Summer Surveillance Campaign - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/09/2004 09:00:12 AM · #1

Dont let the Matrix become real: //www.aclu.org/pizza/

Dr.Confuser

Nikon D800

08/09/2004 10:34:49 AM · #2

Brilliant!

08/09/2004 01:11:30 PM · #3

bump, fight against what our future could become.

08/09/2004 01:33:10 PM · #4

"The government and corporations are aggressively collecting information about your personal life and your habits. They want to track your purchases, your medical records, and even your relationships. The Bush Administration's policies, coupled with invasive new technologies, could eliminate your right to privacy completely. Please help us protect our privacy rights and prevent the Total Surveillance Society"

You say that we should fight against what our future could become. How do we fight it, without giving aid and comfort to those who would conspire and plot to destroy us under the cover that "fighting" it would provide? Answer that question, and I'll join the fight.
As for me, I sincerely believe that those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

Ron

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/09/2004 01:38:57 PM · #5

Amendments to the Constitution
Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/09/2004 01:45:20 PM · #6

Brilliant little horror film there thanks for sharing. We may however be too late to stop this sort of thing.

As Scott McNealy founder of Sun Microsystems put it " Privacy is over, get over it." He argues that so much information is collecting these days in discrete computer systems that our old notions of privacy are finished and that the only battle left is wether we can see into big buisness and big government as well as they can watch us. Will society become transparent, or are we going to have a one way mirror?

08/09/2004 01:51:22 PM · #7

Originally posted by RonB:

I sincerely believe that those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

Ron

History is chock full of good examples of how this is obviously false. I may for example not want the current or future government to know what my religious beliefs are, to pull an example out of the recent past. Or I may not want my employer to know where I am every hour of every day, by tracking my cell phone location.

This BBC radio transcript from a recent broadcast is interesting reading in this regard too
//news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/05_08_04.txt

GALLAGHER: Obviously the implication of the
theory of nothing to hide, nothing to fear is that privacy is a right which
protects the guilty; privacy is a right which protects Ian Huntley rather
than a right which protects the average, ordinary, law-abiding member
of the public. But I think that that rationale is deeply flawed and that
the average law-abiding citizen does have much to fear actually from
privacy invasion â�� not because the citizen intends to do anything wrong
or has done anything wrong, but I think that the state should assume
that all individuals have nothing to hide unless it has a specific
compelling reason to believe otherwise.

In general, I think it should be a question of why should they know, not why shouldn't they collect the information on every
member of the public. But I know, think of the children, what about the terrorists, etc etc.

Message edited by author 2004-08-09 14:02:26.

08/09/2004 01:54:12 PM · #8

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Yep. That's Article IV all right. But what's your point?
Do you have some (factual) examples where this Article has not been upheld? e.g. wher a search was unreasonable, or warrants were issues without probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation?
Oh, and were you intending to answer my direct question or trying to get away with diverting attention with a non-relevant response? In case you skipped over it in your rush to respond, the question was:

"How do we fight it, without giving aid and comfort to those who would conspire and plot to destroy us under the cover that "fighting" it would provide?"

Ron

08/09/2004 02:02:00 PM · #9

Pretty much Ron, I value my privacy. A right the 4th amendment gives me. What I originally posted was what appeared a possible future for us, one in which we would not have privacy. I am against that.

08/09/2004 02:06:25 PM · #10

deleted - double post - see below.

Message edited by author 2004-08-09 14:12:45.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

08/09/2004 02:10:25 PM · #11

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:
I sincerely believe that those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

Ron

History is chock full of good examples of how this is obviously false.

This BBC radio transcript from a recent broadcast is interesting reading in this regard too

//news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/05_08_04.txt[/url]

First of all, it is not "obviously false". A belief cannot be "obviously false" - in fact, by it's very nature, a belief is "obviously true". It actually IS my obelief. That it is my belief is a FACT. I can prove it. I stated it as my belief, and I herewith reaffirm that it is, indeed, my belief. So, hopefully that makes it more obvious that it IS true, than that it is false.
Secondly, thanks for the link, but it doesnt' sway my belief at all. I didn't read the entire link in detail, but read enough to observe that the only "problems" that were identified were those cases where, indeed, those who had something to hide were the only ones with something to fear. Examples were things like growing marijuana under high powered lights in your house ( if it was African Violets, what would you have to fear? ), and having your location tracked through your cell phone ( if you didn't go where you shouldn't be, what would you have to fear? ). Hence, I repeat my belief:

Those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

Ron [/quote]

Message edited by author 2004-08-09 14:11:35.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

08/09/2004 02:10:55 PM · #12

Since this is not a general discussion about anything photography, and since it seems that it is becoming a political discussion, I am making the decision to move it to rant, though it has actually been civil to this point.

Apologies in advance if I offend anyone.

Apologies in the future, if need be.

