Loss of Privacy

The US Copyright Office issued a release today on the exemptions of circumventing copyright protections. While distribution of abandonware is still technically illegal, the archiving of it is not. Thus, if you are archiving your very old software, it’s okay to circumvent the copyright protections in place to preserve the item for the future.

The list of exemptions is as follows:

The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years.

These exemptions went into effect upon publication in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006, and will remain in effect through October 27, 2009.

We will have to wait and see if there is ever a clarification on these exemptions because, it could be argued that, since we still have computers that can run these programs, they aren’t technically abandonware. On the other hand, it could qualify as abandonware because they were designed to run on now obsolete machines and some of these programs will not work on modern computers without some sort of emulator or other circumvention tool.

Though there remains some debate, there is a big enough loophole included in the new exemptions that should allow common people to safely archive their software without too much fear of reprisal from the government. Just don’t sell it.

Late last month, there were a few stories that appeared in the news concerning British Airways‘ policy to segregate children from men on flights. At the heart of the matter is the accusation that all men are pedophiles and shouldn’t be allowed to sit next to children on BA flights.

Boris Johnson, MP for Henley on Thames, wrote on his website last week as well as the Telegraph about the ridiculous notion that all men are being lumped together with a small minority of perverts. Boris, you see, was flying with his children to India when a flight attendant told him he had to have his seat moved because BA had very strict rules. The rules are that men cannot sit next to children. After his children protested that “he’s our father,” BA relented and let Boris return to his seat. How the flight attendant didn’t connect that these kids were Boris’ is beyond me.

I mention all this because the same absurd kerfuffle happened this week. Some child was put next to an ancient journalist and his wife on a flight, and the airline (BA again) went into spasm. As the hoo-ha raged, the press turned to the lobby groups, and someone called Pam Hibbert of Barnardo’s obliged with the usual bossyboots quote. The ban on sitting children next to adults was “eminently sensible”, said this eminently ridiculous figure.

I mean, come off it, folks. How many paedophiles can there be? Are we really saying that any time an adult male finds himself sitting next to someone under 16, he must expect to be hustled from his seat before the suspicious eyes of the entire cabin?

Indeed, why are all men considered pedophiles? Have BA not read that many pedophiles also abuse those who are related to them or that family members are more likely to abuse? Surely, Boris should have been moved even though he was the father of these children. I mean, we have to protect the children, even on a flight filled with many people who would see a child being abused and, most likely, beat the crap out of the pedophile before the flight could land. Sorry folks, I highly doubt that pedophiles would abuse a child on a flight where there are hundreds of witnesses. Get a clue BA!

And, since airlines do not allow children to fly alone, just who do you think people are trusting with the care of their children? They’re not sending Johnny the pedophile on the flight with the child! How many times have you, as a passenger, seen a child on a flight that was not with a relative? My own nephew flew alone, arranged ahead of time with the airline, and a male flight attendant kept an eye on him and helped him get his connecting flight from home to visiting me. Of course this was in 2000 when people still seemed to have common sense.

This problem, however, doesn’t end with airlines. It has reached into education to the point where males want no part of a career as a teacher. Besides the paltry pay, men cannot take their students on school trips without an adult female with him. It is because all men are now seen as being “up to something” when they have a desire to be around children.

These draconian policies do nothing but harm everyone in society. Is pedophilia a problem? Yes, it is, but they are a minority of the population. It is not such a huge problem that you have to get the PC police out and start pointing fingers at anyone and everyone. All that these policies enforce is more fear and paranoia and further fragments society.

So, now that we have Muslims targeted on every flight, we’ve moved on to men and labeled them. Next comes the women. Incidents of women abusing young men are starting to make the headlines. Despite the women being convicted of their crimes, it’s still not considered that big of a deal. I suspect this mostly comes from the fact that a teenage boy having sex with an older woman is considered a cool thing. But, how long do we have before we start pointing fingers at women who hug their children or relatives’ children in public?

Children are also not exempt from these policies. They know what the rules are and know how to exploit them. Don’t like a teacher? It’s okay, just accuse him of touching you. It doesn’t matter that it’s later found out that you lied. The man’s career is most likely ruined.

By systematically eliminating male authority from society, we’ve created people that are afraid of their own shadow. Men do not want to be in certain professions, such as education, because there is the assumption that they are up to something before their even start their jobs. Then, they are watched like hawks by administrations that fear lawsuits and criticism. Why would one want to subject themselves to such things on a daily basis?

Isolating children from society also harms the children that you are trying to protect. They grow up not knowing or understanding the warning signs of danger as well as not knowing how to behave later in life. They lack the understanding of how society works, creating confusion and eliminating common sense.

Now that men are unfit to be around children, the state can happily move in and raise them to be good consumers and followers of the day’s party line. One only need to read the comments in the Telegraph article to see the fear that men already have when they are in public. We are teaching our children that affection is wrong, in any sense, and that if there are displays of affection then the person must be a pedophile and they should run away.

