Re: [sudo-discuss] Breaking: Oakland to lead country in, diverting anti-terror funding to ubiquitous warrantless surveillance

Re. Anthony: "Or a 'dumb' phone with any software or firmware at all on it, for that matter?": good point. Agreed, and IMHO nothing beats a physical switch that can turn off the mics, cameras, GPS, etc. by disconnecting power. That would make a good subject for a hacker/maker event: installing power-off switches in "smart"phones that don't have removable batteries. Re. Shawn: "Roving wiretaps." Like when Apple collected GPS data from iPhones and publicly posted the users' locations and movements? That was an immediate danger to the life of anyone who was a stalking victim. Like the voice command apps, that require the microphone to be always-on, listening for keywords, relaying them to a corporate server-farm to be processed? Do you know what other keywords are on that list, aside from the ones they tell you about? "Wireshark or a cell signal detector." I've used Wireshark to troubleshoot VOIP, and it is not something that laypeople would be able to use. If there's a cell signal detector that's layperson-usable, I'd love to know about it. (I have a standing design for a "blackout box" that will enable someone to put their "smart"phone in it and block surveillance while being able to ring on incoming phone calls.) "The look of Shotspotter is a secret and afaik we can't even know exactly where they are for that reason." That's just poor marketing by Shotspotter. Shotspotter needs to get cool looking enclosures with patented round corners, and an "app" you can buy for $2, and have hip sexy celebrities Oooh and Aaah about them. Then everyone will want one;-) (Ad concept: pop music star holding up iPhone with Shotspotter app on it. Sound effect: repetitive rapid gunfire. Celebrity voice: "It's the rhythm of the city! Tune it in, with Shotspotter!") "The ownership of a smartphone is voluntary..." And having conversations within earshot of someone else's smartphone that you can't see, isn't voluntary. Though, per Google's court filing that claims that anyone who communicates with a GMail user consents to be spied on by Google, I suppose one could come up with a similar interpretation for conversations conducted in earshot of someone else's mobile surveillance device. "Voluntary" is a slippery word, whereby manipulation of "consumers" is regularly justified. Have you read every EULA you've clicked "OK" on? Fine print at the bottom of a "user agreement" doesn't hold a candle to the frequent appearance of hip sexy celebrities Ooohing and Aaahing over the latest piece of self-surveillance hardware. "Provides advantages" vs. "thrust upon us." Advantages like lower cost to taxpayers for transcribing conversations recorded at closer range? "Thrust upon us" like the disappearance of anonymous-cash-paid public telephones that used to be on every street corner? Or is everything justifiable in exchange for "convenience" and Angry Birds? (When Microsoft put Solitaire on Windows, people were cynical. But Angry Birds and Farmville?) What level of invasiveness would be sufficient to make that "voluntary" transaction a bad bargain? How'bout "smellavision" (ambient chemical sensors) where the "smart"phone picks up smells in its vicinity, for example the scent of recreational marijuana? How'bout a "smart" EEG sensor that gives you the "convenience" of not having to say a word: just think the thought? How'bout all your phone calls being recorded in realtime by default? I didn't believe this one either, until a few months ago, when I heard it straight from a proverbial horse's mouth. Where do you draw the line in the sand, and what do you do when it's crossed? Or is it "OK" if these intrusions are introduced slowly enough for people to "get used to them," frog-in-boiling-water style? First GPS, then always-on microphones, then one camera per device, then two cameras (front and back) per device, then speech recognition (constant monitoring of the microphone, as I said: what else is on that keyword list?). What next? Here's one example of "what next." Microsoft plans to introduce a permanent replacement for cookies, embedded in Windows, that will track people even more aggressively and will be impossible to turn off. Google, Apple, and Amazon are doing likewise. And if anyone here thinks that's only about "personalized advertising," I have a bridge for sale, cheap. http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/private-tracking-arms-race/ Principle: If it's not-OK for government to do something, it's not-OK for corporate interests to do the same thing. That's the core of the difference between left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism. Keyphrase: "predict and control." -G. ===== On 13-10-15-Tue 3:20 PM, Shawn Lesniak wrote: