Loss of Privacy

When the Olympics being next year in Beijing, China will have completed the most sophisticated and pervasive surveillance system the world has ever known. It will have the ability to scan the streets to find and identify troublemakers as well as terrorists with the help of IBM’s Smart Surveillance System, or S3. The system is designed to issue alerts whenever certain patterns are detected, allowing security officials to keep track of those entering and exiting buildings, following particular cars, and tracing old data to find new vulnerabilities.

A similar system has been designed for lower Manhattan, however, due to current protests, it has not been implemented yet. Beijing’s S3 is already being phased in so that it will be 100% tested when the games begin.

IBM is also integrating the S3 system into the city of Chicago’s existing surveillance infrastructure, as part of the city’s Operation Virtual Shield emergency response project.

This all reminds me of another little incident where IBM was involved, claimed ignorance of what was happening, and walked away with piles of cash.

But as the first authoritarian regime to host an Olympics since the former Yugoslavia in 1984, China also presents particular challenges. Long after the visitors leave, security industry experts say, the surveillance equipment Western companies leave behind will provide authorities here new tools to track not only criminals, but dissidents too…..Indeed, the autumn issue of the Chinese Public Security Ministry’s magazine prominently listed places of worship and Internet cafes as locations to install new cameras.

This all leads to a scary redefining of what “public” really is, with far too many people caving in and accepting the changes.

20 years ago, there was no expectation whatsoever that being in “public” meant your every move would be tracked by government officials potentially hundreds of miles away, and then stored for all time. That’s not what “public” meant. People had an expectation that yes, anybody who was around you could potentially be watching you, but that kept it a relatively level playing field because you could pretty easily identify any threats to your privacy and avoid them if you like. If you were walking down an empty side street and needed to quickly adjust your belt because your pants were too loose, you could look around and do so without fear that cops are watching ready to jump you for “reaching for a concealed explosive” or even “intent to expose oneself in public” or whatever other nonsense law they can come up with.

That is the expectation we have always had for what “public” means – yes, you can be watched, but only by those around you, and that means that you can easily watch them back. Being able to be watched – and recorded – by someone many miles away is not what “public” means to me or anybody else. That’s an intrusion, just like any other. You are being watched by people who are not there. And you have no idea what they’re thinking or doing, even while they can watch your every move. It’s a completely one-sided relationship where the other side has all the power. That’s scary. And it’s the exact opposite of what “being in public” is all about.

We don’t need to redefine what public means, we need to take back its original meaning. Nobody should be allowed to watch a space that they do not own (ie. a public space) without being physically present.

When you combine systems like this with the numerous ID programs being installed all over the world, you will see people’s every movement tracked within five years. Five years after that, all dissidents, of any type, will be tracked and people will be disappearing for some re-education.

A new law recently enacted in New Jersey now prohibits sex offenders in that state from gaining access to the Internet unless necessary for their employment or while performing job searches.

“We live in scary times,” Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey said before signing the bill he sponsored in the state Senate. “Parents have to worry about people preying on their kids even while they’re in the safety of their own homes.”

Not if you paid attention to your kids and taught them of the dangers, as well as monitoring their own activities, which is what a parent should be doing anyway.

Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, D-Mercer, said the new law, which she co-sponsored, provides a needed update to Megan’s Law, which requires sex offenders to register with the state after being released from prison.

Ah, yes, because completing a prison sentence no longer means you are rehabilitated and safe to society.  When you are released from prison, you have done your time and are no longer a danger to others in society.  Now, however, law makers have amended that to, “We let you out but we still don’t trust you.”  If the prisoner is not safe to be released back into society, then why let them go?

“When Megan’s Law was enacted, few could envision a day when a sex offender hiding behind a fake screen name would be a mouse-click away from new and unwitting victims,”

Uh, anyone with a brain knew about anonymity online and that there was potential abuses of that happening.  Just because law makers put their heads into the sand doesn’t mean the dangers went away.  By ignoring the problem, they allowed an entire generation of children to grow up without the necessary education that is required for being on the Internet.

The state Parole Board currently supervises about 4,200 paroled sex offenders whose sentencing guidelines call for lifetime supervision – regardless of whether their original involved the Internet. The board last month approved new rules banning those convicts from using Internet social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace.

Yes, because social networking sites are the only places online where sex offenders and children hang out.

There are those that say this is a good law, however, they aren’t looking at the bigger picture.  If you completely restrict sex offenders from going anywhere near a place that a child might be, where are they to go other than their own homes?  Once this law is enforced upon sex offenders, it is likely that other criminals will also be added to the list.

Several of the current sex offenders affected by this law never used the Internet to commit their crimes, yet, because of the lack of foresight amongst lawmakers, they are subject to the same ban.

Bill S1979 gives the state broad authority to regulate a sex offender’s computer and Internet usage so long as the person remains on parole. And the law is tough: anyone who uses a computer to help commit sex crimes will be prohibited from using computers or the Internet at all. The State Parole Board may also impose restrictions at its discretion on offenders even if they did not use computers to plan their crimes.

So, once your time on parole is done, you can still go get your computer, hook up to the Internet and tell the New Jersey law makers to shove it.  This is yet more legislation that isn’t entirely well thought out.

This law will only make stupid parents sleep easier at night.  Knowledgeable parents will know that this does little to protect their children.  It merely appeases those who believe in false senses of security.

We all know that China severely censors the Internet. Last week, Australia announced their plans for censoring online content. Now, Japan has decided to join the fray and regulate online communications.

Japanese government ministries have decided to regulate [pdf] web content, cell phone access, and file sharing. Web content will broadly cover anything that’s on the Internet. This includes, but is not limited to web pages and personal blogs. Social networking sites, forums, bulletin boards and chat rooms will be restricted by mandatory filtering of cell phone access for anyone under 18. While it’s obvious that file sharing will target illegal downloads, it is vague enough that streaming media sites, such as Google video and YouTube could also be included.

Of concern to some Japanese is the ability that others have to post anonymously online, often slandering others, ruining their lives, posting their personal information, including their medical histories, and creating outright lies in an effort to defame others. Unfortunately, Japan has a large problem with such people, however, the laws they wish to enforce are so vague that almost everything on the Internet can fall into the “deemed harmful” category.

The FBI’s new plan to collect and store a massive biometric database has more than just a few “fringe” people worried.

“The goal to have a comprehensive data base to track terror suspects, criminals, that sort of thing. I think it’s a wonderful goal,” said Hostin. “But you have to be very careful, because what if the wrong person is in that database? That is something that can follow you forever.”

Once the biometric information is in the wrong hands, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to repair your FBI record.  If your credit card is stolen, you simply call the company and get the card canceled.  You can’t do that with your eyes.

“You’re giving the federal government access to an extraordinary amount of information linked to biometric identifiers that is becoming increasingly inaccurate,” said Marc Rotenberg, the executive director for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

The Australian Privacy Foundation has led a successful campaign in eliminating proposed legislation for a National ID.  While the Australian government had tried numerous times to convince people that the card was a “Human Services Access Card,” one only need to read the legislation to see that it was, indeed, a National ID card.

Encrypted information contained within the card’s RFID chip would have included a person’s legal name, date of birth, gender, address, signature, card number, card expiration date, and Medicare number. Provisions were also included that would allow additional information deemed to be necessary for either “the administration or purposes of the Act.”

Much like the American REAL-ID, the Australian card would be “adjustable” and further information that the government randomly decides is necessary could be added to the card at any time.  Fortunately, the new government in Australia has scrapped the idea.  It’s too bad that REAL-ID isn’t going the same route.