Re: [projectvrm] EZPass tracking goes beyond toll booths

[Kevin Cox < >]

The issue is not giving out of information; it is what is revealed, what is done with it and for what purposes.

If I drive on the road then the other members of society, sharing the road, need to know I will drive safely and not put them in danger.  

However only enough information should be collected  for a particular purpose and not used outside that purpose without the express permission of both parties to the act. For example with driving, information about who I am is not needed unless I drive unsafely. 

Enforcement of our privacy rights is not going to happen unless we know what is being stored about us and having access to the information and what is done with it.  This in turn is not going to happen until we find ways to build systems that make this possible more efficiently and cheaper than the surveillance collect everything alternative.

Not storing information is cheaper than storing it. "self service" of looking after our own data is cheaper for organisations then requiring them to look after our data.

The best hope for protection of privacy is to build systems that are less expensive and cheaper to operate than surveillance systems.  Laws and conventions are needed but require the assistance of the systems we build.

Here is a possible, user centric example of how this can be done for the traffic signals.  Each time I pass a sensor I say I am the same person who passed a sensor sometime in the past - and this is the code I used last time.  This time I am called by a different code which I will confirm the next time I pass a sensor.  This makes it difficult for other parties to track.  Not impossible but will almost certainly require the help of the sensor owners - and require them to pass or use the information for other purposes; passing/using information without my knowledge for other purposes should be against the law.

If I have broken the rules of the road by travelling too fast then I will be issued with an infringement notice along the with the evidence.  If I pay the fine and have my good driving points deducted then there is no need for anyone else to know about it.  If I challenge the fine or do not pay it then my identity can be revealed to the authorities.

Kevin

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Devon M T Loffreto < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Impact at 7++ min mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSBGloXzzxw&feature=share&list=PLYVXx3zCnkX5ka0IkWMC-bnXIL0-s54_C

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Devon M T Loffreto < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Great share Joyce... I follow Jer's work and have benefited from the learning path he points at. I had lost track of that video, thanks.

In education, big push for STEM out there... this speaks to why without art, STEM has no STEAM for the long haul. 'S' is the big obstacle there... its wired into their model of thinking and working... but without 'S', there is still a TEAM to drive progress. With 'S'... data can truly be impacted at its root. :)

Devon

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Joyce Searls < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXN-ZRgWQDo&list=PLYVXx3zCnkX5ka0IkWMC-bnXIL0-s54_C&index=9

Interesting talk from a recent International Association of Privacy Professionals conference. The presenter, Jer Thorpe is a "data artist". His thesis involves changing the conversation around data through more use of visualization.
Specifically at 5:30, he talks about the "data is the new oil" meme. He riffs on the similarities of data and oil, "but not in the context that those words are usually spoken".

Joyce

On Sep 14, 2013, at 5:59 PM, Devon M T Loffreto < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

> In the simplest of terms... the reason there is no real war to wage presently is that there is no one to shoot.
>
> No malicious actors threatening your life... in literal immediate terms.
>
> Data has not fully taken its first breath of life. We are building its lungs... its veins... its blood supply.
>
> But one day... what *WE* think about ourselves in hard structural administrative Terms is going to be made fully manifest in technical form... and what we are then is why what we do now matters.
>
> If Individual Human sovereignty is dissipated in this procession...at some point it won't matter that there has been no enemy... because we will be no better then oil... decayed life... broken down bits.
>
> That will fail hard... and these generations will be remembered like Nazi's are... enemies of Humanity.
>
> Write code in every language you can... and make sure you preserve your own fossil record with some Human dignity...and DONT Zuck over your own people, their friends or your customers...whatever the distinction.
>
> Devon
> Own Yourself... Make the World.
> Noizivy.org
>
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013, Don Marti wrote:
> >
> > begin Adrian Gropper quotation of Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:49:45PM -0400:
> >>
> >> I'll see your license plate readers and raise you with facial recognition
> >> http://epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/
> >
> >
> >  Don't forget tire pressure transmitters:
> >  https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/04/tracking_vehicl.html
>
> Or a coming standard, DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communications), also known as V2V (vehicle to vehicle) which transmits your speed, bearing, braking status, and potentially even data like last date of maintenance to vehicles around you, for safety purposes.  It's already been field tested on trucks in Europe.  The NTSB is said to have approved a mandate this year for deployment soon, after the NHTSA concluded it could prevent 80% of crashes.
>
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/car-hive-mind-will-an-ntsb-v2v-mandate-make-roads-safer/
>
> There are *some* privacy controls built in, but it's still likely susceptible to the kind of fingerprinting attacks that we see with web browsers (e.g. EFF's "Panopticon").  Here's a preso from Defcon this year on it:
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/159155945/DEFCON-21-Dudley-Privacy-in-DSRC-Connected-Vehicles
>
> (CHeck out slide 16 for the kinds of data transmitted)
>
> As hard as I'll fight for anonymity/pseudonymity online, I fear we may have to concede the fight for physical/locational anonymity/pseudonymity. Maybe we can carve out safe areas - bars, bedrooms, Burning Man - but the avalanche of both state and private means for keeping track of who-what-where both feels daunting to fight and rather too appealing in its upside.  Please prove me wrong!
>
> Brian
>