How HD Data Collection *Could* Be True
David Kaye
> So we would have to be talking about a very, very low power transmitter
> in the radio. That means that there would have to be receiving antennae
> everywhere. Oh, sure, it could use some yet unknown technique, but that
> stuff is reserved for space alien fantasies. This thing has to work in
> the real world of today.
What people here are failing to notice is that FasTrak, the automated
toll system on Bay Area bridges is now doing more than just toll
work. Has anybody seen those electric signs that give the estimated
driving times between places? Guess what: These signs rely on
information gathered from people's FasTrak transponders. The only way
to calculate how long it takes to travel from Candlestick to highway
92 is to track *specific* cars, and yes, Caltrains follows the FasTrak
transponders with antennas embedded in the highway pavement.
So it would indeed easy for HD to track people's listening habits
under a similar scenario. They could cut a deal with Caltrans to use
the same kind of receivers to track listening. I'm not saying that
such a thing is being done because certainly it would have been common
knowledge in engineering circles, and it would have been discussed in
the trades.
I don't see anything wrong with tracking people's listening habits, by
the way, especially if it can be proven to be more accurate than other
audience measuring techniques. If people want their listening habits
represented so that they get the kind of programming they want to
hear, why wouldn't people embrace an automated audience measuring
system?
John Higdon
"David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't see anything wrong with tracking people's listening habits, by
> the way, especially if it can be proven to be more accurate than other
> audience measuring techniques. If people want their listening habits
> represented so that they get the kind of programming they want to
> hear, why wouldn't people embrace an automated audience measuring
> system?
I don't see any problem with it, either. But as presented, it was
obviously designed to trigger people's paranoia.
I recently had my Amazon.com account hijacked. It was closed within
hours, the attempt to mess with it foiled, but I had to open a new
account, and was informed that my entire history is basically lost.
Since Amazon is starting from scratch, it hasn't figured out my
preferences, habits, ordering tastes, etc. yet. You know...I sort of
miss the recommendations. What I am getting are irrelevant
recommendations based upon scant data, and recommendations for products
that I have already bought...and that they would know about if I wasn't
a "new" account.
I have no problem with technology used for marketing...as long as I
benefit in some way from it.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
George Grapman
that are related or that people who rented this movie also rented.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
leansto...@democrat.com
I knew about the evil applications of FasTrak, which is why I still
pay in cash. [They are always snooping on those transponders on "Law
and Order."]
Seems to me that if the HD radios transmit on an ISM frequency, this
information would have to be on file with the FCC.
George Grapman
They also did at least one episode where they tracked movement via a
Metrocard which is similar to a Muni Fast Pass but is always swiped,
even on surface vehicles.
>
> Seems to me that if the HD radios transmit on an ISM frequency, this
> information would have to be on file with the FCC.
>
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> I knew about the evil applications of FasTrak, which is why I still
> pay in cash. [They are always snooping on those transponders on "Law
> and Order."]
I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around such paranoia. I drive all
over the Bay Area every day. I fail to see how some computer knowing
where my transponder might be at a snapshot in time outweighs the
convenience of using it.
A transponder can be put in one's pocket. Hence the only thing they know
is where the *transponder* is at the moment it passes under the antennae
(which are clearly visible along the roadway). There is no information
about the car or driver. It never occurred to me that this was a
freedom-threatening secret.
John Higdon
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> They also did at least one episode where they tracked movement via a
> Metrocard which is similar to a Muni Fast Pass but is always swiped,
> even on surface vehicles.
Gee, let's get paranoid about cardkey systems. I carry six such cards. I
guess I could be tracked six ways from Sunday. How scary.
George Grapman
paranoid. All his dealings were cash as he said checks and credit cards
left records. He even purchased one way BART tickets.
One Friday night after payday he was mugged. Lost all his money and
refused to file a police report because there would be a record.
George Grapman
and when.Is I worked in place that had them I would not care if they
knew when I came and left.
Mike Nelson
> What people here are failing to notice is that FasTrak, the automated
> toll system on Bay Area bridges is now doing more than just toll
> work. Has anybody seen those electric signs that give the estimated
> driving times between places? Guess what: These signs rely on
> information gathered from people's FasTrak transponders. The only way
> to calculate how long it takes to travel from Candlestick to highway
> 92 is to track *specific* cars, and yes, Caltrains follows the FasTrak
> transponders with antennas embedded in the highway pavement.
I call B.S. on the FasTrak. Caltrans uses the speed sensing
radar mounted on lightpoles and signposts along the roadside
to estimate traffic speed. Caltrans typically uses the slowest
average traffic speed for this. They have sufficient numbers
of sensors to give a fine grained estimate.
Click on any of the links for Bay Area freeways on this web site
and you will see where the coverage is.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ysmfjf
Here is Caltrans own site:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/travel/dist_04/
FasTrak is no longer operated by Caltrans:
DavidFJackson
> What people here are failing to notice is that FasTrak, the automated
> toll system on Bay Area bridges is now doing more than just toll
> work. Has anybody seen those electric signs that give the estimated
> driving times between places? Guess what: These signs rely on
> information gathered from people's FasTrak transponders.
Then how do they do it over the Altamont, out in Tracy, Stockton and
Modesto? Of the thousands of cars commuting from Tracy on 580 to
Pleasanton each morning and afternoon, how many have FasTrak
transponders?
(Yes, DK, they're installing those signs out here in the hinterlands,
too, and they're showing the data on the morning and evening news
shows.)
Are you telling me that all the sensors that they have been installing
on 580 from Pleasanton to the Central Valley are to track the speed of
cars with FasTrak transponders -- in an area that has no toll bridges
or toll roads?
DJ
John Higdon
"DavidFJackson" <david.ferr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you telling me that all the sensors that they have been installing
> on 580 from Pleasanton to the Central Valley are to track the speed of
> cars with FasTrak transponders -- in an area that has no toll bridges
> or toll roads?
As has been explained ad nauseum in the media (and in briefings well
before it was released to the media), the idea is to simply determine
the time it takes for a particular vehicle (and all they track is the
raw transponder number long enough to do the calculation) to get from
point A to point B. That data from the individual tracked vehicles is
automatically collated and used to generate the content of those road
signs that announce travel times to points down the road.
The system is remarkably accurate, and IMHO, constitutes a real service
to the motoring public. If my transponder has been tracked by this
system, I'm very proud to have participated in the project.
If you don't want your transponder tracked by the system, then put it in
a foil bag when you are not crossing a bridge.
And don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat, as well.
George Grapman
John Higdon
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> One purpose of them, of course, is to track who is coming and going
> and when.Is I worked in place that had them I would not care if they
> knew when I came and left.
Indeed. I can just imagine getting a call: "We know you are at work.
Don't try to deny it!"
Or: "We know you went to Guy Warren Hall at 1PM on the 25th."
Golly...nailed again!
"We know you crossed the Benicia bridge at 6:30 AM and then at 2:30 PM
you crossed the Bay Bridge. What business did you have doing that?"
My paranoia gene must be underdeveloped.
John Higdon
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> This reminds me of a man I once worked with. Very bright but very
> paranoid. All his dealings were cash as he said checks and credit cards
> left records.
You bet they do...and is that handy at tax time! Or did he bother to pay
taxes?
John Higdon
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> And cover up your car windows with foil.
I always wondered why they put Braille on drive-up ATMs.
George Grapman
Have no idea but I recall his being upset when the IRS clarified the
definition of independent contractors which meant that we were now
treated as employees on commission. I was very happy because I no longer
had to file quarterly returns , my employers was paying part of my
social security, and I could be eligible for unemployment benefits.
For some reason this man bragged about the fact that he had no type
of state issued ID. Never understood the bragging because it meant while
the rest of us left a little early on Friday he had to stick around for
one of the owners to drive him to their bank so he could cash his check.
I do know he did not have criminal/legal problems because he once
testified for the prosecution in a violent crime case and he was once
booked and released on some minor charge that got dismissed.
George Grapman
> In article <grgPh.1288$5e2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>> And cover up your car windows with foil.
>
> I always wondered why they put Braille on drive-up ATMs.
>
Actually, I think I have the answer. I read that the face plates on
the machines at a drive in are the same as a walk up, they are just
installed differently so it is easier to make a one size fits all thing.
John Higdon
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
I guess everyone has to have a hobby. I found myself far more interested
in electrical gadgetry and making computers do things than I was in
politics, political statements, political causes, bucking society, etc.
When you're already weird, you don't need to find ways to become more
weird.
It has been somewhat of a passing interest to notice how many people do
outrageous things just so they can complain about how people are
treating them as though they are outrageous.
Tom
> A transponder can be put in one's pocket. Hence the only thing they know
> is where the *transponder* is at the moment it passes under the antennae
> (which are clearly visible along the roadway). There is no information
> about the car or driver. It never occurred to me that this was a
> freedom-threatening secret.
Not to mention that the FasTrak folks give you a nice mylar bag to
wrap your transponder in if you don't want it to be read when you pass
under those antennae...
besides, even if you pay cash at the bridges, they're still taking
pictures of your license plates as well. I know this happens in the
FasTrak lanes, I'm sure they've got their cameras on the regular toll
booths...
now what?
