Take Privacy & Security in Communications into Your Own Hands

[MineralMan]

Based on what I've been reading on DU over the last couple of weeks, it looks to me like people are really, really confused about the privacy of their communications. The problem is that people actually seem to believe that what they communicate is their own property and should be secure and private. It is neither. It should be, but it is not. Being aware of that is key to avoiding breaches of privacy and security.

When it comes to business emails, etc., most companies store and monitor emails, etc. constantly. Some monitor keystrokes, as well, although that is less common. Anything you do on a company's network can be monitored by the IT folks at any time. It is, after all the company's hardware and network, and there are even data storage requirements demanded by law in many cases. The same is true for government work environments. It's all stored and accessible and for long periods of time, even in perpetuity in some cases.

If you are on a network, network admins have and can use the capability to monitor transactions on that network anytime, including personal use of that network. Anyone working on a network computer system should assume that everything they do on that network can and may be stored and examined by the company or organization.

Outside of those environment, everyone should keep in mind that anything transmitted beyond your own personal computer might be intercepted, stored, or examined. Illegal or not, right or not, what you send out is beyond your control as soon as you send it. If you think of it that way, you'll always create and send information in a way that is safe.

The same is true of even emails, etc. you send to friends and acquaintances. Any of those can forward your email to anyone they wish, store it on their own computers, print it out, and share it in any way. You lost control of it the moment you clicked "Send." If you email someone at their workplace, all of the caveats mentioned above in the section on corporations and organizations apply.

If you use Google, Facebook, and other services, including online forums and other websites, anything you search for or post, including what is described as private messaging, is no longer secure or private. It is stored, recorded, and can be examined by others. It can be sold, broadcast, or used in other ways, all based on the privacy and terms of service policies of the individual websites. If you haven't read the privacy statements or terms of service agreements you accepted, you might be shocked at what is in those agreements and statements. You should consider everything you do anywhere on the Internet to be public information, because it is, to be quite frank. Those private messages, along with everything you do on any Internet site are available to site administrators, if they wish to access them. Everything you do on any site is recorded as data, and may be used pretty much anyway the site administrators want to use it. It's their system, and you probably agreed to their sweeping, broad terms of service, without even looking at them.

Beyond that, anonymity on the Internet is almost impossible to maintain without great effort. It can be done, but few people take those steps. You can encrypt emails and documents securely, but it's a lot of work and a pain in the ass for the recipients, frankly. Unless you are willing to go to the lengths required, you should understand that anything can be traced back to you and your individual device, if there is the desire, need, and capability to do so by people who want to do that. More people than you know have that desire, need, and capability.

Bottom line: The only way to keep your communications private is to keep them to yourself.

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. If we keep our communications to ourself...

then there is no communication, by definition.

[MineralMan]

2. Exactly. So, be aware.

That's my entire point.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. ..

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Your point is absurd.

Communications kept to one's self are not communications. Sounds like the Pope on being gay, it's fine as long as you don't have sex. Absurd.

[MineralMan]

5. The absurdity is the point.

Of course you can't keep communications to yourself. Awareness is the point. Thanks so much for replying to my post.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Right. You intentionally posted bullcrap wrapped in balderdash. Cool story!

nt

[MineralMan]

15. Oh, bother...

[SoCalDem]

6. It's like a electronic postcard

available to be seen-read by anyone else at any time.. There is an advantage to the old postcard though..once destroyed, it's permanently gone.. What we do now, is NEVER gone...just buried in an avalanche of everyone else's e-postcards...

[warrior1]

8. MM

I did a search on cell phone signals.

Can a ham radio pick up cell phones?

Answer:
It depends. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) banned the manufacture of scanners and Ham Radios that can receive cell phones years ago. The manufacture of radios with this capability available is no longer available however, it took several years before this was changed. The cell phone signals would need to be analog for them to be able to listen in to and if you were traveling in a car on a highway, your signal would jump to another cell site and the listener would need to travel with you and know what frequency you would need to. This is difficult to do because of the large number of frequencies or channels available to analog cell phones. This takes several minutes with most scanners. It is now also illegal to modify a radio to receive these signals and has always been illegal to listen to them. It is also illegal to disclose the content of anything you hear on a scanner unless it is a conversation between Ham Radio operators and obviously your favorite broadcast station.

Digital cell phone signals are nearly impossible to listen to because of their encoding.

The short Answer: No, you can not listen to cell phone conversations on any form of Amateur radio. The blurb above is all about what scanner users could do in past years, but scanner users are not licensed amateur radio operators.


BTW
Thanks for your post.

[MineralMan]

9. It's not third party listeners who are worrisome.

Since the advent of digital phones, as you say, it's been hard to intercept them. However, they're subject to interception by the carrier and by those with legal access to intercept them, via a court order or...

[One_Life_To_Give]

18. And by those with nefarious intent

Equipment to receive 2.4GHz transmissions is available just not sold as explicitly for listening to cell phones etc. Many of us have reasons to check emission levels in the Cell Phone bands. If it can be received it can be decrypted. It's just a question of effort.

[MineralMan]

20. Yes. Anything broadcast wirelessly can be

intercepted. Mostly, people don't bother. Probably the easiest thing to intercept are simple cordless phones, as used by most people who maintain traditional phone lines. The equipment isn't cheap, but it's available, for sure. The privacy of your cordless phone is assured more by the lack of people interested in intercepting those signals.

At one time, I had a cheap scanner that included the frequencies used by voice pagers, back in the day when people used such things. I included those frequencies in scans for a while, but the pages were boring about 99.9% of the time, so I took those frequencies off the scan. Most scanners today skip over those frequencies and the cell phone frequencies don't appear on typical scanners. Of course, equipment that can intercept those signals can still be found, but, again, the content is too boring to be of interest, so there isn't much interest.

What is a bit interesting, and is reasonably popular is intercepting wireless video camera signals. Doing so it cheap and easy, and I suppose it could be interesting at times. I used to write about technology stuff. I took a wireless video receiver on a trip once, and there were many signals to see. Wireless security cameras, mostly. The only interesting one, though, I found in a hotel where my wife and I stayed. The receiver found four video cameras in that hotel, each aimed at beds in rooms at that hotel. I wasn't surprised, but reported them to the local police anonymously. Someone was watching those rooms, probably the desk clerk at the hotel or someone. I can imagine such a person assigning those rooms to people who might be interesting to watch...newlyweds and the like.

Many interesting things can be intercepted by people with the proper equipment. If people knew, they might be even more suspicious, I think.

[marions ghost]

10. So how is censoring everything you say or write

"taking anything into your own hands?"

Should our mail go by pony express? Or Ninjas who'll make sure nobody collects anything?

I agree that it's dangerous to put anything personal in email (duh) or Facebook, but shall we speak in code on the phone? What recourse do you leave those of us who (perhaps stupidly) blab our minds about politics here and there?

We are not protected in our communications in any way. On that I agree. But I don't equate it with having any sort of control over privacy.

That's not freedom--that's shutting up.

[MineralMan]

11. It's just a matter of awareness and paying attention.

Many people are surprised, even now, at how their communications are not as private as they think. Being aware of the broad visibility should inform how one communicates. That's all.

[marions ghost]

16. So let's say if we have something very private

to communicate, how should we do that? Especially since phone is included in the mining activity.

How would you suggest we communicate? I'm waiting for humans to evolve to mental telepathy but we're not there yet.

Realistically what do you suggest? You offer only self-censorship as a solution? That is how it appears. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[MineralMan]

17. If you have something very private to communicate,

do it privately or encrypt it. Technology is available, even for your phone. However, it's all a matter of considering risks. Personally, I consider the risk of anyone accessing my private communications to be minimal. That's because I'm careful not to communicate privately on publicly accessible systems. My private communications, however, involve nothing that could actually result in anything but disclosure. While that might be inconvenient for me, it wouldn't involve any material risks to my person. I don't disclose financial information except to trusted companies and organizations. On the web, I only disclose such information on secure websites. Is it still vulnerable? Yes. Do I trust the websites? Yes, but only to a certain point.

I don't censor myself. I think before communicating. Every time I do so. Before I type my credit card number onto a website, I make sure I know where I am and whether the site is a secure one. I'd never send any such information in any other way.

In other communications, I think about what I'm communicating. I don't engage in illegal activities, but I still think about what I'm communicating and where I'm communicating. I assume that what I communicate might be shared by the recipient, and communicate appropriately.

Why would anyone do otherwise?

[marions ghost]

19. My bro works in network security

He has two computers at home--the one with financial, credit card, medical, & personal data stored, is always offline. But that would be an inconvenience to most people, not to mention having 2 computers. And of course he's his own tech support. Yes I think encryption only works to a point.

Your cautions are appropriate because many people are not careful.

