Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
from the call-up-OED:-'crass'-needs-to-be-redefined dept
There have been a lot of kneejerk reactions to the Boston Marathon bombing. Between certain politicians and pundits quickly turning the horrific event into makeshift planks to support their pet legislation/conspiracy theories and the New York Post cranking out reports so "exclusive" they weren't even true, the internet and airwaves have been filled with the sort of stupidity we've sadly come to expect when tragedy strikes.
Then something comes along that swaggers right up to you and punches you in the face with its breathtaking imbecility. This is Stewart Baker's "contribution" to the national discussion, filed over at the otherwise esteemed Volokh Conspiracy under the heading "Fool Me Once..."
When people say, "The stupid! It burns!" they're usually referring to garden variety stupidity or the occasional bit of advanced moronics that momentarily derails entire comment threads. This thing that Baker has cobbled together out of the stuff he likes best -- surveillance and more surveillance -- towers over other moments of burning stupid like a Wicker Man made entirely from straw. The stupid here doesn't simply burn. It immolates the rational person's mind, replacing coherent arguments with searing, nightmarish pain that reduces responses to stunted internet-native declarations like "wat."
Baker wants us to believe that the EFF and the ACLU are wrong... in both instances. What it actually shows is the EFF/ACLU's consistency on these issues. Unless Baker has heard otherwise, the EFF and ACLU are still against widespread surveillance (along with CISPA). This event, as terrible as it was, doesn't change that stance.
Only someone like Baker, a former DHS "company man" and freelance contributor to the underdeveloped "TSA porn" genre, would take the stance that the FBI's release of camera footage capturing the two bombing suspects' images justifies the massive amount of surveillance many in this country are subjected to in nearly every public space. (His take conveniently ignores the fact that the stills posted by the FBI appear to have been captured by cameras deployed by private businesses.)
Only someone who seems to detest the actions of privacy advocates would insinuate through a disingenuous headline ("What they said about street cameras before the bombing") that the EFF and ACLU would change their views on surveillance after an event like this. They won't. Only fair-weather friends of Constitutional rights and civil liberties change their stances after a tragedy like this. (See also: EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT HAS ENACTED SINCE SEPT. 11, 2001 THAT DEALS WITH NATIONAL "SAFETY" OR "SECURITY.")
And only someone who knows CISPA is a purposely flawed bill aimed at giving the government even more control and surveillance powers would have the gall to cheapen this tragedy by attempting to equate the two using a bullshit "conclusion" hastily MS Painted together and dropped unceremoniously into the blogosphere like a flaming bag of foul-smelling rhetoric on the doormat.
One question, though, Stewart, tied into Boston Marathon as you've done with yours: all of this surveillance, all these increased security measures, all this warrantless wiretapping, all these pat downs and scans at the airport, all of these drones flying all over the world, all these double-secret interpretations of super-secret laws, all of these redacted FOIA responses, all of this Cyber Pearl Harbor hand wringing, all of encroachment of the government into every aspect of American existence?
What did it prevent?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dhs, privacy, stewart baker, surveillance
Companies: aclu, eff
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then the rich, the powerful and the influential will finally realize that they should have taken more care of us in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We're dreaming if we think that these people will get out of their bubble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We're dreaming if we think that these people will get out of their bubble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there's one thing we've learned from our history in a capitalist system, it's that all bubbles burst eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then the rich, the powerful and the influential will finally realize that they should have taken more care of us in the past.
The rich and powerful want a system that only works for them. Since the end of WWII, they've chipped away at the government and the public, making them weaker and weaker.
In the 70s, they attacked the government, took it over and made it the weak... Thing we have today. So we've went from a state capitalist government to a private capitalist government with Reagan being the one at that helm for the past 40 years with regards to his Reagonomics.
The system has failed. We've tried it. The rich got richer while the poor got poorer. Their jobs are in the BRIC countries. The training is in those same places. We have a workforce that has been decimated with people looking for work but finding copyright and patent issues instead of innovation.