Tom
> > George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> And cover up your car windows with foil.
>
> > I always wondered why they put Braille on drive-up ATMs.
>
> Actually, I think I have the answer. I read that the face plates on
> the machines at a drive in are the same as a walk up, they are just
Nope. It's for ADA purposes for transportation (usually a cab) with a
Blind Passenger in the rear seat that can access the ATM.
When I worked for Wells Fargo Bank, that's why we put them there. A
lot of blind people use cabs to get around, it allows them to know
where certain buttons are on the machines. Now, the headphone jacks
serve the same purpose.
This allows a person with disablities to be able to use the machine
either by reading the braille (if they're sight impared) or using the
voice commands through the headphones (if they don't know braille.
George Grapman
you exit the system. Oh, wait, there are cameras at the stations. Take a
taxi,pay cash and give the driver a large tip if he promises to forget you.
George Grapman
John Higdon
"Tom" <toml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> besides, even if you pay cash at the bridges, they're still taking
> pictures of your license plates as well. I know this happens in the
> FasTrak lanes, I'm sure they've got their cameras on the regular toll
> booths...
The reason for the pictures is to be able to go after the scofflaws who
don't pay. Such people run the manned as well as the unmanned booths.
Also, if your transponder misfires and isn't read by the system, they
match the license number with your account and simply bill you as if all
had worked normally. You see this on your statement: instead of your
transponder number, your license number appears.
> now what?
I guess we'll just have to survive in a world where the use of modern
conveniences carries with it a chance to lose a tad of anonymity. I
would imagine that those of us who use our real names here have
underdeveloped paranoia genes.
John Higdon
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> Take BART and pay cash for single ride tickets and shred them when
> you exit the system. Oh, wait, there are cameras at the stations. Take a
> taxi,pay cash and give the driver a large tip if he promises to forget you.
And wear a tinfoil hat and a Richard Nixon mask.
Phil Kane
<sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>> I always wondered why they put Braille on drive-up ATMs.
>>
>
> Actually, I think I have the answer. I read that the face plates on
>the machines at a drive in are the same as a walk up, they are just
>installed differently so it is easier to make a one size fits all thing.
And sometimes it's a passenger in the back seat who is blind who
operates the machine.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR
George Grapman
they do not have an account and the teller asks for a thumb print?
Bill Z.
> A transponder can be put in one's pocket. Hence the only thing they know
> is where the *transponder* is at the moment it passes under the antennae
> (which are clearly visible along the roadway). There is no information
> about the car or driver. It never occurred to me that this was a
> freedom-threatening secret.
First of all, if you put it in one's pocket and carry it through a toll
booth as a passenger, and your driver also has a transponder, both of
you might end up being charged for the toll.
Second, (while a few years ago), when I looked at the web site, I saw
nothing to convince me that my privacy would be protected. You need a
mechanism in which the transponder will not reply with a fixed
response when queried - otherwise whatever response it gives can
simply be treated as an ID identifying the owner. Once you get some
additional information that you can correlate with that ID, you can
identify individuals. Naturally some people would have an incentive
to do that and to sell that information.
People regularly spy on what radio stations drivers listen to by
picking up the signal from the local oscillator (very narrow
bandwidth, offset by a known amount from the carrier frequency of the
station one is listening to). If they could at some point get the
license plate as well, someone would probably try to figure out who
listens to what radio stations, find their net worth or income, and
sell that information to advertisers.
If they can easily figure out where you personally go and spend your
time, they will quite likely sell that information so that some
corporate slime can target you with more junk mail.
If you want a comic example, suppose you like offbeat films and go to
the Castro Theater frequently. Someone goes around with a scanner to
pick up your transponder (easier than reading a license plate through
closely packed cars on city streets) and then targets you with
solications for some racy magazines, which your incompetent postman
delivers to your neighbor, who starts rumors about you (maybe you live
in a right-wing neighborhood surrounded by gossiping fundies). You
get all of the hassles and none of the fun, since you aren't into that
sort of thing.
They could have put a simple on/off switch on the transponder to
remove all doubt, but they could not be bothered.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
Steven (I got a header to paraphrase Jim Croce)
By measuring the delay between A and B and referencing the magnetic
pickups to the time signature of the vehicle (each axle would trigger
them in a specific pattern that could not only be used to tell it's
position and velocity but if it was in a pattern of speeding to alert
police to look for it and could be theoretically used to follow a
suspect (stolen, drunk, fugitive or hijacked) while pursuit was being
started.
Is that farfetched?
Steven (I got a header to paraphrase Jim Croce)
Then when it's 103 F you'll cook like a potato but you won't transmit.
Ergo sum, 100,000 less paranoids left and a nice ride home.
st...@chooseone.net
> In article <t2jPh.10625$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>,
> George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Take BART and pay cash for single ride tickets and shred them when
> > you exit the system. Oh, wait, there are cameras at the stations. Take a
> > taxi,pay cash and give the driver a large tip if he promises to forget you.
>
> And wear a tinfoil hat and a Richard Nixon mask.
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
Back about 25 years ago, when I drove around Martinez, my car radio
would often have a dead carrier on 106.1. After a while I realized
these carriers were coming from other people's car radios. Every car
radio transmits a weak signal 10.8 above it's recieve frequency. I
noticed KUIC in Vacaville happened to be at the frequency. So, after a
short time I figured out almost 1 in every 10 cars in town was
listening to KUIC in Vacaville. KUIC is 10.8 Mhz below KMEL. KMEL in
Martinez at that time had hardly any OTA signal, so it could be easily
jammed by a weak signal. Back then the Mt. Diablo Boosters were not on
the air yet, and FM reception in Martinez was really bad for any
station coming from SF, even the more powerful ones. Since most of the
Sacramento stations had a good deal of multipath and interference.
KUIC in Vacaville was the one of the few FM stations that was
listenable when driving around town, which would explain why it was so
popular. Over the years I have done some other experiments with
interesting results. You might be surprised how many people will claim
they are listening to a particular station, when in fact they are
listening to a totally different one. It will be rude awakening when
radio tracking becomes the norm. Everybody's ratings will change
overnight.
Steven (I got a header to paraphrase Jim Croce)
> In article <grgPh.1288$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
>
> > And cover up your car windows with foil.
>
> I always wondered why they put Braille on drive-up ATMs.
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
It gives something for sighted users to be amazed about. YOUR TAX
DOLLARS AT WORK.
John Higdon
st...@chooseone.net wrote:
> Back then the Mt. Diablo Boosters were not on
> the air yet, and FM reception in Martinez was really bad for any
> station coming from SF, even the more powerful ones.
In point of fact, the KMEL booster is on TV Hill, not Diablo.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Second, (while a few years ago), when I looked at the web site, I saw
> nothing to convince me that my privacy would be protected. You need a
> mechanism in which the transponder will not reply with a fixed
> response when queried - otherwise whatever response it gives can
> simply be treated as an ID identifying the owner. Once you get some
> additional information that you can correlate with that ID, you can
> identify individuals. Naturally some people would have an incentive
> to do that and to sell that information.
I'm not all hung up on being anonymous everywhere I go. I don't care if
people recognize me. The FasTrak transponder gives off nothing more than
it's serial number when queried. It does not reveal what I had for
breakfast, does not reveal my net worth, will not give anyone my SSN,
nor will it tell anyone what time I arrived in the office that morning.
I got some interesting news for you: there is another device on my
vehicle which unfailingly returns a signal which is keyed to the vehicle
owner's address, a complete history of the vehicle's involvement with
law enforcement, as well as its legal status on the road. It's called
the license plate.
> People regularly spy on what radio stations drivers listen to by
> picking up the signal from the local oscillator (very narrow
> bandwidth, offset by a known amount from the carrier frequency of the
> station one is listening to).
Yes, an unmodulated signal is "very narrow bandwidth"...in fact, it
approaches zero.
> If they could at some point get the
> license plate as well, someone would probably try to figure out who
> listens to what radio stations, find their net worth or income, and
> sell that information to advertisers.
I fail to see how "net worth or income" is encoded into the call letters
of the station playing in the car, it's license plate, or even a
combination of the two.
> If they can easily figure out where you personally go and spend your
> time, they will quite likely sell that information so that some
> corporate slime can target you with more junk mail.
Horrors!
> If you want a comic example, suppose you like offbeat films and go to
> the Castro Theater frequently. Someone goes around with a scanner to
> pick up your transponder (easier than reading a license plate through
> closely packed cars on city streets) and then targets you with
> solications for some racy magazines, which your incompetent postman
> delivers to your neighbor, who starts rumors about you (maybe you live
> in a right-wing neighborhood surrounded by gossiping fundies). You
> get all of the hassles and none of the fun, since you aren't into that
> sort of thing.
Actually, I think it would be useful to learn what type of neighbors I
had, and if that scenario assisted in that endeavor, so much the better.
It IS pretty silly...and trust me: junk mail isn't targeted by a car
parked in the Castro. What a hoot!
