EZPass: Yes, Big Brother IS Watching You!
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
computer systems, such as EZPASS. They said the data was secured and
not distributed.
Well, as it turns out, the data is NOT secured, but freely available
to court attorneys in many states. In states where it's not,
attorneys are fighting to get the data.
See:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20070813_E-ZPass_can_take_a_toll_on_marriage__too.html
kh...@jersey.net
That's certainly nowhere close to what the story says. Attorneys can
subpoena to get the necessary information, but they can do that on
anything applicable to a lawsuit - credit card records, tax records,
etc. It's not freely available, and not distributed freely.
Quit making up shit.
Frank McCoy
I suspect, that in the not-too-distant-future, they'll be *required*.
IOW: If you don't have one, you'll have to identify yourself and your
car and *buy* one on entering the system; otherwise, like the person
without payment, you'll be refused entry.
This, of course, will be touted as "an improvement of service".
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> That's certainly nowhere close to what the story says. Attorneys can
> subpoena to get the necessary information, but they can do that on
> anything applicable to a lawsuit - credit card records, tax records,
> etc. It's not freely available, and not distributed freely.
Sorry but you're wrong. Just because an attorney files a subpoena
does not mean he will get information he wants. It depends on the
law.
You will note some states block that release, while others do not.
In any case, the point remains. Everyone else said not to worry about
computerized information gathering, such as EZPASS, since it was
"restricted" and no one could get to any of it. Now we see that those
restrictions are not as strict as people think.
k_f...@lycos.com
Your wife's divorce lawyer, however, is not Big Brother. That's a
purely private transaction between parties and discoverable only in
those circumstances.. Actually, in such a circumstance, you could end
up wishing it were only Big Brother and not the divorce lawyer! ;-)
But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
Rothman
*yawn*
Another unfounded alarmist reaction that could only stunt progress.
Eric Sosman
> [...]
> But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
> EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
How long before some bright lad thinks of rummaging
through the records looking for people who leave the
toll road thirty miles from the point of entrance but
only twenty minutes after entering?
On a related note,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Your wife's divorce lawyer, however, is not Big Brother. That's a
> purely private transaction between parties and discoverable only in
> those circumstances.. Actually, in such a circumstance, you could end
> up wishing it were only Big Brother and not the divorce lawyer! ;-)
"Big Brother" is any entity, public or private, that is watching you,
collecting information about you and using it in adverse ways against
you. It could be either govt OR the private sector.
Indeed, most people fear the government, but the private sector has a
lot more power over people's lives. In prior threads we talked about
ways data collection could hurt us individually through denial of a
job, loan, rental housing, mortgage, etc.
Do you think it's ok that your credit history affects how much you pay
for car insurance? Do you think auto insurance companies should have
a right to that information?
If divorce lawyers can get their mitts on this information, what's to
stop others from accessing it? Like your car insurance to see if
you're speeding between interchanges so they can jack up your rates?
Or if you're driving more miles than you say you are? Or live in a
different location than you claim? Or, falsely accuse of those things
and force you to prove otherwise?
Pretty big stuff. The point remains that the people said that this
data sharing was impossible were wrong.
In other words, there is nothing to stop your employer from checking
up on you. Or your car insurance company. Or an adversarial party in
a lawsuit.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Another unfounded alarmist reaction that could only stunt progress.
Why do you call it "unfounded"? Why do you call it "alarmist"?
Or to put it another way, why aren't those states that give out that
info pass a law that keeps it strictly private, as do a few states?
Or are you in favor of that personal information being distributed?
Dave Garland
<k_f...@lycos.com> wrote:
>But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
>EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
And you know this, how? Big Brother won't tell Congress where exactly
he's mining for data, or what he's doing with what he learns, but he
tells you?
Dave
k_f...@lycos.com
hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2:26 pm, "k_fl...@lycos.com" <k_fl...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > Your wife's divorce lawyer, however, is not Big Brother. That's a
> > purely private transaction between parties and discoverable only in
> > those circumstances.. Actually, in such a circumstance, you could end
> > up wishing it were only Big Brother and not the divorce lawyer! ;-)
>
> "Big Brother" is any entity, public or private, that is watching you,
> collecting information about you and using it in adverse ways against
> you. It could be either govt OR the private sector.
Really? You sure? You might want to check on that.
Big Brother is the government. Read the novel. It is not big business.
And it certainly isn't your wife's divorce lawyer. The EZPass people
are not watching you. They merely have business records of their
transactions, which in your citation the divorce lawyers wanted to
access. Divorce lawyers are not Big Brother. They are more like
proctologists!
That's not Big Brother watching you.
> If divorce lawyers can get their mitts on this information, what's to
> stop others from accessing it?
The law. In fact, in your own cite, it was noted that in many states
the information is NOT accessible by subpoena. The point is, the raw
data exists in EZPass computers, but no one, absolutely no one, is
engaged with using that massive mountain of raw data to pick you out
and track you. Only in the even there is a lawful subpoena for that
information, as with any legal matter in private civil disputes or
criminal proceedings - like subpoenaing your phone records - would
anyone go back in and reconstruct your history.
> Like your car insurance to see if
> you're speeding between interchanges so they can jack up your rates?
Uh, read the other fella's post above me.
In the case at hand, a rental car company used GPS to levy surcharges
for people who used rental vehicles to travel greater than 79 mph for
a two-minute or longer duration.
In this case, it is the *government* -- Big Brother hisself - who is
intervening to make this practice illegal.
Big Brother is standing up to protect your right to privacy regarding
GPS data. Sorta flies in the face of this thread topic.
> Or if you're driving more miles than you say you are? Or live in a
> different location than you claim? Or, falsely accuse of those things
> and force you to prove otherwise?
None of that is happening.
> Pretty big stuff.
Actually, being non-existent, it's pretty small stuff!
> The point remains that the people said that this
> data sharing was impossible were wrong.
No, they were not. There is no data sharing. The cite you gave was a
lawful subpoena for business records. Not unusual at all and has been
happening in other areas of record keeping for decades.
> In other words, there is nothing to stop your employer from checking
> up on you.
Well, nothing other than a complete inability to do so. My employer
cannot access my toll transponder records.
> Or your car insurance company.
Nor can they.
> Or an adversarial party in a lawsuit.
There is nothing untoward about this example. My lawyer had to
subpoena my ex-wife's time sheets at her work when she refused to
supply them willingly as I had done with mine to clarify income from
overtime. If data is relevant to the issue before the court, the court
can issue a subpoena.
The fact that EZPass data *can* be used to tell where people have been
doesn't mean that it *is* used for that purpose. There's just no point
to doing that.
k_f...@lycos.com
You need an adjustment to your tin foil cap.
"The lack of evidence is proof the conspiracy is working!"
k_f...@lycos.com
There is a fundamental and significant difference you're missing
between "information being distributed" and "subpeona duces tecum."
rsh...@gmail.com
I think you are over reacting. I mean exactly what do they know.
They know what time you crossed the GWB, they know what ic you got on
the Pa Tpk, and the time. They know what ic you got off the PA Tpk,
and the time.
But that is ALL they know. They don't know where you were coming from
and they don't know where you are going before and after you leave
the tpk.
Now if you want to worry about something, the marketers, WalMart,
Barnes and Noble, the credit card companies, all have lots and lots of
info on you, and me , and everyone else. That is what concerns me.
Not ezpass records.
Click on the ads on Google or Yahoo, or any other web advertisers.
Who knows who is keeping track of that and what they are doing with
it.
