Is privacy coming back?

[Pat Barry]

You scofflaw! How'd you manage that?

I think the last ticket I got was on my motorcycle. He had me dead to rights...there was nothing to discuss. He was very nice for giving me a ticket with a rather creative speed, as opposed to the speed I was REALLY going. That was back in '98, or so. Now I drive like an old lady.

I got pulled over last year for doing 67 in a 55. He was coming straight at me with his radar on and his lights were flashing before he got to me. I pulled over (with my wife and daughter and dog in the car). He pulled in behind me and walked to my window and the first thing either of us said was me "I'm sorry" I said. He asked for my license and registration and ran my info through the computer and came back and told me to have a nice day. I still believe my saying I'm sorry altered his intentions.

[David Weaver]

You scofflaw! How'd you manage that?

I think the last ticket I got was on my motorcycle. He had me dead to rights...there was nothing to discuss. He was very nice for giving me a ticket with a rather creative speed, as opposed to the speed I was REALLY going. That was back in '98, or so. Now I drive like an old lady.

Road bike in a local park here. I ran a stoplight on a bike, right turn without stopping, and the police here will ticket you for that.

If you ever ride a road bike (which is something I did when I was thinner and younger and lived next to a park that has a nice 5 mile loop for it), the last thing you want to do once you've got a good pace going is stop at stopsigns and red lights.

I have never heard of anyone getting hurt not stopping at a right turn on a stop light here (or stop sign), but the county police use it to generate revenue. The guy who busted me was one of the least professional individuals I've ever met, giving me a long lecture about safety, and filed my bicycle ticket as a car ticket, using a code that gave me 3 points for "falling asleep at the wheel". I had to get a state senator involved to get it fixed. The barracks who filed the ticket refused to do anything to fix it "it's out of our hands once we file it", and the DOT here who handles the points told me that they wouldn't do anything unless the police refiled. I had to give up and go to a politician to get the points and infraction off of my *drivers* license for right turning at a red light in a park.

I didn't know they ticketed in the park, but after I got ticketed and brought it up with other people, I found the same, that they'd had trouble with "Officer Sid", too. I don't think he had all of his marbles.

Officer sid tickted me for $80, too, which was more than 3 times the legal limit in state law at the time ($25) with the statute specifically saying "no pedalcycle infraction shall be greater than $25 and no points shall be assigned for any pedalcycle infraction". I had some trouble with the DOT because they said they didn't think a bicycle was a pedalcycle, either. You'd think a barracks who does nothing but ticket bicyclists would actually know what the law was, but I guess not.

I didn't talk to sid, he just rambled on and on, but it didn't take me long to look up the law when penndot sent me notice of my points and the reason why i got them. i can't imagine having to call the insurance company to tell them that I turned right at a stop light instead of falling asleep behind the wheel. I'm sure they'd have thought "yeah, right, that's a new one".

Every other police officer I've ever talked to for any reason, including speeding, has been much more courteous and professional.

[John Coloccia]

Well, there might be a reason Sid is on bike watch.

[Jason Roehl]

Well, there might be a reason Sid is on bike watch.

I'm guessing he's only allowed one bullet...

[Phil Thien]

I believe the latest legal theory on this is that you can't be forced to provide passwords, or anything like that, because it's akin to self-incrimination. Obviously, that's the correct call. I believe in some countries in Europe (I forget where off the top of my head) there is legislation that specifically forces you to turn over passwords.

It wasn't too uncommon back in the day for "hackers" to setup their computers so that an incorrect boot sequence would proceed to scramble the hard drive. Maybe the next step is to include a regular password and a doomsday password.

The issue hasn't hit the Supreme Court yet (I don't believe), and some judges have insisted on those keys. This is from Wikipedia (below).

I agree w/ you, this seems pretty cut and dried. The fact that anyone would make legal arguments to the contrary is troubling.

United States[edit]

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves, and there is currently no law regarding key disclosure in the United States. However, the federal case In re Boucher may be influential as case law. In this case, a man's laptop was inspected by customs agents and child pornography was discovered. The device was seized and powered-down, at which point disk encryption technology made the evidence unavailable. The judge argued that since the content had already been seen by the customs agents, Boucher's encryption password "adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information about the existence and location of files that may contain incriminating information."^[22]

In another case, a district court judge ordered a Colorado woman to decrypt her laptop so prosecutors can use the files against her in a criminal case: “I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer,” Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled on January 23, 2012.^[23]

However, in United States v. Doe, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on 24 February 2012 that forcing the decryption of one's laptop violates the Fifth Amendment.^[24][25]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation may also issue national security letters that require the disclosure of keys for investigative purposes.^[26] One company, Lavabit, chose to shut down rather than surrender its master private keys.

[Jim Matthews]

I believe it means that a company must either gather cash either from tireless investors,
or by selling what they have in their possession.

If it's not a product or service, what's left?

[Jim Matthews]

We are powerless as citizens to stem the flow.

Not so.
Treat every public network as compromised.

Be careful what you post online.
Presume that anything travelling along a radio wave
can be detected with antennae.

For most of us, the outrage outweighs reality.
(We're not interesting.)

If this is a serious matter, beyond the point of flustration,
pressure your representatives.

Just don't try to reach them, after the puck drops.

[Curt Harms]

I believe the latest legal theory on this is that you can't be forced to provide passwords, or anything like that, because it's akin to self-incrimination. Obviously, that's the correct call. I believe in some countries in Europe (I forget where off the top of my head) there is legislation that specifically forces you to turn over passwords.

It wasn't too uncommon back in the day for "hackers" to setup their computers so that an incorrect boot sequence would proceed to scramble the hard drive. Maybe the next step is to include a regular password and a doomsday password.

The U.K. has or is working on such legislation. Having a setup where entering a certain password nukes the data files is not a bad idea, even for something like an ATM card. If I enter a certain number my ATM access is disabled until I go through certain steps to re-enable it. For anyone interested in data privacy, read up on Lavabit's travails. I had a lavabit email account and one morning I went to log on and no lavabit. The owner wiped the servers with no warning rather than comply with a court order to provide keys. It's too long to get into here.

[Scott Shepherd]

I considered using Tor years ago (for those that don't know what Tor is, it's free software that links 1000's of computers across the world and allows one to use the internet anonymously). Then I read an article that said that the guts of Tor were created by the military, so they knew how it worked, and basically how to defeat it. If they knew, then you know everyone else knows, so what's the point?

[David Weaver]

If they knew, then you know everyone else knows, so what's the point?

Figure that you or I will not know which software or method really is difficult out there, that most of the rest of the stuff is offered more as a marketing bit to meet demand. If people think they're not being watched or tracked, then they feel better.

It's probably better to assume that everything that we write, partially enter in a box somewhere or view is tracked and logged somewhere. But we are all part of a gigantic group of people doing the same thing, so even if you're embarrassed about something you do online or worried about it, there are probably several million other people doing the same thing.

[John Coloccia]

It's probably better to assume that everything that we write, partially enter in a box somewhere or view is tracked and logged somewhere

Bingo. I've been saying that for years, and I got a lot of flack for it. Oh, I'm a conspiracy theorist...I'm paranoid...etc etc. After the revelations of the past several years, I've noticed how everyone seems to have shut up about it. Simply don't ever type or say anything on a computer or phone that you don't want everyone on the planet to know.

[David Weaver]

I think it's just a realistic think to assume, just as you do John. It's human nature for people who are collecting data to analyze and use to collect absolutely everything they can, even if they're not analyzing it yet. Time and again, even facebook and apple have had to backtrack on their claims and say "oops, we accidentally collected..."

Yeah, right. Accidentally. Accidental elaborate programming that does something very specific.

[Curt Harms]

I think it's just a realistic think to assume, just as you do John. It's human nature for people who are collecting data to analyze and use to collect absolutely everything they can, even if they're not analyzing it yet. Time and again, even facebook and apple have had to backtrack on their claims and say "oops, we accidentally collected..."

Yeah, right. Accidentally. Accidental elaborate programming that does something very specific.

See? The people Apple hires are so good they do more by accident than most of us do on purpose.

No, I don't believe it either.

[Scott Shepherd]

so even if you're embarrassed about something you do online or worried about it, there are probably several million other people doing the same thing.

I'm not embarrassed at all. If you think this is about being embarrassed, you've strongly misunderstood my concern. I don't do anything on the internet that would embarrass me (other than posting stupid things from time to time), but my concern isn't based on embarrassment, it's based on my privacy. I have a right to search for "brain cancer" without that information being sold to a medical company and my general address targeted and mapped as someone looking into "brain cancer", at which time insurance companies are quoting my insurance higher because I keep searching for symptoms of brain cancer. It might be because I know someone that's going through it and I'm trying to learn and help them. However, it's not mapped and sold as such. It's all pinpointed to a unique person and those things are mapped into a profile, one that's not accurate.

If I search for anything, that's my private information. The reasons behind my searches are not your business, not should they be sold to the highest bidder because you're a snake. To me, it's the equivalent of coming to my house and going through my trash, collecting all the information about what I bought or what mail I threw away, then taking that data from my trashcan and selling it to someone. If someone did that at your house, you'd call the police on them, if Google does it, then it's supposed to be okay.

[David Weaver]

[QUOTE=Scott Shepherd;2316697]I'm not embarrassed at all. If you think this is about being embarrassed, you've strongly misunderstood my concern.

It was a generalized comment, not directed at you. Whether or not your search items are sold to someone else is not necessarily a matter of rights, it's a matter of legality. I wouldn't ever search for anything on the internet, or view anything and make the assumption that I can dictate whether or not it can be used, sold, etc. It can, and it will be, and even if it's illegal, it probably still will be. That's just reality at this point.