But you do see where this is all going I would think...consumers having no more protection than speaking in code ("the eagle flies at dawn...&quot and having to pay lawyers if their privacy is "invaded" with bad results for them. No protections at all.

It's not right.

[MineralMan]

21. I did not say it was right. I said that people

should be aware of it. I can't change it. You can't change it. I doubt that anyone can change it or has the will to change it. It's the world we live in. Keeping that in mind all the time is just a damn good idea.

I also have a computer that is never connected to the outside world. It's on my second desk. I use it for some of the work I do, when required by a security-conscious client, and as a backup device, using USB thumb drives to transfer data. Even there, though, I don't store extremely sensitive information on it. It could be stolen and the data accessed. For a few things, like password lists, and other such stuff I'd rather not be compromised, I use physically secure storage.


Reality often bites.

[marions ghost]

22. That's where we don't agree

...anything can be changed. Even this.

Reality bites pretty bad if you have no autonomy in a corporatocracy.

[MineralMan]

23. Please describe for me, in general terms,

how this trend and reality might be changed. I can't see any path toward that at all at this point.

We have moved almost completely to a data-driven Internet-powered society. We're all part of that network. Data flies around continuously. How would you change that? If data is transmitted and stored, it can be accessed by people authorized to access it. Those people will be, for the most part, people I do not, and cannot know.

Without dismantling that vast network, that data sharing will continue. It's economically sound and enables much of today's commerce. We're mostly not doing transactions any other way today. How would you change that?

I think we have long ago gone past the point of no return in that area.

[marions ghost]

26. I'm no tech head but

I can imagine that having some real control over our own data is technically possible right now. It's just not convenient for the corporatocracy. (And I dont use that word lightly).

User Rights Laws--ie. consumer protections. With extreme penalties.
---------------

For example, when you delete things yourself, they ARE deleted. They do not live on even in zombie form.

When someone has access to a database, they do not get to look at your data anonymously.

Contractual agreement that your data is scrubbed within a certain time frame. Dead, gone. Can no longer be used in any legal way.

Controls on linking databases.

etc etc --there are more, those are just a few examples. Duers concerned about this would have a longer list I'm sure.

--------------
As you can see, I'm not relying on means of encryption or evading infiltrators. I'm talking technical checks and balances benefiting the consumer from the outset--not after the fact. At present, we are treated like children. Why should we be in this position? Because all this is new to many people and they don't really understand it. The PTB have taken great advantage of that fact.

I'm talking about consumer protections that are policy. And there are technical solutions that will support this. But if we all say, "there's nothing we can do..."--that is IMO, absurd. The same minds that built it can protect us from abuses--it's the political will to do it that we need.

[MineralMan]

31. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying that we're not in control

of it. If we're not in control, we can't force the changes required. Yes, all of the things you described could be done, but who will force all of those websites, businesses, etc. to do that? That's my point. We allowed it to develop quite willingly, it seems, and so it developed. Since access to that information is useful to the corporate world, they have absolutely zero reason to change the current reality.

And I'm far more concerned with commercial privacy invasion than I am about governmental privacy invasion. Much more concerned. There are, essentially, no rules regarding it, either. Every time we form a relationship with some corporate entity on the Internet, we agree to whatever terms of service that entity offers. Most of the time, we don't even bother reading it, and don't even know what access we have allowed. Almost nobody ever reads terms of service agreements. I don't. I know I don't. I once read Google's terms of service completely. Uff da! Same with Facebook.

We don't read those TOS statements because we want what those sites offer. Because we want those services, we've basically shrugged our shoulders and use the sites regardless of the loss of privacy. We can use them in a smart way, of course, and that's what I do. I just assume that everything I do is as public as walking down my local street. That way, I avoid compromising myself in any way that makes me uncomfortable. I assume others do the same, but it looks to me as if they don't. I see things posted by others that I would never dream of posting. Go figure.

What I cannot change, I work around intelligently. That's the best thing you can do. I have no illusions that my discomfort with how things are handled will have any impact how things are handled, so I deal with the reality.

Would I like to see big changes? Yes, I most definitely would. Do I think they will every happen? No, I do not.

[marions ghost]

39. As we now know the invasions of privacy

affect all forms of communication. And that govt and commercial databases overlap. So your concern about commercial rather than govt makes no sense to me in light of the recent revelations.

