We need a privacy revolution

[dre]

They obviously don't read every email. But what is to stop an intelligence officer from going into someone's individual emails or Dropbox files on whatever whim they wish? Snowden said he could do it, and has the documents to prove it. I believe him more than the government.

They dont need to read every email. They use document classification/machine learning. The best way to do this right now is with some variation of a bayes classifer, or latent semantic indexing. You feed the system a bunch of exemplar documents and it identifies the concepts in them mathematically as opposed to humans building a taxonomy of terms to look for. You feed in a few million emails of people talking about crime or terrorism and the machine will rank each other piece of mail with a percentage that shows how likely it is to be a document discussing a crime or terrorist attack. Then you do an ANSI QC of the machines decisions and it gets even smarter. Rince and repeat until you get the precision and recall you want. Precision is a measure of the percentage of documents that the machine classified as being about crime or terrorism. Recall is the percentage of the entire corpus of crime and terrorism documents that the machine found. ANSI QC of a few million documents will give you these numbers.

I know how it works because I built it.

And make no mistake about it... For the system to work you need to SIEZE EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT. The only way the government can employ this technology is if they have already stolen all your property.

Anybody that tells you that this is not a complete violation of your privacy or to put it more aptly the END of your privacy... either doesnt understand how it works, or just doesnt care. And thats why a lot of the concerns being voiced about this are people like snowden. Information Technology and Data Retrieval experts. They know exactly how far the government has their dick up your ass. Nobody else does.

In my opinion opposing this activity is the VERY MOST IMPORTANT endeavor a citizen could be involved in.

Edited May 9, 2014 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Thats not a silly analogy at all, in fact its very apt. It needs to be drilled into people that searching your email is no different than searching your car or your house or tapping your phone.

That's a personal take on it.

For some people, germs will freak them out more than barking dogs.

[dre]

That's a personal take on it.

For some people, germs will freak them out more than barking dogs.

Thats not a personal take on it... its basic logic and common sense. Privacy is about protecting your property and communications. Two people talking in an email is no different then them having a verbal conversation. Its the speech itself thats meant to be protected... So to suggest that some mediums of exchanging ideas should be protected and other ones shouldnt fails a basic smell test.

[Derek 2.0]

Thats not a personal take on it... its basic logic and common sense. Privacy is about protecting your property and communications. Two people talking in an email is no different then them having a verbal conversation. Its the speech itself thats meant to be protected... So to suggest that some mediums of exchanging ideas should be protected and other ones shouldnt fails a basic smell test.

That is a very good point, but to expanded upon that meme, electronic communications between two individuals is akin to two people having a conversation at a table in a restaurant, as such, if their conversation is overheard by a third party (include a State actor), they have no legal expectation of privacy.

[dre]

Thats a fair point Derek, but the point I would make is this. We create legal expectations. Its supposed to be up to us whats legal and what isnt... and it should make sense. If youre talking in a public place it stands to reason that privacy is going to be limited/compromised. But the question is, should a government that is supposed to serve me be engaging in this behavior at all.

And back to the idea of different mediums... Im not talking about being in a public place. Im at home right now.... and I could pick up the phone and call you and say "Derek.... Im going to the bar this weekend... wanna come out?". And thats protected.. the government needs an order from the court to intercept that communication. But if I write an email that says "Derek... Im going to the bar this weekend, wanna come out?"... Then some people believe that should not be protected. And that doesnt make sense. In both cases Im sitting here talking to Derek.... Im saying the exact same thing in the same circumstance, just through a different medium.

And the point I would make about legal expectations is that we are supposed to decide what they are. Our governement that we elect and fund should not treat us as defacto enemies of the state. If theres a reason to spy on us thats fine... explain it to a judge and get a court order. But the government in my opinion should not engage in the wholesale seizure of what basically ammounts to our intellectual property. And they already have all the tools they need to fight crime, terrorism, etc. If they can convince a judge that theres a compelling reason then they can dismiss ALL my privacy rights.

Edited May 10, 2014 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Thats not a personal take on it... its basic logic and common sense.

No. We're talking about a personal reaction to two different actions:

"It needs to be drilled into people that searching your email is no different than searching your car or your house or tapping your phone."

Citizens, voters would not feel that way. That should be obvious, basic, logical, and common sense.

If the government announced they'd be randomly entering peoples' houses then there would be an outcry - so it IS different.

Privacy is about protecting your property and communications.

Yes - PERSONAL property and PERSONAL communications, so the concept of privacy is also a personal concept.

So to suggest that some mediums of exchanging ideas should be protected and other ones shouldnt fails a basic smell test.

No two mediums [sic] are the same, and as such communications are treated differently. Attempts to make all communication the same fail that same test. At the very least, the political question is different so it is different.

Now, if you want to argue the ethics of it, it gets more complicated at least for me. I'm not comfortable with where this is going, and I am pretty sure that I would end up having friends and family targeted unfairly

I don't like the idea that this is all simple. It is not.

[eyeball]

I think we go a lot farther than simply building expectations of privacy. It's a service we purchase from providers who are licenced to deliver it - the licence reinforces our expectations of legitimacy. We may agree to allow certain limited access to our privacy to service providers and that is what we expect, limited access..

