[Vision2020] Are the police tracking your calls?
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Wed May 23 18:13:07 PDT 2012
The one I use is called VyprVPN and is made by a company called golden
frog. It's a little more expensive, starting at $14.99 a month. I get
it free through another service I subscribe to (Giganews - for reading
Usenet). There are others out there, but I don't know how good they
are. Here is a review site I found: http://www.vpnreviews.com/ Google
"private vpn reviews" for more.
Paul
On 05/23/2012 05:24 PM, Art Deco wrote:
> Good advice. Do you have any recommendations for a VPN provider?
>
> w.
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> I recommend using a private VPN service for this reason among
> others. The VPN (virtual private network) encrypts the connection
> between your computer and the rest of the internet, so nobody
> without a spare supercomputer will be reading your emails or
> seeing what web pages you go to. It can also help keep ISPs from
> doing deep packet inspection, which some ISPs use to vary your
> data speeds if you use bit torrent or if you are using a
> competitors video stream. I don't know if any local ISPs do that,
> but better safe than sorry. It can also help keep advertisers
> from getting a bead on where you are geographically, which can
> foil their attempts to figure out what you search for and what
> sort of stuff you like to buy online.
>
> The downside is that you have to pay for them (a small monthly
> fee) and they can be slow if you use the wrong private VPN
> provider. You can mitigate this by only activating the VPN when
> you are worried about privacy (such as downloading email or
> browsing the web) and leave it off for when you play World of
> Warcraft.
>
> I have nothing against the police getting this information,
> provided they get a warrant from a judge. Why make it easy for
> them? The real reason I use it, though, it to prevent others from
> intercepting my communications either locally or somewhere between
> me and the endpoint I'm going to. I don't like what advertisers
> and other large companies are doing with what they know about each
> of us, so I fight against this. I also recommend browsing the web
> with Firefox with AdBlock and NoScript extensions.
>
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com
> <mailto:art.deco.studios at gmail.com>>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:30 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Are the police tracking your calls?
>
> A closer to home issue is whose emails, texts, twitters, etc are
> the various local law enforcement agencies tracking on the
> internet without warrants, and which ISPs are allowing/abetting
> them by cooperating.
>
> w.
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Donovan Arnold
> <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> Their new symbol should be the same eagle being stripped
> searched of all its feathers and another guy confiscating and
> making a copy of the key it is clutching so tightly, every
> time it tries to make another flight.
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
> *From:* Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:rforce2003 at yahoo.com>>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>>; Art Deco
> <art.deco.studios at gmail.com
> <mailto:art.deco.studios at gmail.com>>; "vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>" <vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:52 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Are the police tracking your calls?
> These are the guys intercepting international calls (and some
> say, all calls).
> http://www.nsa.gov/
> Ron ForceMoscow Idaho USA
> *From:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>>
> *To:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com
> <mailto:art.deco.studios at gmail.com>>; "vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>" <vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 22, 2012 8:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Are the police tracking your calls?
> I don't think the local police do tht much. But I think it is
> evidently clear the FBI and CIA do with international calls.
> They have hardware that listens to cell phone conversations
> over the airwaves looking for key words and phrases like your
> voice recognition software on your android. It isn't possible
> for the police to track every conversation, not to mention it
> would be boring and extremely expensive unless you were a
> suspect in a crime.
> I am more concerned about Google. They control phones,
> Internet searches, emails, personal passwords, credit and
> financial information, soon even your car, and do not have the
> same restrictions on the use of them that law enforcement and
> the government have. You legally consent to giving them that
> information when you use their software, just like you legally
> consent to a strip search when you enter an airport.
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
> *From:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com
> <mailto:art.deco.studios at gmail.com>>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:29 PM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Are the police tracking your calls?
>
>
> [CNN]
> *Are the police tracking your calls? *
> By Catherine Crump , Special to CNN
> updated 3:23 PM EDT, Tue May 22, 2012
>
> CNN.com
>
> Are the police tracking your calls?
> Whom you text and call and where you go can reveal a great
> deal about you, says Catherine Crump.
> Whom you text and call and where you go can reveal a great
> deal about you, says Catherine Crump.
> Editor's note: Catherine Crump is a staff attorney with the
> American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and
> Technology Project.
> (CNN) -- Do you know how long your cell phone company keeps
> records of whom you text, who calls you or what places you
> have traveled? Do you know how often cell phone companies turn
> over this information to the police and whether they first ask
> the police to get a warrant based on probable cause?
> No, you don't. Not unless you work for a cell phone company or
> a law enforcement agency with a specialty in electronic
> surveillance. You aren't alone: Congress and the courts have
> no idea either.
