While Facebook has released a couple statements detailing the what’s and why’s of this change, and frantically insisting that your privacy still supercedes all, I just don’t buy it. Looking back to a previous post I had written, Facebook and the Government, we are reminded of the possible government tie-ins that Facebook has. Plus, since this change was made without any notification whatsoever, what’s to keep them from changing it again with even more restrictive or invasive language? Granted, after this last change I’m sure people will be on the Facebook TOS like hawks. At least until they get complacent.

This also serves as a good reminder to all of us to be careful about what we put online. Do we really need a Facebook account? Isn’t an email or a phone call still sufficient? I’ll admit for a while I’ve let my privacy-paranoia mindset take a back seat. I’ve gotten lazy. I’ve said “It’s just so convenient having a Facebook page, or a Linkedin page, etc.” Now I’m reevaluating all of my online presence offerings.

Whether or not you were pleased with the 2008 elections, you have to agree that regardless of the party in office, government wants information, and more specifically your information. They can deny it all they want, but information and knowledge is power and Facebook is a gold mine of both. 1984 here we come.

You may find many of Michael’s suggestions can’t be implemented in your own personal life without significant lifestyle changes, but don’t be discouraged just yet. This article can serve more as a general guide and as a good reminder of how we need to change our thinking and question every time someone – commercial or government – asks for information from us. No matter how small or unimportant a certain tidbit of information may seem to be at the time, you can be assured that it is being requested for a reason. A reason that may or may not be supported by legitimate necessity.

This amendment was introduced in February of this year by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and is known as the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007. The summary is as follows:

Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007 – Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to make it unlawful for any person in the United States, in connection with any telecommunications service or Internet protocol (IP)-enabled voice service, to cause any caller identification (ID) service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller ID information, unless such transmission is exempted in connection with: (1) authorized activities of law enforcement agencies; or (2) a court order specifically authorizing the use of caller ID manipulation.

Provides civil and criminal penalties for violations. Allows for enforcement by states (with authorized intervention by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)).

While this piece of legislation isn’t a really big blow to privacy or a violation of our civil liberties or freedoms, it does raise a couple questions. If I block my Caller ID is that illegal? This could be good or bad considering who you talk to.

Also, why is the responsibility on the citizen as opposed to the telecommunications company that ALLOWS caller ID manipulation? What about the telecom carriers? Shouldn’t this bill be directed at them as well? While the end result would really be the same –no more spoofed caller ID– it would at least hold the telecom companies accountable. So now, just as we were teaching people to not always trust a person because of what shows up on their caller ID, that may be changing. People will go back to assuming caller ID is always accurate since the government has laws against manipulating it.

And finally, is this the best use of our federal government? Since I am huge proponent of smaller, limited government and favor state’s rights, this is yet another really pointless piece of legislation. As usual, it will keep the honest people honest, and the criminals will continue to spoof caller ID as they wish. It’s the way it always is and always will be.

What do you guys think? Is this a good piece of legislation or not? Does it even really matter?

This one quote from this particular article about a state government’s latest data loss kills me (emphasis added):

The tape was stolen June 10 out of the unlocked car of a 22-year-old intern who had been designated to take the backup device home as part of a standard security procedure.

What kind of screwed up security policy is that procedure a part of? Not surprisingly, the governor has suspended that procedure of taking home any dat-backup devices and is “mandating a review of how state data is handled.” Good call Gov.

I used to be a staunch Republican. Then for a while I was simply calling myself a Conservative. Now it appears that title doesn’t even fit anymore. I’m just glad Ron Paul is on the Republican ticket this time. I would’ve voted for him in ’88 when he ran on the Libertarian ticket, and I’ll definitely vote for him this time.

This video correlates to my post earlier this month about how Facebook and MySpace are privacy nightmares. This video sheds light on a different privacy concern however. In my earlier post I was discussing the threats that normal people could pose by using information from the two social networking sites. Now we’re faced with the very possible potential that Facebook has a direct relationship with the federal government and that it may even be involved as a source of data mining for the government. During the past couple years it’s been publicized that these data mining and surveillance programs do exist. Look at the AT&T and NSA story. The Bush wiretapping and surveillance project. No longer does the Facebook/Government relationship seem like just a conspiracy theory.

In my own personal opinion, you are a moron if you put as much information on these websites as is possible. Facebook goes as far as to ask you for everything from movies interests, job history, hometown, phone numbers, email, clubs, sexual orientation, etc. Again, this is why I don’t have an account on either site. I’m not a glutton for attention. I don’t have to have it and I’m sure not going to publish all my personal information for everyone to see.

Another aspect some people haven’t embraced is the fact that employers are starting to use these two sites to screen potential employees. Your next job could be lost or gained based on your Myspace and Facebook profiles. Scary? You bet. Law enforcement has even begun to use these two sites as sources of information, clues, and leads in ongoing investigations and potential threats. Think back to 2006 and the number of school “threats” that were circumvented due to the moron posting his plan and ideas on his Myspace page.

Watch the video, and tell me what you think. Facebook and the Government, not as far fetched as one might hope.

This weekend there was more great news out of New Hampshire. It appears that they are the first state to reject the Real ID Act and to not have anything to do with it. Other states have vowed to follow suit, but the proof is in the pudding. While I try to post all the latest news on my site here, I can’t always keep up. For the latest developments of the resistance movement to Real ID, add Real ID Watch to your Blog bookmarks or RSS Reader.

Are you reading this? Britain is installing cameras that will talk to you and give you commands and instruct you to not litter, tell you where the trash can is, tell you to stop fighting, or even ask you to move along instead of loitering around. This is ridiculous.

I’m past the privacy implications of this technology as the UK is the poster-child for a police state and surveillance society. They already have over 4.2 million CCTV cameras across the county. What’s interesting is even some of the citizens don’t see the cameras as a good solution and have phrased this new approach as possible “scarecrow” policing. A quote from one citizen:

“Whether this is moving down a track of almost ‘scarecrow’ policing rather than real policing – actually insuring that we have more bobbies on the beat – I think that’s what we really want to see, albeit that an initiative like this may be an effective tool in certain circumstances.”

Think of all the logistical nightmares this could produce. I can only imagine a number of teenagers who are going to screw this system by pretending to litter, or mock-fighting just so they can elicit a response from the talking camera. I think in my high school days I definitely would’ve done that. However, I’m sure there will be a law against that and then the camera will ask you to stop mocking it and to move along. Anyway, I thought it was a funny story.

Proponents of this new legislation will be quick to remind privacy advocates and the other “paranoid” that this is strictly voluntary. The question must be asked though, for how long will this remain voluntary? Especially when DHS is strongly supporting this and even offering a bonus to the state for it’s early adoption of the REAL ID program.

From the article:

“The agreement allows state residents to apply for the $40 voluntary driver’s license, which will be loaded with proof of citizenship and other information, beginning January 2008. “

Other information? I don’t like the sound of that. I hope anyone who is signing up for this new license will find just exactly what “other” information the state is putting out there for everyone to see. My main concern with RFID is the obvious inherent security weaknesses of this technology. For logistics and inventory management at retail chains like Wal-Mart, it may be a great solution. However, from a privacy perspective, it’s a nightmare. And Chertoff is just plain wrong when he says that the REAL ID program will deter identity theft and proliferates privacy protection.

For an even better writeup, as usual, check out Homeland Stupidity’s posting about Washington’s new licenses.