[eyeball]

I don't like the idea that this is all simple. It is not.

Yes it is very simple, you're looking and hoping for some little minute speck of middle ground that you can expand upon - it's extreme centrism. Facilitators with nothing to facilitate must be driven similarly nuts.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes it is very simple, you're looking and hoping for some little minute speck of middle ground that you can expand upon - it's extreme centrism. Facilitators with nothing to facilitate must be driven similarly nuts.

If it's so simple, why isn't this just going away ? Why is the public roughly split on whether this should be allowed ?

I can agree that it's the same in that there's a measure of invasion of privacy here, but outrage just doesn't trump logic.

[GostHacked]

No. We're talking about a personal reaction to two different actions:

"It needs to be drilled into people that searching your email is no different than searching your car or your house or tapping your phone."

Citizens, voters would not feel that way. That should be obvious, basic, logical, and common sense.

If the government announced they'd be randomly entering peoples' houses then there would be an outcry - so it IS different.

And since they are randomly checking emails on everyone, there WAS a stink raised. Because people are treating it the same. The ones who do not think that they are the same are open to abuse.

Yes - PERSONAL property and PERSONAL communications, so the concept of privacy is also a personal concept.

No two mediums [sic] are the same, and as such communications are treated differently. Attempts to make all communication the same fail that same test. At the very least, the political question is different so it is different.

You cannot read my snail mail, so electronic mail should NOT be treated any differently. Just because it is electronic and not physical does not mean they should be treated any different.

Remember how pissed Pelosi in the US got when she found out that the NSA was targeting them. And that was regarding emails and other communications.

Let's use our own Vic Toews who got upset that someone posted already public information about him. Wonder how pissed he would be if that information was private. The bill was scrapped and revamped.

Now, if you want to argue the ethics of it, it gets more complicated at least for me. I'm not comfortable with where this is going, and I am pretty sure that I would end up having friends and family targeted unfairly

I don't like the idea that this is all simple. It is not.

Ethics? Like the gov saying 'we don't spy', but then says they are spying? We could use some ethics in government, then the amount of these threads debating the legitimacy of our government would drop off drastically.

[Michael Hardner]

And since they are randomly checking emails on everyone, there WAS a stink raised.

Yes, but my point it's not the same thing or the outrage would be greater.

You cannot read my snail mail, so electronic mail should NOT be treated any differently.

I absolutely get that. Many Canadians don't quite agree, it seems.

Again, I point out that I have problems with the current approach. My position has changed from neutral to concerned, as the scope of the operation increases.

Ethics? Like the gov saying 'we don't spy', but then says they are spying? We could use some ethics in government, then the amount of these threads debating the legitimacy of our government would drop off drastically.

Agreed.

[GostHacked]

Yes, but my point it's not the same thing or the outrage would be greater.

The outrage will get greater. But you can bank on ignorance of people to not be outraged.

'I got nothing to hide so I don't care if they spy on my email.' <--- Wrong attitude.

'But it's the government, what ya gonna do?' <------ Wrong attitude.

'Corps do it do so whats the problem?' <---- Wrong attitude.

Is my email the same as snail mail ? Yes.

Should they be treated with the same regarding privacy? Yes.

We can go on about the outrage that does not seem to be there, but I don't need to wait for those to forma consensus to say that something is wrong here. You know that it should be private.

I absolutely get that. Many Canadians don't quite agree, it seems.

I don't think they understand it all. How can they agree on something most of the public really has little knowledge of?

Again, I point out that I have problems with the current approach. My position has changed from neutral to concerned, as the scope of the operation increases.

Your concern will continue to increase. You moved from a staunch position to a more 'I am not sure anymore' approach.

I've mentioned ignorance before about tech and related spying. Your ignorance is fading moving you to a different mentality than you once had. Your views have been challenged and some may no longer prove as 'true' to you based on the new information you have.

You started out as a person who was complacent about much of this. Now that you know more, it's changed. And you are not a stupid person at all. So even the smart ones can get caught up in the bull that comes out of the government.

'Trust us!!' We are from the government and we are here to help. .... RUN.

Edited May 10, 2014 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

The outrage will get greater. But you can bank on ignorance of people to not be outraged.

Maybe - but outrage is a personal reaction, so it's tricky to attribute somebody else's emotion reaction to their lack of knowledge. Their attitude may just be different from yours.

So it is different - at least to them.

Your concern will continue to increase. You moved from a staunch position to a more 'I am not sure anymore' approach.

Not quite. I would say I went from a position of 'necessary evil with negligible concern over potential for abuse' to 'necessary evil with certainty of abuse, and concern on my part.

I've mentioned ignorance before about tech and related spying. Your ignorance is fading moving you to a different mentality than you once had.

Ah yes, the 'ignorance on tech' trope you've trotted out. In response, I offered to share my credentials on the tech side with you, to which you mumbled something of a pissing match and backed away. So, I'll reveal some personal details here - I have educational credentials in this area, as well as a decades long career in tech including programming, analysis and overseeing technical security details on web projects.

