Privacy in the 21st century

[Moonlight Graham]

Our privacy is increasingly being eroded. The internet and cell phones etc. are powerful new technological tools for us, but are being used by private companies, governments, & nosy tech-savy everyday folks to invade our privacy if not spy on us. The Snowden/NSA controversies have helped reveal the scale of this problem. One of the latest privacy-crushing moves in Canada comes from Bell Mobile (and partner Virgin Mobile) regarding its cellphone & other service users:

[beginning Nov. 16, 2013, BCE’s policy states it will collect network usage information including: web pages users visit from their mobile devices or home Internet, search terms used, location, app usage, television viewing and calling patterns

Everyone who uses the internet or a cellphone, along with virtually any other technology connected to a network at any point (ie: Microsoft Office, Xbox Live, credit cards) has to assume that all of their usage of these technologies is being tracked in some form by the technology provider or our governments. Even for things you may never have considered before, ie: I have to assume it's very likely that Microsoft tracks when, where, and how I use Microsoft Word (possibly down to how many times I press the "bold" button) so that they can "improve their program, along with marketing purposes etc. We also have to assume that our Internet Service Provider (ISP) knows every webpage we go to, how long we spend there, search terms we enter into google etc.

One thing that shocked me about the extent of non-privacy we have as internet users was when I had a short-lived blog site a few years ago & used free "Google Analytics" software to track the amount of web hits I got on my page. I quickly realized that this kind of software can track tons of info on every individual user that visited my website, & every website (including MLW) can and almost always does use this type of software & is able to track: your IP address, your location (using your IP to specify not only their city/country, but to narrow your location down to around the size of your postal code), which specific pages on the site you visit, how long you spend on each specific page, which page you enter and leave the site on, how you came to the site (google search? external link?), what search terms you entered to find the site on google/yahoo etc, what internet browser/version you use, your screen resolution settings, etc. My blog had hardly any visitors, so what was creepy was that I could see when my friend visited my site (since he lives close to me & any user with an IP from my area was obviously him) and could see all the info about his visits as described above. I'm sure this is only the tip of the iceberg of the info any website can track. Maybe some of the more tech-savvy MLW members can enlighten us? I assume that our ISP's & Internet Explorer/Chrome/Safari browsers etc can track similar things.

So what should we do about protecting our ever-decreasing privacy? Do you read the "terms & conditions" when you install a program? Do you care if your cellphone company knows what apps you're using (& when/where/how)? Do you know other ways our privacy is being undermined that most people don't know about? Do you know technology that can better protect our privacy?

[eyeball]

The only thing I can imagine that might protect our privacy is to undermine the secrecy our politicians and governments enjoy.

Hopefully there will be a day when the Snowdens and Assanges of the world will have schools and parks named in their honour.

[bush_cheney2004]

If such "privacy" is really a pressing concern, then stop using such devices and networks, as there is no absolute "protection". Ultimately, users have weighed the costs and benefits of such tools, and most just don't care about such "spying". Sure, there are lots of spoofing tricks you can play if that's what you want, but in some cases that just attracts more attention.

There are older, obsolete technologies that are more secure:

1) Signal flags (line of site only)

2) Flashing light with encryption (again, line of site only)

3) Soup cans connected by string

In short, there is no privacy in such matters. Get over it.

Edited December 10, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

If a chill on the use and thereby the profitability of the Internet does occur maybe someone more important will tell governments to get a grip and back off.

Speaking of a chilled populace, the pool of people pure enough to be politician must be more like a drop now compared to the vast ocean of depravity that much of humanity appears to be swimming in.

I don't know if that would be a good thing or a bad thing, fewer politicians sounds an upside but what if the few that are left turn out to be real sphincters?

[Argus]

There really isn't anything you can do about it without running as a ghost, which those of who aren't technically competent couldn't hope to achieve. Like it or not corporations have an increasing amount of data on us. Most of us, for example, use those rewards cards. Those are specifically designed to gather as much information about you and your purchasing habits as possible. Visa and the other credit card companies know what you buy, too, yes, even that stuff at the sex shop that comes with a bland vendor name on the bill. Interested in cute teen blondes, well, Google is recording what search terms you use, and they never erase their data. Like to be spanked? Well, guess what, Bell and other ISPs will know you visit those spanking sites, buddy, and even what videos and stories you look at! Whether you're cheating on your wife or hubby, and sending texts and instant messages, whether you're slacking off from work by pretending you're sick but going to a movie or shopping, somewhere, a data base knows about it.

There is no privacy any more. You just have to hope nobody you know gets hold of the data being held by all those corporations, or that you are so bland there's nothing there to interest anyone.

The NSA should be the last of our worries.

[Moonlight Graham]

For cellphones i don't know of a way to increase privacy, but while using the internet you can use proxy servers to hide your IP, although their use isn't allowed here on MLW according to the rules. MLW wants to know who you are too, but they have some arguably legit reasons (ie: preventing multiple accounts):

The use of internet proxies to bypass a suspension or a ban is forbidden. Members who choose to use a proxy to access the Mapleleafweb risk suspension and or banning.

I'm not a huge techie so that's why I'm asking any tech junkies here if they know of other methods to protect privacy.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

I'm not a huge techie so that's why I'm asking any tech junkies here if they know of other methods to protect privacy.

Im a web security guy among other things, and heres what I tell people...

Look at your life, and try to identify which parts of it result in sensitive information. Most people have very little. Theres the common stuff like banking information, credit card numbers etc. Make sure that you only use these things in services that are protected with TLS (HTTPS) but above all make sure you are insured in the event that someone steals them. Most financial companies offer such insurance.

In terms of government organizations, you just need to assume that they can see everything. In terms of sensitive information, you cant trust any online service. Even services protected by TLS/SSL can be compromised if the government can force the certificate provider to turn over your encryption keys (verisign, thawte, etc). And in theory most online services are vulnerable to a distributed MITM attack, or a brute force hack on your password. If you have to use online services, use super cryptic passwords and change them regularly.

Keep the sensitive parts of your life off the web completely. If you run a criminal enterprise then keep it offline. If you engage in activities that could be seen as subversive keep them offline.

At the end of the day you only really need to worry about information that can damage you. Most people dont have any. If you HAVE to put sensitive information online then at least make sure its encrypted. That might not completely prevent someone from getting their hands on it, but it will at least make it hard for them instead of easy.

Thats really the biggest piece of advice anyone could give you. Profile yourself. Identify sensitive information, and do an basic risk assessment.

The real point here is that understanding your universe of information and the risks involved is a lot more important than anything else. Identify your sensitive data and make sure you know where it is. Try to regularly delete outdated information to try to keep your universe of sensitive data small and managable. UNDERSTAND YOUR DATA! If you do then security is pretty easy.

Edited December 10, 2013 by dre

[Bonam]

Keep the sensitive parts of your life off the web completely. If you run a criminal enterprise then keep it offline. If you engage in activities that could be seen as subversive keep them offline.

Unfortunately, the definition of what might be considered subversive changes over time. Even our opinions expressed on these forums here, on some subject or other, could one day be seen as subversive. Certainly if one of us ever ran for public office, someone would quickly link MLW identity to real identity, and quote some posts from here in their attack ads. And in the future some posts we made here could get us sent to re-education camps, at the rate that Western governments are cracking down on freedoms.

[bleeding heart]

Bonam is right; the concern is more than legitimate. And governments, anywhere, do not spy on the citizenry solely to protect them from terrorism, or other threats. The real enemy here is the domestic one, from the point of view of government.

And people make a big (and in fact quite ancient) error when they play the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you need not worry" card. As Bonam aptly pointed out, what constitutes "subversion" changes over time.

[Michael Hardner]

... and quote some posts from here in their attack ads. And in the future some posts we made here could get us sent to re-education camps, at the rate that Western governments are cracking down on freedoms.

Ever wonder why they don't have attack ads on the web, or in newspapers ? I don't think they work in those media. As such, TV is dying and without TV and its expensive ad campaigns the entire nature of politics changes.

Things don't get worse with time, they just change ... and historically there is such a thing as progress. By any measure we're doing better.

Also it would be harder to control the population today than years ago, due to peer to peer communications being more pervasive than before. This is perceptible in the volume of anti-government communications that we receive today versus thirty years ago - when you would have been handed a pamphlet on a streetcorner.

[GostHacked]

It's only getting harder to control the message because we are able to fact check the MSM more readily than ever before. We are able to catch them in their mistakes when they happen and then watch them struggle to cover up and change the story. They are losing control, because they have been not doing a good job of giving the right information.

The MSM is all part of controlling the message. Military is always involved in controlling the message that gets out to the likes of CNN, FOX and other alphabet networks. Independent news organizations are not bound by those restrictions.