Your are talking about coping, not getting control. I'm talking about getting control for the consumer.
For the first time I'm looking at groups like EFF. This is what they advocate for assessing company policies:

------------------

https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/who-has-your-back-2013-report-20130513.pdf

For the 2013 report, we used the following six criteria to assess company practices and
policies:

1. Require a warrant for content of communications.

In this new category, companies earn recognition if they require the government to
obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before they will hand over the content of user
communications. This policy ensures that private messages stored by online services
like Facebook, Google, and Twitter are treated consistently with the protections of
the Fourth Amendment.

2.
Tell users about government data requests

To earn a star in this category, Internet companies must promise to tell users when the
government seeks their data unless prohibited by law. This gives users a chance to defend
themselves against overreaching government demands for their data.

3.
Publish transparency reports.

We award companies a star in this category
if they publish statistics on how often they provide user data to the government.

4.
Publish law enforcement guidelines

Companies get a star in this category if they make public policies or guidelines they have
explaining how they respond to data demands from the government, such as guides
for law enforcement.

5.
Fight for users’ privacy rights in courts.
To earn recognition in this category, companies must have a public record of resisting
overbroad government demands for access to user content in court.

6.
Fight for users’ privacy in Congress. Internet companies earn a star in this category if they
support efforts to modernize electronic privacy laws to defend users in the digital age by joining
the Digital Due Process Coalition

[MineralMan]

40. I'm a long-time contributor to the EFF.

Despite their efforts, we are still dealing with coping, you see. Until things change, we must deal with the reality of the situation, which was why I made the OP. Awareness.

[marions ghost]

44. I support your awareness effort & dealing with reality

but I think an obstacle has been removed in recent weeks. Finally there is NO question about what is being done. And I hope that will bring more people into the ring to fight for this. It's an egregious, profound betrayal of the spirit of the 4th and 1st amendments.

This is worse than most people thought. I hope that this moment of global can change things. Carpe diem.

[MineralMan]

46. Actually, only one aspect was revealed, really.

You watch, though. Lip service will be given, but the practice will still continue, as will other practices not yet disclosed. This was a breach of intelligence security. Until there are other breaches, other things will continue as they have done for quite some time. Tip of the iceberg, really.

From what I've seen, most people aren't even taking the time to actually understand what was actually revealed, and are making all sorts of assumptions for which there is no evidence. It will take an act of Congress to make any real changes, along with the President's signature. Congress may make some look-see change, but the reality will not change. That's my expectation. In a couple of months, the number of people who are actively concerned will shrink dramatically, and things will continue much as they have.

That is the reality. There's lots of noise and stuff going on right now, but that will fade soon, letting Congress do some minimal thing. Thus has it gone in the past, and how it is likely to go in the future.

[marions ghost]

49. You may be right but

the shock wave was felt around the world & I'm with you that it is the tip of the iceberg. So I expect aftershocks.

I know we have a gridlocked, hopelessly compromised congress that isn't responsive to the people. I'm not expecting instant solutions there. But IF we make it an issue that doesn't go away...we can exert some pressure. There's a torpedo hole in their flagship right now. They are looking like the biggest fools and idiots--and worse, like criminals complicit in exploiting the people and trampling the constitution.

I'm not sure that our concerns will fade. It will morph as people start to react to it. For one thing certain elements of the business sector do not like this situation of unbridled collection & secrecy and we need to see them as allies. The younger generations do not like this and are on our side. Others are waking up in general. In reality this data mining activity insults every American. I don't care who or what affiliation you are.

Anyway I think it's a possibility that the course may be altered. But I'm aware of the opposition. It can only be done with people power--people objecting, keeping the focus on it, people pulling together for what is right. So six months from now, let's compare notes again. I don't make any predictions in such a volatile situation. Good thread.

[MineralMan]

50. There is one thing we can do, and I believe it is the only thing we can do.

We can elect responsible progressive people to more and more Congressional seats. We can do that, if we have the will to do that. In the process, however, we must get rid of Republicans wherever that is possible. If we allow the Republicans to retake the Senate and hold a majority in the House, none of this concern will matter one bit. With control of both houses of Congress, Republicans will move this country in a direction that will kill all hopes of a progressive future. Of that I am certain.

Ideals are great. I have them, too, and they are not being met. However, practical considerations are also extremely important. That's where my focus is now, at my advanced age. And that's where I'll be working.

GOTV 2014 and beyond!

[marions ghost]

51. GOTV 2014

--of course. But I want to know where the progressives/Dem candidates stand on this issue, even as I support them over Rethugs.

