Expectation of privacy in public places

[Maeve_Mari]

scrapinpeg: thanks for the explanation - if I had your hobby I would probably have a handle like "roadrash".

[/size]

In my haste through the new posts, I read your handle as "Road Hash", which may also have been your legacy... but I see corrected now that you only feared the rash!

[Philistine]

Philistine: when you say the 4th amendment "doesn't reach the actions of private parties", you mean the listening party, not the ones being listened to, right?

{snip}

Yes. In that businesses or individuals are not constrained by the 4th Amendment.

Both: What if a microphones let you eavesdrop on conversations. I mean, if *watching* people in public via CCTV is legal, why shouldn't listening to them when in public not be as well?

It is generally illegal to record someone else's conversation (in some states it's OK if one party consents to the recording). But this is not a constitutional issue. It's a seperate law.

--Philistine

[esskreemr]

The New Patriot (Patriot II) Act apparently includes such lovelies as making it illegal to collect info, minimum 5 year sentence for encrypting communications, revoking citizenship for even non-violent acts such as merely belonging to a group deemed as "terrorist", death penalties for terrorism, the obligatory "hold you forever without telling anybody" clauses, etc. The list goes on and on. If it passes, the "slippery slope fallacy" can officially be declared rebutted.

The alleged draft that is circulating is a good read. If it is a true draft, the implications are trully terrifying:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtawe...0703_Doc_1.pdf

[Soldier]

Enemy of the State. Remember that movie with Hackman and Smith? Much of the resources used to find and follow them in the chase weren't science fiction, but technologies that have been in place for years.

Umm...not quite. Some of the technologies are there, in concept. Nowhere near the level in the movie; a lot of what they did, is quite simply impossible. A lot of it is quite illegal, as well.

[Soldier]

On topic somewhat, an excellent novel that creates a conservative monitored society related to this topic is called, The Handmaiden's Tale by Margaret Atwood. Eerie, but sometimes not far enough away to still be science fiction.

If I correctly recall my friend's description of the book, isn't it about a totalitarian society that comes about after somebody guns down all of Congress and the President and Vice President, and most men are for some reason impotent?

[Maeve_Mari]

If I correctly recall my friend's description of the book, isn't it about a totalitarian society that comes about after somebody guns down all of Congress and the President and Vice President, and most men are for some reason impotent?

Actually, it is a better read than your friend's description. I liken it more to a conservative society that examines a breakdown of fundamental and universal ideas as it has becomes a totalitarian and theocratic state that has replaced the United States of America. A number of themes are introduced including using Women’s Bodies as Political Instruments, Religion as a State Mandate, Rigid Political Hierarchy based on a Single Objective, Use of Language as a Tool of Power, and The Causes and Effects of Complacency.

Reviewing it, I see it could be too liberal and feminist anyone not willing to laugh at the absurdities of our own political administrations over the last 20 years or so... At the time I first read the book, Tammy Fay and James Baker were the hot news items and to me, the new society seemed like what our future would be like if Jim and Tammy Fay were the rulers of the world!

[esskreemr]

If I correctly recall my friend's description of the book, isn't it about a totalitarian society that comes about after somebody guns down all of Congress and the President and Vice President, and most men are for some reason impotent?

It is a totalitarian society. The men aren't impotent, only certain women are able to conceive, the Handmaidens. One of the main characters is a powerful man reminiscent of a soviet general with many of the illegal luxeries that he himself helped ban. He describes his remorse, that they thought they were building the perfect society with man and woman in their "proper" places. They (at least he) began to yearn for the old ways.

[Inquartata]

I'm waiting for somebody to create a field that effects photosensitive electronics. Imagine walking down the street and appearing as a blur to cameras.

Wasn't there a bank robbery a while ago in which the perpetrators covered themselves in olive oil or something because they had heard that it would make them look blurry on security cameras?

[gojujay]

I agree with ya' jeff. It doesn't violate the Constitution, per se, but I believe it violates the spirit of that great document. I agree with esskreemr that someone will find a way to conceal a person to a camera or listening device. They have white noise generators for sound , why not something like that for vision.

[Maeve_Mari]

Umm...not quite. Some of the technologies are there, in concept. Nowhere near the level in the movie; a lot of what they did, is quite simply impossible. A lot of it is quite illegal, as well.

Actually much of the technology from the movie are in place... many even already replaced by newer systems. Their existence and use is not illegal, and has been integrated and accepted as part of the process and function in many instances, still in readiness reviews for others. Many of the programs that use these sames concepts and technologies are restricted - not every project employs or has access to the capabilities, but it is there, and more. What the movie did include that has yet to be improved is the seamless handoff from agency and organization to another - partly what Homeland Defense's objectives include.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Not to be a nag, but can any of that be proven? I'd like to think the technology is true, but I haven't seen anything to suggest it is.

[Larrison]

Technology from "Enemy of the State"

Some of the technology is purely fantasy technology, such as the ability to track a specific car out of a large number of cars from space and seamlessly follow it around. A little bit of physics shows that to get the resolution to do this would require mirrors the size of football fields in space (which would be very easily detectable), and then atmospheric conditions would make this technology not work, anyway (thermal hazing, changes in refractive indexing, pointing system jitter, fog, clouds, haze, smog, etc.)

Other things used (such a mobile, on-demand wiretapping of any wireless or wired phone) is flat-out illegal. Now, the people doing this were doing very illegal things up through murder, so you can argue if they could they might -- but from what I know of communications systems that you can't do this. Part of this is the telecom system providers know they will be carrying a lot of business proprietary and sensitive information, so they put protections in place just to avoid lawsuits from their clients. The commercially available encryption and network protection isn't military grade, but its not bad. And I'll note that a lot of the military/ intelligence exploitation of such sources is very long term, and way way not real time.

