mass genocide, then slavery, then freedom, then the american dream, and now:
slavery, of a new kind...
+++++++++
Brave New Era for Privacy Fight
By Kim Zetter
Story location:
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,66242,00.html
02:00 AM Jan. 13, 2005 PT
As the nation prepares for President Bush's inauguration next
week, privacy activists on both sides of the political spectrum
are bracing for a White House push to augment controversial
domestic surveillance powers gained under the Patriot Act and
other legislation passed since 9/11.
"The administration has made it clear that they do intend to
continue their move to dramatically reduce privacy and
constitutional protection for our citizens," said former
Republican congressman Bob Barr, who now works as a
speaker and consultant to organizations like the American Civil
Liberties Union.
But surveillance legislation isn't the only concern on the minds
of privacy advocates. They're also looking at technologies and
services coming out of the commercial sector that could
seriously affect civil liberties. Some of the important issues to
watch this year are:
Patriot Act enhancements
In his state-of-the-union speech last year, Bush urged ongress
to renew certain provisions of the Patriot Act that are set to
expire at the end of this year.
Barr and other civil liberties advocates expect that the
administration, believing it has a mandate to gain the powers
it wants, will also try to push through new
Patriot Act II
provisions, which the administration partly abandoned when
their existence came to light and caused an uproar in 2003.
Barr expects the administration will pass provisions piecemeal
in other legislation to avoid controversy, as it did last year
with the Anti-Terrorism Intelligence Tools Improvement Act of
2003, or HR3179.
"This will be a crucial battle over the coming two years to see
whether Congress really will stand up for the privacy rights of
our citizens," Barr said. "The record so far has not been terribly
optimistic."
One possible reason for optimism could be the SAFE Act,
introduced in 2003, which Barr sees as a sign that some
members of Congress regretted passing the Patriot Act with
insufficient checks and balances. The Security and Freedom
Ensured Act of 2003, or SB1709, is a bipartisan bill that refines
some of the more invasive provisions of the Patriot Act
regarding wiretaps, library records and other types of
surveillance. The bill has 19 co-sponsors but has been frozen
in the Senate for more than a year. A House companion bill
(HR3352) has also been stuck.
Data mining
The corporate sector has increasingly been collaborating with
government agencies in data-mining projects that whittle away
individual liberties. Privacy advocates say this will be the
most important issue to watch this year.
Although laws prohibit the government from building dossiers
on individuals, they don't prohibit the government from buying
information from commercial data aggregators like Acxiom,
ChoicePoint and LexisNexis, which collect information about
citizens' web surfing, bank transactions, doctor visits and
travel itineraries. And there are no laws governing how federal
agencies can use the data.
The concern cuts both ways, however. Privacy advocates say
there are currently few safeguards governing how private
corporations can use information passed to them by
government authorities. For example, the Fleet Bank in Boston
closed the financial accounts of several customers after law
enforcement made inquiries about the customers' transactions
in the course of a terrorist investigation. Although authorities
never found any reason to charge the customers with a crime,
the bank closed their accounts anyway.
Kim Taipale, executive director of the Center for Advanced
Studies in Science and Technology Policy, said that monitoring
and battling such corporate/government partnerships takes a
concerted effort that has, until now, been lacking.
"When the public spotlight is on it, it creates a lot of concern
and attracts a lot of attention, but the battle is getting the
public spotlight to shine on these plans," Taipale said.
European and Latin American countries are also looking to
establish privacy safeguards for data collected by U.S.
companies on foreign consumers. According to Marc Rotenberg,
executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
U.S. commercial data aggregators have collected information
on Latin American consumers and dropped it into border-patrol
databases to help officials determine who should be allowed
entry to the United States.
"This data from property records and DMV and
voter-registration records in those countries should not be
going to the U.S. for these purposes," Rotenberg said. "The
flow of information around the world will be a very big issue
this year."
National ID
Another important issue is the adoption last month of what
could become a de facto national ID card. Even though
Congress previously nixed a proposal for a national ID card on
grounds that it would be too intrusive and prone to abuse, a
driver's license provision in the National Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Act, passed before Congress' holiday recess,
requires all driver's licenses to be standardized to include
machine-readable, encoded data by the end of 2006.
