight
    Booking a flight with a layover

    Traveling alone
    Traveling with a companion

    People who appear nervous
    People who appear “too calm”

    Merely flying to or from a city known to be a major thoroughfare in the drug pipeline

Now, how safe would you feel knowing that a law would prohibit snooping through your phone without PC?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #168 on: October 27, 2014, 01:42:57 PM »
Well, bad guys on both sides of the law will always find ways to skirt the law. There are laws that define RS and PC. There are now so many loopholes that any cop with more than 6 hours experience can articulate his way around it. There are searches that require warrants signed by judges, and there are judges specifically tasked with rubberstamping them. If you enact law that says Johnny can't search my phone just because I had some grass in the car, how many exceptions do you think he'd come up with to do it anyway?

Interestingly, just saw this about judicially approved reasonable suspicions for airline pax:

    Being the first person off a plane
    Being the last person off a plane
    Someone authorities believe has tried to blend in to the middle of exiting passengers

    Booking a nonstop flight
    Booking a flight with a layover

    Traveling alone
    Traveling with a companion

    People who appear nervous
    People who appear “too calm”

    Merely flying to or from a city known to be a major thoroughfare in the drug pipeline

Now, how safe would you feel knowing that a law would prohibit snooping through your phone without PC?

Were those in and of themselves the only criterion, or were they one fact among many that painted a picture?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #169 on: October 27, 2014, 02:12:24 PM »
Well, bad guys on both sides of the law will always find ways to skirt the law. There are laws that define RS and PC. There are now so many loopholes that any cop with more than 6 hours experience can articulate his way around it. There are searches that require warrants signed by judges, and there are judges specifically tasked with rubberstamping them. If you enact law that says Johnny can't search my phone just because I had some grass in the car, how many exceptions do you think he'd come up with to do it anyway?

Interestingly, just saw this about judicially approved reasonable suspicions for airline pax:

    Being the first person off a plane
    Being the last person off a plane
    Someone authorities believe has tried to blend in to the middle of exiting passengers

    Booking a nonstop flight
    Booking a flight with a layover

    Traveling alone
    Traveling with a companion

    People who appear nervous
    People who appear “too calm”

    Merely flying to or from a city known to be a major thoroughfare in the drug pipeline

Now, how safe would you feel knowing that a law would prohibit snooping through your phone without PC?

Were those in and of themselves the only criterion, or were they one fact among many that painted a picture?
Does it honestly matter? To answer your question they were hand-selected criterion used to describe, let's say, the worthlessness of the standard protections. I'm sure no single one could be used to hassle someone. However:

"Well, Your Honor, my experience in investigating these sorts of cases tell me that a person with something to hide often waits to board at the last possible minute. Since the suspect was the last person aboard I paid attention to him. I noticed that during the flight he was acting nervous and fidgety. He was also flying alone on a nonstop flight between two cities with extensive drug trafficking, which is typical of people involved in the trade of narcotics. Lastly, he made a point to be the first person off the plane, as if he wanted to hurry and get out*. For these reasons I decided that further surveillance was warranted and we followed him out of the airport."

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #170 on: October 27, 2014, 02:34:38 PM »
I'm not saying it's right or that I disagree with you, but you went where I was trying to go when you said "typical of people involved in the trade of narcotics".   It is usually a picture, not one discrete fact (the idea of which is to negate the potential impact of any one fact, but as I am sure you are aware, sometimes that gets twisted backwards). 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #171 on: October 27, 2014, 03:13:37 PM »
Oh, I completely get that. What I was addressing was Scheavo saying that laws to protect people from searches would be better than enabling people to hide stuff completely. In a perfect world that would work. However, the law isn't particularly useful for protecting people nowadays because it's so easy to paint a pretty picture, and that's when Johnny's even going the transparent route and seeking a warrant or defending his PC in the first place. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #172 on: October 27, 2014, 11:29:23 PM »
I frankly don't understand why those laws aren't just as open to change as laws regarding encryption. I feel like a false dichotomy is being presented. Again though, I feel like you might be arguing more of the practical/pragmatic point than the idealistic one.

I'd also say depending upon where you're talking, and what exact situation is under discussion, funding is still an appropriate point. I know you bring up resources often in these discussions, especially in terms of the police (formerly) being limited to man hours, making them more judicially choose who to tail, instead of just tracking them with a GPS device on their car, or cell phone habits, etc. However, we can still defund the ability for them to do so, and we can even explicitly fund police departments limiting their use of such tactics. And on the national scale, with the NSA and bulk collection, we can simply not fund their huge data centers. All the douchy cops and rubber-stamp judges couldn't do anything about that.

And what I think is intersting, is that personal choice still has a lot to do with these invasions. I still think you invite yourself to such problems when you keep that cell phone on you, use the internet or any electronic device. It's not the police or authorities fault that all that information is nicely kept and traceable, it's a problem of the technologies. And the authorities, being what they are, can't help but want to get their hands on it. If people want to be more anonymous, they can be. Hard to hide a tracking device on a bicycle, or to track you if you take public transportation. Hard to track your movements via cell phone information if you don't have a cell phone on you. While I think the government has gone way too far in a lot of area's, I don't think the American public should be completely let off the hook for the role they play in seeding the soil for everything that happens.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #173 on: October 28, 2014, 08:23:36 AM »
Well, I'll set my cynicism aside for a bit and we'll approach this from the standpoint that democracy would actually allow anti-LEA legislation. Do you thin it'd happen organically, or do you think there would have to be some impetus? In this case society is pushing back by creating a demand for cellphones that encrypt by default. Seems to me that could be the impetus for reform. We all know that nobody gives up power once they've received it; it's taken away from them. LEA had a distinct advantage for a while and for that to reset requires change which requires force (in a Newtonian sense, that is). LEA will eventually get their legislation lessening their loss to encryption (assuming they actually do lose much anyway, which I doubt), but now it will happen in a different context where there's a give and take, rather than a grab.

Also, the choice between living completely off the grid and submitting to government intrusion isn't much of a choice. Besides which, as I've said many times before, Google has neither the ability nor desire to seize you.

And BTW, I've been stuck with public transportation for a month now, and I'd bet anything I own that DART knows who I am, where I work, what my hours are and probably quite a bit of information I couldn't even imagine. If they're on the ball they have plenty of my cell data, too. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40215
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #174 on: April 07, 2015, 09:29:31 AM »
John Oliver Interviews Edward Snowden

Did anyone else catch this?  I thought it was fascinating and hilarious and scary (like most of John Oliver's shows).

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.