

The Public/Private Surveillance Partnership - z_
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/05/the_publicpriva.html

======
tptacek
_Without hyperbole, [CISPA's] been called the death of the 4th Amendment_

He could have written "CISPA has been called the death of the 4th Amendment"
and been correct, but here he's decided to go out on a limb and demonstrate
that he understands neither CISPA nor the 4th Amendment (or, to be fair, that
he doesn't understand what hyperbole is), for no apparent rhetorical benefit.

We are awash in serious 4th Amendment and surveillance/privacy issues.
National Security Letters were/are one of them. And if Schneier had the stones
to call them out, the "network security" products that enable large-scale
surveillance and are sold continuously to corrupt foreign governments would be
another one. But if privacy activists want to be taken seriously, they need to
stop hyperventilating over fake issues.

------
olefoo
What we need to do is to get a _standard_ cease and desist letter that tells
service providers that selling our personal information without notification,
auditing powers and compensation is not permitted, and is a violation of our
right of publicity and image rights, copyrights and other rights. Get a few
hundred thousand people to send them to the the major telecommunications
providers and ad networks and then assemble the team for a class action.

This is a perfectly valid tactic to use against private interests that are
violating peoples 4th, 5th and 1st amendment rights.

And to forestall some of the objections; it is a tactic that is uncertain of
success and that will in the short term most likely cause the passage of
unconstitutional legislation protecting service providers against the public (
like the blanket amnesty for wrongdoing granted to phone companies in 2008 as
part of FISA ). Having several thousand plaintiffs trying to get certified as
a class, and overcome the additional hurdles that will be thrown in the way
will force the issue into the light; and let's be honest do you think that
most people think the government _needs_ to know exactly where they sleep each
night?

------
lobotryas
>We're willingly giving it to a vast network of for-profit data collectors,
and they're more than happy to pass it on to the government without our
knowledge or consent.

This reads like a typical "doom and gloom" article and I never understood the
point of those. Where is the call to action? Even a half-hearted plea to reach
out to your Senators would appear to be more productive than this.

Never read me wrong - I'm just trying to see the forest for the trees. My
understanding is that people who care about privacy already know all this, and
people to whom we really need to reach out neither read The Atlantic nor
Shneiner's blog.

P.S. Does anyone have any credible links for RFID-embedded clothing?
Specifically, why destroying these chips would be a problem?

------
polarix
"When you walk into a store, they'll already know who you are. When you
interact with a policeman, she'll already have your personal information
displayed on her Internet-enabled glasses."

That makes it sound really useful, and terrific for society.