Randy
Frank McCoy
>Attorneys can
>subpoena to get the necessary information, but they can do that on
>anything applicable to a lawsuit - credit card records, tax records,
>etc. It's not freely available, and not distributed freely.
Well, as to TAX records:
An attorney can certainly file to get them ... FROM THE PERSON, just
like any other records he/she might have. But the IRS is specifically
forbidden to give them out to anybody except a tax-court or other
*criminal* proceeding where they have to show relevance of the records
wanted, or (in certain circumstances) to the person him/herself (like
when calculating said person's Social Security benefits). So, (for
example) my wife's attorney can subpoena my tax-records FROM ME, to
prove my income when looking for support. But she/he/they cannot get
them from the IRS.
Of course, if *I* don't give such records to the court, then:
A. I can be held in Contempt-Of-Court; just like *any* person or entity
not surrendering requested documents
B. The wife's lawyer could put forth any reasonable amount of earnings
for me; and without presenting said tax-return, I wouldn't have any
rebuttal.
John Varela
(in article <1187034926.0...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>):
I couldn't care less if they put my EZ Pass records on the front page of The
Washington Post.
You, however, when leaving the toll road, should open the sun roof and look
for those black helicopters that are following you.
--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
John Lansford
I'm seriously amazed at the naivete that was displayed by those who
claimed that "oh, EZPASS will protect your privacy and not make it
available to officials".
Once the law enforcement agencies and other officials realize this
data is available, they will go to court to get it, just as they can
now subpoena your phone records, credit card receipts, bill history,
access your Onstar system, and once they are installed, your "black
box" in your vehicle.
It's inevitable; they'll argue that since these records were created
in public areas, or using private systems available to the public, the
courts will agree that the "public good" overrules your right to
privacy and they will allow them to gain access to this data.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
US 71
"John Lansford" <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:tmk1c3p56augndb8g...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Once the law enforcement agencies and other officials realize this
> data is available, they will go to court to get it, just as they can
> now subpoena your phone records, credit card receipts, bill history,
> access your Onstar system, and once they are installed, your "black
> box" in your vehicle.
>
> It's inevitable; they'll argue that since these records were created
> in public areas, or using private systems available to the public, the
> courts will agree that the "public good" overrules your right to
> privacy and they will allow them to gain access to this data.
>
How long before Alberto ("I don't recall") Gonzales says it's a matter of
"National Security" ?
Peter Flass
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>On Aug 13, 2:26 pm, "k_fl...@lycos.com" <k_fl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Your wife's divorce lawyer, however, is not Big Brother. That's a
>>>purely private transaction between parties and discoverable only in
>>>those circumstances.. Actually, in such a circumstance, you could end
>>>up wishing it were only Big Brother and not the divorce lawyer! ;-)
>>
>>"Big Brother" is any entity, public or private, that is watching you,
>>collecting information about you and using it in adverse ways against
>>you. It could be either govt OR the private sector.
>
>
> Really? You sure? You might want to check on that.
>
> Big Brother is the government. Read the novel. It is not big business.
> And it certainly isn't your wife's divorce lawyer. The EZPass people
> are not watching you. They merely have business records of their
> transactions, which in your citation the divorce lawyers wanted to
> access. Divorce lawyers are not Big Brother. They are more like
> proctologists!
The EZPass people might not be watching *now*, or at least they say
they're not, but we've seen that whenever the data is collected it's
usually put to use. A favorite techinque would be to make it available
to police "to help find missing children", or "to catch child
molesters"; no one ever objects to those. Another would be "to track
terrorists". Then once the precedent has been set...
Al Balmer
wrote:
>k_f...@lycos.com wrote On 08/13/07 14:26,:
>> [...]
>> But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
>> EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
>
> How long before some bright lad thinks of rummaging
>through the records looking for people who leave the
>toll road thirty miles from the point of entrance but
>only twenty minutes after entering?
>
Nothing new about that. They've been doing it for years, with toll
tickets.
> On a related note,
>
> http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/1911
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
rsh...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:53:45 -0400, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@sun.com>
> wrote:
>
> >k_fl...@lycos.com wrote On 08/13/07 14:26,:
> >> [...]
> >> But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
> >> EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
>
> > How long before some bright lad thinks of rummaging
> >through the records looking for people who leave the
> >toll road thirty miles from the point of entrance but
> >only twenty minutes after entering?
>
> Nothing new about that. They've been doing it for years, with toll
> tickets.
>
I think that hot Arizona sun is getting to you. Tracking speed by
using the toll tickets. I would like to see that stand up in a
court. Good grief man, any cop that would use that as a basis for
writing a ticket would be held in contempt.
They have so many better ways and legal ways to track your speed, why
bother with the toll tickets???
It defies reason, They want to catch you in the act, not wait until
you pay the toll.
I have travelled thousands of miles on every toll road in the US, and
I have never experienced such a thing, and I don't know anyone who
has. Has it ever happened to you??? Like I said, it defies reason.
Randy
>
> --
> Al Balmer...I think you are "balmie"
Al Balmer
<rsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
What's unreasonable about v = d/t? It's a law of physics, so long as
you limit yourself to non-relativistic speeds.
Try it on the NY Thruway. Of course, there's always the chance that a
trooper will spoil the experiment by pulling you over before you get
to the exit.
>Randy
>>
>> --
>> Al Balmer...I think you are "balmie"
And I think name-calling is an admission of ignorance. So is posting
from Google without knowing the Usenet conventions about signature
blocks. I suppose your "handle" is intended to be descriptive?
I'm curious about why you didn't jump on Eric's post? He said the same
thing, using a more modern methodology. Is there something about
Arizona that pushes your buttons?
Michael G. Koerner
Also remember to turn you cell phone off and to NOT use it at all (better yet,
leave it home!), as cell phone tower 'ping' records are also subpoenable, as
well as records relating to what towers actually handled calls.
There was a case in Los Angeles a few years ago where someone successfully
used cell phone tower 'ping' records to exonerate himself from a murder rap -
he claimed to have been at a Dodger game at the instant that the crime
occurred and cell phone company records showed that his phone was indeed
'pinged' by a tower located just outside of Dodger Stadium at that very time
(the crime occurred elsewhere in the metro area, well away from Chavez Ravine).
The system sends 'ping' signals from all of the repeater towers every few
minutes to determine what phones are in the range of what towers for call
routing purposes.
A voter fraud case in Milwaukee, WI from the Nov, 2004 election also used cell
phone tower call records as part of the investigation and prosecution.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Floyd Rogers
> Also remember to turn you cell phone off and to NOT use it at all (better
> yet, leave it home!), as cell phone tower 'ping' records are also
> subpoenable, as well as records relating to what towers actually handled
> calls.
>
> minutes to determine what phones are in the range of what towers for call
> routing purposes.
OTOH, the family of James Kim was saved in OR last fall (Kim had died
trying to go for help) due to searching for ping records from their phones.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/4908701.html. Obviously, YMMV.
FloydR
k_f...@lycos.com
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >In other threads, people denied that privacy was a risk by modern
> >computer systems, such as EZPASS. They said the data was secured and
> >not distributed.
>
> >Well, as it turns out, the data is NOT secured, but freely available
> >to court attorneys in many states. In states where it's not,
> >attorneys are fighting to get the data.
>
> >See:
>
>
> I'm seriously amazed at the naivete that was displayed by those who
> claimed that "oh, EZPASS will protect your privacy and not make it
> available to officials".