The system is the problem. A system that rewards the ones that have the most money is one that is very soon going to collapse when it can no longer protect its weakest members and we're very closely hitting that point.
But to suggest that the rich and powerful will help out the people when the public has already lost so much? That's ignoring the history of what people do in revolutionary movements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> will finally realize that they should have taken
> ore care of us in the past.
Why don't you take care of yourself instead of relying on someone else to do it for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As recently as 10 years ago only 34% of Americans thought that Marijuana should be legal, while 64% said it should be illegal. The most recent data I saw shows 48% now think it should be legal, with only 50% still claiming it should be illegal.
The United States of America did not cement its status as an independent nation overnight just by signing the declaration and telling the King it was so... Progress takes time...education takes time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Especially when everyone keeps smoking marijuana....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They're much closer to that then they think they are. It's very hard to predict timing -- could be next week, could be in 20 years. However, the US government has thrown away its legitimacy and given a very large number of people nothing to lose. Revolution is inevitable. The questions are (a) can we make it a peaceful revolution, and (b) what is going to replace the existing system.
It could, for instance, be replaced by a warlord who actually understood how to keep people happy. I'd prefer not, but it's a definite possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are the alphabet agencies responsible if they were invoved in any way by encouraging or enabling the event?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.minds.com/blog/view/53964/mother-of-boston-bombing-suspects-says-fbi-was-in-con tact-with-her-son-for-years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here are your options.
1. You do nothing and let everyone have access to everyone.
2. You secure the hell out of every place you possibly can so that it becomes less possible to commit crime.
3. You profile better so that you prevent "suspicious" people from have the same freedom of access as other people.
Israeli air security is easy on most, intrusive for a few: "Israel's approach allows most travelers to pass through airport security with relative ease. But Israeli personnel do single out small numbers of passengers for extensive searches and screening, based on profiling methods that have so far been rejected in the United States, subjecting Arabs and, in some cases, other foreign nationals to an extensive screening that comes with a steep civil liberties price."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We could also let citizen patrols replace police. If you aren't a middle aged white guy with a gun, watch out: you're inherently suspicious and one false move, and you're done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Glenn Beck vs. The Citadel: Who Announced Plans for a Libertarian Commune Better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Someone who got both his legs blown off was able to describe them to police in detail, so yes, there was more than just the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Boston Bomb Victim in Photo Helped Identify Suspects - Bloomberg: Just before 3 p.m. on April 15, "Bauman was waiting among the crowd for his girlfriend to cross the finish line at the Boston Marathon. A man wearing a cap, sunglasses and a black jacket over a hooded sweatshirt looked at Jeff, 27, and dropped a bag at his feet, his brother, Chris Bauman, said in an interview. Two and a half minutes later, the bag exploded, tearing Jeff�s legs apart."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
WATCH: Watertown Police Chief�s Epic Minute-By-Minute Account Of Deadly Manhunt | TPMDC: "In Thursday�s confrontation, Deveau described how the suspects allegedly shot Collier in his car then hijacked a separate vehicle, bragging to its owner about their role in Monday�s attack along the way.
'They said "We did the Boston marathon bombing and killed a police officer,"' Deveau recounted."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Runner, spectator capture marathon suspects on camera | Metro News - WCVB Home
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing. Because if you want to bomb something you'll avoid means prone to surveillance. As much as you put up cameras and microphones there will be a point where it'll be impossible to maintain both socially and financially. And at that point there will still be plenty of ways to plan, discuss and execute any terrorist plot.
The only ones affected by this absurd surveillance are innocent people and good-willed activists that pose no threat. And ironically, the idiots that go with "if you have done nothing wrong then you ahve nothing to fear" will be equally affected.
What a brave new world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Before long I expect cameras everywhere, drones in the sky and police/DHS decked out with full military uniform and weaponry, armored vehicles, and bullet-proof checkpoints on state borders. The POTUS will proclaim our 'unyielding strength and unshrinking resolve against fear and terror' or some other such meaningless drivel from his podium, all the while transofrming us into a dictatorship.
That's my prediction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What did it prevent?