08/09/2004 02:12:11 PM · #13

Originally posted by RonB:

Those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

Before anyone invokes Godwin's Law, I reject it in this case.

The registration of Jews in Germany would be a good example. Nothing to hide surely.

As to tracking with cell phones: Suppose I happened to be interviewing with another company and my employer tracks that, via my cellphone location. Sure, I shouldn't be doing this on company time, but there is nothing to say I am doing it on company time. Nothing to hide - who would ever want to change their job obviously.

Does my employer have rights to access all of my previous medical histories ?

If you have nothing to hide, would you mind if I googled your health records ? Perhaps had access to all of your bank account details ? After all, you've got nothing to hide so no doubt you wouldn't mind sharing your tax records with everyone. I'm sure the pizza delivery guys would be happy to recommend food choices based on your medical status.

Would you care if your boss knew how you voted in the last election ?
How about if he voted for the opposite candidate - surely you've got nothing to hide so it shouldn't matter if that is available. Maybe your
entire church should have access to your medical and 'voting' history - after all, they could just go round and have a quiet talk with anyone who didn't vote the same way - nothing to hide and no reason to not want anyone to know - obviously.

All of the above ignores the normal issues of incorrect data entry, duplicate entries and other very common computer data errors. There is a photographer in another forum who happens to share the same first and last name with a convicted paedophile who lives in the same metropolitan area. I'm sure that is very easy to explain away when people mix them up. Nothing to fear at all. Would be much easier with more people having access to that information too.

Credit reports are good examples of plenty of incorrectly entered information that is such a breeze to get fixed too.

Message edited by author 2004-08-09 14:19:54.

08/09/2004 02:16:46 PM · #14

Originally posted by RonB:

You say that we should fight against what our future could become. How do we fight it, without giving aid and comfort to those who would conspire and plot to destroy us under the cover that "fighting" it would provide? Answer that question, and I'll join the fight.
As for me, I sincerely believe that those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

Ron

//www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=16021&c=39 appeared to be the suggested way to take action.

08/09/2004 02:20:51 PM · #15

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

And that answers the questin how???? To refresh your memory, the question was

"How do we fight it, without giving aid and comfort to those who would conspire and plot to destroy us under the cover that "fighting" it would provide?"

Ron

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/09/2004 02:25:52 PM · #16

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Pretty much Ron, I value my privacy. A right the 4th amendment gives me. What I originally posted was what appeared a possible future for us, one in which we would not have privacy. I am against that.

And that answers the questin how???? To refresh your memory, the question was

"How do we fight it, without giving aid and comfort to those who would conspire and plot to destroy us under the cover that "fighting" it would provide?"

Ron

I would ask the question in another way, if that's helpful:

In what way does this data collection help to stop those who conspire and plot to destroy us?

Answer that, then there may be a point to introducing the information gathering apperatus for the goverment to better track and datamine every citizen in the country.

Message edited by author 2004-08-09 14:26:40.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/09/2004 02:26:36 PM · #17

Originally posted by RonB:

Examples were things like growing marijuana under high powered lights in your house ( if it was African Violets, what would you have to fear? ), and having your location tracked through your cell phone ( if you didn't go where you shouldn't be, what would you have to fear? ). Hence, I repeat my opinion:

Those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

Ron

Police have raided houses in the middle of the night and held the occupants at gunpoint based solely on the fact that they have purchased and used grow lights (based on credit card receipts and monitoring of power consumption).

How would you feel about having your family ziptied and held at gunpoint by masked men at 4AM if all you were doing is growing tomatoes or violets in your basement?

Police departments have also raided the wrong houses, raided houses based solely on the word of an informant who just give them an address so the police will let up on the interrogation. Judges sign these warrants, so it's not all the fault of the police either. There are basically little or no penalties to the police or other legal entities for these types of screwups. They don't have to clean up the mess they made, apologize, pay for damage to property. They certainly don't do anything to help the psychological trauma they inflict.

These cases certainly are in the minority, but they do happen.

08/09/2004 02:34:09 PM · #18

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

Before anyone invokes Godwin's Law, I reject it in this case.

The registration of Jews in Germany would be a good example. Nothing to hide surely.

Actually, yes, the Jews DID have something to hide in Nazi Germany - the fact that they were Jewish.

Originally posted by Gordon:

As to tracking with cell phones: Suppose I happened to be interviewing with another company and my employer tracks that, via my cellphone location. Sure, I shouldn't be doing this on company time, but there is nothing to say I am doing it on company time. Nothing to hide - who would ever want to change their job obviously.

Does my employer have rights to access all of my previous medical histories ?

Hmmm. Perhaps it would reduce the number of cases where employees were wantonly slaughtered by other employees "going postal".

