What a bigger-than-life figure!
Love him or hate him, he certainly had an impact.
I’d say ‘Rest in Peace’ – but that would offend him: he is not ‘resting’, he is dead…and somehow, I suspect he would prefer the direct word over the euphemism.
His thought-provoking, piercing wit will be missed.
He will be remembered…
…for his unflinching honesty:
…and for his investigative work: even Pen and Teller love him!
Sounds so innocuous: Stop Online Piracy Act.
After all, ‘Pirates’ are all ‘bad’, so anything to get them off ‘our internet’ must be ‘good’, right?
We, surely, the Orwellian language is only a part of the trick here.
The SOPA hearings are being held today and it is difficult to believe that anyone who does not directly benefit financially from this legislation would be willing to support it. The effect of this legislation would be to chill free speech in ways to give Richard Warman and his Section 13 co-oppressors wet dreams in perpetuity!
Right now, even with the ‘moderate’, much less draconian legislation in place, the copyright infringement laws are being used to silence critics of big business – or even just independent voices (lest they become critical in the future).
In this example, a DMCA claim was used to censor a daily tech news episode which criticized a big-music corporation: under the law, a mere DMCA claim was enough to force a takedown of the episode for a minimum of 10 days. If you are running a daily news show, 10 days is an eternity… At least, under the DMCA rules, the news show could appeal to a judge…
And, of course, we all know that the US government has been known to censor a blog for over a year, denying them due process of law to get their property restored and name cleared.
Just to add injury to injury: not only are you guilty until proved innocent under SOPA, getting to court to prove your innocence will be much harder. And even if you were victorious and the courts found you innocent of all charges, you would not have a recourse to sue for damages suffered as the result of the false SOPA accusation!
Is this type of legislation even needed?
The Swiss government certainly does not think so: they have gone the opposite route. After studying the data for a long time, these legislators have concluded that downloading music/videos for personal use is not just perfectly legal, they claim it actually channels money away from copyright holders and helps the music/movie industry in the long run.
And what about the people who have been the most vociferous about the need for crippling the internet in the name of copyright protection? Surely, they themselves do not indulge in the very behaviour they wish to stamp out with knee-jerk legislation like ‘three accusations and you are permanently banned from the internet’, right?
“French President Nicholas Sarkozy is a man who has championed some of the most aggressive anti-piracy legislation in Europe. But today it’s revealed that the occupants of his very own office and home are responsible for a nice selection of pirate downloads using BitTorrent. Three strikes? Those with access to the Presidential Palace’s IP addresses have already doubled that quota. “
But, surely, those entertainment legacy industry movers and shakers who have lobbied the legislators for SOPA – the ones who claim that downloading movies and music for free would bankrupt them – surely they are not doing this themselves, are they?
“With increasing lobbying efforts from the entertainment industry against BitTorrent sites and users, we wondered whether these companies hold themselves to the same standards they demand of others. After some initial skimming we’ve discovered BitTorrent pirates at nearly every major entertainment industry company in the US, including Sony Pictures Entertainment, Fox Entertainment and NBC Universal. Busted.”
And those ‘evil Pirates’ – they must be up to even more vile things…
Let’s hope the unanimous screams of protest from the citizens of the internet get heard!
Free Dominion has a discussion with several reports about the Tuesday hearing in Federal Court in Richard Warman’s ongoing case against Mark Lemire, which has run into a snag: the question whether Section 13 of the Human Rights Code (the thought-crime section) is Constitutional or not.
Connie Fournier reports that the cast was large: from CCLA and BCLA to Doug Christie on stage, from BigCityLib to free-speech bloggers in the audience. Here is a little quote from her report:
“During this time, the judge listened intently and didn’t interrupt. His face was inscrutable. The funniest moment of the hearing came when the lawyer for B’nai Brith said that Section 13 is “a ringing endorsement of free speech”. Everyone in the audience snorted and snickered uncontrollably. (Probably only one person in the audience was a censor and the rest were free speech supporters or media).”
An excerpt from Narrow Back’s report:
“At 11:00 we returned to hear from the African Legal Clinic. They talked about “irradicating discrimination” for “deeper social concerns” “improvement of the condition of less fortunate people” blah blah, etc. They also talked about S13 as a “conciliatory process”. I just wrote down: “Ha!” “
And here is a part from Mark Fournier’s post:
“A couple of intervenors in favour of state censorship put in their two cents and then Richard Warman got up and complained that just because the CHRC did a terrible job of administering Section 13 his rights shouldn’t be violated. The irony was breathtaking.”