> They could have put a simple on/off switch on the transponder to
> remove all doubt, but they could not be bothered.
Or, you can drop it in the little bag which they supply. That way, you
don't forget to turn it back on when driving through the toll plaza.
Your post is very silly.
Robert A. Staton
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:grgPh.1288$5e2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> > If you don't want your transponder tracked by the system, then put it in
> > a foil bag when you are not crossing a bridge.
> >
> > And don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat, as well.
> >
> And cover up your car windows with foil.
Is all this discussion about being paranoid that the government is tracking
where people are? Why bother using a little transponder box that gives one
data point on rare occasion when you can track far more people real-time
using their cell phone? I've even heard of them being used as a bug.
Then of course there are zillions of webcams in public, plus people taking
pictures in public places and putting them on the internet, etc. etc.
The tinfoil hat will have to be replaced by the sealed full-body foil bag,
which periodically spurts blood cloned from OJ so you can always blame it on
someone else.
Steven (I got a header to paraphrase Jim Croce)
Simpson is tired.
Answer to the tiny xmtr Q is the transmitter on the gas meter they
read by radio receiver truck around here.
John Higdon
"Robert A. Staton" <rst...@sbcglobal.netspam> wrote:
> Is all this discussion about being paranoid that the government is tracking
> where people are? Why bother using a little transponder box that gives one
> data point on rare occasion when you can track far more people real-time
> using their cell phone? I've even heard of them being used as a bug.
I wonder how many people who are ultra-paranoid about the FasTrak
transponder carry a cell phone...which is a helluva lot more nefarious
as a tracking and spying device.
Bill Z.
> In article <87ps6q3...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> I'm not all hung up on being anonymous everywhere I go. I don't care if
> people recognize me. The FasTrak transponder gives off nothing more than
> it's serial number when queried. It does not reveal what I had for
> breakfast, does not reveal my net worth, will not give anyone my SSN,
> nor will it tell anyone what time I arrived in the office that morning.
You cant' be serious. A FasTack transponder can certainly indicate when
you arrived in the office that morning if you drive to work and park in
a company lot. All they need is to query the transponder as you enter
the driveway, store the ID in a database, and timestamp it. Somone only
has to go around once to tie the transponder ID to your license plate
number. You'll probably be able to buy that information commercially
at the rate we are going (unless the transponder includes replay protection
to hide the ID).
> I got some interesting news for you: there is another device on my
> vehicle which unfailingly returns a signal which is keyed to the vehicle
> owner's address, a complete history of the vehicle's involvement with
> law enforcement, as well as its legal status on the road. It's called
> the license plate.
Which, as I pointed out, they cannot easily read when you are parallel
parked or in heavy traffic due other vehicles blocking a view of a
vehicle. What you are missing is the cost issue - how cheap it is to
collect the data.
> > People regularly spy on what radio stations drivers listen to by
> > picking up the signal from the local oscillator (very narrow
> > bandwidth, offset by a known amount from the carrier frequency of the
> > station one is listening to).
>
> Yes, an unmodulated signal is "very narrow bandwidth"...in fact, it
> approaches zero.
Good. You knew that the bandwidth is not exactly zero (just as close
to zero as we can manage).
> > If they could at some point get the
> > license plate as well, someone would probably try to figure out who
> > listens to what radio stations, find their net worth or income, and
> > sell that information to advertisers.
>
> I fail to see how "net worth or income" is encoded into the call letters
> of the station playing in the car, it's license plate, or even a
> combination of the two.
Ever hear of data mining? The license plate number is a useful database
key.
> > If they can easily figure out where you personally go and spend your
> > time, they will quite likely sell that information so that some
> > corporate slime can target you with more junk
> Horrors!
Yes, horrors: people are drowning in junk mail to the point where some
of us feel harassed. Enough is enough.
> > If you want a comic example, suppose you like offbeat films and go to
> > the Castro Theater frequently. Someone goes around with a scanner to
> > pick up your transponder (easier than reading a license plate through
> > closely packed cars on city streets) and then targets you with
> > solications for some racy magazines, which your incompetent postman
> > delivers to your neighbor, who starts rumors about you (maybe you live
> > in a right-wing neighborhood surrounded by gossiping fundies). You
> > get all of the hassles and none of the fun, since you aren't into that
> > sort of thing.
>
> Actually, I think it would be useful to learn what type of neighbors I
> had, and if that scenario assisted in that endeavor, so much the better.
> It IS pretty silly...and trust me: junk mail isn't targeted by a car
> parked in the Castro. What a hoot!
Not yet. It is still too difficult (i.e., expensive) to do the data
collection. Of course, the problem is not what kind of neighbors you
have, but rather taking a small amount of data, misinterpretting it,
and generating erroneous assumptions about your neighbors (which was
the point of an admittedly humorous example).
> > They could have put a simple on/off switch on the transponder to
> > remove all doubt, but they could not be bothered.
>
> Or, you can drop it in the little bag which they supply. That way, you
> don't forget to turn it back on when driving through the toll plaza.
>
> Your post is very silly.
You are an idiot. Abuse of datamining has received a fair bit of
discussion as a risk factor regarding privacy.
David Kaye
wrote:
> Is all this discussion about being paranoid that the government is tracking
> where people are?
Big Brother turned out to be business, not goverment, and in this
country whatever business does is a-okay with them. This is why laws
regulating business activities are so important.
> Why bother using a little transponder box that gives one
> data point on rare occasion when you can track far more people real-time
> using their cell phone? I've even heard of them being used as a bug.
Long before there were GPS systems built into cell phones the cell
companies could still track cell phone movement somewhat. I'm
reminded of a time in Portland where a suspected bank robber ("the bad
guy" in Portland Police Bureau parlance) was making a quick getaway.
They figured he was driving along I-84, and the police, having a
description of the car, were able to intercept him. He was using a
Nextel phone and they were able to track his cell site hand-offs.
> Then of course there are zillions of webcams in public, plus people taking
> pictures in public places and putting them on the internet, etc. etc.
I have links to about 75 of them on my webpage. (I like to see what's
going on in California). There's a rest stop where the same RV has
been parked since November. There's a pathway at a shoreline where
I've seen people engaged in sex. I see street performers on Venice
beach, police cars driving up the beach in Torrance and talking with
beachgoers.
> The tinfoil hat will have to be replaced by the sealed full-body foil bag,
> which periodically spurts blood cloned from OJ so you can always blame it on
> someone else.
Interestingly enough, my ex-girlfriend, a forensic toxicologist,
testified in the OJ case, but apparently her testimony wasn't enough
to convince a jury. Amazing what juries will do sometimes.
But back to Big Brother. I have always been in more fear of business
than of government. This was brought home to me back when I was
little and I noticed that the big companies of the day such as IBM
appeared to be getting preferential treatment in contracts, etc. Even
as a kid I knew the fix was in.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> You cant' be serious. A FasTack transponder can certainly indicate when
> you arrived in the office that morning if you drive to work and park in
> a company lot. All they need is to query the transponder as you enter
> the driveway, store the ID in a database, and timestamp it. Somone only
> has to go around once to tie the transponder ID to your license plate
> number. You'll probably be able to buy that information commercially
> at the rate we are going (unless the transponder includes replay protection
> to hide the ID).
I have no problem with anyone knowing I'm at work! In fact, I could give
my transponder to a co-worker and "be at work" even more often!
> Which, as I pointed out, they cannot easily read when you are parallel
> parked or in heavy traffic due other vehicles blocking a view of a
> vehicle. What you are missing is the cost issue - how cheap it is to
> collect the data.
But what does being parked somewhere prove? I have to be *somewhere*. I
frequently park in the Castro...my sister lives there. I should be so
lucky to be able to park anywhere near the Castro Theater...which by the
way does not show porno films. Who cares if someone knows I'm parked
there?
> Good. You knew that the bandwidth is not exactly zero (just as close
> to zero as we can manage).
Which doesn't help one little bit in most urban areas where broadcast
signals are piled one after another.
> Ever hear of data mining? The license plate number is a useful database
> key.
For what? By whom?
> Yes, horrors: people are drowning in junk mail to the point where some
> of us feel harassed. Enough is enough.
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
> Not yet. It is still too difficult (i.e., expensive) to do the data
> collection. Of course, the problem is not what kind of neighbors you
> have, but rather taking a small amount of data, misinterpretting it,
> and generating erroneous assumptions about your neighbors (which was
> the point of an admittedly humorous example).
That can happen no matter what. I thought we were talking about the
evils of FasTrak transponders.
> You are an idiot. Abuse of datamining has received a fair bit of
> discussion as a risk factor regarding privacy.
Your gratuitous ad hominem aside, I thought we were talking about the
evils of the FasTrak transponder. I guess you're really discussing
something else.
In another post, by the way, I mused that due to having to open a new
account with Amazon, the marketing data they have collected on me over
the past 8 or 9 years was lost. I sort of miss the targeted ads. The
ones I'm getting now are irrelevant for one thing, and promote items
I've already bought from Amazon!