Although the legislation didn't specify what data would be
encoded in the cards, it gave authority to the secretary of
transportation, in consultation with the Homeland Security
secretary, to define the data within 18 months.
Privacy advocates are concerned that rather than just
preventing ID fraud, the data on cards could be linked to a
national database containing dossiers of information gathered
from other sources.
Robert Ellis Smith, publisher of the Privacy Journal, has said
the new law "will have more serious consequences for
individual liberties of American citizens than any other law
enacted in at least two decades."
Privacy legislation and states' rights
Privacy advocates expect ongoing battles between the federal
government and states over jurisdiction in privacy matters.
California experienced such a scuffle when Congress, bowing to
pressure from business lobbyists, passed a law in 2003 that
undid a California privacy regulation.
The state law would have let bank and brokerage customers
prevent financial institutions from sharing their personal
information -- such as bank balances, credit card purchases
and stock holdings -- with affiliate companies. California has
been a leader in passing privacy legislation, but Rotenberg
says the state's moves have made a lot of people inside and
outside of corporate boardrooms uncomfortable.
"There's a lot of nervousness in Washington about California's
willingness to create privacy laws," Rotenberg said, "and I
think you may see some effort to use federal authority to reign
in states."
DNA databases
Although Californians have high regard for privacy, this regard
didn't extend to criminal suspects last November when
residents approved one of the most aggressive DNA measures
in the country, which privacy advocates say will likely be
copied nationwide.
The DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection
Act allows authorities to take DNA samples from anyone --
adult or juvenile -- convicted of a felony. Currently, it also lets
police collect samples from any adult arrested for specific
felonies, such as sexual assault and murder, even before they
are convicted.
But in 2009, that authority will expand to allow police to
collect DNA samples from any suspect arrested for any felony
-- including nonviolent crimes like residential burglary --
whether or not the person is charged or convicted. It's
expected that genetic data for 1 million people -- including
innocent suspects -- will be added to California's DNA
databank by 2009, making it the largest state DNA databank in
the country.
"Not long ago, people said we would only collect for felony
convictions of sex crimes where there is a high level of concern
about recidivism," Rotenberg said. "Now it's dramatically
expanded to non-sex crimes and even misdemeanors. I can
now imagine the world of perfect DNA matching that (the film)
Gattaca depicted."
RFID tags
Radio-frequency ID tags will become a bigger issue in 2005 as
their use expands into new areas. Currently, stores and
companies embed RFID tags in the packaging of drugs and
commercial products to help track product supplies and update
orders. But privacy advocates say the tags will soon be
embedded in clothing and other products, raising concerns that
the tracking might not stop when consumers leave a store
with the product.
"The problem is not only about tracking the whereabouts of
people but about linking associations," Rotenberg said.
"Students with RFID student cards can be grouped and
monitored in terms of who they're with."
Chips embedded beneath the skin will also become a larger
issue.
Last October, the FDA approved an implantable computer chip
that would contain medical information to assist with health
care. The military has discussed implanting the chips in
soldiers to speed up medical care, and Rotenberg said it's
likely the chips will soon be used in prisoners, parolees and
eventually children. The concern is with forced chipping, which
would take away choice from individuals receiving the chips.
Rotenberg expects 2005 to be a busy year for privacy
advocates. But
he hopes that individuals won't leave it to
organized activists to do all the work to protect privacy rights
or think that because a specific right doesn't pertain to them
that it's OK for others to lose it.
"It's a mistake to think that privacy is an individualist or
atavist right," Rotenberg said. "I really view privacy as a
collective right. When someone else is forced to give up their
privacy, yours could be the next to go."
++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++
I stand against these ciolations, and am actively informinn all people around me about these risks.
it is our duty, as people whom understand the danger, to inform others.
please note that it is not the technology that is negative, it is
the fact that it can be used against freedom and the search for
happyness we all thrive for.
Gri, scared.