It will be a test as far as I'm concerned. An issue like this can help sort the wheat from the chaff. It's basic.

[MineralMan]

52. Yes. During the primary phase of the election, that can help

select candidates. During the General Election, though, that trick doesn't work, I'm afraid. We need to know, but we must vote. We must vote carefully, I think. There is far too much at risk.

[KoKo]

33. Very well said....Those could be workable solutions. And should be instituted.

Right now we are being treated as victims. Abused...and invaded by those who say: "We are keeping you safe...don't you get that?" or We do this for your convenience so put up with it"


Also...
I've been surprised that no one has suggested that Facebook and other Social Media aren't required to delete all your information after a certain time period (say 6 months to a year.) Or, at least give one the choice to permanently delete their info. Even here on DU we can't delete what we've posted unless we go back to archives and find the posts and delete one by one. (Not blaming Admins...because maybe they can't do it with the software) but perhaps a time limit on what is stored could be put in place. If anyone wants to save their stuff they could do it on their own computer and not have it floating around out there for infinity.

[marions ghost]

43. Yes all doable IMO

Those are the minimum from a User perspective. See post #39 for more ideas from the EFF.

Yes we are being treated like children, abused children, at this point in time.

I agree that anytime you subscribe to a website that stores your posts there should be a contractual time limit for total deletion. Yes even here at DU.

I don't like the feeling of being abused, of having to protect myself beyond reason for the right to personal privacy and freedom of speech. I say fight rather than just give in, and I hope more people will join this fight. Now that the hard truth is out.

I want a Bill of User Rights.

[KoKo]

45. I'm glad to see this being discussed on a personal level here...

rather than the back and forth about Snowden. What he revealed goes along with what other Whistleblowers have revealed and it's time we all woke up and realized we've taken too much for granted in our lack of privacy. Even with the TSA ...everytime anyone spoke up about the abuses the Dems sites refused to push back. I'd have figured the Repugs would have been all over it...but, even they didn't make it an issue.

Hopefully a "tipping point" has been reached...but, every time I think that another atrocity appears....so I should learn to not be optimistic. This is going to be a long slog.

There's another thread on Internet Privacy running here on DU that I just saw and Skinner has been asked if NSA was tracking DU and he answered in the ATA Forum that we weren't. But, there's some discussion there.

We need to see this as an issue that most all Dems should be able to agree with here on DU and out there because it's about WE USERS (or as they call us "Consumers&quot of the Internet everywhere. One would think, anyway.

[KoKo]

24. MM...have you ever thought about..

what you post on DU? You have revealed quite a lot of personal info about yourself on this site in your posts.

I could do a profile of you from reading your posts through the time you've been here.

Are you in the camp of: "My life's an open book and there's nothing I've done that anyone could use against me?"

I'm not a DU donor anymore..so, often on my posts an ad will appear (in a box on upper right) for an attraction in the area where I live. I've sometimes even had an ad appear for a place I mentioned in a city out of my state in a post. And the ad is very specific as to a business or attraction in that city and state. So, whatever I post here I know is heavily monitored by business interests, the notorious "Agent Mike" and others who have political data mining interests.

So...I try to keep personal stuff to a minimum...but, still I would have a profile here because there's only so much you can keep private when you've posted on the same web site for 12 years that a profile wouldn't emerge..that could be used if someone really needed to target me. Everything we've said here is archived out there forever.

[MineralMan]

28. I don't even bother to try to maintain anonymity on the Internet

any longer. It's too much work. I gave that up years ago. Anyone who wants to know who I am can find out very easily. Most people who post on DU and other sites can easily be identified with only a little work. That's because most people don't bother trying to anonymize their Internet usage.

As for targeted ads, those are matter of course these days. You can block ads, but you can't block the data collection. However, if ads are appearing that are linked to things you posted here on DU, you should suspect malware, not DU. I post frequently on DU, and have never seen an ad anywhere based on anything I have posted here. I keep my computer clear of all malware, including tracking cookies, except for Google itself, which is pretty much the ultimate tracking website.

If you have no malware, it's more likely that the ad came from some Google search you made or some other source. DU ads are not based on your DU activity, but on general DU content and your own Google searches. Google isn't looking at the content of your posts here. They aren't that intrusive, even as intrusive as they are.

[KoKo]

12. What about Internet Banking, Medical Forms, Government Forms, Insurance Forms, IRS

Increasingly Government wants us to respond to them on the internet. Many Doctors offices are asking patients to fill our their Medical History and Insurance forms online before a first visit. (all involving our SSI#, Insurance # & personal med history, etc.)

Government, Medical, Banking, Insurance, IRS, Govt. Programs...all cutting back on personnel to save money and you are required to find internet access and report your personal information online. The alternatives are often a Phone Tree with indecipherable commands and wait times that can go on as long as an hour (if one holds on for fear of losing place in the queue) or one goes through the tree several times with waits.

So...since we are now required to use the internet more and more to access services we require....then what do we do about our privacy? Government, Banks and Medical Record companies have all been hacked in recent years. And, we have no assurance that this information is safe from surveillance by NSA/Private Companies, Pharma Companies, Govt...etc. storing it in the event it's needed if we come under suspicion for some kind of action or non-action just by association.

[marions ghost]

13. Good point

& well said.

[MineralMan]

14. I deal in realities. Yes, we're giving up more an more of our

personal information to more and more people. Do I like it? Not much. Do I do it? Yes, because I'm forced to if I want those services.

If I write a description of a reality, it doesn't mean that I approve of that reality. It means that I'm describing it, just in case someone isn't aware.

For example, there are people, apparently, who are not aware that the emails they type at their work are saved and recorded by the company or organization, and can be accessed by IT personnel. Usually, they are not, but if there's a reason to, they can be, even if that reason is a bad one, as is often the case.

The same thing is true of all of that personal information. Someone can access it, for good or evil purposes. You may have read about the Minnesota case, where the cops were accessing driver's licence and auto registration information for their own uses. It's illegal and they were caught, but the information is still there and is available to people who are authorized to access it. Do you trust them? Well, I don't, but the reality is that it's there and can be accessed.

I have no idea about how such storage and access can be prevented. I don't think that's possible, actually. Somewhere, someone has access to any information that is stored. That is always true. All I can do is try to keep from storing information at unreliable or unknown places.

For example, I never provide information to random polling websites. Why on earth would I do that? They are in the data collection business, and will just sell whatever information I provide. That would be a stupid thing for me to do. Yet, people post links to polls at those places and encourage DUers to go there and participate in those polls. And DUers gleefully go and do that, leaving their information behind. Why?

Awareness is everything. If you cannot stop sharing your personal information, you can at least do it in an informed way.

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. People are not giving it up, it is being taken from them without informed consent,

and that is a crime that goes by a variety of names, but it all comes down to stealing.

Very few people are willing, so far, to go to the lengths that people such as I go to in order to preserve what privacy they can. So our society, on the whole, has been captured. Has become the antithesis if the United States of America.

[MineralMan]

37. That is my point. However, on a commercial basis,

we do consent to give up our information. We routinely accept Terms of Service agreements that tell us that information is collected and sold or used in other ways. Are we informed? No, because we don't bother to read those TOS agreements and willingly use the services without being informed. We can be informed, but we choose not to be.

Have you read the DU Privacy policy? If so, you are among a very few people who have bothered. Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=privacy

I read it before starting to use DU. I read TOS and privacy policies on most sites I use. I'm a rare person, though. Some sites, I do not use, precisely because I have read their policies. Years ago, I and a number of others forced Compuserve to change some of the working in its Terms of Use agreement. I was the Chairman of the Board of an organization, and we, along with others differed with one of their policies that governed copyright issues. We demanded, and got, a change in that policy by making it clear that we would not use their service unless they changed the policy. They changed it.

First, though, you do have to read it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

38. Consent, informed or not, is impossible when there is no alternative. Unless one is willing to

withdraw from society at large, there is no option, at least not for the overwhelming majority. We're basically in a state of serfdom.

The following statement becomes more relevant every day;

[MineralMan]

42. Yes. Of course.

At the moment, there is no alternative, so coping is required. That does not mean that we should not keep trying to make changes. It simply means that we must also recognize the actual situation and act accordingly. Do you disagree?

Not everyone is aware of the extent of the data being stored. My OP was an attempt to inform. It wasn't a post saying it didn't matter. If I though it didn't matter, I wouldn't have bothered to post at all.

Personally, I do not believe that change will occur, so I behave accordingly, even while supporting organization that are working toward changing the current situation. Reality.

[KoKo]

55. Interesting that about reading the DU Privacy Policy...

I was one of the "Hold Outs" over there on DU-2 for 6 or 7 months...because of reading the "new" TOS Policy for DU-3. It was much clearer than when I joined in April or May of 2001 and of course times had changed and I'm sure there were updates I never read since 2001. BUT...the DU Changeover was a real break from what I thought this Message Board had been.