If you want to bring up my ignorance on this topic, you should at least be brave enough to explain why you think you're not ignorant on it. We had, to my memory, one actual disagreement over the tech specifics - which you finally understood after I clarified it.

My changing position comes from the revelations over the scope of the program, really, and over some details over how these things are being used.

The tech details are not even interesting or that relevant. People just need to be made aware of how these things have a potential for abuse. Specifics would help, but the powers that be refuse to offer much.

[cybercoma]

.Is my email the same as snail mail ? Yes.Should they be treated with the same regarding privacy? Yes.

full stop.

[Michael Hardner]

full stop.

Interesting idea: has anybody tested the legal limits on authorities tracking snail male without opening the envelope ? ie. so-and-so got a package from so-and-so ?

[Michael Hardner]

Uh....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mail.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

As the world focuses on the high-tech spying of the National Security Agency, the misplaced card offers a rare glimpse inside the seemingly low-tech but prevalent snooping of the United States Postal Service.[/size]

Mr. Pickering was targeted by a longtime surveillance system called mail covers, a forerunner of a vastly more expansive effort, the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program, in which Postal Service computers photograph the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces last year. It is not known how long the government saves the images.

Of course this is an American example (cue BC) but given that Canada seems to go as far as the US in these things it may be that this also happens for snail mail.

Then I Googled it...

https://www.google.ca/search?q="Mail+Isolation+Control+and+Tracking"+&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA556CA557&oq="Mail+Isolation+Control+and+Tracking"+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.3183j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

This came out last year. I haven't heard about it. Anybody else ?

[eyeball]

If it's so simple, why isn't this just going away ? Why is the public roughly split on whether this should be allowed ?

Roughly equal measures of sycophancy and ignorance on behalf of those who like being spied on I guess vs a resistance to authority submission on the rest of us. It's pretty black and white.

I can agree that it's the same in that there's a measure of invasion of privacy here, but outrage just doesn't trump logic.

What logic? What would be logical is a greater counter penetration of secrecy to balance the invasion of privacy. It's not just outrage it's also disbelief at the direction Canada has careened towards...there's even a tinge of fear growing alongside the outrage and disbelief. Things feel really out of control.

[bush_cheney2004]

...This came out last year. I haven't heard about it. Anybody else ?

This was started after the 2001 anthrax mailings for law enforcement IIRC. HuffPost had a story last year:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/postal-service-photos_n_3694589.html

Most of U.S. First Class mail is sorted by machine....optical scanning (OCR) and has been used since at least the early 1980's. Americans use to see the resulting bar code on their mail. Machines have come a long way since then.

As for the American reference, it's just what Canadians do !

[Michael Hardner]

What logic?

The logic that email searches - whatever that means - is not seen as the 'same' as a cop coming into your house without permission - at least in the eyes of most Canadians.

[eyeball]

Yeah well, to hell with them too if that's how they feel about it. I've got no more use for them than I do the bastards in power.

[bleeding heart]

Besides, Michael, while you're only...shall I say, "tentatively concerned" about this matter, there are doubtless other issues about authority, accountability et all that you do feel much more impassioned about; and yet, as with all things, you will note that "Canadians are divided" over how serious any of those issues might be. Probably almost without exception.

So I don't quite get how "Canadians are divided" is an answer...unless you offer a "meh" to all issues, since there are few that have even a terribly large majority agreement.

For example, I would put it to you that very few Canadians are seriously, profoundly worried about terrorism....and yet terrorism is the reason [sic] precisely for the increased government intrusions.

[Michael Hardner]

Besides, Michael, while you're only...shall I say, "tentatively concerned" about this matter, there are doubtless other issues about authority, accountability et all that you do feel much more impassioned about; and yet, as with all things, you will note that "Canadians are divided" over how serious any of those issues might be. Probably almost without exception.

So I don't quite get how "Canadians are divided" is an answer...unless you offer a "meh" to all issues, since there are few that have even a terribly large majority agreement.

You would have to follow the thread back to the point where some poster (I don't remember who now) claimed that the email intrusions are the "same" as a policeman entering your home without your knowledge. That's all.

[eyeball]

I guess we need to allow for the possibility that some people might be comforted at the thought of police treating the privacy of their home as part of their beat.

If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear, right? Put another way, every upright citizen should happily allow the state to do whatever it feels is necessary to dispel it's own fear.

[Michael Hardner]

I guess we need to allow for the possibility that some people might be comforted at the thought of police treating the privacy of their home as part of their beat.

But 50% of the population wouldn't put up with random searches of their homes, therefore not the same.

If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear, right? Put another way, every upright citizen should happily allow the state to do whatever it feels is necessary to dispel it's own fear.

As with things such as taxation levels, services provided - security is something that people make a personal decision about, which is aggregated over the whole citizenry as input to policy.

Your characterization of how others think doesn't play into finding a common solution, any more than others characterizing your viewpoint for you.

[GostHacked]

Interesting idea: has anybody tested the legal limits on authorities tracking snail male without opening the envelope ? ie. so-and-so got a package from so-and-so ?

Snail mail you are at risk only by the employees of the mail system. With email, the whole world could access your mail if they so desired.