> The little we do know is worrisome. The companies are not
> legally required to turn over your information simply because
> a police officer is curious about you. Yet wireless carriers
> sell this information to police all the time.
> As far as the cell phone companies are concerned, the less
> Americans know about it the better.
> Whom you text and call and where you go (tracked by your cell
> phone as long as it's on) can reveal a great deal about you.
> Your calling patterns can show which friends matter to you the
> most, and your travel patterns can reveal what political and
> religious meetings you attend and what doctors you visit. Over
> time, this data accumulates into a dossier portraying details
> of your life so intimate that you may not have thought of them
> yourself. In comparison with companies such as Facebook and
> Google, which collect, store and use our information in one
> way or another, cell phone companies are less transparent.
> U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, co-chairman of the Congressional
> Bipartisan Privacy Caucus, recently requested that cell phone
> companies disclose basic statistics on how our personal data
> is shared with the government. Let's hope the companies are
> forthcoming -- but don't hold your breath.
> To be sure, there can be legitimate reasons for law
> enforcement agents to track individuals' movements. For
> example, when officers can demonstrate to a judge that they
> have a good reason to believe that tracking will turn up
> evidence of a crime. But with a surveillance technique this
> powerful, the public has a strong interest in understanding
> how it is used to ensure that it is not abused. While the
> details of individual investigations can legitimately be kept
> secret, the public and our elected representatives have a
> right to know the policies in general so their wisdom can be
> debated.
> Cell phone companies have long concealed these facts, and
> they're fighting vigorously to keep it that way. In
> California, the cell phone industry recently opposed a bill
> that would have required companies to tell their customers how
> often and under what circumstances they turn over location
> information to the police, complaining that it would be
> "unduly burdensome."
> What little has come to light so far about the companies'
> practices does not paint a comforting picture. Addressing a
> surveillance industry conference in 2009, Sprint's electronic
> surveillance manager revealed that the company had received so
> many requests for location data that it set up a website where
> the police could conveniently access the information from the
> comfort of their desks. In just a 13-month period, he said,
> the company had provided law enforcement with 8 million
> individual location data points. Other than Sprint, we do not
> have even this type of basic information about the frequency
> of requests for any of the other cell phone companies.
> The poorly understood relationship between cell phone
> companies and police raises grave privacy concerns. Like the
> companies, law enforcement agencies have a strong incentive to
> keep what is actually happening a secret, lest the public find
> out and demand new legal protections. More than 10 years ago,
> the Justice Department convinced the House of Representatives
> to abandon legislation that would have required law
> enforcement agencies to compile similar statistics, arguing
> that it would turn "crime fighters into bookkeepers."
> The excessive secrecy has frustrated the ability of the
> American people to have an informed debate on just how much
> information police should have access to without judicial
> oversight or having to show probable cause. It has also
> prevented Congress and the courts from effectively addressing
> these intrusive surveillance powers. That is not how our
> system of government is supposed to work.
> It would not be difficult for the carriers to tell customers
> how their data is collected, stored and shared. In fact, an
> internal Justice Department document from 2010, dislodged
> through a public records request by the American Civil
> Liberties Union, showed the data retention policies of all
> major carriers on a single piece of paper. The phone companies
> have all created detailed handbooks for law enforcement agents
> describing their policies and prices charged for surveillance
> assistance, a few dated versions of which have seeped out onto
> the Internet.
> If the cell phone companies can provide this information to
> law enforcement agencies, they can and should provide basic
> information about their sharing of data with law enforcement
> to their customers, too. While law enforcement sometimes
> argues that making members of the public aware that cell phone
> companies can track them will make it more difficult to catch
> criminals, it is too late in the day for that argument now
> that cell phone tracking is a staple of television police
> procedurals.
> Why aren't these policies available on the companies'
> websites? With such information, consumers could vote with
> their wallets and punish those companies that don't protect
> privacy. Keeping their customers in the dark about
> surveillance is better for business, it seems.
> We pay the cell phone companies to provide us with a service,
> not keep tabs on us for the government. And yet the companies
> that now have access to some of our most private information
> refuse to reveal even the most basic facts about their
> policies? We deserve better.
> w.
>
> 4 5 1 , 5 6 0 , 5 3 1
>
> <http://www.formatdynamics.com/saving-paper-trees-ink-and-money/>
>
>
>
>
> ! <http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/22/opinion/crump-cellphone-privacy/>
>
> ======================================================= List
> services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
> <http://www.fsr.net/> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
> =======================================================List
> services made available by First Step Internet,serving the
> communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
> <http://www.fsr.net/> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>=======================================================
>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com <mailto:art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com <mailto:art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120523/d69064eb/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list