Read the whole reports – along with what people are saying about it – at Free Dominion!
Over the last month or two, I have been highly critical of CarrierIQ and the sneaky way they gather smart-phone user information without informing the user they are doing so, much less providing an opt-out choice.
CarrierIQ has taken a lot of heat from a lot of places over this. Now, they are defending themselves: in the name of fairness, I think it is important to bring this defense to your attention.
The full document can be read here.
In the first few lines. they thank Trevor Eckhart for “for sharing his findings with us”. That is quite a change from their initial response, when they threatened to sue him if he continued to expose their practices…until the Electronic Frontier Foundation stood up for him, that is. It’s nice to see that, deep down inside, they are really swell guys and gals who care…
Reading ‘between the lines’, here are a few excerpts from CarrierIQ’s statement:
“…Carrier IQ software automatically passes the hardware serial number and the subscriber serial number (e.g. IMEI/IMSI) to the Network Operator who can then match to their customer records…”
i.e. CarrierIQ matches the phone and user information in their database, making it possible to identify individual user’s phone habits as opposed to just collecting ‘anonymous operational data’ that could be used to analyze network performance without compromising user privacy.
* * *
“Q. “Why is my battery only lasting 3 hours and my phone keeps crashing?”
A. Because you have loaded a new application abcxyz and this is draining the battery quickly and making your phone unstable.”
i.e. CarrierIQ monitors what applications are on your phone.
* * *
“Q. “Why does my phone drop calls when I drive on Interstate 80?”
A. It looks like you were dropping calls between exit 34 and exit 35 and we are upgrading our towers to improve performance at that section of the highway.”
i.e. CarrierIQ records your location with respect to phone usage.
* * *
“The Carrier IQ software installed on the mobile device is called the IQ Agent.
. . .
The IQ Agent has been implemented on feature phones, smart phones, data modems and tablets.”
Nice to know… I guess I’ll pass on that tablet computer and put my IT guys to hacking the modem: if it is doing what the smart phones are doing, it’s time for a jail-break!
* * *
“In typical deployments, the IQ Agent uploads diagnostic data once per day, at a time when the device is not being used.
. . .
Network Operators who are Carrier IQ customers do not charge consumers for this upload nor does it show up as usage of consumer data plans.”
In other words, you are not given any clue that one corporation is beaming data from your phone or tablet and selling it to another corporation. Nice!
Well, at least they don’t make you pay for it…
* * *
” [Preload] version of the IQ Agent cannot typically be deleted by an end user but only gathers and forwards metrics from the device if it is enabled with a profile …”
My emphasis.
* * *
“Network Operators typically prefer the embedded version of the software as it provides the most comprehensive diagnostic set. This embedded information is used to understand which control signals are passed between the mobile device and the handset…”
Again, the emphasis is mine.
* * *
I think this ought to be sufficient for a Q.E.D. – but the document goes on:
“Network Operators and handset manufacturers determine whether and how they deploy Carrier IQ software and what metrics that software will gather and forward to the Network Operator.”
Translation: “All of your data is belongs to us, you puny little humans! Mu-ha-haaaaa!!!!!”
OK, let’s not go overboard here.
Let’s be fair!
Carrier IQ suggests that they themselves do not make the call about just how much data to collect about you – they will only collect and pass on the data which their customers, the Network Operators and handset manufacturers, will pay them to collect about you!
Mu-ha-haaaaa!!!!!
* * *
“An embedded version of the IQ Agent cannot be deleted by consumers through any method provided by Carrier IQ.”
Is there an echo in here? Mu-ha-haaaaa!!!!
* * *
“A new profile can be downloaded to a mobile device when it periodically checks-in with the network server. After receiving the new profile from the network server, the device will begin gathering the metrics and pre-processing according to these instructions.”
Translation: you complain – we’ll ferret out your secrets!
* * *
And that is just the first half of the document…
In the rest of the document, to the best of my reading, they assure us they are working on a ‘fix’ that would make it less possible for us to find and remove the IQ Agent, they admit to (at times) collecting SMS messages (but that was a mistake and they don’t do it any more), collecting phone call data, URL information, collecting keystroke data (but only under ‘specific conditions’ and when the ‘collector’ wants it – not for themselves, not at all….plus it’s not ‘on purpose’, just a by-product of other functions), and so on.
And then there is IQ Insight… This is the bit that collects all the location information: letting ‘operators’ to really drill down through your data!
Oh – and they say they only sell your information once…
But, don’t take my word for it: I am sure my reading of this document is highly flawed and imperfect, as what they say in their ‘conclusion’ does not, in my never-humble-opinion, match up fully with what they say in the body of the text. Obviously, it must be my understanding which is flawed.
It would be much better if you were to read the document for yourself and form your own opinion about CarrierIQ’s most illuminating explanations.
And, if these do not send you screaming for a throw-away phone, I have this lovely medieval bridge in Prague I’d love to sell you!
A while back, I posted about CarrierIQ and its ‘rootkit of all evil’.
In it are links which demonstrate how CarrierIQ has embedded code into smart phones which runs in the background and is not easily accessible to the phone’s user (with no notification to the user that it is running, much less choices to ‘opt out’). This code records everything the phone is used for and reports this information back to CarrierIQ – even if the user is not in any contract with the company, or has indeed ever heard of its existence. This information contains:
In another post, I have written about INDECT: the EU’s proposed regime of continuous surveillance of member states’ citizenry for the purpose of identifying ‘unusual behaviour’, which would then be brought to the attention of police for ‘follow up’. ‘Unusual behaviour’ would include (but not be limited to):
(In that post, I also provide a link to an article about CarrierIQ’s attempt to silence the researcher who first published information about its surveillance practices.)
The potential for abuse is so strong, it is difficult to overstate it…it seems that, increasingly, legislation is being drafted and passed all around the world not to safeguard against it, but to take advantage of it.
Here is an analysis (by a lawyer) of SOPA, just one such proposed pieces of legislation (in the USA) and the ways in which it breaches the constitution.
But if you are still not convinced that police agencies are warrantlessly accessing vast amounts of private data collected about citizens without their permission or knowledge, here is another piece of information you should consider:
‘A recent FOIA request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for “manuals, documents or other written guidance used to access or analyze data gathered by programs developed or deployed by Carrier IQ” was met with a telling denial. In it, the FBI stated it did have responsive documents – but they were exempt under a provision that covers materials that, if disclosed, might reasonably interfere with an ongoing investigation.’
Indeed.
Our constitutions were written with the specific purpose of protecting the civil rights of citizens from their governments. Most of us have forgotten this: and our governments are increasingly passing laws which circumvent (if not directly breech) our unalienable rights which all written constitutions (starting with the Magna Carta) are but imperfect expressions of.
We need to wake up and oppose this passive tolerance of the increasingly corrupt and oppressive surveillance society – before it is too late!
H/T: Tyr
I knew a guy who claimed that within his lifetime, held four ditinct citizenships. At different times, he was an Austrian, Czechoslovak, Slovak and Hungerian – he even held Hungarian citizenships at two separate times!
Yet, he never moved!
Simply, his house happened to be on a bit of land that was held by different countries at different times, all while he lived in it…
This is the reality of human existence.
As nations come into and out of existence, as they jostle with each other for territory, this sort of thing is inevitable.
Now, imagine that all these countries which had a prior ownership claim went to, say, the EU and demanded that this land be returned to them, due to the fact they held it in the past and, even if another country usurped it, they had never really given up their claim to it: it would be a mess!
Just like in Europe, the various nations in North America occupied different areas at different times – as their fortunes waxed and vaned, so did their territory. Just like in Europe, at different times, the same land would be claimed by different groups. And, just like in Europe, territorial wars took place…
This just goes to show that this is a function of the human condition!
However, in Canada, the various Native groups can each make a separate claim on the same piece of land – a claim which the courts consider in isolation from competing Native claims over the same land. And, just as they each had a valid claim on the land at different times, each claim can be supported by some evidence.
Yet, since each claim is examined separately, the court cannot take the competing claims into accout. In effect, this causes the Canadian taxpayers to buy the land (settle the claims) over and over and over… No sooner is one claim settled than another one crops up.
To call this a highly flawed system is a serious understatement.
How to solve this in a way that is fair and equitable to the Native groups with land claims as well as to the Canadaians who hold legal title to the land and have invested their life savings into a home on this land?
How to solve this in a way that is fair to different Native groups making conflicting claims, when their claims would be considered at different times and under differing political conditions?
We do have the Assembly of First Nations – resolving land claims is one of their major ‘raison d’etres’:
The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is the national representative organization of the First Nations in Canada. There are over 630 First Nation’s communities in Canada. The AFN Secretariat, is designed to present the views of the various First Nations through their leaders in areas such as: Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, Economic Development, Education, Languages and Literacy, Health, Housing, Social Development, Justice, Taxation, Land Claims, Environment, and a whole array of issues that are of common concern which arise from time to time.
