Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
GPS Tracking for Sex Offenders and Restraining Orders
What first seems like a common sense use for a valuable technology may in fact set a dangerous precedent for everyone. There are some who would like to use GPS technology to keep track of sex offenders and those who have had restraining orders placed upon them. In fact some states have already implemented this practice and more are likely to jump on the bandwagon. While I do not disagree with tracking of convicted felons as a condition of their parole, they are getting out early after all, I do feel that we should watch this trend very closely. By tracking offenders after their parole is up or individuals who have not been convicted of any crime as in the case of restraining orders, we are opening a door for the government to infringe on our privacy and civil liberties.
First let's consider how easy it is to get a restraining order in some states, and please keep in mind that each state has their own laws regarding restraining orders. Many a man going through a rough divorce has been barred from entering his own home or seeing his children based strictly on a statement by his wife that he has threatened her or the children. Perhaps this accusation is often true, but I am certain that this is not always the case. In some cases a restraining order may be enacted without any knowledge by the restrained person until he is served the order, meaning he may have never had any chance to refute the claims. Some restraining orders even have "relinquish firearms" provisions which means the subject has to turn any firearms and ammunition over to the authorities even though there may have been no crime.
Next lets consider the actual usefulness of tracking the individual. Individuals intent on doing bodily harm seldom let a restraining order stand in their way, hence the desire to track the individuals. The problem is, in my opinion, that GPS tracking will do very little to discourage violation of a restraining order by a determined individual. The tracking system would use a geo-fencing feature that could alert authorities if the 'offender' enters a restricted area, such as the victim's work place or neighborhood. However unless the 'victim' is also wearing a GPS tracker or carries a proximity alarm of some type the technology will only be helpful if the 'victim' is in one of the restricted areas. The record produce by the tracking system could prove useful as evidence in case the offender does violate the restraining order. Not much consolation to the victim perhaps, but it might help get a bad guy off the streets.
As with any technology GPS tracking can be used for good or bad we just need to be aware of the bad so we can make sure any laws that may pass contain provisions to protect law abiding citizens. I don't object to tracking someone who is a real threat to someone else but I think the threat should have to proven. A restraining order is not the same a criminal conviction where the accused has had the opportunity to provide a defense and face his accuser therefore they should not be able to infringe on any Constitutionally or God given rights.
In closing I think GPS may be appropriate for violent criminals on parole or out on bail and for individuals who have already violated a restraining order. GPS tracking is not appropriate in cases where there is no compelling evidence of a threat to the safety of the person requesting the order.
Links
Bill for GPS Tracking on Restraining Order Violations Could Head to State Legislature
A GPS Tracking System Could Assist with Restraining Orders
Wikipedia - Restraining order
First let's consider how easy it is to get a restraining order in some states, and please keep in mind that each state has their own laws regarding restraining orders. Many a man going through a rough divorce has been barred from entering his own home or seeing his children based strictly on a statement by his wife that he has threatened her or the children. Perhaps this accusation is often true, but I am certain that this is not always the case. In some cases a restraining order may be enacted without any knowledge by the restrained person until he is served the order, meaning he may have never had any chance to refute the claims. Some restraining orders even have "relinquish firearms" provisions which means the subject has to turn any firearms and ammunition over to the authorities even though there may have been no crime.
Next lets consider the actual usefulness of tracking the individual. Individuals intent on doing bodily harm seldom let a restraining order stand in their way, hence the desire to track the individuals. The problem is, in my opinion, that GPS tracking will do very little to discourage violation of a restraining order by a determined individual. The tracking system would use a geo-fencing feature that could alert authorities if the 'offender' enters a restricted area, such as the victim's work place or neighborhood. However unless the 'victim' is also wearing a GPS tracker or carries a proximity alarm of some type the technology will only be helpful if the 'victim' is in one of the restricted areas. The record produce by the tracking system could prove useful as evidence in case the offender does violate the restraining order. Not much consolation to the victim perhaps, but it might help get a bad guy off the streets.
As with any technology GPS tracking can be used for good or bad we just need to be aware of the bad so we can make sure any laws that may pass contain provisions to protect law abiding citizens. I don't object to tracking someone who is a real threat to someone else but I think the threat should have to proven. A restraining order is not the same a criminal conviction where the accused has had the opportunity to provide a defense and face his accuser therefore they should not be able to infringe on any Constitutionally or God given rights.
In closing I think GPS may be appropriate for violent criminals on parole or out on bail and for individuals who have already violated a restraining order. GPS tracking is not appropriate in cases where there is no compelling evidence of a threat to the safety of the person requesting the order.
Links
Bill for GPS Tracking on Restraining Order Violations Could Head to State Legislature
A GPS Tracking System Could Assist with Restraining Orders
Wikipedia - Restraining order
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Chips Embeded in Official IDs Are a Huge Privacy Risk
For anyone who doesn't know, which is most of us, an RFID Chip is a tiny chip that can be embedded in virtually anything, from products in the grocery store to your bus pass and even people. You've probably seen the credit card commercial with the marathon runner that zips into a convenience store and pays for his purchase by merely holding his credit card close to the machine instead of sliding it through the machine the old fashioned way. Really convenient right? Well it's convenient for identity thieves too.
When this technology first came and out it wasn't wide spread an identity thief needed to get pretty close to the target to scan the chip and retrieve the information on it. This is no longer the case. As the technology has grown more prolific so have the profits in creating the gadgets that scan for it. As an example consider the experiment published in an article on the Fox News Website "Chips in Official IDs Raise Privacy Fears" in which a gentleman named Chris Paget cruised around Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, California scanning for the private information held on RFID tags of the crowds using a Matrics antenna and a Motorola reader that he bought on eBay for less than $250. In an hour he had 'skimmed' the private data from the new electronic U.S. passport cards of several individuals from as far away as 20 feet. Mr. Paget filmed his experiment and posted it to the Internet.
While the implementation of embedded RFID tags in government documents is not widespread yet there is a push from government officials to see it done quickly. Officials are touting safety and convenience of having you information easily accessible. Either they haven't bothered to think of the consequences or they just don't care because being able to track everything that you do fits there agenda. Thanks to the Real ID Act: h.r.00418 which was passed in 2005 without ANY debate, states must start issuing State IDs with and embedded RFID tag by 2017. The Real ID Act was pushed through by adding an amendment to a completely UNRELATED must pass bill to authorize funds for the Iraq war. This seems to be a common tactic in getting a controversial bill to pass that otherwise would not. In my humble opinion this practice is completely immoral and should be illegal, but I suppose that is the subject of another rant.
The Pass ID Act: S.1261 has recently been introduced before lawmakers which supposedly would repeal part of the Real ID Act as well as amend title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. However this bill does not protect citizens from identity theft or government abuses, in fact it may be a sneak attack to reinforce the Real ID Act. The Real ID Act needs to be repealed completely or by 2017 we will all be walking around with a tracking beacon in our pockets broadcasting our entire lives to anyone with the inclination to snoop, which includes alot of people and organizations. Just think of how much of your online activity is tracked by the government, retail websites, search engines, and marketing firms. Imagine how valuable a record of your real world travels, purchases, interests, and even health problems would be. To top off all this paranoia, it appears that two of the major backers of The Pass ID Act and previously the Real ID Act, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and the International Civil Aviation Organization, are INTERNATIONAL as in not USA organizations!
...and now for another paranoia inducing video
There may be other 'related' videos in the player above that may seem extremely paranoid. These videos are included by YouTube and do not necessarily reflect the views of this writer.
Eventually we will have one card (or pendant, wristband, or implant) that will contain all of our information and may even be used as currency. There are already pilot programs that allow users of already existing Real ID Cards to use them in lieu of their credit card. Now at the risk of sounding like a paranoid, end of the world, religious nut...