>
> Once the law enforcement agencies and other officials realize this
> data is available, they will go to court to get it, just as they can
> now subpoena your phone records, credit card receipts, bill history,
> access your Onstar system, and once they are installed, your "black
> box" in your vehicle.
>
> It's inevitable; they'll argue that since these records were created
> in public areas, or using private systems available to the public, the
> courts will agree that the "public good" overrules your right to
> privacy and they will allow them to gain access to this data.
They don't need to make *any* such rationalization. If it's potential
evidence in a civil or criminal matter, it can be made subject to
disclosure under proper subpeona, as almost anything can. Your credit
card records aren't created on a public system, yet they can be
subpeonaed. I don't see what's wrong with this. It's not like you're
being tracked. It's only made available under subpeona on a case by
case basis. I will live my whole life, as will most everyone else on
this NG, without ever being subjected to this.
k_f...@lycos.com
I don't think so. It will never be made routinely available. C'mon,
it's just too much. *Billions* of EXPass transactions per year... you
couldn't hire enough analysts to cull through it before you'd run out
of people on the earth. At that point, they'd know where everyone
is... they're at the EXPass office analyzing toll transactions to
track everyone else.
John Mayson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Eric Sosman wrote:
> k_f...@lycos.com wrote On 08/13/07 14:26,:
>> [...]
>> But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
>> EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
>
> How long before some bright lad thinks of rummaging
> through the records looking for people who leave the
> toll road thirty miles from the point of entrance but
> only twenty minutes after entering?
I've been told they did (do?) that on the Pennsyllvania Turnpike, but I'm
also convinced it's an urban legend.
- --
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFGwR1O2kz4fWh3iuERAu3DAJwIE5gS1OR/O66cpGhuiYSBbeW+aQCgxuHf
Dh0iyIPFeVx6UMl3Xep9DD8=
=u2Dp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Mayson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, k_f...@lycos.com wrote:
>
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 2:26 pm, "k_fl...@lycos.com" <k_fl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>> Your wife's divorce lawyer, however, is not Big Brother. That's a
>>> purely private transaction between parties and discoverable only in
>>> those circumstances.. Actually, in such a circumstance, you could end
>>> up wishing it were only Big Brother and not the divorce lawyer! ;-)
>>
>> "Big Brother" is any entity, public or private, that is watching you,
>> collecting information about you and using it in adverse ways against
>> you. It could be either govt OR the private sector.
>
> Really? You sure? You might want to check on that.
>
> Big Brother is the government. Read the novel. It is not big business.
> And it certainly isn't your wife's divorce lawyer. The EZPass people
> are not watching you. They merely have business records of their
> transactions, which in your citation the divorce lawyers wanted to
> access. Divorce lawyers are not Big Brother. They are more like
> proctologists!
Oh good grief! In the novel 1984 there was only the state and the state
used Big Brother. In everyday parlance, "big brother" can refer to any
entity using its power to collect data and possibly use it (or have it
used) against you.
- --
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFGwR3J2kz4fWh3iuERAmISAKDFbZbotLsKyVTKTfm0fEeVs6MxiwCgoSQV
UnYC+iOTUk+U5HmskpYtqKU=
=JzDj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
k_f...@lycos.com
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > In other threads, people denied that privacy was a risk by modern
> > computer systems, such as EZPASS. They said the data was secured and
> > not distributed.
>
> > Well, as it turns out, the data is NOT secured, but freely available
> > to court attorneys in many states. In states where it's not,
> > attorneys are fighting to get the data.
>
> > See:
>
>
> Also remember to turn you cell phone off and to NOT use it at all (better yet,
> leave it home!), as cell phone tower 'ping' records are also subpoenable, as
> well as records relating to what towers actually handled calls.
>
> There was a case in Los Angeles a few years ago where someone successfully
> used cell phone tower 'ping' records to exonerate himself from a murder rap -
> he claimed to have been at a Dodger game at the instant that the crime
> occurred and cell phone company records showed that his phone was indeed
> 'pinged' by a tower located just outside of Dodger Stadium at that very time
> (the crime occurred elsewhere in the metro area, well away from Chavez Ravine).
Uh, Michael...
The example you gave was of a man *exonerated* by the ability to track
records of his cell phone's location. Yet you recommend people turn
them off? Sounds like this guy was *saved* by the system.
John Mayson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, John Mayson wrote:
>
> I've been told they did (do?) that on the Pennsyllvania Turnpike, but I'm
> also convinced it's an urban legend.
Er, Pennsylvania I mean. :-)
- --
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFGwSIF2kz4fWh3iuERAt0eAJ9HCebKLaAf6R2RE2V4A9HGBy72PACeLBAF
iHRiGJHWBpM+lyM4GD2Qmh8=
=WJfE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Eric Sosman
> On Aug 13, 6:18 pm, Al Balmer <albal...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:53:45 -0400, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@sun.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> k_fl...@lycos.com wrote On 08/13/07 14:26,:
>>>> [...]
>>>> But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
>>>> EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
>>> How long before some bright lad thinks of rummaging
>>> through the records looking for people who leave the
>>> toll road thirty miles from the point of entrance but
>>> only twenty minutes after entering?
>> Nothing new about that. They've been doing it for years, with toll
>> tickets.
I didn't know they were actually doing it, but it's always
seemed a perfectly logical and simple thing to do. It might
actually be a little harder with EZPass than with pasteboard
tickets: "Yes, I know you've shown that my car was going over
100 mph a week ago Thursday, but the speeding offense is the
driver's and not the car's. How can you prove I was the person
at the wheel when all this happened?"
> I think that hot Arizona sun is getting to you. Tracking speed by
> using the toll tickets. I would like to see that stand up in a
> court. Good grief man, any cop that would use that as a basis for
> writing a ticket would be held in contempt.
Why? All he needs to do is show that the clocks at the
toll booths are adequately synchronized and that the length
of road between them is measured with sufficient accuracy.
Sounds no different from demonstrating that his radar gun is
properly calibrated, maintained, and used.
> They have so many better ways and legal ways to track your speed, why
> bother with the toll tickets???
The necessary infrastructure is already in place. All
they need to do is add one step: Divide distance (obtained
from the same table lookup that calculates the toll) by time
(subtract two time stamps), nail the malfeasor very cheaply.
What's inferior or illegal about that?
> It defies reason, They want to catch you in the act, not wait until
> you pay the toll.
They just want to prove that you dun it. One way is to
catch you in the act, but that's surely not the only way.
Moving to a different area of law enforcement: Cop responds
to a burglar alarm at SellFones Iz We, finds the building broken
open but nobody around. Two blocks away he finds a guy carrying
a crowbar, a set of lock picks, a glass cutter, and a sack of
cellphones. Even though he did not catch anybody in any act at
all, I think he's got a case. The case might or might not stand
up in court, but it has every chance of getting there.
> I have travelled thousands of miles on every toll road in the US, and
> I have never experienced such a thing, and I don't know anyone who
> has. Has it ever happened to you??? Like I said, it defies reason.
It's never happened to me, but then, I don't drive at 90.
--
Eric Sosman
eso...@ieee-dot-org.invalid
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
k_f...@lycos.com wrote:
> They don't need to make *any* such rationalization. If it's potential
> evidence in a civil or criminal matter, it can be made subject to
> disclosure under proper subpeona, as almost anything can. Your credit
> card records aren't created on a public system, yet they can be
> subpeonaed. I don't see what's wrong with this. It's not like you're
> being tracked. It's only made available under subpeona on a case by
> case basis. I will live my whole life, as will most everyone else on
> this NG, without ever being subjected to this.
Here's a summary of the issues:
First, your electronic record--credit history, numerous private
dossier data banks--are utilized before one can get a mortgage,
general loan, rent an apartment, or get a job. Adverse information
you don't even know about, in a data base you don't even know about,
can hurt or ruin your chances. Your existing employer may be checking
up on you--as many do--for company security purposes. (This has been
well documented in the news media and many organizations contribute to
these databases).
People argue that those sources always existed, which they did, BUT,
with computers and the Internet, it's very easy to share data, then
dig through filing cabinets and manually request it from multiple
sources. Today is not the same as the past.
Secondly, today, computers are used to collect so much more data.
Toll information was NOT collected before EZPASS. Telephone
information was not stored before high powered electronic switches.
(Local calls just clicked a meter and weren't logged. Tolls calls
from a point of origin could be checked, but not TO a location.
You say EZP isn't "collecting information", but it is so easily
available via computer that essentially it is.
Third, some things that were once private and deemed sacrosanct are
now retrievable. Medical records used to be strictly private. Then
they became accessible on demand, now doctors are required to report
certain things whether the patient likes it or not.
As we see, while some states don't allow access, most states do, and
aggressive lawyers are seeking access to it.
As the other poster noted, a rent-a-car company tracked drivers and
nailed them with surcharges.
"What's wrong with this?" Several things:
1) We know much data collection is error prone from sloppy processing
or just circumstances. When I first got my EZPASS I had a hard time
getting the data corrected. What happens if the records show my
driving record for your court case? You could get screwed and have no
way to prove it. We know the NJ TPK EZP was loaded with errors upon
installation. Even innocent errors--your kid or your neighbor borrows
your car. We also know there's criminal identity theft which is a
growing problem.
2) These databases can really screw up your life big time unfairly.
If you want to buy a house and suddenly find your credit rating is
lousy, you're in a very lousy position. If you need a job and can't
get one, or if you're fired from your present job, obviously you're
hurt badly.
3) There is a basic principle of privacy being lost. Everybody
collecting or using data has their own "justification" for it. That
doesn't make it right. No, the "black helicopters" aren't following
us, but that's not the point.
4) It's difficult to make corrections or prove it wrong, especially if
you aren't even aware of the databases tracking you.
5) As to EZPASS specifically, other posters were quite adamant it was
kept private. Obviously they were wrong.
Dave Garland
>You need an adjustment to your tin foil cap.
Not really. It's too humid for tin foil at the moment.
>"The lack of evidence is proof the conspiracy is working!"
Not at all. There's plenty of evidence (though not specific to EZPass).
You need to read the news more often. It's no secret that the feds
requested raw data on what people searched for from search engines
(Google fought it, and provided more or less anonymized data; the other
companies just provided it). It's not much of a secret that the NSA
achieved access to realtime Internet traffic from AT&T and perhaps other
backbone companies. It's no secret that they violated FISA wiretap laws
(that would be a criminal matter, if the Administration didn't also have
veto power over federal prosecutions). It's no secret that they have
accessed credit card and airline reservation data. It's no secret that
they plant spies in groups that oppose government policy (nothing new
about that, of course). It's no secret that in some places surveillance
cameras and OCR are used to record license plate data as cars pass. It's
no secret that at least some of this has been done without any court
authorization. It's no secret that they have refused to tell the
legislative branch what they monitor. Do they snoop EZPass data? I
have no idea, but only an idiot would think that no
government/intelligence/police agency would ever do such a thing.
It's not the enormity of the data collection that stops them. The Stazi
kept files on everybody, though they only had manila folders (it was
very labor-intensive). The US is far more efficient than that, we sell
China the technology that they use to keep tabs on their citizens.
So why do you think EZPass data is sacrosanct where none of those other
things is?
Dave
Michael G. Koerner
Well, you turn it off when you don't want your spouse to know where you've
been. ;-)
k_f...@lycos.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, k_fl...@lycos.com wrote:
>
> > hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >> On Aug 13, 2:26 pm, "k_fl...@lycos.com" <k_fl...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >>> Your wife's divorce lawyer, however, is not Big Brother. That's a
> >>> purely private transaction between parties and discoverable only in
> >>> those circumstances.. Actually, in such a circumstance, you could end
> >>> up wishing it were only Big Brother and not the divorce lawyer! ;-)
>
> >> "Big Brother" is any entity, public or private, that is watching you,
> >> collecting information about you and using it in adverse ways against
> >> you. It could be either govt OR the private sector.
>
> > Really? You sure? You might want to check on that.
>
> > Big Brother is the government. Read the novel. It is not big business.
> > And it certainly isn't your wife's divorce lawyer. The EZPass people
> > are not watching you. They merely have business records of their
> > transactions, which in your citation the divorce lawyers wanted to
> > access. Divorce lawyers are not Big Brother. They are more like
> > proctologists!
>
> Oh good grief! In the novel 1984 there was only the state and the state
> used Big Brother. In everyday parlance, "big brother" can refer to any
> entity using its power to collect data and possibly use it (or have it
> used) against you.
No. You had it right first. Big Brother is the state.
Your wife's divorce lawyer getting a subpeona for your credit card
records, bank records and even you toll account records is decidedly
*not* Big Brother.
k_f...@lycos.com
> k_fl...@lycos.com wrote:
> > They don't need to make *any* such rationalization. If it's potential
> > evidence in a civil or criminal matter, it can be made subject to
> > disclosure under proper subpeona, as almost anything can. Your credit
> > card records aren't created on a public system, yet they can be
> > subpeonaed. I don't see what's wrong with this. It's not like you're
> > being tracked. It's only made available under subpeona on a case by
> > case basis. I will live my whole life, as will most everyone else on
> > this NG, without ever being subjected to this.
>
> Here's a summary of the issues:
>
> First, your electronic record--credit history, numerous private
> dossier data banks--are utilized before one can get a mortgage,
> general loan, rent an apartment, or get a job. Adverse information
> you don't even know about, in a data base you don't even know about,
> can hurt or ruin your chances.
Why wouldn't you know about it? I know about mine. Everybody with a
brain stem knows about credit reporting agencies. If there's anything
wrong, correct it. If vendors, lenders and others use it to safeguard
themselves in their extensions of credit to people, well, what's the
beef? That's what it's for.
> Your existing employer may be checking
> up on you--as many do--for company security purposes. (This has been
> well documented in the news media and many organizations contribute to
> these databases).
They are entitled to do this. Again, there can be no beef with this.
Your employer isn't Big Brother. S/He can "listen in for quality
assurance" as the tape goes, or to see if Susie is dealing on eBay
during work hours when she's supposed to be processing work accounts...
c'mon, this is elementary stuff. If one doesn't like it, one should
start one's own business and run it their way. Again, this isn't the
government, it's the private sector.
> People argue that those sources always existed, which they did, BUT,
> with computers and the Internet, it's very easy to share data, then
> dig through filing cabinets and manually request it from multiple
> sources. Today is not the same as the past.
That's still not how it works. I think you're imagining there's a
great private "Echelon" system gathering every knowable gatherable
detail about every knowable person. There isn't.
> Secondly, today, computers are used to collect so much more data.
> Toll information was NOT collected before EZPASS. Telephone
> information was not stored before high powered electronic switches.
> (Local calls just clicked a meter and weren't logged. Tolls calls
> from a point of origin could be checked, but not TO a location.
>
> You say EZP isn't "collecting information", but it is so easily
> available via computer that essentially it is.
But it isn't. No one is checking on it. It is resorted to when there
is a lawful subpoena for info, as any pre-computer age similar info
would have been.
> Third, some things that were once private and deemed sacrosanct are
> now retrievable. Medical records used to be strictly private. Then
> they became accessible on demand, now doctors are required to report
> certain things whether the patient likes it or not.
No they are not. Medical records are even harder to access now than
before, something I have personally discovered.
> As we see, while some states don't allow access, most states do, and
> aggressive lawyers are seeking access to it.
They don't get it unless they were entitled to it, and that was true
prior to computers as well. Computer storage hasn't changed the rules
of what evidence is admissible.
> As the other poster noted, a rent-a-car company tracked drivers and
> nailed them with surcharges.
Did you miss my response?
The *government* took the rent-a-car company to administrative hearing
to *shut down* that practice. "Big Brother" is enforcing your right to
privacy even when it's data that proved you broke the law. You picked
an example that contradicts you.
> "What's wrong with this?" Several things:
>
> 1) We know much data collection is error prone from sloppy processing
> or just circumstances. When I first got my EZPASS I had a hard time
> getting the data corrected. What happens if the records show my
> driving record for your court case? You could get screwed and have no
> way to prove it. We know the NJ TPK EZP was loaded with errors upon
> installation. Even innocent errors--your kid or your neighbor borrows
> your car. We also know there's criminal identity theft which is a
> growing problem.
An imagined extent of a problem that exists in other circumstances
with or without computers.
> 2) These databases can really screw up your life big time unfairly.
> If you want to buy a house and suddenly find your credit rating is
> lousy, you're in a very lousy position. If you need a job and can't
> get one, or if you're fired from your present job, obviously you're
> hurt badly.
That has nothing to do with computer storage. Credit data files have
been kept for decades and used for the same purposes. This is not new
stuff.
> 3) There is a basic principle of privacy being lost. Everybody
> collecting or using data has their own "justification" for it. That
> doesn't make it right. No, the "black helicopters" aren't following
> us, but that's not the point.
If no one ever retrieves, analyzes or looks at the data bits, your
privacy is certainly not lost.
And no one is looking at which toll booths you've been going through.
> 4) It's difficult to make corrections or prove it wrong, especially if
> you aren't even aware of the databases tracking you.
Nor is there a need to do so.
> 5) As to EZPASS specifically, other posters were quite adamant it was
> kept private. Obviously they were wrong.
No. It is still kept private. It's just that, as has always been the
case for decades before computers, it can be subject to lawful
subpoena. That hasn't changed.
John Mayson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, k_f...@lycos.com wrote:
>
> No. You had it right first. Big Brother is the state.
>
> Your wife's divorce lawyer getting a subpeona for your credit card
> records, bank records and even you toll account records is decidedly
> *not* Big Brother.
Big Brother != big brother
My company has web monitoring software. We call this "big brother"
software because it's watching us. Always. Big Brother (capital letters)
is the state.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :-P
- --
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFGwSzc2kz4fWh3iuERAugxAJ0bYP71xi5zgPv4IGEzTZBfKjeFBACffU/M
8ROEdVH0PEObvlgZ4/NLYFs=
=5O+U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
k_f...@lycos.com
> It was a dark and stormy night when "k_fl...@lycos.com"
>
> <k_fl...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >You need an adjustment to your tin foil cap.
>
> Not really. It's too humid for tin foil at the moment.
You do realize that cinches my case!
> >"The lack of evidence is proof the conspiracy is working!"
>
> Not at all. There's plenty of evidence (though not specific to EZPass).
> You need to read the news more often.
Hmmmmm. Bad assumption on your part!
> It's no secret that the feds
> requested raw data on what people searched for from search engines
> (Google fought it, and provided more or less anonymized data; the other
> companies just provided it). It's not much of a secret that the NSA
> achieved access to realtime Internet traffic from AT&T and perhaps other
> backbone companies. It's no secret that they violated FISA wiretap laws
> (that would be a criminal matter, if the Administration didn't also have
> veto power over federal prosecutions). It's no secret that they have
> accessed credit card and airline reservation data. It's no secret that
> they plant spies in groups that oppose government policy (nothing new
> about that, of course). It's no secret that in some places surveillance
> cameras and OCR are used to record license plate data as cars pass. It's
> no secret that at least some of this has been done without any court
> authorization. It's no secret that they have refused to tell the
> legislative branch what they monitor. Do they snoop EZPass data? I
> have no idea, but only an idiot would think that no
> government/intelligence/police agency would ever do such a thing.
Not without a subpoena.
> It's not the enormity of the data collection that stops them. The Stazi
> kept files on everybody, though they only had manila folders (it was
> very labor-intensive). The US is far more efficient than that, we sell
> China the technology that they use to keep tabs on their citizens.
>
> So why do you think EZPass data is sacrosanct where none of those other
> things is?
You already said it. The enormity. The gargantuan size of the info
makes it useless because it cannot possibly be analyzed except in the
crudest of fashions.
k_f...@lycos.com
As a relative newlywed, I want my wife to *always* know where I am at!
Christopher C. Stacy
> pigst...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 6:18 pm, Al Balmer <albal...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:53:45 -0400, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@sun.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> k_fl...@lycos.com wrote On 08/13/07 14:26,:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
>>>>> EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
>>>> How long before some bright lad thinks of rummaging
>>>> through the records looking for people who leave the
>>>> toll road thirty miles from the point of entrance but
>>>> only twenty minutes after entering?
>>> Nothing new about that. They've been doing it for years, with toll
>>> tickets.
>
> I didn't know they were actually doing it, but it's always
> seemed a perfectly logical and simple thing to do. It might
> actually be a little harder with EZPass than with pasteboard
> tickets: "Yes, I know you've shown that my car was going over
> 100 mph a week ago Thursday, but the speeding offense is the
> driver's and not the car's. How can you prove I was the person
> at the wheel when all this happened?"
Because it's also going to take a photo of your head?
John Lansford
You forgot the word "legally" in your sentence, Kevin. The current
administration has already said that if "keeping America safe from
terrorists" requires bending a few rules and rights, well, that's just
the price we have to pay.
>> It's not the enormity of the data collection that stops them. The Stazi
>> kept files on everybody, though they only had manila folders (it was
>> very labor-intensive). The US is far more efficient than that, we sell
>> China the technology that they use to keep tabs on their citizens.
>>
>> So why do you think EZPass data is sacrosanct where none of those other
>> things is?
>
>You already said it. The enormity. The gargantuan size of the info
>makes it useless because it cannot possibly be analyzed except in the
>crudest of fashions.
Ever heard of supercomputers? They don't get tired and they don't
care how long a task takes.
Peter Flass
Thats why we have these little things called computers. Every use if
EZPass goes thru a computer. Just set up a "watch list" and the
computer will trap every use of specified ids an can forward information
as needed in real time.
k_f...@lycos.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > No. You had it right first. Big Brother is the state.
>
> > Your wife's divorce lawyer getting a subpeona for your credit card
> > records, bank records and even you toll account records is decidedly
> > *not* Big Brother.
>
> Big Brother != big brother
>
> My company has web monitoring software. We call this "big brother"
> software because it's watching us. Always. Big Brother (capital letters)
> is the state.
>
> That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :-P
Kewl by me! As long as there's an acknowledgment that it's not the
same thing. An employement relationship is fundamentally different
than a citizen of the state relationship.
k_f...@lycos.com
wrote:
> Eric Sosman <esos...@ieee-dot-org.invalid> writes:
All toll booth camera systems I've seen take pictures only of the
license plate, not the driver. Photo radar takes two pictures, driver
and plate, so toll booths can also be configured that way. Don't know
if any are.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > First, your electronic record--...
> Why wouldn't you know about it? I know about mine. Everybody with a
> brain stem knows about credit reporting agencies. If there's anything
> wrong, correct it. If vendors, lenders and others use it to safeguard
> themselves in their extensions of credit to people, well, what's the
> beef? That's what it's for.
Your dossier exists on many databases you are not aware of. Remember,
while you can get your credit history, you can't get your credit
score. There are many security, litigation protection, law
enforcement and marketing databases out there. Physicians have one to
track malpractice litigants. Landlords have one to track rental
troublemakers. Databases are shared. Data integrity is sloppy.
> > Your existing employer may be checking up on you....
> They are entitled to do this. Again, there can be no beef with this.
> Your employer isn't Big Brother. S/He can "listen in for quality
> assurance" as the tape goes, or to see if Susie is dealing on eBay
> during work hours when she's supposed to be processing work accounts...
> c'mon, this is elementary stuff. If one doesn't like it, one should
> start one's own business and run it their way. Again, this isn't the
> government, it's the private sector.
Your employer is allowed to watch you at work. But should your
employer be allowed to track you or look at your personal affairs,
such as your credit report, as is done? Should your employer be
checking your home telephone records--as has been done? Suppose you
are looking for a new job but don't want your employer to know about
it.
"If you don't like it, quit". That is difficult for people with
families and a mortgage. Many large corporations have merged together
so if you quit the corporation, you've killed off many opportunities
since they're the only game in town. Many modern corporations are not
particularly nice to their employees and push them pretty far.
> That's still not how it works. I think you're imagining there's a
> great private "Echelon" system gathering every knowable gatherable
> detail about every knowable person. There isn't.
I don't know what "Echelon" is. (A mall in south Jersey?). I do know
for a fact there's an enomrous amount of data collection and
information sharing going on out there that people aren't aware of and
that data integrity and security is not a high priority. It's both
public and private sector.
Previously discussed was how an auto insurance company simply presumed
another driver was living in a household using data mining.
Undoubtedly all insurance companies utilize such information.
> But it isn't. No one is checking on it. It is resorted to when there
> is a lawful subpoena for info, as any pre-computer age similar info
> would have been.
EZPASS and the data it collects didn't exist in the pre-computer age.
To say "no one is checking on it" and then say "lawful subpoena" is a
contradiction.
The solution is simple. Pass a law prohibiting EZPASS information
from being available, as it is in a few states. Would you be opposed
to such a law?
Attempts to pass laws to protect personal privacy and improve data
integrity have been fought tooth and nail by the corporate world. It
represents serious money to them. The database handlers obviously
have an interest and the corporations who utilize the data have an
interest as well.
> > Third, some things that were once private and deemed sacrosanct are
> > now retrievable. Medical records used to be strictly private. Then
> > they became accessible on demand, now doctors are required to report
> > certain things whether the patient likes it or not.
>
> No they are not. Medical records are even harder to access now than
> before, something I have personally discovered.
They're harder for legitimate users to get at them, but ironically,
they're easier for certain third parties to access. You may not be
allowed to see your child's medical records, but they would be
forwarded to law enforcement, as mandated by law, if there's any
suspicion at all of a problem.
> > As we see, while some states don't allow access, most states do, and
> > aggressive lawyers are seeking access to it.
>
> They don't get it unless they were entitled to it, and that was true
> prior to computers as well. Computer storage hasn't changed the rules
> of what evidence is admissible.
Computer storage has made it much easier to get share information. In
many caes the law hasn't caught up to modern circumstances, such as
people signing their legal rights away (not that they had a choice) or
through "affiliations". Litigation lawyers have been much more
aggressive, too.
> The *government* took the rent-a-car company to administrative hearing
> to *shut down* that practice. "Big Brother" is enforcing your right to
> privacy even when it's data that proved you broke the law. You picked
> an example that contradicts you.
I'm glad the govt stepped in. But the example shows that companies
are willing and able to do this sort of thing. The govt won't always
be interested to protect us from corporate abuse, I assure you.
[other stuff covered above]
> > 3) There is a basic principle of privacy being lost. Everybody
> > collecting or using data has their own "justification" for it. That
> > doesn't make it right. No, the "black helicopters" aren't following
> > us, but that's not the point.
>
> If no one ever retrieves, analyzes or looks at the data bits, your
> privacy is certainly not lost.
Of course your privacy is lost. Is your salary and personal lifestyle
anybody else's business?
> And no one is looking at which toll booths you've been going through.
With EZPASS, as shown, they most certainly are.
> > 4) It's difficult to make corrections or prove it wrong, especially if
> > you aren't even aware of the databases tracking you.
>
> Nor is there a need to do so.
Given the sloppyness there is a great need for consumers to be able to
fix errors. But they can't fix errors they don't know about.
Further, you don't want to find out at the last minute--such as in a
court case--that erroneous records are being used against you.
> > 5) As to EZPASS specifically, other posters were quite adamant it was
> > kept private. Obviously they were wrong.
>
> No. It is still kept private. It's just that, as has always been the
> case for decades before computers, it can be subject to lawful
> subpoena.
Being subject to access means it is NOT private.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I've been told they did (do?) that on the Pennsyllvania Turnpike, but I'm
> also convinced it's an urban legend.
EZPASS data is used for traffic analysis, just as supermarket checkout
data is used for marketing analysis.
k_f...@lycos.com
But their level of incompetence offsets it. ;-]
> >> It's not the enormity of the data collection that stops them. The Stazi
> >> kept files on everybody, though they only had manila folders (it was
> >> very labor-intensive). The US is far more efficient than that, we sell
> >> China the technology that they use to keep tabs on their citizens.
>
> >> So why do you think EZPass data is sacrosanct where none of those other
> >> things is?
>
> >You already said it. The enormity. The gargantuan size of the info
> >makes it useless because it cannot possibly be analyzed except in the
> >crudest of fashions.
>
> Ever heard of supercomputers? They don't get tired and they don't
> care how long a task takes.
I understand that, but there's no point to the task. No one would
devote all those resources to such pointless tasks as "where was John
Lansford headed on Aug 13th?"
And in the end, as with electronic toll violations and photo speed
enforcement, there always must be human beings at the end to cull the
data. I am personally familiar with the fact that while the
computerized system can scoop up a beachful of sand, the number of
grains rejected is enormous and humans must sign off on the ones that
get sent out.
k_f...@lycos.com
With a warrant, sure.
No one is doing this, otherwise. There's no point.
I think we're all arguing what "can" be done with what "is" being
done. Vast difference. Once you get past culling through the billions
upon billions of EZPass transactions, I got some other toll systems
for you to start looking at. then we can start examining hundreds of
millions of daily calling card calls, cell phone pings on tens of
thousands of towers, and on and on.
The world just isn't as competent as it looks in a Jack Bauer episode.
kh...@jersey.net
> On Aug 13, 1:27 pm, "k...@jersey.net" <k...@jersey.net> wrote:
>
> > That's certainly nowhere close to what the story says. Attorneys can
> > subpoena to get the necessary information, but they can do that on
> > anything applicable to a lawsuit - credit card records, tax records,
> > etc. It's not freely available, and not distributed freely.
>
> Sorry but you're wrong. Just because an attorney files a subpoena
> does not mean he will get information he wants. It depends on the
> law.