The solution I propose would not be easy, but it would be simple and fair:
I suspect that this is the only way we could even come close to resolving this issue fairly.
Short of this type of action, I do not see any way to avoid protracted legal quagmire – in perpetuity!
H/T: BCF
At a first look, the fly-in only Native community on the shores of James Bay called Attawapiskat has very little in common with the European Union.
Both are mired in financial crises and allegations of corruption, but surely, that is too common these days to claim there is a connection between them, no?
Well, actually…
When one works through the minutiae of surface details, there are some very core similarities beneath.
In case you are not familiar with either one of these two situations, here is a highly abbreviated summary of each:
* * *
The Attawapiskat Native community af about 1800 people is a reservation and as such, governed by the complex and bureaucratic Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The ‘rules’ are soul-suckingly bizarre. For example, the land of the reservation is collectively owned by the Aboriginal Band – so no individual may own any piece of land, like, say, to build a house on, or to look after and improve.
‘The Band’ gets money to both function as a government and as a community (supporting each individual of the band). The reported amount of money that flows in differs wildly from one source to another and the paperwork seems about as clear as mud. The Band receives money from the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, Casino income, plus there are claims they also got money from other sources, but that, really, is irrelevant.
The residents are living is sub-standard housing with inadequate insulation (not the kind of home for spending the winter on the shores of James Bay) – but with flat screen TVs… The same attitude permeates the community: the school was shut down close to a decade ago because it had been built on a site contaminated by a diesel spill – since then, no new school has been built, but if I am not mistaken, $43 million has been spent on schooling.
Oh, and even though it is a fly-in community (no roads lead there), the chief has had a 60k SUV flown in for her use…which only goes to support the common saying: ‘the chief’s driveway is always paved’! (FYI – this also seems to hold true for condominium association presidents.)
* * *
The EU started innocently enough: as a free-trade zone. Who could oppose the increased economic opportunities of a Europe-wide free trade zone?
Since this is a supra-national organization, an independent administrative body was needed to be set up to harmonize the conditions within member states in order to ensure that the free trade is played on a level playing field. This ‘administrative body’ grew and it grew until it became the European Parliament, complete with a constitution (the Lisbon Treaty), a flag and an anthem: OK, I am oversimplifying the process – perhaps to the point of error – but the result is a huge bureaucratic machine which increasingly controls more and more aspects of life of the individuals living in member states.
The EU has, in all but the name, become the United States of Europe.
One of the unique features of this political entity is that all the bills are drafted by the bureaucrats and then forwarded on to the parliament. The parliament debates them, may propose changes, then votes on the changes – and on the changes alone – because the parliament does not have the ability to not pass the bills into law.
It is mandatory for member states to enact all EU laws into their national laws – opting out is not permitted.
* * *
So, what do they have in common?
A very nasty feedback loop: the people who make the rules are not accountable to the people whom they are ruling!
In both cases, the bureaucracies which control the flow of funds are so insulated from the taxpayers who supply the money that they can spend it witht impunity.
In the case of the Canadian Natives (Attawapiskat may be in the news now, but it is definitely not the only community in this situation), the ‘bureaucracies’ are both the Ministry and the Band Council: both are irresponsibly spending funds. Since there are multiple levels of bureaucracy, neither can properly be held accountable…
The Ministry is over-bloated, with bureaucrats justifying their paychecks by shuffling papers and increasing red tape. The Band leadership has the ability to spend the funds without being accountable to the people on whose behalf it spends it. It is a tragedy – though hardly an unpredictible one… The bureaucrats and the ruling elites (paid off by the bureaucrats) control more and more aspects of lives of the individuals within their jurisdiction while those ‘ruled’ have little to no legal means available to them to affect change.
In the EU case, the ruling bureaucracy is also ‘several layers’ insulated from the voters. And, as it exacts great amounts of taxpayer monies from member nation states, it is able to generously fund the ‘ruling elites’ within their member states (or within prospective member states: Croatia is an excellent example of where the EU amply funds the ‘political elite’ in order to make it profitable for them to support policies detrimental to their fellow citizens).
This means that the interest of the ‘political elites’ is divorced from (and quite possibly in direct opposition to) the interests of the citizenry. In other words, the bureaucrats and the ruling elites (paid off by the bureaucrats) control more and more aspects of lives of the individuals within their jurisdiction while those ‘ruled’ have little to no legal means available to them to affect change.
