Tag Archives: privacy

Driving Death Rate

Posted on by
Reply

It fell sharply in 2012, the latest year for which data were studied by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Assuming Fox News accurately summarized the study, I have a couple questions.

Improved vehicle designs and safety technology have a lot to do with the reduced risk, but a weak economy that led to reductions in driving may also have played a role….

Well, yeah. This is why I’d rather see the death rates per (million? hundred thousand?) miles driven. The Edsel in its half-day might have had a very low rate per million sold, too. Or a sky high rate. Four of the cars the Institute identified as having no deaths in 2012 were luxury cars—which won’t have as many miles driven per model as a middle-class car like Honda Accord or a Ford Taurus.

Then there’s what the Institute used for their baseline: 48 deaths over the 2008-2009 time frame. I have to wonder, given events in the latter half of 2008 and extending through 2009, how many of those 48 were due to design and technology and how many were due to driving while distracted by distraught and/or suicide by driving accident. One such death would skew the results by two per centage points.

Because We’re Not Being Spied on Enough

Posted on by
Reply

The Justice Department has acknowledged constructing a database to track the movements of millions of vehicles across the U.S. in real time.

And

A Justice Department spokesman told Fox News that the tracking program is compliant with federal [law]… claiming it “includes protocols that limit who can access the database and all of the license plate information is deleted after 90 days.”

Perhaps (although with this Justice Department or this administration, that’s hard to see), but that doesn’t make it right, or consistent with the precepts of our Constitution. And how do we know the information is “deleted after 90 days?” We don’t know when it was collected, starting that clock. We have only the Eric Holder DoJ’s word that the data are deleted. We know from experience with IRS “lost emails” that “deleted” doesn’t necessarily mean deleted.

Another kicker:

It is not clear whether the tracking is overseen or approved by any court.

The Wall Street Journal had this from its original tale:

The primary goal of the license-plate tracking program, run by the Drug Enforcement Administration, is to seize cars, cash and other assets to combat drug trafficking, according to one government document. But the database’s use has expanded to hunt for vehicles associated with numerous other potential crimes, from kidnappings to killings to rape suspects, say people familiar with the matter.

The program’s current scope is this:

[It] collects data about vehicle movements, including time, direction and location, from high-tech cameras placed strategically on major highways. Many devices also record visual images of drivers and passengers, which are sometimes clear enough for investigators to confirm identities, according to DEA documents and people familiar with the program.

The documents show that the DEA also uses license-plate readers operated by state, local, and federal law-enforcement agencies to feed into its own network and create a far-reaching, constantly updating database of electronic eyes scanning traffic on the roads….

That’s the problem with a government program—it grows, it never shrinks, it never is eliminated. When the program is a secret one, its expansion is hard to discern, and the program is even harder for a free people to control. When the program is used to spy on the citizens, it’s extremely dangerous to our liberty.

What will happen when the program is further expanded—because anonymous donations to this or that political organization is viewed, by government, to be inimical? What will happen when the program is used to harass groups of Americans of whom the men in government disapprove, or of whom the men in government especially favor? Think that can’t happen? Look no further than this Justice Department and white voter intimidation by New Black Panthers and this DoJ’s avowed policy of not going after voter crimes involving white victims and black perpetrators. Look no further than this administration’s use of the IRS to go after political groups the White House doesn’t like.

Privacy Misbehavior

Posted on by
1

Andrea Peterson of The Washington Post has a warning.

Recall that ‘way last November, Verizon was exposed as using a supercookie that they’d developed for the purpose: it sits on your cell phone and tracks, ostensibly for their own use, your cell usage (supposedly limited to your use on the Internet). And you can’t delete it.

It turns out that Turn, an online advertising company that works with Google and Facebook,

uses [the Verizon supercookie] to collect data that makes it easier for advertisers to place targeted online ads, according to the researchers.

Verizon says they’re “looking into this,” but they don’t say they’re putting a stop to it.

We are evaluating how third parties are using the UIDH in this evolving ecosystem and considering any appropriate response[.]