>
> You will note some states block that release, while others do not.
>
> In any case, the point remains. Everyone else said not to worry about
> computerized information gathering, such as EZPASS, since it was
> "restricted" and no one could get to any of it. Now we see that those
> restrictions are not as strict as people think.
Boy, you are not going to like the next wave in toll roads, as there
will be no booths, and a bill is mailed to you when you use the toll
road. Already currently in use. And same thing when you go thru an
EZ Pass lane without an EZ Pass - your license plate is recorded, and
a bill sent to your home. If you want privacy, stay off the toll
roads. Or better, remove your license plates.
kh...@jersey.net
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:53:45 -0400, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@sun.com>
> wrote:
>
> >k_fl...@lycos.com wrote On 08/13/07 14:26,:
> >> [...]
> >> But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
> >> EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
>
> > How long before some bright lad thinks of rummaging
> >through the records looking for people who leave the
> >toll road thirty miles from the point of entrance but
> >only twenty minutes after entering?
>
> Nothing new about that. They've been doing it for years, with toll
> tickets.
>
>
> > http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/1911
>
> --
> Al Balmer
> Sun City, AZ
It's never been done. And amongst the number of reasons why, there's
a simple, legal reason: Where were you speeding? In NJ, no matter
what road you were on, you can fight the ticket in court in the town
you were caught speeding in. If you are on a 100 mile road that goes
thru 25 towns and 6 counties, what jurisdiction were you speeding in?
So on that alone, it can't be proven you were speeding at any one
point in time.
Also, unless the speed limit remains consistant from toll plaza to
toll plaza, what speed limit were you exceeding? Unless both plazas
were on the mainline, with lanes that don't require reducing the speed
limit, you would be required to slow down when getting to the toll
plaza, or on the off-ramp to get to the plaza. Again, you encounter
different speeds.
At any rate, find someone who has gotten a ticket. No - not a friend
of a friend - an actual person. And see the ticket. Again - it's
never happened.
kh...@jersey.net
> On Aug 13, 1:27 pm, "k...@jersey.net" <k...@jersey.net> wrote:
>
> > That's certainly nowhere close to what the story says. Attorneys can
> > subpoena to get the necessary information, but they can do that on
> > anything applicable to a lawsuit - credit card records, tax records,
> > etc. It's not freely available, and not distributed freely.
>
> Sorry but you're wrong. Just because an attorney files a subpoena
> does not mean he will get information he wants. It depends on the
> law.
>
> You will note some states block that release, while others do not.
>
> In any case, the point remains. Everyone else said not to worry about
> computerized information gathering, such as EZPASS, since it was
> "restricted" and no one could get to any of it. Now we see that those
> restrictions are not as strict as people think.
What states is EZ Pass illegal to give out? You are the one wrong.
And here's a reason why: In order for the state to collect on a
person using the toll lane without an EZ Pass, they take a picture of
a license plate, locate the owner of that plate, and send him a bill.
That is all part of the EZ Pass system. If the state can't collect on
a debt, then they'll be pretty stuck.
Also, the article mentions that in all but one state that has EZ Pass,
there's policies or laws that govern when the EZ Pass information can
be used. And in the one other state, it's not illegal to obtain the
information; it's just not clarified when it can be used.
k_f...@lycos.com
> On Aug 14, 12:17 am, "k_fl...@lycos.com" <k_fl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > First, your electronic record--...
> > Why wouldn't you know about it? I know about mine. Everybody with a
> > brain stem knows about credit reporting agencies. If there's anything
> > wrong, correct it. If vendors, lenders and others use it to safeguard
> > themselves in their extensions of credit to people, well, what's the
> > beef? That's what it's for.
>
> Your dossier exists on many databases you are not aware of. Remember,
> while you can get your credit history, you can't get your credit
> score.
Why can't you get your credit score? I know mine. I've kept track of
mine for years. My wife has. Everyone I know that I've inquired knows
what their credit score is.
> There are many security, litigation protection, law
> enforcement and marketing databases out there. Physicians have one to
> track malpractice litigants. Landlords have one to track rental
> troublemakers. Databases are shared. Data integrity is sloppy.
All legitimate uses of data. If you were a landlord, would you not
want access to criminal histories or credit scores? If you were a
lender, would you not want this? There's no legitimate privacy
interest in concealing a felony conviction from a landlord or a
potential employer.
> > > Your existing employer may be checking up on you....
> > They are entitled to do this. Again, there can be no beef with this.
> > Your employer isn't Big Brother. S/He can "listen in for quality
> > assurance" as the tape goes, or to see if Susie is dealing on eBay
> > during work hours when she's supposed to be processing work accounts...
> > c'mon, this is elementary stuff. If one doesn't like it, one should
> > start one's own business and run it their way. Again, this isn't the
> > government, it's the private sector.
>
> Your employer is allowed to watch you at work. But should your
> employer be allowed to track you or look at your personal affairs,
> such as your credit report, as is done? Should your employer be
> checking your home telephone records--as has been done? Suppose you
> are looking for a new job but don't want your employer to know about
> it.
Cite instances where employers have done this.
> > That's still not how it works. I think you're imagining there's a
> > great private "Echelon" system gathering every knowable gatherable
> > detail about every knowable person. There isn't.
>
> I don't know what "Echelon" is. (A mall in south Jersey?).
That used to be my mall when I lived in Lindenwold!
No, that's the supercomputer system based in England through which
Bill Klinton was supposedly keeping tabs on every citizen on earth
whole getting blowed by Monica.
> I do know
> for a fact there's an enomrous amount of data collection and
> information sharing going on out there that people aren't aware of and
> that data integrity and security is not a high priority. It's both
> public and private sector.
That doesn't make it a privacy invasion. I collect data on people all
the time. So do you. It's called life.
> Previously discussed was how an auto insurance company simply presumed
> another driver was living in a household using data mining.
> Undoubtedly all insurance companies utilize such information.
There is no total privacy interest in your address.
> > But it isn't. No one is checking on it. It is resorted to when there
> > is a lawful subpoena for info, as any pre-computer age similar info
> > would have been.
>
> EZPASS and the data it collects didn't exist in the pre-computer age.
> To say "no one is checking on it" and then say "lawful subpoena" is a
> contradiction.
No it isn't at all. The data is dumped into an ocean of bits. If a
lawful subpoena arrives, someone has to go specifically retrieve that
one account. All the billions of others swim on in shadows from human
eyes.
> The solution is simple. Pass a law prohibiting EZPASS information
> from being available, as it is in a few states. Would you be opposed
> to such a law?
Available? I can't go look at EZPass data right now, so it's not
available, if you mean it in the broadest sense. But yes, I can't
think of any reason that access to this data should be made off limits
to a lawful subpoena.
> > > Third, some things that were once private and deemed sacrosanct are
> > > now retrievable. Medical records used to be strictly private. Then
> > > they became accessible on demand, now doctors are required to report
> > > certain things whether the patient likes it or not.
>
> > No they are not. Medical records are even harder to access now than
> > before, something I have personally discovered.
>
> They're harder for legitimate users to get at them, but ironically,
> they're easier for certain third parties to access. You may not be
> allowed to see your child's medical records, but they would be
> forwarded to law enforcement, as mandated by law, if there's any
> suspicion at all of a problem.
There's no legitimate privacy interest in abusing your children.
> > The *government* took the rent-a-car company to administrative hearing
> > to *shut down* that practice. "Big Brother" is enforcing your right to
> > privacy even when it's data that proved you broke the law. You picked
> > an example that contradicts you.
