RE: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
At 10:07 AM 1/14/05 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: It would take some chutzpa, but tacking onto a cops car would send a message Too easy. 5 points for adding to cop's personal car 10 points for adding to cop's spouse's personal car 20 points for adding to cop's mistress' personal car Not sure about point assignments for adding to cop's offspring's car adding to cop's offspring's teacher's car
RE: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
At 10:07 AM 1/14/05 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: It would take some chutzpa, but tacking onto a cops car would send a message Too easy. 5 points for adding to cop's personal car 10 points for adding to cop's spouse's personal car 20 points for adding to cop's mistress' personal car Not sure about point assignments for adding to cop's offspring's car adding to cop's offspring's teacher's car
Re: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
At 12:30 PM 1/12/2005, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? Do you mean that if you discover an unsolicited gift of consumer electronics attached to your car, do you have the right to play with it just as you would if it came in the mail? I would certainly expect so... On the other hand, if it appears to be a lost item, you could be a good public citizen and take it to the police to see if anybody claims it... GPS tracker is an ambiguous description, though. GPS devices detect where they are, but what next? A device could record where it was, for later collection, or it could transmit its position to a listener. Tampering with existing recordings might have legal implications, but putting a transmitter-based system in your nearest garbage can or accidentally leaving it in a taxi or mailing it to Medellin all seem like reasonable activities. Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
Bill Stewart wrote: At 12:30 PM 1/12/2005, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? Do you mean that if you discover an unsolicited gift of consumer electronics attached to your car, do you have the right to play with it just as you would if it came in the mail? I would certainly expect so... Attaching it to another car would seem a suitable prank - someone who travels a lot, on an irregular path - a pizza delivery guy, or a real estate agent. Or perhaps a long distance truck. It would take some chutzpa, but tacking onto a cops car would send a message Peter Trei
Re: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
At 12:30 PM 1/12/2005, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? Do you mean that if you discover an unsolicited gift of consumer electronics attached to your car, do you have the right to play with it just as you would if it came in the mail? I would certainly expect so... On the other hand, if it appears to be a lost item, you could be a good public citizen and take it to the police to see if anybody claims it... GPS tracker is an ambiguous description, though. GPS devices detect where they are, but what next? A device could record where it was, for later collection, or it could transmit its position to a listener. Tampering with existing recordings might have legal implications, but putting a transmitter-based system in your nearest garbage can or accidentally leaving it in a taxi or mailing it to Medellin all seem like reasonable activities. Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
Bill Stewart wrote: At 12:30 PM 1/12/2005, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? Do you mean that if you discover an unsolicited gift of consumer electronics attached to your car, do you have the right to play with it just as you would if it came in the mail? I would certainly expect so... Attaching it to another car would seem a suitable prank - someone who travels a lot, on an irregular path - a pizza delivery guy, or a real estate agent. Or perhaps a long distance truck. It would take some chutzpa, but tacking onto a cops car would send a message Peter Trei
[IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
- Forwarded message from David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:46:47 -0500 To: Ip ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Orwell was an amateur djf -- Forwarded Message From: Lauren Weinstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:38:28 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! Dave, It's time to blow the lid off this no expectation of privacy in public places argument that judges and law enforcement now spout out like demented parrots in so many situations. Technology has rendered that argument meaningless -- unless we intend to permit a pervasive surveillance slave society to become our future -- which apparently is the goal among some parties. It is incredibly disingenuous to claim that cameras (increasingly tied to face recognition software) and GPS tracking devices (which could end up being standard in new vehicles as part of their instrumentation black boxes), etc. are no different than cops following suspects. Technology will effectively allow everyone to be followed all of the time. Unless society agrees that everything you do outside the confines of your home and office should be available to authorities on demand -- even retrospectively via archived images and data -- we are going down an incredibly dangerous hole. I use the slimy guy in the raincoat analogy. Let's say the government arranged for everyone to be followed at all times in public by slimy guys in raincoats. Each has a camera and clipboard, and wherever you go in public, they are your shadow. They keep snapping photos of where you go and where you look. They're constantly jotting down the details of your movements. When you go into your home, they wait outside, ready to start shadowing you again as soon as you step off your property. Every day, they report everything they've learned about you to a government database. Needless to say, most people would presumably feel incredibly violated by such a scenario, even though it's all taking place in that public space where we're told that we have no expectation of privacy. Technology is creating the largely invisible equivalent of that guy in the raincoat, ready to tail us all in perpetuity. If we don't control him, he will most assuredly control us. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com - - - -- Forwarded Message From: Gregory Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Gregory Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:42:03 -0800 (PST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS Dave: For IP if you wish... http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=322152 Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS Decision allows use of vehicle tracking device without a warrant By BRENDAN LYONS, Staff writer First published: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 In a decision that could dramatically affect criminal investigations nationwide, a federal judge has ruled police didn't need a warrant when they attached a satellite tracking device to the underbelly of a car being driven by a suspected Hells Angels operative. [...snip...] All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2005, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y. -- End of Forwarded Message - You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net pgpapoSm29fll.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
Re: the embedded item: http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=322152 Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS Decision allows use of vehicle tracking device without a warrant By BRENDAN LYONS, Staff writer First published: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 In a decision that could dramatically affect criminal investigations nationwide, a federal judge has ruled police didn't need a warrant when they attached a satellite tracking device to the underbelly of a car being driven by a suspected Hells Angels operative. Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? By extension, is there a business opportunity for bug-sweeping? Either a storefront or a properly equipped pickup truck with bright signage. (oh, yeah... I'm sure *that* would go over well with the Powers That Be) -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not It's just this little chromium switch, here. - TFT SpamAssassin-procmail-/dev/null-bliss http://www.rant-central.com
Re: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
Re: the embedded item: http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=322152 Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS Decision allows use of vehicle tracking device without a warrant By BRENDAN LYONS, Staff writer First published: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 In a decision that could dramatically affect criminal investigations nationwide, a federal judge has ruled police didn't need a warrant when they attached a satellite tracking device to the underbelly of a car being driven by a suspected Hells Angels operative. Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? By extension, is there a business opportunity for bug-sweeping? Either a storefront or a properly equipped pickup truck with bright signage. (oh, yeah... I'm sure *that* would go over well with the Powers That Be) -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not It's just this little chromium switch, here. - TFT SpamAssassin-procmail-/dev/null-bliss http://www.rant-central.com