I'm sorry, but that's classified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But this is an example once again of how the Government wants to use an event to forward a policy that pretty much has failed. They hope that the fear and terror will get them more power, line more friends pockets with contracts for snake oil, and maybe let them find someone they can arrest in a showy event to justify invading peoples lives much more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That didn't take long
Politics makes me sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a bit of a reminder before anyone gets too excited...this is a former DHS "representative" likely interviewed by FoxNews, MSNBC, or CNN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The true atrocity
Instead of thinking 'how best can we help the survivors and those affected?', it seems the first thing that comes to their demented little minds is 'how best can I use this to further my pet project/beliefs?'
In the end, while those that plan and put into motion events like the boston bombing are deserving off all the contempt and disgust that one can dish out, those who's first instinct is to capitalize on such atrocities for their own selfish ends are just as twisted and deserving of contempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The true atrocity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The true atrocity
> here on visa's...one is dead the other is on
> the lamb
You mean "on the lam". What you wrote is a somewhat humorous mental image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So... Are you still FOR surveillance by Google and Facebook?
And of course you've all seen Schmidt's wacky assertion that doing with a drone what Google does with Streetview would be over-lhe-line horrible:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/15/google_schmidt_civilian_drones_nimby/
The implicit theme here at Techdirt is: gov't surveillance bad; corporate surveillance good -- cause that brings us money.
In fact, ALL surveillance is bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... Are you still FOR surveillance by Google and Facebook?
Provide evidence of Techdirt's endorsement of the "corporate surveillance is good" stance, or please refrain from childishly attempting to cast it in false light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... Are you still FOR surveillance by Google and Facebook?
How can you be so thick that you don't realise this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... Are you still FOR surveillance by Google and Facebook?
Where's the positives of copyright?
Is it moral and ethical to cause more harm enforcing copyright law than any claims of harm caused by copyright infringement? Given you focus all the time on morality, should be a pretty simple question for you to answer.
Oh and good job seeing things written that were never actually written. Plenty of times Mike has criticized Google for their own acts of surveillance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... Are you still FOR surveillance by Google and Facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... Are you still FOR surveillance by Google and Facebook?
And one of the reasons given to oppose CISPA was because it would clear them of liability for doing so. No iknconsistency there.
Railing against excesssive government surveillance does not mean one is okay with excessive corporate surveillance. Not mentioning Google isn't approval; it's simply staying on topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... Are you still FOR surveillance by Google and Facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of a saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reminds me of a saying...
That was actually Rahm Emmanuel that said that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So sayeth the King Of Disingenuous Headlines.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and what about the INNOCENT falsely presumed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benjamin Franklin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Texas Plant Explosion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Texas Plant Explosion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Texas Plant Explosion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CCTV
When the authorities own and network the cameras, they can then use face recognition technology and vehicle tracking technology to track people going about their business. This is a great threat to privacy. Further despite claims to the contrary, cctv does not deter major crime, and is of little help if the criminals are prepared to deal with it, by use of disguises, planned getaway routes etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ad hominem
Now, I'm not one to go by strict logic. If someone is wrong on a regular basis, I'm going to give their arguments less credibility - even if that's not technically sound logic, it works as a filter on what arguments to even seriously consider. But you also can't say the ACLU and EFF are wrong on everything. They do important work protecting liberties, even though I don't always agree with them. So then, what is the point of cherry picking ONE thing that (he thinks) they were wrong on, out of the thousands of issues they deal with? Even if they WERE wrong on one issue, what does that show, except that they were wrong on one issue? Nobody's perfect, especially in the world of political opinions.
It's not like he is even showing that they are making the same or similar arguments in both cases. He doesn't even quote their argument against CISPA, just the fact that they're against it. This makes me think he's afraid to actually show what their argument IS, lest people agree with it. Far safer to just paint them as "wrong" and not give any argument whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ad hominem
I think that may be the problem, given that Baker describes himself as "a privacy skeptic and national security conservative". An interesting juxtaposition of words, to be sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prevent what?