The new policy allows a "transfer of our information" over to a new owner if DU is ever sold (I'm doing this from memory) which would include all our posts over at DU-2. There's a lot of legalize but that was the one that bothered me the most.

When the change over took place I immediately deleted all my saved "Personal Mails (PM's) because TOS said they would no longer be Private. And I deleted my Replies" plus all my "Bookmarks" which were numerous and although I should have transferred them over to my PC for years...I didn't do it because I trusted DU and liked having them stored on the site so I could refer if I did a post that needed that info.

I was a hold out over "privacy." But....you see, I'm here, now. Why am I here NOW?

Because I still believe that wherever we can have a voice to SHARE INFO for Democracy then I will have to deal with it. There is only "Daily Kos and Democratic Underground that have high viewership. So....this is what it is.

I hope that things will change and that if we can discuss issues that will get to the ears of Democratic PooBah's in charge that there can be a difference. Shouting past the Lobbyists and Corporatists and Wall Street since the "Financial Meltdown" has made this more difficult.

I'm active outside of DU and also give to causes for Justice for those Disenfranchised and to Legal Funds that help them. I am doing what's available to me to express my Democratic Values. And, that is getting more limited as I give up my rights to "FREE SPEECH" slowly...and deceitfully ...but, the next step is to work against those taking away my rights with spying and to hold my Government Accountable.

I'm an older DU'er who grew up after WWII and it was fresh in our minds what happened to Germany and CIVIC DUTY...was drilled into my little head...and I ate it up.
The Cold War and McCarthyism and Nixon and Civil Rights Battles seasoned me.

There are many of us out here who were not "Hippies of the 60's" and we didn't do "Pot, Free Love" and have a grand old time living through that...but we WERE THERE (we had FRIENDS...there)...and we were WITH THEM...even though we weren't living that lifestyle that's so distorted on the Cable things on that Fake "History Channel or Discovery Channel." I love the Hippies of the 60's ...but to make it seem it was only them is the MIC/PTB's Propaganda SPIN and it goes on here on this Board and All Over the NET.

Anyway....just saying..

[DevonRex]

25. People wanted the government to do them online. Save The Trees! Save Time!

Save Money! Modernize! Save Physical Storage!

[marions ghost]

27. Sure

and now it's time to talk about protecting the consumer, for a change.

[DevonRex]

29. Before it was all the convenience of the consumer.

Change it back and people will grumble. On the good side, the US Post Office will get a boost. Not a bad thing. But, on the down side, more people will wind up traveling to government offices for assistance, which is bad for the environment. And some of those people don't live anywhere near government offices, which is really bad for them.

[marions ghost]

32. Not talking about physical ways to avoid e-conveniences

talking about electronic consumer protection. But I don't blame you for not understanding that--we have so few real consumer protections in general.

[KoKo]

30. And now..."THE CLOUD"

When I first started reading about this marvelous new storage service which would do away with those those pesky "server problems" for small businesses who can't afford full-time tech support, my contrarian side had alarm bells go off. It sounds so lovely and ethereal....The Cloud... For large businesses it would be an even bigger saver for them having the ability to store more and have it handled off site and by someone else.

My first question when our business wanted to go that way was: "Who is securing this "Cloud?"

Answer: The company we've hired will take care of all that. And, they will back up everything so you'll never lose any information again.

Well...it turned out that to connect to this "Cloud" we had to use their e-mail system for our company e-mail and then we had to have a separate link so that all our correspondence and documents could be backed up immediately. When our company e-mails started having personal info from folks we've worked with about vacation or health problem making a meeting, etc. That too ended up in the "Cloud." The "Cloud" has ended up owning everything we do. We don't know if it's secure...they say it is. But, what if a competitor has account with same cloud? What if the Cloud Company goes out of business...is bought out or hacked? Who else has access to this "Cloud" storage run by this company.

And now there are "CLOUDS" everywhere..... I think it's a disaster waiting to happen.

[DevonRex]

35. Yes, yes, yes. You have something there.

They finally got the bright idea of just asking you to given them everything right up front for your convenience, of course. Don't do it.