Aside from the above legislation we will never be completely free of RFID tags. RFID tags have many legitimate uses from inventory control to identifying lost pets. As mentioned above 'smart' passports and Real IDs are already in use. You will still need to take action to protect yourself from the common thief regardless of how you feel about the Real ID Act. There are several relatively inexpensive products
on the market now that will shield your card/passport from being scanned such as the RFID Blocking Leather Passport Case and the Travelon RFID Blocking Billfold
. Shoplifters have been blocking RFID for some time by using shopping bags lined with aluminum foil (don't get any ideas!). Here is an interesting artilcle on How to kill your RFID chip, of course when it comes to your passport you may not want to permanently destroy the chip rendering your passport void. Remember; tampering with a US passport is a federal offense. Of course any of the tags you find in items that you purchase are yours to do with as you wish.
For a partial list of companies that place RFID tags in their products check out Liz Michaels' website.
When this technology first came and out it wasn't wide spread an identity thief needed to get pretty close to the target to scan the chip and retrieve the information on it. This is no longer the case. As the technology has grown more prolific so have the profits in creating the gadgets that scan for it. As an example consider the experiment published in an article on the Fox News Website "Chips in Official IDs Raise Privacy Fears" in which a gentleman named Chris Paget cruised around Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, California scanning for the private information held on RFID tags of the crowds using a Matrics antenna and a Motorola reader that he bought on eBay for less than $250. In an hour he had 'skimmed' the private data from the new electronic U.S. passport cards of several individuals from as far away as 20 feet. Mr. Paget filmed his experiment and posted it to the Internet.
While the implementation of embedded RFID tags in government documents is not widespread yet there is a push from government officials to see it done quickly. Officials are touting safety and convenience of having you information easily accessible. Either they haven't bothered to think of the consequences or they just don't care because being able to track everything that you do fits there agenda. Thanks to the Real ID Act: h.r.00418 which was passed in 2005 without ANY debate, states must start issuing State IDs with and embedded RFID tag by 2017. The Real ID Act was pushed through by adding an amendment to a completely UNRELATED must pass bill to authorize funds for the Iraq war. This seems to be a common tactic in getting a controversial bill to pass that otherwise would not. In my humble opinion this practice is completely immoral and should be illegal, but I suppose that is the subject of another rant.
The Pass ID Act: S.1261 has recently been introduced before lawmakers which supposedly would repeal part of the Real ID Act as well as amend title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. However this bill does not protect citizens from identity theft or government abuses, in fact it may be a sneak attack to reinforce the Real ID Act. The Real ID Act needs to be repealed completely or by 2017 we will all be walking around with a tracking beacon in our pockets broadcasting our entire lives to anyone with the inclination to snoop, which includes alot of people and organizations. Just think of how much of your online activity is tracked by the government, retail websites, search engines, and marketing firms. Imagine how valuable a record of your real world travels, purchases, interests, and even health problems would be. To top off all this paranoia, it appears that two of the major backers of The Pass ID Act and previously the Real ID Act, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and the International Civil Aviation Organization, are INTERNATIONAL as in not USA organizations!
...and now for another paranoia inducing video
There may be other 'related' videos in the player above that may seem extremely paranoid. These videos are included by YouTube and do not necessarily reflect the views of this writer.
Eventually we will have one card (or pendant, wristband, or implant) that will contain all of our information and may even be used as currency. There are already pilot programs that allow users of already existing Real ID Cards to use them in lieu of their credit card. Now at the risk of sounding like a paranoid, end of the world, religious nut...
- Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
- Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Aside from the above legislation we will never be completely free of RFID tags. RFID tags have many legitimate uses from inventory control to identifying lost pets. As mentioned above 'smart' passports and Real IDs are already in use. You will still need to take action to protect yourself from the common thief regardless of how you feel about the Real ID Act. There are several relatively inexpensive products
on the market now that will shield your card/passport from being scanned such as the RFID Blocking Leather Passport Case and the Travelon RFID Blocking Billfold. Shoplifters have been blocking RFID for some time by using shopping bags lined with aluminum foil (don't get any ideas!). Here is an interesting artilcle on How to kill your RFID chip, of course when it comes to your passport you may not want to permanently destroy the chip rendering your passport void. Remember; tampering with a US passport is a federal offense. Of course any of the tags you find in items that you purchase are yours to do with as you wish.For a partial list of companies that place RFID tags in their products check out Liz Michaels' website.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The Government Wants to Track Your Car With GPS
Several states are looking into fitting GPS transponders in new cars to track where you drive. Their reasoning for this is so the government can tax the miles you drive instead of relying on the diminishing revenue they are getting from the gas tax since people have begun to drive more fuel efficient cars. While at first blush taxing the miles you drive instead of how much fuel you burn seems to make since. If you drive more miles then the other guy then you are causing more wear and tear on the road regardless of how fuel efficient your car is. The problem is how to track the miles you drive. Apparently not content to rely on the honor system and allow motorists to report their mileage when they renew their car registration (or check the frickin' odometer) certain politicians want to hook a GPS up to your car and track your mileage.