I hope that everyone, not just men, step up and complain to BA and everyone else who will listen. If we continue down this course we will be turning humanity over to the next generation that does not understand what it is to be human, how to behave towards people, and how to have compassion for others. We need to stop fearing everything and get back to enjoying life for what it is. I will not stop enjoying life because of what someone else may think of me. There are dangers in life.  There always will be, but I will continue to treat children as I always have and refuse to give in to the paranoia and fear. Then again, I’m a woman so I don’t have anything to worry about….yet.

This is a dragonfly that decided to hang out at my place for a little while.  He let me get close enough to touch him before he flew away.

Every day you read the news, you discover that more of our assumed privacies have been taken away and the governments of the world continue to tell us that this is all for our own good. We are told that we need these small steps taken because we have to fight crime and deter terrorism. We are, essentially, a transparent society now, ready and willing to give up anything to procure our “safety” for a little while longer.

I have written many times about our once thought inalienable rights being eroded, yet, it never seems to stop. Our governments keep finding new ways to overstep their bounds and defy the laws that we have held sacred for so many years. No one batted an eye when word came that the US government is planning its first unmanned flights over the USA with their Global Hawk spy drones.

The planes are designed to fly at high altitudes for 40 hour-missions covering as much as 10,000 miles, mostly providing aerial surveillance. The aircraft, which can cost more than $80 million each, can reach an altitude of 65,000 feet and send back high-resolution imagery.

Isn’t this nice. Just how is this going to prevent crime and terrorism? It isn’t. It’s just another excuse to spy on Americans, and we seem perfectly content to let it happens. After all, it will prevent crime because the government says it will prevent crime.

Facial recognition software is going to mine all the driver’s licenses in Holyoke and Northampton, Massachusetts. According to the police chief in Holyoke, it’s been in use since May by the Massachusetts DMV. Isn’t it nice that we find out in late November? They claim it’s a nice tool to catch criminals. Yes, but what if you’re not registered with the DMV and you’re a criminal? I guess the police will have to actually do some work to catch you. This system is good for catching people who apply for multiple licenses and ID theft but that’s about it. Well, you think that until you realize that they are going to hook this system into their fingerprint database.

And it’s not just Massachusetts, other states, such as Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Oregon, Texas, and Iowa are getting in on the act too. Their claim is that it will prevent identity theft. What happens when you go to renew your license and the computer claims you aren’t you? Well, you get to sit in a jail until someone clears the problem up. In the meantime, you could lose everything you have.

Police want to use these technologies in the field, which, in conjunction with the new capabilities of tracking cell phones, should allow law enforcement to let more computers do their job while they sit back and relax. Cell phone companies are starting to offer services where you can track the locations of contacts in your phone book that are within 25 miles of you to see where they are. Now, you can be just like the FBI, who have the capability to tap cell phones, even when they are off!

Sure, a court told the FBI that they can’t spy on people using OnStar or other dashboard computers, but, if it’s in the name of stopping terrorism, I’m sure the case will be overturned. You can read the judge’s opinion, as well as other information [pdf], but, don’t be surprised when this eventually becomes commonplace. Most people already think it’s a good idea.

We also have nifty new Citigroup ATMs being rolled out in India where you give out your thumbprint to access your money. This is aimed at the illiterate in India so that Citigroup can get their grubby paws on even more people’s money.

The machines will recognise account holders’ thumbprints, eliminating the need for a personal identification number, and will have colour-coded screen instructions and voiceovers to help guide them through transactions.

Aw, isn’t that nice that they are being so helpful to the illiterate? Now, instead of theives stealing your wallet, they just need to steal your thumbprint. If you’ve seen Mythbusters, these devices have been fooled before, often in the crudest of manners. Perhaps they want to move to scanning your retina instead. As we know, retinas can’t be faked either.

Next, we have the ACLU fighting the government’s admission that we’re all on a terror list.  We’ve all been given a terror number and they’re going to keep records on you for forty years.  They will know every single thing you have done in connection to flying.  All the ACLU can do is call for a withdraw of the list because they can’t fight it in court.  A huge uproar followed when the government tried to pass a similar program under CAPPS II.  Now, however, because people aren’t paying attention, the DHS is claiming that they are exempt from the Privacy Act of 1974 and can do whatever the hell they like.

The latest and greatest way to prevent terrorism is the all new x-ray machines that show the entire outline of your body. Isn’t technology wonderful? It’s even better than the x-ray machines in Total Recall. Security concerns be damned! This is too cool not to be used. Oh, and we promise we won’t abuse the machine or have other people sneak into the room and have a look either.