I guess one man's confection is another man's poison.
leansto...@democrat.com
> In article <1175286444.607979.129...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "leanstothel...@democrat.com" <leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> > I knew about the evil applications of FasTrak, which is why I still
> > pay in cash. [They are always snooping on those transponders on "Law
> > and Order."]
>
> I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around such paranoia. I drive all
> over the Bay Area every day. I fail to see how some computer knowing
> where my transponder might be at a snapshot in time outweighs the
> convenience of using it.
>
> A transponder can be put in one's pocket. Hence the only thing they know
> is where the *transponder* is at the moment it passes under the antennae
> (which are clearly visible along the roadway). There is no information
> about the car or driver. It never occurred to me that this was a
> freedom-threatening secret.
>
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
The code assigned to the transponder certainly exists on a database or
users, so there IS information on the car and driver.
Say there is a drive-by near one of the transponder sniffers. So DA
Jack McCoy assigns detectives Green and Cassady to get the names all
all drivers near this transponder at the time of the event. Ballistics
determines the shooter used a Glock 380, which you happen to own.
Given the rarity of the gun and your proximity to the scene, the DA
hauls you in. Having spent the afternoon at the range, your gun has
been recently fired and you have residue on your hand. Arthurr Branch
doesn't like that the case is very circumstantial, but McCoy nails
your ass because of your Middle Eastern heritage. Thus you get life
because you used a FasTrak.
You can't be too paranoid these days.
leansto...@democrat.com
> In article <kBsPh.929$w41....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Robert A. Staton" <rsta...@sbcglobal.netspam> wrote:
>
> > Is all this discussion about being paranoid that the government is tracking
> > where people are? Why bother using a little transponder box that gives one
> > data point on rare occasion when you can track far more people real-time
> > using their cell phone? I've even heard of them being used as a bug.
>
> I wonder how many people who are ultra-paranoid about the FasTrak
> transponder carry a cell phone...which is a helluva lot more nefarious
> as a tracking and spying device.
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
Guilty as charged. However, you could get prepaid cellular to get
around this tracking.
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> The code assigned to the transponder certainly exists on a database or
> users, so there IS information on the car and driver.
I own one transponder that migrates between five vehicles. One of them
doesn't even belong to me. Please describe the mechanism used to
identify the vehicle in which it is being used today.
Oh...photo of the license plate. But not unless I go through a toll
booth. And if I put it in its little bag...it disappears like magic.
> Say there is a drive-by near one of the transponder sniffers. So DA
> Jack McCoy assigns detectives Green and Cassady to get the names all
> all drivers near this transponder at the time of the event. Ballistics
> determines the shooter used a Glock 380, which you happen to own.
> Given the rarity of the gun and your proximity to the scene, the DA
> hauls you in. Having spent the afternoon at the range, your gun has
> been recently fired and you have residue on your hand. Arthurr Branch
> doesn't like that the case is very circumstantial, but McCoy nails
> your ass because of your Middle Eastern heritage. Thus you get life
> because you used a FasTrak.
I don't own gun. My transponder circulates among five vehicles. So, I
guess I don't care. And...for not caring, I get the convenience of
FasTrak. You go ahead and sit in line.
> You can't be too paranoid these days.
You're proving just the opposite.
leansto...@democrat.com
> In article <1175387937.431150.17...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Multiple cars? Not an issue. All that is needed is to place you at the
crime scene.
My example is hypothetical, so somebody else could be that schmuck
with a gun in the wrong place at the wrong time. Look at how little
evidence was used to nail Scott Peterson.
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Multiple cars? Not an issue. All that is needed is to place you at the
> crime scene.
Me, not my transponder. If the picture of the driver isn't clear on a
red-light camera, the citation is thrown out, even if the license is
known. I would imagine that the standard would be even tougher for a
major crime.
> My example is hypothetical, so somebody else could be that schmuck
> with a gun in the wrong place at the wrong time. Look at how little
> evidence was used to nail Scott Peterson.
Other schmucks are not my problem. If they want to line up at toll
booths, fine. If *you* want to line up at a toll booth, that's fine,
too. I prefer to use technology, thank you.
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Guilty as charged. However, you could get prepaid cellular to get
> around this tracking.
Do *you* have prepaid cellular?
Bill Z.
> In article <87ps6pj...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > You cant' be serious. A FasTack transponder can certainly indicate when
> > you arrived in the office that morning if you drive to work and park in
> > a company lot. All they need is to query the transponder as you enter
> > the driveway, store the ID in a database, and timestamp it. Somone only
> > has to go around once to tie the transponder ID to your license plate
> > number. You'll probably be able to buy that information commercially
> > at the rate we are going (unless the transponder includes replay protection
> > to hide the ID).
>
> I have no problem with anyone knowing I'm at work! In fact, I could give
> my transponder to a co-worker and "be at work" even more often!
One might have a problem with your employer knowing you are not at
work or arrived late.
> > Which, as I pointed out, they cannot easily read when you are parallel
> > parked or in heavy traffic due other vehicles blocking a view of a
> > vehicle. What you are missing is the cost issue - how cheap it is to
> > collect the data.
>
> But what does being parked somewhere prove? I have to be *somewhere*. I
> frequently park in the Castro...my sister lives there. I should be so
> lucky to be able to park anywhere near the Castro Theater...which by the
> way does not show porno films. Who cares if someone knows I'm parked
> there?
Nobody should care (and in the example I gave, I mentioned offbeat
films - i.e., art films you don't see in googooplexes). What I was
giving as an example is someone taking information and
misinterpretting it. You go there to visit your sister or to see an
art film, someone records your relatively frequent presense, and your
health insurance company blackballs you (David Kaye once mentioned
people being blacklisted by insurance companies based on zip codes,
which in San Fransisco are not tied to neighborhood boundaries, but
the insurance companies wanted to eliminate certain individuals and
didn't care if any others were inconvenienced in the process.)
> > Good. You knew that the bandwidth is not exactly zero (just as close
> > to zero as we can manage).
>
> Which doesn't help one little bit in most urban areas where broadcast
> signals are piled one after another.
Are you serious? You put in a directional antenna to pick up the signal
as a car enters a parking garage, and then there is the inverse square
law - the signal drops with the square of the distance but the number of
cars grows approximately linearly, not to mention the shielding provided
by buildings.
> > Ever hear of data mining? The license plate number is a useful database
> > key.
>
> For what? By whom?
To look up information about the owner of a car, who they will assume is
the primary driver.
> > Yes, horrors: people are drowning in junk mail to the point where some
> > of us feel harassed. Enough is enough.
>
> Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Hey, you are not the guy who has to go through it to find important
pieces of mail like bills.
> > Not yet. It is still too difficult (i.e., expensive) to do the data
> > collection. Of course, the problem is not what kind of neighbors you
> > have, but rather taking a small amount of data, misinterpretting it,
> > and generating erroneous assumptions about your neighbors (which was
> > the point of an admittedly humorous example).
>
> That can happen no matter what. I thought we were talking about the
> evils of FasTrak transponders.
No, we were taking about how the transponders could be abused.
>
> > You are an idiot. Abuse of datamining has received a fair bit of
> > discussion as a risk factor regarding privacy.
>
> Your gratuitous ad hominem aside, I thought we were talking about the
> evils of the FasTrak transponder. I guess you're really discussing
> something else.
Hypocrite - I called you an idiot after you said, "Your post is very
silly" (which of course you snipped in your current reply).
We were obviously discussing privacy and datamining, with a FasTrak
transponder being exploitable if the transponder behaves in certain
ways - providing some sort of unique response that identifies it.
> In another post, by the way, I mused that due to having to open a new
> account with Amazon, the marketing data they have collected on me over
> the past 8 or 9 years was lost. I sort of miss the targeted ads. The
> ones I'm getting now are irrelevant for one thing, and promote items
> I've already bought from Amazon!
>
> I guess one man's confection is another man's poison.
It is forcing the stuff down one's throat that is the issue. I mean,
I really don't like getting mail from some sleazebags calling
themselves The California Earthquake Authority (as happened a couple
of days ago) when it is just some slimy insurance company trying to
fool people into thinking the mail is from a state agency. And I
don't like getting so much garbage that it is a chore to find the
bills I have to pay.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> One might have a problem with your employer knowing you are not at
> work or arrived late.
When I'm in my office is manifestly obvious to the owner of the company:
it is across the hall from his. Besides, much of my work is in the field.
> Nobody should care (and in the example I gave, I mentioned offbeat
> films - i.e., art films you don't see in googooplexes). What I was
> giving as an example is someone taking information and
> misinterpretting it.
OK...I could get behind that topic. But it is way off from what I
thought we were talking about.
> You go there to visit your sister or to see an
> art film, someone records your relatively frequent presense, and your
> health insurance company blackballs you (David Kaye once mentioned
> people being blacklisted by insurance companies based on zip codes,
> which in San Fransisco are not tied to neighborhood boundaries, but
> the insurance companies wanted to eliminate certain individuals and
> didn't care if any others were inconvenienced in the process.)
Or, I could be visiting my sister...which is probably why that sort of
information might be worthless. You are not the only one who might
consider the information worthless.
