Donate for the Cryptome archive of files from June 1996 to the present

20 April 2012

Government and Commerce Dupe About Privacy


Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: villa[at]ee.ucla.edu
To: drone-list[at]lists.stanford.edu
Subject: [drone-list] FAA/privacy

Hi all,

Op-ed in today's Post:

http://wapo.st/I5U0O6

The upshot of this op-ed is that, while we (Ben Wittes and I) absolutely agree that UAV's involve significant privacy threats, we don't believe the FAA is the organization that should be charged with overseeing UAV privacy. I understand that many of the people on this list (and maybe everyone on this list!) may disagree with this position.

__________

drone-list mailing list
drone-list[at]lists.stanford.edu

Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/drone-list


Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:18:45 -0500
From: Gregory Foster <gfoster[at]entersection.org>
To: drone-list[at]lists.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [drone-list] FAA/privacy

Any thoughts on which organization(s) should be responsible?  Your guidance was conspicuously absent from the well-placed and well-timed op-ed - kudos for that, I guess.


Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 06:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: villa[at]ee.ucla.edu
To: "Gregory Foster" <gfoster[at]entersection.org>
Cc: drone-list[at]mailman.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [drone-list] FAA/privacy

> Any thoughts on which organization(s) /should/ be responsible?  Your

I don't claim to have all the answers. Harley Geiger, to his credit, has given some significant thought to congressional-level approaches, and I think his ideas are absolutely worth giving consideration.

> guidance was conspicuously absent from the well-placed and well-timed
> op-ed - kudos for that, I guess.

If the above is meant to be a sarcastic barb, I respectfully think that's a bit unfair. We made the point that we believe the FAA shouldn't be the ones to address this. We also made a point - that I expect many will agree with, that there's really a broader context for privacy - generally - that we as a nation need to address.

John


Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:28:05 -0400
To: drone-list[at]mailman.stanford.edu
From: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: [drone-list] FAA/privacy

>the FAA shouldn't be the ones to address this. We also made a
>point - that I expect many will agree with, that there's really a
>broader context for privacy - generally - that we as a nation
>need to address.

Good point that deserves much greater attention, drones as good a starting point as any other evolving surveillance technology.

Fragmentation of privacy policy and enforcement among a slew of stakeholders inside and outside government allows, actually encourages, diverse, contradictory, and evasive compliance with all too flatulent aspirations for privacy forever subjected to security.

The US has no fully empowered privacy commission, presumably to allow continuous evasion of fulfilling privacy promises deliberately intended to be violated on behalf of evolving, usual secret, national interests of government and commerce. Same old BS of putting government and its contractors before taxpayers.

Secrecy, both governmental and non-governmental, remains the biggest threat to privacy and security around the globe. Secrecy policy is a huge mess, bloated and costly, and privacy policy cannot compete so long as the secrecy hegemon prevails.

US Patent and Trademark Office today seeks comments on revising policy to issue secrecy orders for "economically significant patents." Economy as vital as WMDs.

It is apt to refer to all technologies, Google, MS, Cisco, universities, et al, which perform the dual use of user convenience and spying on users. And arguments for both being necessarily linked are specious apologias which open the door for privacy abuse under guise of security, now economical -- a segue perfect for opposing Occupy Wall Street.

An industry has grown to eploit the two sides of privacy and security, using the wedge of secrecy to assure secrecy always wins over privacy in the name of law enforcement and national security.

No privacy policy is worth a centavo due to the ever-present flatulence about abiding with lawful requests for data access which in turn is a cover story to hide technological access outside the law.

Finally, it has become commonplace for technologists to succumb to legal persuasion to lie about technological capabilities to transgress human rights. Put a lawyer and a technologist together and you have a duality now ruling communications by hook and crook.