Peterson suggests that

Turn’s use of the identifier highlights how data about someone’s online tracking practices can sometimes be deployed beyond its original intent—making it harder than ever for consumers to control who has knowledge about their online activities.

And

Turn’s General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer, Max Ochoa, confirmed Mayer’s analysis of how its program worked in an interview with The Post.

Ochoa also thinks this is perfectly jake [emphasis his].

Clearing cookies is not a reliable way for a user to express their desire not to receive tailored advertising….
…
It is vital to note that clearing a cookie cache is not a widely recognized method of reliably expressing an opt-out preference.

Yeah—because the user didn’t use a bureaucrat’s special hoop. This, of course, is nonsense. The user didn’t clear the cookies because he didn’t have anything better to do with his time, so he just started putzing around with his cell phone. Leave it to an advertiser—and one that does his data collection for his clients in an entirely behind-the-scenes way—to pretend to this level of obtuseness.

Just as disappointingly, Verizon is pretending innocence in all of this.

“[I]t is unlikely that sites and ad entities will attempt to build customer profiles for online advertising” and noting that the identifier “changes frequently.”

Never mind that

While you have a Turn tracking cookie and are on the Verizon network, it kept track of the linkage between your Turn cookie and that Verizon Wireless tracking header,” he explained. “But if you get rid of the Turn cookie, the back end of that system would notice and reinstate that cookie based on the header.

It strains my credulity to think that the IT experts at Verizon wouldn’t understand this as they developed their supercookie and deployed it.

Hmm….

Trust

Posted on by
Reply

First we have the NSA collecting personal telephone call data. Now we find out about this shadowy program, which was uncovered only because DEA had to give up its existence pursuant to a criminal case involving a man accused of planning the export of technology to Iran:

The Drug Enforcement Administration has formally acknowledged that it maintained a sweeping database of phone calls made from the United States to multiple foreign countries.

And

…the program relied on administrative subpoenas to collect records of calls….

Not even a secret, but at least Article III, judge granting (or, rarely, refusing) warrants to search. Now we have, also, the same sort of warrant issued administratively (but just as sub rosa if not outright secretly).

What other secret databases is the Federal government keeping on its employers, us citizens?

These two programs, shrouded as they’ve been, are illustrations of why government cannot be trusted with such collections absent open, publicly sought and issued or refused 4th Amendment warrants. These two programs demonstrate instead that, without such public requests and issuances/denials, the Constitution will be ignored at convenience.

An aside: DoJ says this DEA collection program has been discontinued. There’s no evidence, though, that the database has been destroyed. DoJ is only willing to claim that the contents have been deleted. We know, of course, from IRS deletions that deleting doesn’t necessarily mean deletion.

Privacy and Government

Posted on by
Reply

…and government shoe-squeezing.

The No. 2 official at the Justice Department [Deputy Attorney General James Cole] delivered a blunt message last month to Apple Inc executives: new encryption technology that renders locked iPhones impervious to law enforcement would lead to tragedy. A child would die, he said, because police wouldn’t be able to scour a suspect’s phone, according to people who attended the meeting.

The naked panic-mongering is something we’d expect to get out of the press, but for a high-ranking government official to spout such nonsense is…unseemly. For Cole to masquerade his extreme outlier as the trend that must result, though, is dishonest. But it’s all good—DoJ must be able to snoop into Americans’ communications on DoJ’s own recognizance. Because, of course, no American administration would abuse its discretion.

This comes on the heels of another DoJ overwrought claim.

Last month, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey said new Apple and Google encryption schemes would “allow people to place themselves beyond the law.”

This is the risk a free people take; it’s a risk the free American people have said repeatedly we’re willing and anxious to take. Because such encryption schemes also would “allow people to place themselves beyond an overreaching government.” Which overreach the crocodile tears and manufactured crises of Cole and Comey demonstrate this government is committing.

Give up some freedom—some privacy from government snooping—in order to have security? Pssh. Without the freedom, without the privacy from government snooping, there can never be any security.