Similarly, a lot of the information is held compartmented by one info gathering agency from other information gathering agencies. What the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security were supposed to do was to take down a few walls, specifically in cases in imminent threat. For example, before 9/11 the FBI was forbidden to even ask the CIA or Customs/ Immigration if they knew who XXXX was, even if they had information they might be a threat. A lot of the these walls are still up, particularly if it is domestic crime (such as murder, in the case of the movie). The FBI can't come in and demand access to local law enforcement records, nor request phone records, financial records and etc without going through having the request and the need for the request from a judge. And in the case in the movie, with an *International* intelligence agency (the NSA), they are strictly prohibited from operating in the United States and from tasking their assets to operate in the United States, even if located elsewhere. For an agency like that come in (like in the movie) and not only perform information gathering, but deploy systems, and institute convert direct action -- you're talking immediate clamp down by everyone else and lonnngg prison terms.

[Maeve_Mari]

Not to be a nag, but can any of that be proven? I'd like to think the technology is true, but I haven't seen anything to suggest it is.

Yes and no. And yes and no to Larrison's comments above.

Much of what NSA does (and the fictional organization in the movie) - certainly of it's public image, is conducted via technologies we've been using for decades. Lots that was shown in the movie are old hat and some only mildly futuristic made up for the purposes of movie entertainment. In the movie, if you look at how they did it, you see that the technology used isn’t all that slick… amplifirers, rf detectors, telephone analyzers, wiretaps, transmitters, access from intelligence and law enforcement databases, satellite transmissions and feeds. What the movie does that is slick is the seamless transition from source/agency/database, subject, etc. The reality in 1998 (about when that movie was produced) is that going from one to the other - accessing and analyzing the knowledge quickly and seamlessly didn't really happen. Additionally the depiction of NSA as run by an evil, murderous zealot is not representataive of the agency either. In its strictest definition, the NSA does not spy on American citizens, but they are permitted to intercept communications and their global electronic capabilities inevitably captures American's phone calls, faxes, and computer information. NSA listens to all the calls in and out of Washington. They listen to senators, representatives, government agencies... if it happens in DC, it's listening. Prior to Patriot Act I, NSA was restricted them from the transfer or release of their data to other agencies, restricted the transfer of the names of Americans picked up (listened to), and prohibited the deliberate targeting of Americans. Since Patriot Act, these restrictions may not any longer be in place. As Larrison said, one of the purposes of the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security was to open up the interagency channels for information transfer and sharing. (In truth, implementations of advanced knowledge management processes and technologies would have provided this specific information and content sharing capability, but that is a long and tedious story that none of you want to know about! Well, maybe Jeff, but the rest of you would glaze over and be stunned.)

The National Security Agency's job is to protect U.S. government communications from eavesdroppers and to eavesdrop on foreign countries. This signals intelligence, or SIGINT, as it is called, includes the interception of voice or text messages sent by phone, fax, computer or other means, as well as such nonverbal transmissions as radar and electronic signals from missiles. Internationally, but also domestically the available information available to the federal agencies that can be monitored - I'm not just talking NSA here, even though the movie makes it look like it is just one organization providing the information monitored is enormous, and includes phone conversations, credit card purchases, e-mails, faxes; appearance on security cameras and security satellites, financial records, school records, travel, hotel/restaurant stays, even word of mouth!!

Before you start to wonder if I'm just a eccentric because YOU know you aren't being watched, consider that it's not necessarily a matter of being interested in a particular person, but that, in general, information is power; information is control. The more information you have on people, the more control you have. NSA and our other information agencies have provided services and cracked cases we never hear about publicly. The stories don't all look like the movie version, but it's not science fiction!

[Soldier]

Actually much of the technology from the movie are in place... many even already replaced by newer systems. Their existence and use is not illegal, and has been integrated and accepted as part of the process and function in many instances, still in readiness reviews for others. Many of the programs that use these sames concepts and technologies are restricted - not every project employs or has access to the capabilities, but it is there, and more. What the movie did include that has yet to be improved is the seamless handoff from agency and organization to another - partly what Homeland Defense's objectives include.

...could you be any more vague?

"Much of the technology"..."many"..."their"..."many of the programs"...

I will agree much of the technology is already existent, and in some cases replaced by newer technology. The cameras they used, for example, are almost surely digital by now. I'll bet they've got newer cars, too.

Specify which technology you're talking about!

[Epee_Pox]

it sounds like this thread has gotten to the point of arguing for the sake of arguing.

hooray! more! more!

[Soldier]

We come here to escape productivity. If we stopped arguing, we'd run the risk of actually making progress - gasp - in this very forum!!

[Inquartata]

D'oh! You have let the cat out of the bag! The first rule of Fight Forum: we don't talk about Fight Forum!

[Epee_Pox]

Looks like its time for Inq to administer a beat-down.

[Maeve_Mari]

Specify which technology you're talking about!

Errr... no, not for you. Pointless demand. Go look it up yourself if you want to know.

[Soldier]

...wait a minute. I'm rather confused.

You state that we've got a lot of the technology that was in "Enemy of the State", and much of it may in fact be better now...there was a lot of technology used in that movie. Now you are telling me that it is up to me to look up and clarify your own vague position, that you will not even specify which technologies from the movie you are talking about?