The last, and most frightening thing I heard this week was about the radio host who pulled a prank stating that Muslims should be tagged with tattoos so we can readily identify them. It was amazingly scary how many people agreed with him and wanted to take further steps, such as segregating the Muslim population and deporting all Muslims. The radio host, Jerry Klein, did it as a way to expose bigotry towards Muslims.

If we have gone so far, that we are willing to publicly brand people who don’t fit in with our ideology, then, I believe, we truly are at the point where Godwin’s law is moot. We are walking around in a world that is ready to give up tiny shreds of privacy for a little convenience and perceived safety. We start with the unsuspecting poor and then we move on to the general masses, claiming that you won’t have to worry about anything because the government is there to take care of you.

The government will assure that they get cash in their pockets. They don’t care about you, they never have. They do care about spying on everyone and knowing all there is about every human being on the planet. Imagine if someone like J. Edgar Hoover had these capabilities.

We don’t need a transparent society. It doesn’t help to save anyone from anything. It only adds you to the list of people who are already guilty. These devices are supposed to be for criminals, not for making criminals out of everyone. Trust me. If you really don’t want to be constantly watched and spied upon, you need to be more vigilant in keeping watch over your own government. It’s your duty to ensure that everyone has the freedoms and privacy that our grandparents had and to keep our government out of our lives.

The UK is at is again. We worry here in the USA that our right to privacy is slowly being taken away, while the UK is slashing all it away in such a fast manner that is becoming difficult to keep up with everything the British are doing. The latest scheme is the implementation of roadside fingerprint scanning. Of course, it’s being touted, yet again, that this will be a tool used to help fight crime.

Police say the device could save vast amounts of time and resources by identifying suspects on the spot rather than taking them to a police station — should their prints be on the national database.

Estimates suggest it could save police more than 2.2 million pounds (4.2 million dollars, 3.3 million euros) per year.

Is saving a few million worth the lawsuits and abuse that these devices will incur? And what will happen after your print is scanned? If you’re not already in the database will your print now go into the database or will it be erased as soon as the police figure you’re not guilty of anything? How long before people are stopped under “suspicion” of something just so that the British government can attain their goal of fingerprinting every person in the UK?

Right now, this program is in the testing phase, but how long will it be before it’s implemented nationally? How long before it’s no longer voluntary to give up your fingerprints? You already have the Home Office wanting people to be arrested for all types of offenses, including minor crimes such as graffiti and littering. Once you’re arrested, they also want mandatory drug tests from everyone who has been arrested. Yes, they would still have to pass a necessity (probable cause) test, but how hard is that to make up? Are you seeing the slippery slope forming in the Home Office?

It doesn’t matter that they promise not to abuse the system. It doesn’t matter that they say your fingerprints will not be kept in a database. We know that this WILL happen. Every single time we have had measures like this implemented, it has been abused. Your information has been placed in some sort of database. Remember when they said they wouldn’t keep DNA in a database and then it was discovered that the police were keeping an illegal DNA database? What happened then? That’s right. The law was changed to make the database legal.

I suspect that, soon, the British police will also begin using the newly invented dipsticks to detect drugs at the scene. Once you begin to have all these devices on hand, on the scene, that money that you just saved by having handhelds on the police officer is now counteracted by the lawsuits and allegations of tampering.

So, everyone will be stopped by police, have your license plate scanned, be given a Breathalyzer test, have their fingerprint scanned, and be checked for drugs. Your police officer will also be a CSI. Sure, you will still be able to refuse these tests at the roadside, but the police can also arrest you and then you have to explain yourself to a judge as to why you would refuse a duly appointed police officer’s request. I suspect as well that the law will be changed in the UK so that you won’t be able to leave your house without giving an implied consent to being searched in any manner the police want.

Britain has already become a surveillance society and have recently added the ability to have their CCTV cameras talk to and listen to people on the street.

The police now have the following to fight crime and prevent terrorism: 360-degree helmet cams, RFID in stores (okay more so the police can just show up later and arrest you), video surveillance everywhere, smart passports, DNA databases, and the ability to take your fingerprints. Are you happy that you’re so well protected from the bad guys?

And don’t forget the national ID scheme Tony Blair is pushing that is supposed to come into effect in 2009 and will be mandatory in 2010.

He told his monthly news briefing all non-EU nationals will need them to work or access public services from 2008.

But he also confirmed the timetable for Britons’ cards has slipped to 2009.

The Tories and Lib Dems oppose ID cards – which are not due to become compulsory until at least 2010 – and say they would scrap them if they got into power.

I’ve been worried that the USA is starting to turn into a police state but, if I lived in the UK, I’d be terrified. If I were British, I’d be actively seeking another place to live. All this overreaching into people’s lives by the police is getting completely out of control and the British people seem to be just sitting back and taking it. Don’t worry though, if you haven’t done anything wrong, then there isn’t anything to worry about. I’m innocent so there’s no reason not to comply, right?