> Are you serious? You put in a directional antenna to pick up the signal
> as a car enters a parking garage, and then there is the inverse square
> law - the signal drops with the square of the distance but the number of
> cars grows approximately linearly, not to mention the shielding provided
> by buildings.
Who cares? When I enter a garage, I usually turn off my radio. One of
the very few garages I enter is that of ABC. My radio is usually tuned
to KGO. How incriminating! The other garage is that of Clear Channel. Do
you suppose they know I listen to KGO? Sorry..."silly" keeps coming to
mind.
> To look up information about the owner of a car, who they will assume is
> the primary driver.
Anybody can assume anything about anything, with or without technology.
> Hey, you are not the guy who has to go through it to find important
> pieces of mail like bills.
Excuse me? I run two businesses out of my home in addition to being a
*person" who also receives his share of junk mail. I probably pay a
*lot* more bills that you do, and receive many times the number of mail
pieces.
> No, we were taking about how the transponders could be abused.
I'm not worried, so I'll go ahead and use mine. I guess that's what it
comes down to.
> Hypocrite - I called you an idiot after you said, "Your post is very
> silly" (which of course you snipped in your current reply).
You called *me* an idiot; I called *your post* silly. Are you unable to
grasp the distinction? Are you your post?
> We were obviously discussing privacy and datamining, with a FasTrak
> transponder being exploitable if the transponder behaves in certain
> ways - providing some sort of unique response that identifies it.
OK. Your argument is unconvincing. I guess we'll have to leave it at
that.
> It is forcing the stuff down one's throat that is the issue. I mean,
> I really don't like getting mail from some sleazebags calling
> themselves The California Earthquake Authority (as happened a couple
> of days ago) when it is just some slimy insurance company trying to
> fool people into thinking the mail is from a state agency.
You mean you *read* your junk mail? Well, that's the problem.
> And I
> don't like getting so much garbage that it is a chore to find the
> bills I have to pay.
How many bills to you get a day? It takes me about fifteen seconds daily
to cull my mail. Maybe you need a course in junk mail recognition.
That aside, what makes you think that not using any particular device or
other is going to cut down your junk mail? Do you have access to a study
that has determined that, or did you just make it up?
leansto...@democrat.com
> In article <1175388716.171069.129...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "leanstothel...@democrat.com" <leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> > Multiple cars? Not an issue. All that is needed is to place you at the
> > crime scene.
>
> Me, not my transponder. If the picture of the driver isn't clear on a
> red-light camera, the citation is thrown out, even if the license is
> known. I would imagine that the standard would be even tougher for a
> major crime.
>
> > My example is hypothetical, so somebody else could be that schmuck
> > with a gun in the wrong place at the wrong time. Look at how little
> > evidence was used to nail Scott Peterson.
>
> Other schmucks are not my problem. If they want to line up at toll
> booths, fine. If *you* want to line up at a toll booth, that's fine,
> too. I prefer to use technology, thank you.
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
Why can't I buy a prepaid transpoder? Answer: Because the government
couldn't snoop on my that way! I'm amazed BART still takes my cash.
Civil liberties are for everyone, including the poor schmuck that gets
caught in an electronic spider web.
Phil Kane
wrote:
>But back to Big Brother. I have always been in more fear of business
>than of government.
I've been saying that for 30 years...
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Why can't I buy a prepaid transpoder? Answer: Because the government
> couldn't snoop on my that way! I'm amazed BART still takes my cash.
>
> Civil liberties are for everyone, including the poor schmuck that gets
> caught in an electronic spider web.
If you want to go back to the cave, that's OK. If you think about it,
everything in modern society keeps track of you. Don't use Internet
postage, cell phones, credit cards, work for pay above board, fly, use
Amtrak, use a cardkey or key fob, shop at any store that uses a scanner,
use the phone (or email, for that matter), etc., etc.
You didn't answer my question about whether you had prepaid cellular
service. I suspect the answer is no...and your commentary is just an
exercise.
Bill Z.
> In article <1175387937....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> "leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
>
> > The code assigned to the transponder certainly exists on a database or
> > users, so there IS information on the car and driver.
>
> I own one transponder that migrates between five vehicles. One of them
> doesn't even belong to me. Please describe the mechanism used to
> identify the vehicle in which it is being used today.
Most people use a single vehicle, and there is nothing to stop them
from recording each of your 5 vehicles' license plate numbers and
noticing that they all belong to you.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Most people use a single vehicle, and there is nothing to stop them
> from recording each of your 5 vehicles' license plate numbers and
> noticing that they all belong to you.
They don't all belong to me. And they have no idea who might be using
them. The transponder is in one of my company names.
Bill Z.
> In article <87slbkl...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > One might have a problem with your employer knowing you are not at
> > work or arrived late.
>
> When I'm in my office is manifestly obvious to the owner of the company:
> it is across the hall from his. Besides, much of my work is in the field.
Hmm. You've never walked in and gone directly to a conference room
(maybe with a few seconds by your office). :-)
>
> > Nobody should care (and in the example I gave, I mentioned offbeat
> > films - i.e., art films you don't see in googooplexes). What I was
> > giving as an example is someone taking information and
> > misinterpretting it.
>
> OK...I could get behind that topic. But it is way off from what I
> thought we were talking about.
>
> > You go there to visit your sister or to see an
> > art film, someone records your relatively frequent presense, and your
> > health insurance company blackballs you (David Kaye once mentioned
> > people being blacklisted by insurance companies based on zip codes,
> > which in San Fransisco are not tied to neighborhood boundaries, but
> > the insurance companies wanted to eliminate certain individuals and
> > didn't care if any others were inconvenienced in the process.)
>
> Or, I could be visiting my sister...which is probably why that sort of
> information might be worthless. You are not the only one who might
> consider the information worthless.
You are missing the point. In the examples I gave, they don't care if
they misclassify you as long as they get it right enough of the time
for whatever they are doing to increase their bottom line, and they can
be perfectly willing to screw you to do it: it is corporate America.
> > Are you serious? You put in a directional antenna to pick up the signal
> > as a car enters a parking garage, and then there is the inverse square
> > law - the signal drops with the square of the distance but the number of
> > cars grows approximately linearly, not to mention the shielding provided
> > by buildings.
>
> Who cares? When I enter a garage, I usually turn off my radio. One of
> the very few garages I enter is that of ABC. My radio is usually tuned
> to KGO. How incriminating! The other garage is that of Clear Channel. Do
> you suppose they know I listen to KGO? Sorry..."silly" keeps coming to
> mind.
Did it occur to you that advertisers might be very interested in getting
a more or less random sample of a radio stations listeners and then find
out their net worth, spending habits, and all sort of other similar
information?
> > To look up information about the owner of a car, who they will assume is
> > the primary driver.
>
> Anybody can assume anything about anything, with or without technology.
You can't reasonably assume anything when you have no data at all.
> > Hey, you are not the guy who has to go through it to find important
> > pieces of mail like bills.
>
> Excuse me? I run two businesses out of my home in addition to being a
> *person" who also receives his share of junk mail. I probably pay a
> *lot* more bills that you do, and receive many times the number of mail
> pieces.
That's nice, but I value my free time.
> > Hypocrite - I called you an idiot after you said, "Your post is very
> > silly" (which of course you snipped in your current reply).
>
> You called *me* an idiot; I called *your post* silly. Are you unable to
> grasp the distinction? Are you your post?
What do you think you are implying by calling a post "silly"?
> > We were obviously discussing privacy and datamining, with a FasTrak
> > transponder being exploitable if the transponder behaves in certain
> > ways - providing some sort of unique response that identifies it.
>
> OK. Your argument is unconvincing. I guess we'll have to leave it at
> that.
Let's just say that your pronouncements simply show how naive you are.
> > It is forcing the stuff down one's throat that is the issue. I mean,
> > I really don't like getting mail from some sleazebags calling
> > themselves The California Earthquake Authority (as happened a couple
> > of days ago) when it is just some slimy insurance company trying to
> > fool people into thinking the mail is from a state agency.
>
> You mean you *read* your junk mail? Well, that's the problem.
No, I don't read it. I throw it out. I may, however, file a complaint
about that one given the obvious intent to misrepresent themselves as
a state agency.
>
> How many bills to you get a day? It takes me about fifteen seconds daily
> to cull my mail. Maybe you need a course in junk mail recognition.
Maybe you need a course in time managment. Also, if you can manage simple
arithmetic, try dividing 300 by 4 to get about how many hours per year
this is taking (it's a bit over 1 hour). Now, if I decided to force you
to waste an hour of your time, how would you react?
> That aside, what makes you think that not using any particular device or
> other is going to cut down your junk mail? Do you have access to a study
> that has determined that, or did you just make it up?
The issue was data mining and whether some particular device facilitates
that. Basically, the less they know about you, the less you are
harassed.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> You are missing the point. In the examples I gave, they don't care if
> they misclassify you as long as they get it right enough of the time
> for whatever they are doing to increase their bottom line, and they can
> be perfectly willing to screw you to do it: it is corporate America.
So, if they get it wrong, I get a couple of irrelevant pieces of junk
mail?