An example is the cover up of the ongoing issue at Fukushima. Recent reports show that Canada covered up the radiation readings in the days following the meltdowns.

http://globalresearchreport.com/2013/12/07/canada-busted-covering-up-spikes-in-fukushima-radiation/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=canada-busted-covering-up-spikes-in-fukushima-radiation#sthash.2H0sQUNe.cLKLUAoH.dpbs

The message can be and is controlled.

Want more examples of control? You cannot have countries go offline without some major outside help from those who know the most about the internet technology. Syria, Libya and Egypt all went dark for periods over the past years with the Arab Spring uprisings. This was to control the information getting out to the world from those countries.

The message can be and is controlled.

Another thing I discovered recently is the ability to intercept your traffic, redirect it and then pass it on to you without you ever knowing about it.

Also CSEC is also involved in helping and expanding the NSA spy program.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowden-document-shows-canada-set-up-spy-posts-for-nsa-1.2456886

A top secret document retrieved by American whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals Canada has set up covert spying posts around the world and conducted espionage against trading partners at the request of the U.S. National Security Agency.

Just metadata eh?

If you are not doing anything wrong, then what is the issue? I just wanna play a computer game!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25310774 and notice the catch word of 'terrorism'

US and British spies have reportedly infiltrated online games such as World of Warcraft in an effort to identify terrorist threats, according to media reports.

The undercover agents reportedly operated in virtual universes to observe messaging and payment systems.

The NSA allegedly warned that such online games could allow intelligence targets to hide in plain sight.

They are also doing this to website forums. More controlling of the messsage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/online-persona-management_n_837153.html

The U.S. Military has purchased software designed to create and control false online personas in an attempt to use social media and other websites to counter anti-U.S. messaging.

According to the contract between US Central Command (Centcom) and California company Ntrepid, the software would let each user control 10 personas, each "replete with background, history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographically consistent." The software would also be able to let personas "appear to originate in nearly any part of the world" and interact through "conventional online services and social media platforms," while using a static IP address for each persona to maintain a consistent online identity.

These false online personas, also known as "sock puppets," would be equipped to seem like real people while entering online discussion through blogs, message boards, chats, and more. With a false persona, a user could discredit opponents, or create the semblance of consensus

Sock puppets, I think we may still have a few around here. Who knows.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

Controlling the message. And all this is about collecting data on you, spying on you.

And I may single out the USA here but many countries are taking part in this and sharing the information on each one of us with other governments, even to governments that do not seem to like democracy.

Edited December 10, 2013 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

1. It's only getting harder to control the message because we are able to fact check the MSM more readily than ever before.

2. The message can be and is controlled.

The message "is" controlled but it's getting harder ? At what point do we say the message can't be controlled ?

[GostHacked]

The message "is" controlled but it's getting harder ? At what point do we say the message can't be controlled ?

When you start thinking for yourself.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ever wonder why they don't have attack ads on the web, or in newspapers ? I don't think they work in those media. As such, TV is dying and without TV and its expensive ad campaigns the entire nature of politics changes.

There are plenty of attack ads in print media and on the web. Broadcast and cable television remains the largest advertising and news source medium for the majority of voters in Norte America.

Things don't get worse with time, they just change ... and historically there is such a thing as progress. By any measure we're doing better.

Agreed....not liking an opposing message is not the same as impeding progress. In this case, more is more.

Also it would be harder to control the population today than years ago, due to peer to peer communications being more pervasive than before. This is perceptible in the volume of anti-government communications that we receive today versus thirty years ago - when you would have been handed a pamphlet on a streetcorner.

Certainly... it is silly to complain about "privacy" when voluntarily using and exploiting the exact same technology. Would it be wrong to assume that those who complained about the loss of Canada's long-form census are the same folks who are now concerned about data privacy on the web ? Politics in never far away from these extreme views, while most just go about their lives without any dedicated agenda.

[GostHacked]

Certainly... it is silly to complain about "privacy" when voluntarily using and exploiting the exact same technology.

In many cases it is mandatory, not voluntary. Government wants us to be open, while they get more closed. If we don't want to be open, we are with the terrorists or child pornographers. If we want the government to be open, we are seen as conspiracy nutjobs.

More Stockholm Syndrome.

[Michael Hardner]

When you start thinking for yourself.

Strange answer. What I take it to mean is that since I don't feel the media is controlled, I do think for myself and since you do... then you don't ?

[Michael Hardner]

There are plenty of attack ads in print media and on the web.

They do ? I have to say I feel that I haven't seen one. Perhaps it's fair to say the impact is less without the full dramatic effect ... music, motion, etc.

Certainly... it is silly to complain about "privacy" when voluntarily using and exploiting the exact same technology.

Silly comes to mind, certainly. The complaints about TV back in the day were about the commercials. Now they're gone, and people still complain about free entertainment. And now, the complaints have taken on this aspect of Big Brother even.

Why did the New World Order give us the internet if it makes us harder to control ?

[GostHacked]

Strange answer. What I take it to mean is that since I don't feel the media is controlled, I do think for myself and since you do... then you don't ?

In many cases your thoughts are not even your own, but put into you through repetition and other psychological means. Why do you think advertising is so successful? Ever have a commercial jingle stuck in your head and you have no idea why? I run into 'free thinkers' all the time, but rarely are they really free thinkers.

How can you tell you really are thinking for yourself?

[Michael Hardner]

If we want the government to be open, we are seen as conspiracy nutjobs.

Not at all. The governments themselves see the advantage in openness but making it happen is a huge cultural shift.

And the big problem with the conspiracy nuttiness is that government waste, stupidity and malevolence happens in clear view with very little in the way of public comment. It's hard to say that people will care more when all of this goes out into the public.

What we need is for the public to leave behind the disinterested, and the lazy thinkers who rely on old tropes to review every government action. There are a host of things that could be achieved if the government was more open AND the mainstream media didn't blow up minor items beyond their significance.

[bleeding heart]

Michael Hardner

Silly comes to mind, certainly. The complaints about TV back in the day were about the commercials. Now they're gone, [sic] and people still complain about free entertainment.

????

This is an odd way to get around to talking about the government spying on its citizenry. It seems approximately 100% irrelevant. A truly Augustian remark, if you take my meaning.

It reminds me of Camille Paglia's bizarre dismissal of climate change concerns: "Liberals are unaware that polar bears can swim."

Why did the New World Order give us the internet if it makes us harder to control?

You're caricaturing, by conflating those with genuine concerns about surveillance with the wilder conspiracy types.

I had thought you had some objection to such methods of "debate," as in the conflation of all people of faith with terrorist bombers and creationists.

That the spying doesn't particularly concern you--including the incontrovertible, inherent fact that our elected, "representative" governments have been lying into our faces about this matter all along--is fine; but it doesn't mean that those who are concerned are a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics.

Interestingly, you subsequently go on:

What we need is for the public to leave behind the disinterested and lazy thinkers

Assuming you meant "uninterested" (as MORE "disinterest" might serve us quite well), I don't see how dismissing government spying as a concern only of global conspiracy theorists is exactly robust thinking.

Edited December 10, 2013 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

...There are a host of things that could be achieved if the government was more open AND the mainstream media didn't blow up minor items beyond their significance.

The "mainstream media" delivers the content which we choose to consume. Those who seek loftier content know where to find it. For most, the gears of government are dreadfully boring. It takes the likes of Mayor Ford for government to entertain well.

Edited December 10, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

Not at all. The governments themselves see the advantage in openness but making it happen is a huge cultural shift.

And that is the culture of the government. They are more open? Or we have more ways now to check their facts? They are not being open on good faith.

And the big problem with the conspiracy nuttiness is that government waste, stupidity and malevolence happens in clear view with very little in the way of public comment. It's hard to say that people will care more when all of this goes out into the public.

What we need is for the public to leave behind the disinterested, and the lazy thinkers who rely on old tropes to review every government action. There are a host of things that could be achieved if the government was more open AND the mainstream media didn't blow up minor items beyond their significance.

The minor issues are blown up to distract you from other issues. And that has been more in your face in the last decade than ever before. Like how we have Rob Ford pushed into the spotlight to take away from the expenses scandal that can directly indict the PMO. Or Linsday Lohan and court/rehab bull. We have several threads on the expenses scandal, and not many pages, and yet we have close to 200 pages for the Rob Ford theatrics.

People LOVE to trivialize over the small stupid shit. I hear it EVERY damn day. Then when you shove an important bit in their face, you are met with disgust and other marginalizing tactics.

The media is a major factor in putting these opinions in your head. Unless you don't listen to radio, watch TV, use the internet, walk down your street, you are being influenced. Even as aware of it as I am, I still get trapped up in it, then feeling like an idiot, because I should have known better.

[Michael Hardner]

This is an odd way to get around to talking about the government spying on its citizenry.

The specificity of the complaint makes the difference in how I respond to it.

Government wiretaps, opening of mail happened without approval in the past. That was more illegal than what we've scene today. It's not right but I try not to overstate my reaction to it.

I also read a lot of complaints about facebook, Google and so on - saying they are 'spying' on us, which does seem silly sometimes.

It seems approximately 100% irrelevant. A truly Augustian remark, if you take my meaning.

It reminds me of Camille Paglia's bizarre dismissal of climate change concerns: "Liberals are unaware that polar bears can swim."

No, it's right on. A shot of a polar bear swimming, juxtaposed with sad music fills the intelligent observer with wonder, ie. "Is there something sad in this picture" and fills the stupid person with concerns, ie. "I hope the helicopter taking that shot lowered a life preserver down for that bear !"

You're caricaturing, by conflating those with genuine concerns about surveillance with the wilder conspiracy types.

I'm sorry but look at the tone of the opposing argument in this case. It's paranoiac.

I had thought you had some objection to such methods of "debate," as in the conflation of all people of faith with terrorist bombers and creationists.

I have a different reaction in those examples when a living caricature (for example a wildly irrational religious person) shows up here and lives the stereotype to a T. I tend to stay out of those arguments.

That the spying doesn't particularly concern you--including the incontrovertible, inherent fact that our elected, "representative" governments have been lying into our faces about this matter all along--is fine; but it doesn't mean that those who are concerned are a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics.

They clearly are trying to do this legally, as the news has reported both attempts to get judicial approval as well as actions that didn't have such approval.

Yes, we should be concerned about security agencies breaking the law but it is silly to overstate this concern.

Assuming you meant "uninterested" (as MORE "disinterest" might serve us quite well), I don't see how dismissing government spying as a concern only of global conspiracy theorists is exactly robust thinking.

There are few things I like better than being 'schooled' on English usage ! As a Math major, I only took remedial report writing classes though I read for pleasure. That said, I think the #2 definition is correct however if I had known the #1 definition I would have said 'uninterested'.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disinterested

As to the latter point:

Government spying is indeed of great interest - but why ? Maybe it's that word "spying". If it were called something like "Algorithmic Pattern Recognition in Meta data" it might get the usually snoozey noises from the public.

Anyway, yes, I think there's too much attention to these things.

[Michael Hardner]

Those who seek loftier content know where to find it.

I sure don't.

[Michael Hardner]

And that is the culture of the government. They are more open? Or we have more ways now to check their facts? They are not being open on good faith.

I agree with everything you wrote here.

The minor issues are blown up to distract you from other issues.

Who is 'distracting us' ? Would the news outlets not distract us anyway, if it got them more viewers ?

I'm sorry but this statement reads like there is a larger strategy by government to control the public's attention. There is no way that that can happen, and when I read points like this I start to not take the argument seriously.

You may want to indulge your imagination that there's a Dr. No type villain out there, hiding in an undersea lair, stroking his white cat, and playing the media like a chess set … but leave it out of your arguments if you want to convince people of anything at all.

There's plenty of real evidence out there that you can talk about to convince people of your thesis, and you're certainly not lacking for knowledge of this subject area for anything that needs to be brought forward.

And that has been more in your face in the last decade than ever before. Like how we have Rob Ford pushed into the spotlight to take away from the expenses scandal that can directly indict the PMO.

Why did that happen ? I'll tell you why - because it PLAYS. Because it's a better and more compelling story. That's it.

There's no other explanation, in my mind. Certainly nobody called up Rob and told him to admit crack use to deflect attention from the Senate Scandal.

Or Linsday Lohan and court/rehab bull. We have several threads on the expenses scandal, and not many pages, and yet we have close to 200 pages for the Rob Ford theatrics.

You're railing on about human nature. I share your disappointment, however I think that the problem is that our news and entertainment are mixed in too much now, and that the publics that make government work well (such as newspaper) are on the decline.

People LOVE to trivialize over the small stupid shit. I hear it EVERY damn day. Then when you shove an important bit in their face, you are met with disgust and other marginalizing tactics.

I agree. I think we should encourage such people to drop out of the process if they're not interested… uh… Uninterested !

The media is a major factor in putting these opinions in your head.

The media you mention soothe people, which means they reinforce opinions that are already there. Real debate, learning, and discussion happens when people talk one-on-one such as on MLW or in person.