Originally posted by Gordon:

If you have nothing to hide, would you mind if I googled your health records ? Perhaps had access to all of your bank account details ? After all, you've got nothing to hide so no doubt you wouldn't mind sharing your tax records with everyone. I'm sure the pizza delivery guys would be happy to recommend food choices based on your medical status.

Ahhh. The old tactic of Calvin Ball ( a la Calvin & Hobbs ) - changing the rules in the middle of the game. The link in the original posting referred to "government and corporations" collecting information, not individuals. Sorry, though I don't mind divulging my personal financial data to CitiGroup so that I can obtain a mortgage quote, I DO object to sharing it with my neighbors - and with you.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Would you care if your boss knew how you voted in the last election ?
How about if he voted for the opposite candidate - surely you've got nothing to hide so it shouldn't matter if that is available.

The only way even government or corporations would have knowledge of who I voted for in ANY election was if I volunteered that information, or they ILLEGALLY videotaped my 'voting'. Bad example.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Maybe your entire church should have access to your medical and 'voting' history - after all, they could just go round and have a quiet talk with anyone who didn't vote the same way - nothing to hide and no reason to not want anyone to know - obviously.

Sorry, a church is not a "government or corporation". They aren't entitled to the information.

Originally posted by Gordon:

All of the above ignores the normal issues of incorrect data entry, duplicate entries and other very common computer data errors. There is a photographer in another forum who happens to share the same first and last name with a convicted paedophile who lives in the same metropolitan area. I'm sure that is very easy to explain away when people mix them up. Nothing to fear at all. Would be much easier with more people having access to that information too.

Credit reports are good examples of plenty of incorrectly entered information that is such a breeze to get fixed too.

All true. Has been all along - the Patriot act, or Matrix, doesn't change the possibility of this type of error. But, actually, the probability would be LESS easy - since data would be collected 'at source' without keying.

Ron

08/09/2004 02:40:12 PM · #19

Originally posted by RonB:

Not a change of the rules at all. People work for corporations after all. The whole point is a large increase in the cross indexing of information. Do you object to sharing your personal financial data to the clerk at walgreens ?

Originally posted by Gordon:

Would you care if your boss knew how you voted in the last election ?
How about if he voted for the opposite candidate - surely you've got nothing to hide so it shouldn't matter if that is available.

Originally posted by RonB:

The only way even government or corporations would have knowledge of who I voted for in ANY election was if I volunteered that information, or they ILLEGALLY videotaped my 'voting'. Bad example.

Absolutely not a bad example. Your original proposition was that people who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear from enhanced data collection. I'm simply gave quite a few examples of why that is not true. You seem to agree in those cases, but just don't think it can happen.

So, as you pointed out, the Jews in Germany suddenly had something to hide. why give the organisations more capabilities to gather information that they don't need?

Message edited by author 2004-08-09 14:41:34.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/09/2004 02:42:28 PM · #20

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:
Examples were things like growing marijuana under high powered lights in your house ( if it was African Violets, what would you have to fear? ), and having your location tracked through your cell phone ( if you didn't go where you shouldn't be, what would you have to fear? ). Hence, I repeat my opinion:

Those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

Ron

Police have raided houses in the middle of the night and held the occupants at gunpoint based solely on the fact that they have purchased and used grow lights (based on credit card receipts and monitoring of power consumption).

How would you feel about having your family ziptied and held at gunpoint by masked men at 4AM if all you were doing is growing tomatoes or violets in your basement?

Police departments have also raided the wrong houses, raided houses based solely on the word of an informant who just give them an address so the police will let up on the interrogation. Judges sign these warrants, so it's not all the fault of the police either. There are basically little or no penalties to the police or other legal entities for these types of screwups. They don't have to clean up the mess they made, apologize, pay for damage to property. They certainly don't do anything to help the psychological trauma they inflict.

These cases certainly are in the minority, but they do happen.

And just think - all of this happened BEFORE passage of the Patriot Act, or Matrix.
But, to answer your question. I would be outraged if the police broke down my door in the middle of the night and held me and my family at gunpoint because of some mistake.
But look at it this way. If my neighbor had it in for me, and called the cops saying that I was growing marijuana, just so that they WOULD break down my door in the middle of the night - I'd be HAPPY if the cops could quickly check my electric bill and determine that NO, I did NOT use enough electricity to indicate that I was powering enough grow-lights to support a mini marijuana farm.

Ron

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/09/2004 02:50:21 PM · #21

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:
Examples were things like growing marijuana under high powered lights in your house ( if it was African Violets, what would you have to fear? ), and having your location tracked through your cell phone ( if you didn't go where you shouldn't be, what would you have to fear? ). Hence, I repeat my opinion:

Those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

Ron

Police have raided houses in the middle of the night and held the occupants at gunpoint based solely on the fact that they have purchased and used grow lights (based on credit card receipts and monitoring of power consumption).

