Loss of Privacy

The controversy over the full body scanners at airports hasn’t even died down yet and they are starting to be used in vans roving around US streets. According to Forbes, “American Science & Engineering, a company based in Billerica, Massachusetts, has sold U.S. and foreign government agencies more than 500 backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in vans that can be driven past neighboring vehicles to see their contents.”

The Z Backscatter Vans, or ZBVs, as the company calls them, bounce a narrow stream of x-rays off and through nearby objects, and read which ones come back. Absorbed rays indicate dense material such as steel. Scattered rays indicate less-dense objects that can include explosives, drugs, or human bodies. That capability makes them powerful tools for security, law enforcement, and border control.

“It’s no surprise that goverments and vendors are very enthusiastic about [the vans],” says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC. “But from a privacy perspective, it’s one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable.”

It’s no surprise that law enforcement are so happy about these vans. They can infringe on your privacy without you even knowing about it. AS&E claims that there isn’t a need to worry about these vans because they don’t see as well as the airport scanners. They are attempting to deflect privacy advocates from the fact that these vans still violate a person’s privacy and their fourth amendment rights. Unlike the airports and the TSA, AS&E freely admit that these scanners can save the pictures that it takes.

New York Attorney general candidate Richard Brodsky has released his privacy platform detailing what laws he believes need to be changed to fit with our changing technology and the internet.

The information age has forced us to revisit our right to privacy. Technology has been a force for change, both good and bad. It has connected people around the world and eased daily life while simultaneously created a potential “surveillance society.” New technology has resulted in vast networks of cameras on highways monitoring traffic, allowed online advertisers to monitor and mine a person’s detailed internet activity, and created law enforcement’s ability to “enter” a home remotely—by thermal heat detectors and other means.

Privacy White Paper_final

Last May, the University of California at Berkeley asked incoming freshmen to voluntarily submit blood samples for DNA testing. The university said it was to help determine which genes controlled the body’s responses to alcohol, dairy products and folic acid. The change in the policy isn’t that they won’t be requesting the samples, but that no one will receive individual results. Because the university must comply with regulations, they will only reveal the collective results of all students who give samples.

In response to a state Public Health Department ruling on how DNA samples should be handled, UC Berkeley scientists reluctantly abandoned the idea to have freshmen and transfer students individually and confidentially learn about three of their own genetic traits. Instead, only collective results for all the 1,000 or so participants will be available and discussed at the orientation seminars next month.

Mark Schlissel, UC Berkeley’s dean of biological sciences and an architect of the DNA program, said he disagreed with the state Department of Public Health’s ruling that the genetic testing required advance approval from physicians and should be done only by specially-licensed clinical labs, not by university technicians. The campus could not find labs willing to do the work and probably could not afford it anyway, Schlissel said. He also contended that the project deserved an exemption from those rules because it was an educational exercise.

The university offered to test the gene variations that affect people’s reactions to three substances: alcohol, lactose and folic acid. Students were asked to provide the school with a swab of cells from inside the mouth.

Berkeley officials contend that the test results would not be medically significant. But the program was controversial with privacy advocates and ethicists complaining that it presented an unprecedented and disturbing use of genetic data by a university.

Many students had felt that they were coerced into giving a saliva sample and that the program was not really voluntary. Berkeley has promised that they will destroy the samples once the tests are completed, however some questions still linger. Many are still unsure exactly how the samples will be used. They will have the data. Creating a new test would be easy. If students give up their DNA, they probably also give up how it’s used once it is turned over to the university.

Officials from the Federal Communications and Federal Trade Commissions testified on their agencies’ efforts to protect consumers’ online privacy.

Video is 1 hour, 1 minute long. Transcript.

Juan Carlos Vera is suing James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles in federal court for violating The Invasion of Privacy Act. It turns out the only ones breaking any laws were the conservative activists. The “reporting” was illegal by the laws of California. The video was also heavily edited, which led to an honorable man losing his job.

It is also important to remember that O’Keefe’s claims are now under scrutiny because of his heavy editing. No other ACORN member filed any paperwork for O’Keefe and the only unedited version we’ve seen, shows the dubious practices that O’Keefe went to in order to tell his version of the story. They never uncovered any crime and lied about what they saw.

ACORN was founded in 1970. It’s purpose was to help poor people register to vote and then to actually go and vote. They also helped the poor in finding affordable housing and other social services. Since they’ve shut down, who’s going to help the poor now?

I don’t suppose Sean Hannity will be apologizing now.