Nice system until it doesn't work, and it never prevented any of it from happening.
Or perhaps we should remember seeing Atta strolling through Portland Jetport on his way to Boston to hijack a plane...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right?
That's what I'm saying. Like every law once it's "in the books" it just stays there hurting innocent people never having to prove it's helping the people it was pushed on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ideological divide
It is wrong and is contributing to the slow destruction of the US. Whether or not it's effective couldn't be less relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surveillance happens all the time now
The FBI enlisted citizen help to find the bombers. At some point I imagine citizens will start monitoring everything themselves, with the positives and negatives that entails. There will be accurate and inaccurate identifications done in citizen forums and perhaps citizen justice (gotta get the NRA in there to protect us).
There will also be increased use of locked communities with private security. Businesses will continue to use their own security and for offices, require IDs to get in and out. Perhaps more public places (e.g., airports) will become private, so that only certain citizens have access to them.
This comment from VC and popular blogger Fred Wilson.
A VC: Evidence On Our Smartphones: "The rise of computers that we all carry with us everywhere, and their ability to capture what is going on around them, time stamp it, and geotag it, creates a ton of interesting opportunities. Including law enforcement opportunities. And I think that is a good thing."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Surveillance happens all the time now
Boston Start-Up Buzzient Offers Social Data to Police on Explosives Chatter - NYTimes.com: "The holy grail would be something similar to what happened with the ricin letters that were sent to the White House: someone who has logged onto a forum, and has logged in with some identifying piece of information � a user name, an e-mail address � has asked particular questions, commented, maybe, on other posts. Someone who has, in effect, self-identified, where someone basically puts out enough information you could say, 'Oh, this person is kind of asking pretty much the same sorts of questions that correspond to what we found in the physical forensics.'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Surveillance happens all the time now
The "plan" is that every citizen will have a camera and augmented reality and can collect data and do IDs on the spot. Want to know the history of everyone around you? It will be available.
Why Is Angry Birds Addictive? Helsinki Pitches to Be a �Neurogaming� Hotspot - Tech Europe - WSJ: �'Connect Google glasses to a headset and you have a whole different beast. Imagine walking around a city with that on and seeing an overlay of how everyone around you is behaving in their minds. Are they relaxed, or stressed? And you could actually see that. Instead of seeing someone�s Facebook status, you could see information about what people�s minds are doing. There�s a lot you could do with that data.'�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prevention
That's a bit of a disingenuous question in itself. If something doesn't happen, how does anyone know about it?
For example, if the security at a presidential speech deterred someone from trying to attempt an assassination, no one will ever know about it.
I don't necessarily support all this "OMG Terrorism!" stuff (TSA's security theater is ridiculous for the most part), but I also like to keep the other side honest too, and your last paragraph/question was anything but.
There may be good reasons to argue against some or all of the things you listed, but "What did they prevent?" isn't one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prevention
I agree. If people feel we need absolutely no security protections, why do we have locked apartment buildings, offices where you need to show an ID to get in, etc. There's always going to be an adjustment between doing too little and doing too much. I continue to raise the issue of what we will have if businesses and citizens take protection, security, and data collection into their own hands. Will that be better or worse than what we have now? Will we be safer? Will we get mob-run lynching?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prevention
If privacy was truly an issue, we'd have companies more careful about privacy. But, no, they are selling our lives in a huge way. So I don't see that they are the least bit concerned about privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prevention
How about the security guy that arrested the would-be assassin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prevention
I'm talking about the assassin who shows up, sees how much security there is, realizes he'll never get past it, and goes home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prevention
If the government ever actually prevented a real terrorist event, they would trumpet the news loudly from the hilltops, over the internet, and over every radio and TV station in the land. The PR and informational warfare gains in doing this would be incalculable. Everyone would know about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prevention
Glad you think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it seems...
behaviour of the terrorists, they knew the cameras were there
and defiantly strolled past them to make their point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference? With civilians incidentally filming me, I know they won't watch my every move as it happens to ensure I'm not breaking some silly law that nobody follows (jaywalking in suburban areas), aren't freaking out because I look middle eastern (well, some may), and won't keep the footage once there was no attack.