How would you feel about having your family ziptied and held at gunpoint by masked men at 4AM if all you were doing is growing tomatoes or violets in your basement?

Police departments have also raided the wrong houses, raided houses based solely on the word of an informant who just give them an address so the police will let up on the interrogation. Judges sign these warrants, so it's not all the fault of the police either. There are basically little or no penalties to the police or other legal entities for these types of screwups. They don't have to clean up the mess they made, apologize, pay for damage to property. They certainly don't do anything to help the psychological trauma they inflict.

These cases certainly are in the minority, but they do happen.

And just think - all of this happened BEFORE passage of the Patriot Act, or Matrix.
But, to answer your question. I would be outraged if the police broke down my door in the middle of the night and held me and my family at gunpoint because of some mistake.
But look at it this way. If my neighbor had it in for me, and called the cops saying that I was growing marijuana, just so that they WOULD break down my door in the middle of the night - I'd be HAPPY if the cops could quickly check my electric bill and determine that NO, I did NOT use enough electricity to indicate that I was powering enough grow-lights to support a mini marijuana farm.

Ron

And suppose they thought your usage WAS high, or you really were running grow lights.............for your tomatoes?

I bet your "happiness" would be dimmed at the sight of the business end of a 12ga being pointed at your loved ones.

08/09/2004 03:04:40 PM · #22

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Ahhh. The old tactic of Calvin Ball ( a la Calvin & Hobbs ) - changing the rules in the middle of the game. The link in the original posting referred to "government and corporations" collecting information, not individuals. Sorry, though I don't mind divulging my personal financial data to CitiGroup so that I can obtain a mortgage quote, I DO object to sharing it with my neighbors - and with you.

Not a change of the rules at all. People work for corporations after all. The whole point is a large increase in the cross indexing of information. Do you object to sharing your personal financial data to the clerk at walgreens ?

Yes, people work for corporations - but they are not supposed to use data that they come across in the course of business outside of corporate interests - Walgreen's has no vested interest in my personal financial data, so the clerk would not come across it in the course of business. If you insist in persuing the hypotheticals, then NO, I don't object to sharing my personal financial data with the clerk at Walgreens, so long as his interest is legitimate.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Would you care if your boss knew how you voted in the last election ?
How about if he voted for the opposite candidate - surely you've got nothing to hide so it shouldn't matter if that is available.

Originally posted by RonB:

The only way even government or corporations would have knowledge of who I voted for in ANY election was if I volunteered that information, or they ILLEGALLY videotaped my 'voting'. Bad example.

Absolutely not a bad example. Your original proposition was that people who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear from enhanced data collection. I'm simply gave quite a few examples of why that is not true. You seem to agree in those cases, but just don't think it can happen.[/quote] Well, you're right insofar as INDIVIDUALS goes - too much of an opportunity for identity theft. Corporations already have access to my personal financials and I'm not shaking in fear about that.
As for my 'voting' record - it is what it is.

Originally posted by Gordon:

So, as you pointed out, the Jews in Germany suddenly had something to hide.

Yes, and something to fear. The corrolary to my belief would be

Those with something to fear, have something to hide.

Originally posted by Gordon:

why give the organisations more capabilities to gather information that they don't need?

While I can agree with limiting the information provided to corporations, when it comes to governments, who says that they don't need it? I believe that they do.

Ron

08/09/2004 03:06:22 PM · #23

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:
But, to answer your question. I would be outraged if the police broke down my door in the middle of the night and held me and my family at gunpoint because of some mistake.
But look at it this way. If my neighbor had it in for me, and called the cops saying that I was growing marijuana, just so that they WOULD break down my door in the middle of the night - I'd be HAPPY if the cops could quickly check my electric bill and determine that NO, I did NOT use enough electricity to indicate that I was powering enough grow-lights to support a mini marijuana farm.

Ron

And suppose they thought your usage WAS high, or you really were running grow lights.............for your tomatoes?

I bet your "happiness" would be dimmed at the sight of the business end of a 12ga being pointed at your loved ones.

Yes, you are correct, my "happiness" would be dimmed. What's your point?

Message edited by author 2004-08-09 15:07:15.

08/09/2004 03:39:30 PM · #24

Originally posted by RonB:

When it comes to governments, who says that they don't need it? I believe that they do.
Ron

Specifically, why ?

and not in 'to help combat terrorism' hand wavy fear-mongering.
What specifically about the current proposals enhances the governments ability to do its job ? (which, roughly, I'd statde as being to protect, serve all of the citizens and uphold the constitution)

Previous recent government proposals like TIPS were also vetoed because of the lack of evidence of any value and significant negative results of the approaches.

I don't believe I am a 'privacy nut' but I don't see any reason for the government or coporations to have increased access to private data or records. Particularly not in the framing of the current legislation, which appears to have little to do with terrorism and more to do with police oversight and monitoring of the general public.