I'm not even going to get into whether we should be taxed for gas or for miles driven (check out MileHive.com for more), there is a much bigger problem with this scheme. The government will be able to track you everywhere you go. Of course government lackeys say that the GPS unit won't track you in detail and that law enforcement will not have access to the information, see the article in the Washington Post. The government supposedly doesn't have easy access to your private communications either right? Ever heard of a subpoena? Even if you don't believe that the boys in suits and dark glasses are surreptitiously logging every little thing you do, even a third grader knows that all law enforcement needs is an "anonymous tip" to get a subpoena and your private information in their greasy little hands.
The Oregon Department of Transportation employee in charge of that states project, James Whitty, dismissed privacy concerns by comparing it with the tracking capabilities of cell phones, stating that it hasn't deterred people from purchasing new cell phones. HELLO! You can turn off the locating system of your cell phone or just turn the phone off. If you really didn't want to be tracked you could leave the phone on and stuff it under the seat of a train heading to B.F.E. You wont have that option if the government requires you, by law, to allow your travels to be tracked. Disabling the GPS unit for any reason would likely be seen as an attempt to cheat "the man" out of his taxes and be punishable by law.
We have already given away too much of our privacy and freedom in the name of safety. Let's not do the same for the sake of smoother roads. Contact the lawmakers in your state and let them know that you DO NOT APPROVE of being tracked by the government, for any reason. There has got to be a better way to fix our infrastructure without stomping all over your civil rights.
See also:
5280 Denver's Magazine
MileHive.com
Washington Post
I'm not even going to get into whether we should be taxed for gas or for miles driven (check out MileHive.com for more), there is a much bigger problem with this scheme. The government will be able to track you everywhere you go. Of course government lackeys say that the GPS unit won't track you in detail and that law enforcement will not have access to the information, see the article in the Washington Post. The government supposedly doesn't have easy access to your private communications either right? Ever heard of a subpoena? Even if you don't believe that the boys in suits and dark glasses are surreptitiously logging every little thing you do, even a third grader knows that all law enforcement needs is an "anonymous tip" to get a subpoena and your private information in their greasy little hands.
The Oregon Department of Transportation employee in charge of that states project, James Whitty, dismissed privacy concerns by comparing it with the tracking capabilities of cell phones, stating that it hasn't deterred people from purchasing new cell phones. HELLO! You can turn off the locating system of your cell phone or just turn the phone off. If you really didn't want to be tracked you could leave the phone on and stuff it under the seat of a train heading to B.F.E. You wont have that option if the government requires you, by law, to allow your travels to be tracked. Disabling the GPS unit for any reason would likely be seen as an attempt to cheat "the man" out of his taxes and be punishable by law.
We have already given away too much of our privacy and freedom in the name of safety. Let's not do the same for the sake of smoother roads. Contact the lawmakers in your state and let them know that you DO NOT APPROVE of being tracked by the government, for any reason. There has got to be a better way to fix our infrastructure without stomping all over your civil rights.
See also:
5280 Denver's Magazine
MileHive.com
Washington Post
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Is Google Maps a Threat to Indvidual Privacy?
Privacy groups are keeping a watchful eye on Google as it posts pictures of thousands of homes on their Street View website which is accessed through Google Maps. While being able to drop in to 360 degree photographic view Times Square from a map on their site is pretty cool, many privacy groups have expressed concern about what this may mean to individual privacy. Since the Street View project started Google has been outfitting cars with special cameras and sending them to drive the streets of the world snapping pictures of everything in their path, and everything along side of it.