I'm fine being caught on random film because I know I'm too ugly for anyone to want to keep a picture of, and aren't keeping it (like the government may) to watch my every move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I assume the opposite. I figure the government doesn't have the manpower to watch everything, but huge corporations do, plus the computer power to match faces and info across lots of different data. I think the real surveillance is already coming from the private sector. And at some point politicians won't bother to debate this. They'll just let the government work with private companies serving as security contractors. The government won't get in the middle of it. Private enterprise will do all the dirty work and if a crime is committed (hopefully private enterprise will prevent it in the first place), private enterprise will identify the suspects and turn them over to the authorities at the appropriate time.
What I am concerned about in letting citizen groups take over crime prevention is a vigilante mentality. But perhaps we're headed there, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not at all asking people to now film things and pan the cameras to try to capture everyone doing everything in case later something happens and provide it to police, but I see how what I said could be interpreted that way.
And yeah, this fascination corporations seem to have with monitoring us disturbs me. They may do it to get our reactions to an ad, so they can better try to brainwash us into buying their products even if we didn't want it and ignore it (thank you Axe bodyspray, but please go the f*** away). And how the government is, via acts like CISPA, is simply demanding companies who gather this info for their own records now pass it to the government for uses we CERTAINLY did not authorize when we signed up for that Netflix account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The data gathering/monitoring industries may want government to get out of the way, but they will make money selling that data and all that goes along with it. I don't think you can separate government in the US or in any country from the companies/people who will profit from the laws or lack of them. I am inclined to think that these days multinationals have far more influence globally than nation-states.
Blaming politicians is convenient, but I'd look more closely at the political/economic systems that have put them there in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You do know what that is, right?
Fascism.
People need to learn to live with either very limited government or very limited companies/people or they become fascist. IMO limited govt. is the right choice. Let companies/people make their own decisions without the support of govt. so they must act in a rational manner. Let's evolve. It will not happen by relying on a destructive crutch. We posses the power to connect, all of us, but we don't really try at all. Sad, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The judicial process now
I wonder how juries will be affected as more instantaneous info becomes the norm. We've always had potential jurors exposed to info before they are picked, so it isn't new, just the degree to which they are likely to see and perhaps be influenced by a much bigger pool of info and opinions.
Tragedy In Real Time: Living A Terrible Week, Vicariously : NPR: "This week, these awful events have cemented the reality that the media is now everyone, anyone, with a computer or a smart phone, a Twitter account or a Facebook page."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The judicial process now
"Runner, spectator capture marathon suspects on camera. Photographer uses time stamp to narrow search of crowd."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The judicial process now
Runner, spectator capture marathon suspects on camera | Metro News - WCVB Home
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Private contractors will take over the monitoring
Lindsey Graham: FBI 'Dropped Ball' In Boston - Business Insider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good summary of what I have been posting
Boston Bombers Caught by Cops, Community, Cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with "secret surveillance" is that...it is secret. You can't use the information it accumulates, because doing so reveals your surveillance capability, which is...secret.
You can have all that information, and gloat over it like Scrooge McDuck gloats over the money in his bin, but you can't use it.
That is perhaps the worst aspect of all this surveillance: That it is justified by its supposed value while in reality it is valueless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I understand how secret means it can't disclose what you are doing to the public, but what prevents you from "using" it? Companies use processes all the time that they don't disclose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'll go a step further and say that I think companies KNOW this. I view the "anti-government" crusade as a diversionary tactic. Companies have the info. They are using it to their advantage. If they paint government as the issue, maybe you won't notice what the companies are doing with your data.
Look, we've just seen the extent to which citizens have gotten involved in police work. Break down the walls between government, private enterprise, and citizens and we'll see how it all turns out. I'm hoping more work will be done by citizens to monitor environmental hazards. Laws may try to prevent it, but if leaks are happening on your property and you're shooting photos on your property and then posting them online, it is going to get out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]