In both cases, the political elites receive funds without being accountable to the citizenry.
In both cases, it boils down to ‘taxation without representation’ – and in both cases this reality is shielded by layers of bureaucracy…
No wonder both are in such a mess!!!
Read the comentary at Voice Of Canada.
This video raises a number of things that I have been wondering about.
For example, the uniformed police officers do not display their badge numbers, making it impossible to identify them. Is this legal? If so, should it remain so?
Another question: what recourse does a population have if a police force either refuses to enforce the laws of the land or enforces illegal orders?
In my never-humble-opinion, the only way an organizational corruption of this scale can be tackled is by holding the individuals within the organization personally responsible for their actions, including holding them personally responsible for following illegal orders to the maximum level the law permits. Yes, this would mean legal action against individual police officers – if not criminal, then civil – even if these police officers are nice individuals. Still, if they follow an illegal order, they must be accountable for this breech of law.
Of course, these are easy words to type and there is a world of difference between writing this and actually doing something about it. Still, one ought to gather as much information first…
So, if you are knowledgable on this topic, please, comment and educate me on the laws, rules and procedures – and any other options legally available. It would be much appreciated.
Because to my way of thinking, this is not a ‘native/non-native’ issue: this is a policing issue and equality before the law issue!
UPDATE: Here is a comment posted by Mark Vandermaas, which, in my neve-humble-opinion, is important enough to bump it into the ‘body’ of the post:
The scary part of Caledonia is that all the organizations, gov’t and NGO, that should have been pro-active in protecting the rights of the innocent were unwilling or unable to help: Human Rights Commission; Ombudsman (wanted to help, but not allowed to get involved in police issues); the Opposition (oh, how we tried); the Federal govt (not only wouldn’t they help Harper annointed Fantino as PC candidate!); the OCCPS (old agency for Police Services Act complaints); Haldimand’s Police Services Board; Haldimand Council (other than former Mayor Trainer); Cdn Civil Liberties Association (repeatedly begged them for help to no avail).
It would be hard to list here everything we tried, but some of the key things that worked well were:
1. Dr. King’s methods of peacefully confronting injustice and forcing them to violate your rights (techniques that he learned from Gandhi to influence the media and the conscience of the nation. When one protests with dignity and is willing to be verbally abused and assaulted without retaliating there is very little defence to this approach. Using it we actually caused the union radicals, anarchists, anti-Israel groups and native militants to curb their violence and aggression because – as one of them said at an anarchist’s conference, we were making THEM look like the racists by applying Dr. King’s methods. Just as King did not demonize whites, we did not demonize native people as a group (the thugs would disagree, of course). We tried our best to ensure people knew that the thugs didn’t speak for the good people of 6N.
2. Civil Lawsuits to a degree. I say that because while there were some important court victories such as the $20M Caledonia Class Action, the Brown-Chatwell settlements and some victories achieved by us via the small claim and superior courts, the fact is that racial policing is still practiced and the gov’t, 6N and the OPP have never apologized or ammended their policies.
3. Private Prosecutions under the CCofC. You know, of course, that Gary M, despite not being a lawyer, convinced the courts to charge 5 individual police officers for offences such as Mischief, Influencing Municipal Official and Obstructing Justice, and even won a case at the Court of Appeal. This has reigned in their abuses quite effectively, but apparently, they still have more to learn.
We’ve tried just about everything during the last 5 years. in the end, it’s not one magic bullet. It’s ordinary people taking advantage of every opportunity when presented and, as Gary says, ‘withstanding the test of time’ (while you’re being vilified, assaulted, and arrested). And…don’t wait for anyone to come to help. But, that’s the wonderful thing! A small group of committed people with no money, no power and no connections really can make a huge difference.
Having said all this, there were some good people who did help and paid a price for doing so. At risk of leaving someone out and inadvertently insulting them, I won’t try to list them. But one guy who doesn’t get enough credit is lawyer John Findlay of the Class Action, a lawyer who represents us in several cases including one where he helped mediate a solution whereby the OPP union finally admitted in writing they had no evidence we were inciting hate and violence. Couldn’t have done it without him.
Sorry to go on so long. Thks for listening.
Readers who want to know more should visit the Caledonia: No More Nightmares page at http://www.HelplessByBlatchford.ca which has videos and notes from our 2011 presentation of the same name in Ottawa – where you and I met. Thanks for being there, and thks for the coverage.
Mark Vandermaas
Editor, VoiceofCanada
Founder, Caledonia Victimis Project
Today marks a dark anniversary: the massacre at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal.
A truly dark day in history.
Many people marked it by attending memorials, including on Parliament Hill.
No, I will not go into a rant about the fact that we were not told back then, nor are any current mainstream news coverages of the anniversary even mentioning that Mark Lepin’s murderous rampage was inspired by his Islamic beliefs – if I do, I’ll get stuck on this and never get to my main point:
All those protesters on Parliament Hill, all those propagandists who are continuously politicizing this massacre (without accurately and honestly describing it) for their own advantage – all the media whipping up the anti-gun hysterics – are drawing the wrong conclusion from this horrible tragedy!
This must be challenged!
Some of these protesters are saying that if another woman gets shot ever again, their blood will be on the hands of those who scrapped the long gun registry.
WRONG!
Guns are the great equalizers!!!
Even a small, frail woman can protect herself from a large attacker with a gun and a bit of training.
Would 14 women really have been massacred at Ecole Polytechnique if each and every one of them had been armed at the time of Lepin’s attack?
And, please, consider the following: during the attack, Lepin’s gun jammed and he had to clear it. Yet, while his gun was not functional, nobody tackled him – though they could have. If they had, many lives would have been saved.
So, why didn’t anyone tackle him?
Because we have been inculcated with an irrational fear of guns.
I am not saying that fearing guns is irrational in and of itself – rather, that the level of fear with which we, urbanites, treat guns is irrational.
There is a remedy: each and every adult should be taught basic gun use and safety. It should be part of every person’s education, just like learning to drive is. (Remember, in Canada, cars ‘kill’ way more people than guns do!)
And while I am not advocating that each and every person should be legally mandated to always carry a loaded weapon in public, ready to use at all times, I think it is reasonable that we demand that each and every educator do so. After all, we entrust them with the care of our children – they ought to have the means and ability to protect them.
Even with the best police response times, a gunman who enters a school will have ample time to massacre students. What is the current mandated response? Lock students in their classrooms, turning them into sitting ducks and ensuring that it is easier for the villain to find her/his intended target.
Consider how much safer our children – all students – would be if every teacher would be able and ready to offer armed resistance!!!
So, let’s demand of ourpoliticians that they pass a law making it mandatory for each and every teacher to be trained in the use of firearms and to be fully armed at all times while at work! It’s the only logical lesson to be learned from this horrible, horrible tragedy.
If you haven’t heard about INDECT ( Intelligent Information System Supporting Observation, Searching and Detection for Security of Citizens in Urban Environment), you are not alone – especially if you are on this side of the pond.
Or you might have heard of it and dismissed it as some sort of a paranoid conspiracy theory…which is exactly what some, including Wikipedia, imply it to be.
On the other hand, WikiLeaks takes it deadly seriously. As does European Digital Rights (EDRI).
If you happen to be unaware that items like phones send constant streams of information about you – including installing a hidden keylogger – back to corporations you may have no commercial relationship with, here is an article with a video that shows, step-by-step, how this is being done. (Yes, when this information was first published, CarrierIQ tried to shut the source up with threats of lawsuits.)
And just to help you relax when you bring home a new video-game console…consider their enhanced sensory abilities (lip-reading, facial expression analysis to measure emotional states, enhanced speech recognition) in conjunction with the ‘back doors’ being built in to so many of our digital devices.
But, I digress…
The EU is planning to gather information about its citizens from ‘open sources’ (social media, chat-rooms, blogs) as well as public surveillance systems (like CCTV cameras to the GPS devices that they wish to legislate to be mandatory in every vehicle in order to ‘monitor traffic patterns’), their surfing habits, their shopping habits (remember all those ‘loyalty cards’?), to all other policing methods. Then they plan to run this mass of data through some algorithms which will analyze the language used by specific citizens with their public behaviours (say, like sitting in a public place for longer than ‘normal’) and online preferences, cross-reference it all and come up with ‘automated dossiers’ which will alert police officers to go check out specific citizens deemed to have ‘abnormal behaviour’.
All this is to be done by an arms-lenght (translation: completely unaccountable) agency which is as transparent as tar, overseen by a police-agency dominated board. As this agency is an EU creature, all the member states would be compelled to give it full access to citizen information, from financial to DNA databases.
Of course, we know this is the direction our society is moving in – but I suspect most of us have not been aware of the degree to which this has already been happening and just how lacking we are in any privacy rights.
Perhaps we ought to pay more attention…
H/T: HackerNews
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 