> Did it occur to you that advertisers might be very interested in getting
> a more or less random sample of a radio stations listeners and then find
> out their net worth, spending habits, and all sort of other similar
> information?
They would...and they do...by many means. So what? If someone is going
to bombard me with advertising, I would just as soon have it relevant.
> You can't reasonably assume anything when you have no data at all.
Where have *you* been?
> That's nice, but I value my free time.
For the ten to fifteen seconds it takes to dump the junk mail, I can
enjoy the benefits of the technology.
> What do you think you are implying by calling a post "silly"?
I'm not implying anything. I'm directly stating that the post is silly.
What inference are you deriving? There is no hidden meaning encapsulated
there.
> Let's just say that your pronouncements simply show how naive you are.
Not only am I not naive, I have developed some of the technology that
you hate...and am even working on a project right now that I can't even
discuss. Unlike you, I don't have "fear of the unknown".
> No, I don't read it. I throw it out. I may, however, file a complaint
> about that one given the obvious intent to misrepresent themselves as
> a state agency.
I thought you were the one who valued his free time.
> Maybe you need a course in time managment. Also, if you can manage simple
> arithmetic, try dividing 300 by 4 to get about how many hours per year
> this is taking (it's a bit over 1 hour). Now, if I decided to force you
> to waste an hour of your time, how would you react?
In a *year*? You need to get a handle on relativity and scope.
> The issue was data mining and whether some particular device facilitates
> that. Basically, the less they know about you, the less you are
> harassed.
If that is your goal, I have listed, in another post, all the things you
will have to avoid to keep "Them" from finding out about things you
have, buy, and do. Dump your credit cards, get rid of your cell phone
(one of the biggest offenders), don't fly or take the train, don't buy a
house, don't start a business, etc. A comprehensive list would take more
space than a post can hold.
Taken in perspective, a FasTrak transponder starts to look pretty
benign.
George Grapman
As opposed to DMV and insurance companies knowing this.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
leansto...@democrat.com
> In article <1175392703.484980.76...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "leanstothel...@democrat.com" <leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> > Why can't I buy a prepaid transpoder? Answer: Because the government
> > couldn't snoop on my that way! I'm amazed BART still takes my cash.
>
> > Civil liberties are for everyone, including the poor schmuck that gets
> > caught in an electronic spider web.
>
> If you want to go back to the cave, that's OK. If you think about it,
> everything in modern society keeps track of you. Don't use Internet
> postage, cell phones, credit cards, work for pay above board, fly, use
> Amtrak, use a cardkey or key fob, shop at any store that uses a scanner,
> use the phone (or email, for that matter), etc., etc.
>
> You didn't answer my question about whether you had prepaid cellular
> service. I suspect the answer is no...and your commentary is just an
> exercise.
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
That was my "guilty as charged" comment. You can't get any cool
features on prepaid cellular.
Right now, I can avoid being snooped on by Caltrans since they still
accept money. Granted they ID me at the toll booth, but I don't use
the bridges very often. I always BART to the city, and BART accepts
money. About the only bridge they photograph me on is the Richmond
bridge and whatever the name is of the bridge you use getting to
Sacto.
The credit card comment is interesting since First Card handed the
feds all sorts of financial data without a warrant after 9/11.
Unfortunately, you can't book a room without a credit card.
leansto...@democrat.com
> In article <87zm5sn1e3....@nospam.pacbell.net>,
Ultimately, companies names can be linked to real people. You can use
a fake name I suppose, but in most states, that is a crime, though not
often prosecuted. This has been an issue with CIA front companies,
since patriots want the lawyers who file the false paperwork arrested
for their crimes.
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Right now, I can avoid being snooped on by Caltrans since they still
> accept money. Granted they ID me at the toll booth, but I don't use
> the bridges very often. I always BART to the city, and BART accepts
> money. About the only bridge they photograph me on is the Richmond
> bridge and whatever the name is of the bridge you use getting to
> Sacto.
Do you wear a black cape and mask when you go out in public?
> The credit card comment is interesting since First Card handed the
> feds all sorts of financial data without a warrant after 9/11.
> Unfortunately, you can't book a room without a credit card.
Hey, if you're going to live the covert lifestyle, you're going to have
to learn to make some sacrifices. There are hotels that will accept
cash. I wouldn't stay in any of them, but then, I don't have a paranoia
problem so I can use all the neat technology.
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Ultimately, companies names can be linked to real people. You can use
> a fake name I suppose, but in most states, that is a crime, though not
> often prosecuted. This has been an issue with CIA front companies,
> since patriots want the lawyers who file the false paperwork arrested
> for their crimes.
Someone looking over my shoulder just now (quite rightly) remarked,
"There are so many other things that people can and should worry
about...".
I have to agree.
leansto...@democrat.com
> In article <1175405684.538587.145...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "leanstothel...@democrat.com" <leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> > Right now, I can avoid being snooped on by Caltrans since they still
> > accept money. Granted they ID me at the toll booth, but I don't use
> > the bridges very often. I always BART to the city, and BART accepts
> > money. About the only bridge they photograph me on is the Richmond
> > bridge and whatever the name is of the bridge you use getting to
> > Sacto.
>
> Do you wear a black cape and mask when you go out in public?
I do have a black ski mask, but never drove around wearing it.
>
> > The credit card comment is interesting since First Card handed the
> > feds all sorts of financial data without a warrant after 9/11.
> > Unfortunately, you can't book a room without a credit card.
>
> Hey, if you're going to live the covert lifestyle, you're going to have
> to learn to make some sacrifices. There are hotels that will accept
> cash. I wouldn't stay in any of them, but then, I don't have a paranoia
> problem so I can use all the neat technology.
Actually, most major hotels will take your cash. The issue is making a
reservation. The mom and pop places will reserve a room without a
credit card if you have been a frequent guest, but not the major
hotels.
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
Since you like technology, why not put a tracking device on your car
and set up a website where we can all see your location? Better yet,
use a phone with a GPS. Maybe set up the Higdon cam.
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Since you like technology, why not put a tracking device on your car
> and set up a website where we can all see your location? Better yet,
> use a phone with a GPS. Maybe set up the Higdon cam.
I would be sued for causing death by boredom. I'm sure that my daily
grind is of absolutely no interest to anyone whatsoever. I guess i just
lack the delusions of grandeur necessary to believe that anyone would
care where I go or what I do.
Alan
>> > Hypocrite - I called you an idiot after you said, "Your post is very
>> > silly" (which of course you snipped in your current reply).
>>
>> You called *me* an idiot; I called *your post* silly. Are you unable to
>> grasp the distinction? Are you your post?
>
>What do you think you are implying by calling a post "silly"?
It may be a matter of style, manners, or a real difference. However
personal attacks (popular with the left) are rude.
>> > It is forcing the stuff down one's throat that is the issue. I mean,
>> > I really don't like getting mail from some sleazebags calling
>> > themselves The California Earthquake Authority (as happened a couple
>> > of days ago) when it is just some slimy insurance company trying to
>> > fool people into thinking the mail is from a state agency.
>>
>> You mean you *read* your junk mail? Well, that's the problem.
>
>No, I don't read it. I throw it out. I may, however, file a complaint
>about that one given the obvious intent to misrepresent themselves as
>a state agency.
And you will find out that the CEA is a privately financed, publicly
managed, entity -- established by the California legislature in 1996.
Not exactly a "slimy insurance company". I got one of the letters,
and it made no claim or hint that it was a state agency.
>> How many bills to you get a day? It takes me about fifteen seconds daily
>> to cull my mail. Maybe you need a course in junk mail recognition.
>
>Maybe you need a course in time managment. Also, if you can manage simple
>arithmetic, try dividing 300 by 4 to get about how many hours per year
>this is taking (it's a bit over 1 hour). Now, if I decided to force you
>to waste an hour of your time, how would you react?
Perhaps you need a course in arithmetic. 300 / 4 is 75, and is not the
number of HOURS spent, it is the number of MINUTES spent. You are right,
though, it is 1.25 hours.
If that time matters to you, you can save it by sorting the mail while
you take care of other physical activity that does not require the use
of hands or much brainpower, reducing the time required to near zero.
Alan
Steven (I got a header to paraphrase Jim Croce)
> In article <1175388404.515311.193...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "leanstothel...@democrat.com" <leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> > Guilty as charged. However, you could get prepaid cellular to get
> > around this tracking.
>
> Do *you* have prepaid cellular?
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
You mean go to the C-store or Kmart and buy minutes?
I might if I would actually care to have one.
Steven (I got a header to paraphrase Jim Croce)
> The issue was data mining and whether some particular device facilitates
> that. Basically, the less they know about you, the less you are
> harassed.
Doesn't work like that here???
Bill, Google knows if you dribble when you pee and sends more prostate
medication ads to the home page. Give UP
Steven (I got a header to paraphrase Jim Croce)
> In article <1175405684.538587.145...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
There's some asshole on the bridge in tights and a big cape! Call the
FBI!
Steven (I got a header to paraphrase Jim Croce)
> In article <87veggn0t5....@nospam.pacbell.net> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes:
> >> > Hypocrite - I called you an idiot after you said, "Your post is very
> >> > silly" (which of course you snipped in your current reply).
>
> >> You called *me* an idiot; I called *your post* silly. Are you unable to
> >> grasp the distinction? Are you your post?
>
> >What do you think you are implying by calling a post "silly"?
>
> It may be a matter of style, manners, or a real difference. However
> personal attacks (popular with the left) are rude.
>
They aren't the left I call mine...this is the lazy protest
generation. How did we raise a generation so good at cutting and
pasting from Johnny's stupid blog anyway? Das kinder! My parent's
generation could at least get gassed forming a human chain in the cold
rain and get hauled to jail while getting sympathy on the 6 o'clock
news in b/w 8 mm glory?
Are these guys going to be the rich ones that end up governing my
podunk swamp fiefdom as I wither away?
Phil Kane
wrote:
>Maybe you need a course in time managment. Also, if you can manage simple
>arithmetic, try dividing 300 by 4 to get about how many hours per year
>this is taking (it's a bit over 1 hour). Now, if I decided to force you
>to waste an hour of your time, how would you react?
>
I don't need anything to force me to waste time. I do it naturally
with no advanced training..
Phil Kane
<leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
>Since you like technology, why not put a tracking device on your car
>and set up a website where we can all see your location?
Many radio amateurs do exactly that. It's called APRS - Automatic
Position Reporting System, and it lets us who are involved in
Emergency Response Support communications keep track of where our
people and other resources are. The national APRS data frequency is
144.39 MHz, AX-25 protocol, NBFM data.
Like many other technological advances of our time, it was implemented
and tweaked by the ham community long before the commercial versions
came out.
>Better yet, use a phone with a GPS. Maybe set up the Higdon cam.
If "the Man" wants to surveille you, you will be surveilled despite
whatever antics you go through to avoid same. Trust me - The Uncle
spent a lot of money training me to do those things.
We all live in a fishbowl whether you want to or not.
Phil Kane
<curmu...@ba-broadcast.com> wrote:
> I guess i just lack the delusions of grandeur necessary to believe
>that anyone would care where I go or what I do.
Delusions of grandeur are better than no grandeur at all....
Unknown
Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
>On 31 Mar 2007 22:53:00 -0700, "leansto...@democrat.com"
><leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
>
>>Since you like technology, why not put a tracking device on your car
>>and set up a website where we can all see your location?
>
>Many radio amateurs do exactly that. It's called APRS - Automatic
>Position Reporting System, and it lets us who are involved in
>Emergency Response Support communications keep track of where our
>people and other resources are.
I had a lot of fun on Dec. 31st a few years ago following the
course of a few APRS-equipped Rose Parade floats on their way
to Pasadena. (I was in Arcadia with some friends, preparing to
get up at Oh-Dark-Hundred to go see the parade.) Unfortunately,
I gather that the ToR folks have not been using the services
of the hams for the past few years, so no more APRS-watching. :-(
Patty
Phil Kane
Jim Croce)" <thisjukebo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My parent's
>generation could at least get gassed forming a human chain in the cold
>rain and get hauled to jail while getting sympathy on the 6 o'clock
>news in b/w 8 mm glory?
You must really be young. Those whom you describe as "my parent's
generation" (you only had one parent? Otherwise the apostrophe
belongs on the other side of the "s")) were "the kids" whose actions
we deplored while they were forming the human chain.....and I was a
liberal in those days! Still am, but the word is used differently
now.
Bill Z.
That's nice, but it is completely irrelevant. Corporate attempts to
maintain dossiers on all Americans (otherwise known as marketing data)
don't care if there are a few exceptions. Rather, they care about
getting it right enough of the time to be cost effective.
David Kaye
> I would be sued for causing death by boredom. I'm sure that my daily
> grind is of absolutely no interest to anyone whatsoever. I guess i just
> lack the delusions of grandeur necessary to believe that anyone would
> care where I go or what I do.
Justin Kan is one such person. He has been wearing a camera on his
head for the past two weeks. I learned about him on the second or
third day and watched a little. He was sitting in a discussion about
some boring web interface design products. Then he was walking down a
hallway. Then he was making smalltalk with people.
Believe it or not I picked up the Chronicle a couple days ago and
Justin is on the front page, no less. Why on earth a boring kid
wearing a camera is considered interesting enough to make it to the
front page of the Chron mystifies me, unless the Chron is simply
trying to play hip to catch up with bloggers or something....
Anyhow, I posted a comment to one of the blogs asking, isn't the whole
Justin-cam an exercise in narcissism? The comment was removed.
Bill Z.
> In article <87veggn...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > You are missing the point. In the examples I gave, they don't care if
> > they misclassify you as long as they get it right enough of the time
> > for whatever they are doing to increase their bottom line, and they can
> > be perfectly willing to screw you to do it: it is corporate America.
>
> So, if they get it wrong, I get a couple of irrelevant pieces of junk
> mail?
If you are lucky that's all that happens.
>
> > Did it occur to you that advertisers might be very interested in getting
> > a more or less random sample of a radio stations listeners and then find
> > out their net worth, spending habits, and all sort of other similar
> > information?
>
> They would...and they do...by many means. So what? If someone is going
> to bombard me with advertising, I would just as soon have it relevant.
I'd just much rather not get it at all. Advertising is so obnoxious these
days that I don't own a TV.
> > You can't reasonably assume anything when you have no data at all.
> Where have *you* been?
In the real world.
>
> Taken in perspective, a FasTrak transponder starts to look pretty
Taken in perspective, I see no evidence that they took the steps
necessary to protect one's privacy, which include making sure that the
responder returns a different, and encrypted, response each time it
receives a particular query. When I checked FasTrak's web site, it
said nothing about that.
Bill Z.
> In article <87veggn...@nospam.pacbell.net> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> >> > Hypocrite - I called you an idiot after you said, "Your post is very
> >> > silly" (which of course you snipped in your current reply).
> >>
> >> You called *me* an idiot; I called *your post* silly. Are you unable to
> >> grasp the distinction? Are you your post?
> >
> >What do you think you are implying by calling a post "silly"?
>
> It may be a matter of style, manners, or a real difference. However
> personal attacks (popular with the left) are rude.
Ever hear of Rush Limbaugh or swift boating? Real personal attacks are
usually associated with the right wing.
>
>
> >> > It is forcing the stuff down one's throat that is the issue. I
> >> > mean, I really don't like getting mail from some sleazebags
> >> > calling themselves The California Earthquake Authority (as
> >> > happened a couple of days ago) when it is just some slimy
> >> > insurance company trying to fool people into thinking the mail
> >> > is from a state agency.
> >>
> >> You mean you *read* your junk mail? Well, that's the problem.
> >
> >No, I don't read it. I throw it out. I may, however, file a complaint
> >about that one given the obvious intent to misrepresent themselves as
> >a state agency.
>
> And you will find out that the CEA is a privately financed, publicly
> managed, entity -- established by the California legislature in 1996.
>
> Not exactly a "slimy insurance company". I got one of the letters,
> and it made no claim or hint that it was a state agency.
This thing came from out of state, so I simply assumed it was fraudulent.
There will still be a complaint for misrepresentation - the envelope
was stamped, "polic/premium notice: open immediately" and I do not
have a policy with them. When I shook the envelope, displaying
something that was not visible normally, it said, "quoted premium
based on ...".
I.e., they sent advertising misrepresented as correspondence from
a company I had a business arrangement with. And that is IMHO so
sleazy that there is no way I would ever do business with them.
They are disqualified due to sleazy business practices.
> >> How many bills to you get a day? It takes me about fifteen seconds daily
> >> to cull my mail. Maybe you need a course in junk mail recognition.
> >
> >Maybe you need a course in time managment. Also, if you can manage simple
> >arithmetic, try dividing 300 by 4 to get about how many hours per year
> >this is taking (it's a bit over 1 hour). Now, if I decided to force you
> >to waste an hour of your time, how would you react?
>
> Perhaps you need a course in arithmetic. 300 / 4 is 75, and is not the
> number of HOURS spent, it is the number of MINUTES spent. You are right,
> though, it is 1.25 hours.
>
> If that time matters to you, you can save it by sorting the mail while
> you take care of other physical activity that does not require the use
> of hands or much brainpower, reducing the time required to near zero.
Are you suggesting sorting the mail while jogging or something? Get
real.
Bill Z.
Actually Google doesn't know that. It "knows" merely what queries you
send it.
Phil Kane
wrote:
> Unfortunately,
>I gather that the ToR folks have not been using the services
>of the hams for the past few years, so no more APRS-watching. :-(
They were sold a bill of goods by Nextel that they didn't need "those
amateurs" but they weren't happy using only Nextel so I gather that
Ham, Radio will be back next year in some form or other as the
know-nothing manager gets replaced.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> I'd just much rather not get it at all. Advertising is so obnoxious these
> days that I don't own a TV.
I would rather that straw could be spun into gold.
> Taken in perspective, I see no evidence that they took the steps
> necessary to protect one's privacy, which include making sure that the
> responder returns a different, and encrypted, response each time it
> receives a particular query. When I checked FasTrak's web site, it
> said nothing about that.
Do you have a single, solitary documented report of any breach of a
person's privacy or security due to misuse of a FasTrak transponder? ONE
single case? Just ONE?
Unless you do, you are expending way too much angst over a non-issue.
"Potential harm" doesn't cut it. Potentially, anything can happen.
Sometimes, we just have to live our lives.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> That's nice, but it is completely irrelevant. Corporate attempts to
> maintain dossiers on all Americans (otherwise known as marketing data)
> don't care if there are a few exceptions. Rather, they care about
> getting it right enough of the time to be cost effective.
Get what right? For what purpose? To what end. If it is about junk mail,
that is well below my threshold of concern. Well below.
John Higdon
Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
Damn! I'm doubly-cursed!
John Higdon
Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
> If "the Man" wants to surveille you, you will be surveilled despite
> whatever antics you go through to avoid same. Trust me - The Uncle
> spent a lot of money training me to do those things.
>
> We all live in a fishbowl whether you want to or not.
Give that man a cigar. I have worked with this stuff enough to know that
no matter how much I might be willing to give up in modern conveniences
to avoid surveillance, if someone wants to keep tabs on me...they will.
End of story. Might as well enjoy the benefits of living in the fishbowl.
Phil Kane
wrote:
>There will still be a complaint for misrepresentation - the envelope
>was stamped, "polic/premium notice: open immediately" and I do not
>have a policy with them. When I shook the envelope, displaying
>something that was not visible normally, it said, "quoted premium
>based on ...".
If it is anything like flood insurance, and I suspect it is, you had
better open and read it carefully.
If your property is in a flood plain or earthquake zone - and this
information is public and known to the lender - the lender will
require you to have appropriate casualty insurance or they will
provide it for you and add the cost of the premium to your monthly
payment. This is in every standard trust deed (loan) form. The
insurance companies who wrote homeowners' insurance all have a
loss-payable form that you send back with the Notice. If the
Authority does not get the form by the deadline, you will be charged
for the additional insurance and good luck getting it reversed!
Phil Kane
wrote:
>Are you suggesting sorting the mail while jogging or something? Get
>real.
No, he is suggesting that you do so while in a seated position doing
something that requires no brainpower. Need I be more specific? <g>
Bill Z.
Did it occur to your that your threshold for being bothered is not the
same as everyone else's?
Bill Z.
> In article <874pnzn...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > I'd just much rather not get it at all. Advertising is so obnoxious these
> > days that I don't own a TV.
>
> I would rather that straw could be spun into gold.
????
> > Taken in perspective, I see no evidence that they took the steps
> > necessary to protect one's privacy, which include making sure that the
> > responder returns a different, and encrypted, response each time it
> > receives a particular query. When I checked FasTrak's web site, it
> > said nothing about that.
>
> Do you have a single, solitary documented report of any breach of a
> person's privacy or security due to misuse of a FasTrak transponder? ONE
> single case? Just ONE?
It doesn't matter: as the cost of electronics drops, it will simply
become more cost effective to abuse these things unless they are
designed specifically to address the security issues.
Basically, when I checked the FasTrak web site (this was a few years
ago), I did not see an explanation of what level of security they
provide. What they did say was that they would prevent someone from
billing you incorrectly, but that wasn't the issue I wanted an answer
to.
> Unless you do, you are expending way too much angst over a non-issue.
> "Potential harm" doesn't cut it. Potentially, anything can happen.
> Sometimes, we just have to live our lives.
Perhaps you should read some of the ACM publications that describe
the security risks of various technologies.
Bill Z.
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:21:09 GMT, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >There will still be a complaint for misrepresentation - the envelope
> >was stamped, "polic/premium notice: open immediately" and I do not
> >have a policy with them. When I shook the envelope, displaying
> >something that was not visible normally, it said, "quoted premium
> >based on ...".
>
> If it is anything like flood insurance, and I suspect it is, you had
> better open and read it carefully.
It isn't like flood insurance. Earthquake insurance in California is
completely voluntary last I heard and lenders do not require it.
Otherwise *everyone* in the Bay Area would have to have it.
> If your property is in a flood plain or earthquake zone - and this
> information is public and known to the lender - the lender will
> require you to have appropriate casualty insurance or they will
> provide it for you and add the cost of the premium to your monthly
> payment. This is in every standard trust deed (loan) form. The
> insurance companies who wrote homeowners' insurance all have a
> loss-payable form that you send back with the Notice. If the
> Authority does not get the form by the deadline, you will be charged
> for the additional insurance and good luck getting it reversed!
Nope. If there was a lender requirement, the lender would send any
relevant notices.
Bill Z.
Yes you do. Or rather, he does. If he means something specific, he
can say it outright.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> It doesn't matter: as the cost of electronics drops, it will simply
> become more cost effective to abuse these things unless they are
> designed specifically to address the security issues.
There are enough legitimate things in this world to worry about without
making stuff up and obsessing over it without a single shred of real
evidence of an actual problem.
> Basically, when I checked the FasTrak web site (this was a few years
> ago), I did not see an explanation of what level of security they
> provide. What they did say was that they would prevent someone from
> billing you incorrectly, but that wasn't the issue I wanted an answer
> to.
I could probably point you to dozens of sites that don't address that
issue. So?
> Perhaps you should read some of the ACM publications that describe
> the security risks of various technologies.
I have a pretty full life already. Thanks, anyway.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Did it occur to your that your threshold for being bothered is not the
> same as everyone else's?
Yes. So? So I'll enjoy FasTrak and you can avoid it. That's why they
make chocolate and vanilla.
Unknown
Great! I hope they decide that for sure before TORRA's assets
get sold or otherwise distributed, as they said on their website
they planned to do.
Patty
Bill Z.
> In article <878xdbp...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > Did it occur to your that your threshold for being bothered is not the
> > same as everyone else's?
>
> Yes. So? So I'll enjoy FasTrak and you can avoid it. That's why they
> make chocolate and vanilla.
Which won't have any impact on the actual issue: is FasTrak a privacy
threat (the web site doesn't seem to provide the information needed to
tell)?
Bill Z.
> In article <874pnzp...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > It doesn't matter: as the cost of electronics drops, it will simply
> > become more cost effective to abuse these things unless they are
> > designed specifically to address the security issues.
>
> There are enough legitimate things in this world to worry about without
> making stuff up and obsessing over it without a single shred of real
> evidence of an actual problem.
If you deploy millions of devices and then discover the problem, you
are stuck - it is very expensive to recall all of them.
> > Basically, when I checked the FasTrak web site (this was a few years
> > ago), I did not see an explanation of what level of security they
> > provide. What they did say was that they would prevent someone from
> > billing you incorrectly, but that wasn't the issue I wanted an answer
> > to.
>
> I could probably point you to dozens of sites that don't address that
> issue. So?
So, until they address it, why use their product?
> > Perhaps you should read some of the ACM publications that describe
> > the security risks of various technologies.
>
> I have a pretty full life already. Thanks, anyway.
I.e., you have no interest in the technical issue but have been
going on about it anyway.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Which won't have any impact on the actual issue: is FasTrak a privacy
> threat (the web site doesn't seem to provide the information needed to
> tell)?
The actual issue is "will I use it in light of potential abuse"? The
answer is "yes". End of story. Your mileage may vary.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> If you deploy millions of devices and then discover the problem, you
> are stuck - it is very expensive to recall all of them.
If FasTrak becomes a problem, I'll stop using it. I only have two of
them, and one of them usually sits at home. I can leave them both at
home and pay cash. No trouble; no expense at all.
> So, until they address it, why use their product?
Because I enjoy the time-saving convenience. I need evidence of an
actual problem before I give up a convenience.
> I.e., you have no interest in the technical issue but have been
> going on about it anyway.
No interest in the technical issue? Do you know what I do for a living?
What do you do?
Bill Z.
Nope, that isn't the issue. Nobody cares what personal decisions you
make.
Bill Z.
> In article <87lkhbl...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > If you deploy millions of devices and then discover the problem, you
> > are stuck - it is very expensive to recall all of them.
>
> If FasTrak becomes a problem, I'll stop using it. I only have two of
> them, and one of them usually sits at home. I can leave them both at
> home and pay cash. No trouble; no expense at all.
Someone paid for all those transponders.
> > I.e., you have no interest in the technical issue but have been
> > going on about it anyway.
>
> No interest in the technical issue? Do you know what I do for a living?
> What do you do?
You just said that you were not interested. What you do for a living
is not relevant.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Someone paid for all those transponders.
I wish them well.
> You just said that you were not interested. What you do for a living
> is not relevant.
I'm not interested in imaginary problems. I'm always interested in the
technology.
And you didn't answer my question.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Nope, that isn't the issue. Nobody cares what personal decisions you
> make.
Then why are we talking?
Bill Z.
> In article <87k5wvb...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > Nope, that isn't the issue. Nobody cares what personal decisions you
> > make.
>
> Then why are we talking?
That's a question you should ask yourself.