The problem is, corporations get your permission to do all sorts of things because you want a certain app. And people don't even read the small print. All the apps you download on your tablet have permissions built in. Go look them up and you'll be astounded at how much information you've given away. If it's your smart phone then you've just given all your contact and email and phone records to god knows who. Just because you wanted to know what band was going to be in town. Or play mahjong. It's not just the Cloud. It's all of them. And the permissions they demand are ridiculous.

[Egalitarian Thug]

36. You're exactly right. And as an added bonus, these clouds are literally

impossible to secure.

[MineralMan]

48. You bet. That's the next trend.

Store your data where it's not under your physical control. What could possibly go wrong with that?

But, people are rushing to the Cloud. Businesses, too. Before you know it, pretty much everything will be stored on some servers somewhere where you are not. How will you safeguard such stored information, if you have no control over the physical storage space? It's one more example of how we have adapted to minimal security for our data.

This is why I have no confidence that people will insist, en masse, that their data be secure. Google and Amazon will tell you that your data is safe and private, though. For the vast majority, that will be just fine with them. I mean, why would you not trust Google and Amazon. When have they used your personal information for anything, after all?

[Zorra]

41. Well, then. I suggest we go about taking this privatized government back into our own democratic

public hands so that we can once again have the ability to communicate privately among ourselves.

The only solution is world revolution.

July 4th: Liberate Space from the Surveillance State!

Liberate Space - July 4th - Cities Everywhere - Be Daring

In a few weeks, on July 4th we call on all individuals to blockade, disrupt and disobey the architecture of repression in their own cities. We act against the surveillance state not because it has overstepped an imaginary line, we rebel against it for the simple fact that it is designed to intimidate, imprison and demoralize us. We act against it because we know that politicians, corporations and the ruling class will never listen or change. We know that it is up to us to be disobedient, that direct action is the only road to freedom.

There is no better time than now to push forth an initiative which calls out the surveillance state for what it is; a web of police, prisons and politicians designed to protect the wealthy. At a time of upheaval and massive repression worldwide we don't ask for permission, we recognize that those who grant us permission are those that spy on us at the same time. The world we fight for is a world free from politicians, states and security agencies.

On July 4th we call on individuals and groups to gather in the busy thoroughfares, parks and squares in your town. We suggest an overnight occupation designed to call out and confront the means in which surveillance is carried out. This could simply be holding a sign in front of a camera, your tactics are only limited by creativity. It is important to not fall into the marching around in circles trap. We hold our space in a busy area on the 4th because this is where people, commerce and surveillance are.

Circulate Widely * Create Your Own Event * Write A Call To Action

[MineralMan]

47. I'll be watching to see the turnout, as always.

I'm not optimistic about it, though. That "world revolution" you're talking about has been talked about for decades. I haven't seen any sign of it in my 67 years. Have you? OWS gave it a shot, and nobody much paid attention. I doubt that's going to change, really.

[Zorra]

53. "That "world revolution" you're talking about has been talked about for decades.

I haven't seen any sign of it...Have you?...nobody much paid attention. I doubt that's going to change, really."

OK, I know that quote...but I can't exactly remember who said it...was it King George III of England, Louis XVI of France, or Czar Nicholas II of Russia?

Or was it all three of them who said it?

I suppose the early signs of pending revolution were not obvious to them; it was much later that they began to lose their heads over it, so to speak. I'm sure that they wished they'd been more attentive early on.

Anyway, yes I see signs of world revolution every day, all over the world, from the burgeoning new democracies of Latin America to Tahrir and Liberty and Taksim Squares.

Some things you really need to pay attention to, because there are some who don't want you to see them, and will try to hide them from you. And there are always those who are afraid to look beyond the comfort of their Sofas and TVs.

Here in America, the rose colored glasses of insular provincialism keep us from looking at what is going on outside of our little pods.

Ah, another sleepy Pleasant Valley Sunday.

[MineralMan]

54. Well, then, you let me know when it starts, OK?

[KoKo]

56. A K&R for your Reply!

[JDPriestly]

57. Excellent post. It is important that people know that.

The surveillance still chills speech, and I believe that it is unconstitutional.

In fact, the precautions that you suggest are evidence that I am right. You are saying: watch what you say to the people you communicate with on the internet because BIG BROTHER might be watching.

Your subtext is that BIG BROTHER will watch and can't be stopped from watching. That is where I disagree.

Still, your advice here would make great evidence in a court case challenging the constitutionality of the surveillance program.

Thanks.

Children. Be careful. Santa Clause is watching you. Or God or the US GOVERNMENT.

Aufpassen Kinder.