The cause for concern is that someone may unknowingly be photographed in a compromising position (no more mowing the front yard in the nude for me), or that a criminal may use the information to case you home before he breaks in. For the first concern, if you're doing something you shouldn't; don't do it in public dummy! Law enforcement in many parts of the world already has a much better system of cameras feeding real-time data to "the man". Of course that's a whole other story. As for the crooks casing you place, that seems like a valid concern. Nothing is seen in the photographs online that couldn't be seen from the street, but at least before Google Streets the bad guys had to go out and look around in person.
Currently the database of photographs boasts 51 cities in the US as well as parts of Italy and France. Britain and Australia are on the way later this year. The sole purpose of the campaign is to capture pictures of streets and landmarks, not the people in them, however you just can't take a picture of a busy street and not expect to catch a glimpse of a person or a car license plate. To allay concerns that someone in a photo may be identified or a license lumber tracked down, Google has created a system that blurs most recognizable faces and license plates.
Yes, I said most. No automated system is perfect so Google allows users to report inappropriate images from within the application, and may request to have their pictures taken down. Though I think the "Report Inappropriate Image" link could have been more prominent it is easily located by clicking the "Help" link. Also what about the individuals that have been photographed and don't know to look at the website to see if they want their photos removed. After reviewing the photos available on the site I think they can add quite a bit of value for navigation, landmarks have always been easier to remember than street names. Also the photos a good enough quality to see the neighbors house and read some street signs, there was not enough detail to zoom in on any windows and see inside a house.
In all I think the risk to individuals privacy is minimal since the photos are low resolution and not real-time. The danger I see is in the precedent that this might set. Once everyone gets used to cameras everywhere, it will get easier to slip more intrusions into our private lives. I guess the best question to ask is, does the public have a reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. Does spying on the drug dealer on the corner openly selling his wares in full view place your privacy in danger or protect you from the bad guys? I won't tell you how to answer these questions because everyones limits are different. But I hope my rambling will cause you to pause for a moment to decide just where your limits do lie.
The cause for concern is that someone may unknowingly be photographed in a compromising position (no more mowing the front yard in the nude for me), or that a criminal may use the information to case you home before he breaks in. For the first concern, if you're doing something you shouldn't; don't do it in public dummy! Law enforcement in many parts of the world already has a much better system of cameras feeding real-time data to "the man". Of course that's a whole other story. As for the crooks casing you place, that seems like a valid concern. Nothing is seen in the photographs online that couldn't be seen from the street, but at least before Google Streets the bad guys had to go out and look around in person.
Currently the database of photographs boasts 51 cities in the US as well as parts of Italy and France. Britain and Australia are on the way later this year. The sole purpose of the campaign is to capture pictures of streets and landmarks, not the people in them, however you just can't take a picture of a busy street and not expect to catch a glimpse of a person or a car license plate. To allay concerns that someone in a photo may be identified or a license lumber tracked down, Google has created a system that blurs most recognizable faces and license plates.
Yes, I said most. No automated system is perfect so Google allows users to report inappropriate images from within the application, and may request to have their pictures taken down. Though I think the "Report Inappropriate Image" link could have been more prominent it is easily located by clicking the "Help" link. Also what about the individuals that have been photographed and don't know to look at the website to see if they want their photos removed. After reviewing the photos available on the site I think they can add quite a bit of value for navigation, landmarks have always been easier to remember than street names. Also the photos a good enough quality to see the neighbors house and read some street signs, there was not enough detail to zoom in on any windows and see inside a house.
In all I think the risk to individuals privacy is minimal since the photos are low resolution and not real-time. The danger I see is in the precedent that this might set. Once everyone gets used to cameras everywhere, it will get easier to slip more intrusions into our private lives. I guess the best question to ask is, does the public have a reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. Does spying on the drug dealer on the corner openly selling his wares in full view place your privacy in danger or protect you from the bad guys? I won't tell you how to answer these questions because everyones limits are different. But I hope my rambling will cause you to pause for a moment to decide just where your limits do lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)