>
> I'm glad the govt stepped in. But the example shows that companies
> are willing and able to do this sort of thing.
And, as I said, it shows they will be shit down from doing so. IOW, it
shows the trend is not what you say.
> > > 3) There is a basic principle of privacy being lost. Everybody
> > > collecting or using data has their own "justification" for it. That
> > > doesn't make it right. No, the "black helicopters" aren't following
> > > us, but that's not the point.
>
> > If no one ever retrieves, analyzes or looks at the data bits, your
> > privacy is certainly not lost.
>
> Of course your privacy is lost. Is your salary and personal lifestyle
> anybody else's business?
Yes, of course. To certain extents, of course it is. Applying for a
loan? You'd better be ready to have your "privacy" invaded when the
lender asks where do you work and how much do you make.
> > And no one is looking at which toll booths you've been going through.
>
> With EZPASS, as shown, they most certainly are.
No they aren't. It's computer generated. No "one" (that means flesh
and blood person) is watching you. The only one looking is me. When I
get my EXpressToll bill (here in CO, that's what the electronic toll
system is called) I can see what lane I went through, when and where.
The person in the office who sent it out didn't look at it. It was
generated, folded, stuffed in an envelope and sealed by machine and
mailed. If I opt for online delivery, then even that special attention
never happens.
> > > 5) As to EZPASS specifically, other posters were quite adamant it was
> > > kept private. Obviously they were wrong.
>
> > No. It is still kept private. It's just that, as has always been the
> > case for decades before computers, it can be subject to lawful
> > subpoena.
>
> Being subject to access means it is NOT private.
Wrong. Only *being* accessed means it is not private. Something that
is never accessed, I would call that private. Any private matter
sometimes can and *should* be accessed depending on the circumstances.
If you strangled your spouse in private, that should certainly be
discoverable.
Rich Piehl
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>> k_f...@lycos.com wrote On 08/13/07 14:26,:
>>> [...]
>>> But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
>>> EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
>>
>> How long before some bright lad thinks of rummaging
>> through the records looking for people who leave the
>> toll road thirty miles from the point of entrance but
>> only twenty minutes after entering?
>
> I'm also convinced it's an urban legend.
When they used to give the ticket at the beginning and collect the toll
at the end I wondered whether Oklahoma Turnpike Authority did this,
especially since many of their turnpikes are easy enough to do without
stopping.
I'd see the OK state Policeman sitting in his car at the end of the
turnpike. I wondered whether the system would flag a ticket when the
elapsed time meant you exceeded the speed limit significantly, and toll
taker would alert the trooper.
But now they've gone to a single toll plaza in the middle so it would be
impossible to do.
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
And if I claim to be a wise man
it surely means that I don't know.
--Kansas
Al Balmer
There is so much half-truth and spin in the above that I don't know
where to start. I know, I'll just kill cross-posted threads.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> And in the end, as with electronic toll violations and photo speed
> enforcement, there always must be human beings at the end to cull the
> data. I am personally familiar with the fact that while the
> computerized system can scoop up a beachful of sand, the number of
> grains rejected is enormous and humans must sign off on the ones that
> get sent out
That's how it's _supposed_ to work, a human to check flagged errors.
But in reality that does not always happen and individual people get
screwed. They have to go to the trouble of calling in and demanding
an adjustment, which may or may not be forthcoming. Often there's not
enough staff to do the culling.
I know of a small bank that balanced its ledger to the penny and
checked each and every exception message from its systems. Then the
bank was acquired by a large bank. No more tight balancing, no more
followup on exception messages. If there was a problem, the customer
had to report it, otherwise they did not fix it even though it was an
error on their part and they knew about it.
The social security is effectively our universal ID number, but not
all organizations properly verify it, and pass along adverse
information keyed to SSN to others.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Why can't you get your credit score? I know mine. I've kept track of
> mine for years. My wife has. Everyone I know that I've inquired knows
> what their credit score is.
How does one get their credit score? Does this include the
methodology of how the score was calculated? Since this is
information about me, I presume there would be no charge to get this
information.
> All legitimate uses of data. If you were a landlord, would you not
> want access to criminal histories or credit scores? If you were a
> lender, would you not want this? There's no legitimate privacy
> interest in concealing a felony conviction from a landlord or a
> potential employer.
It's very possible that erroneous data could be in those "private"
databases. You can get your official credit history, but where do you
find the landlord database or get access to it? There are privately
collected dossiers out there, how would you find about them?
> > Your employer is allowed to watch you at work. But should your
> > employer be allowed to track you or look at your personal affairs,
> > such as your credit report, as is done? Should your employer be
> > checking your home telephone records--as has been done? Suppose you
> > are looking for a new job but don't want your employer to know about
> > it.
>
> Cite instances where employers have done this.
Proctor & Gamble was cited for doing this; they demanded and received
home telephone records of employees; they also watched employees on
their lunch hour. People who have been out of work and had trouble
paying bills have had trouble getting a new job because prospective
employers checked their credit histories and rejected them for poor
credit. (Which is a little stupid since a person needing a job just
might have bad credit from being out of work.)
> No, that's the supercomputer system based in England through which
> Bill Klinton was supposedly keeping tabs on every citizen on earth
> whole getting blowed by Monica.
You don't need a supercomputer these days. Cheap desktop PCs are
plenty powerful, commercial grade PCs and mainframes are extremely
powerful and can plow through massive amounts of data very quickly.
> > I do know
> > for a fact there's an enomrous amount of data collection and
> > information sharing going on out there that people aren't aware of and
> > that data integrity and security is not a high priority. It's both
> > public and private sector.
>
> That doesn't make it a privacy invasion. I collect data on people all
> the time. So do you. It's called life.
To me it is a privacy invasion. I guess we just disagree on this
basic principle.
For me, I know how powerful computers have become, how easy it is to
interconnect them, how much stuff is stored on them instead of in
paper files, and how sloppy data entry is. More troubling is that
corporations push very hard against privacy laws.
As to privacy and access to computerized records by court order, we
must remember that we have Fifth Amendment rights for a reason. This
isn't as strong in civil cases as in criminal cases, but I suggest it
should be.
I would not want to be a defendant in a court case where EZP was used
against me, given how bad their data was.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> There is so much half-truth and spin in the above that I don't know
> where to start.
You could explain what is incorrect and why.
k_f...@lycos.com
> On Aug 14, 10:25 am, "k_fl...@lycos.com" <k_fl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > And in the end, as with electronic toll violations and photo speed
> > enforcement, there always must be human beings at the end to cull the
> > data. I am personally familiar with the fact that while the
> > computerized system can scoop up a beachful of sand, the number of
> > grains rejected is enormous and humans must sign off on the ones that
> > get sent out
>
> That's how it's _supposed_ to work, a human to check flagged errors.
> But in reality that does not always happen and individual people get
> screwed.
Unlikely.
> They have to go to the trouble of calling in and demanding
> an adjustment, which may or may not be forthcoming. Often there's not
> enough staff to do the culling.
Cite. My example with humans doing the final check was to illustrate
how, on toll violations and photo speeding systems for example, the
huge mass of data is finally reviewed by humans to eliminate the
questionable ones.
> I know of a small bank that balanced its ledger to the penny and
> checked each and every exception message from its systems. Then the
> bank was acquired by a large bank. No more tight balancing, no more
> followup on exception messages. If there was a problem, the customer
> had to report it, otherwise they did not fix it even though it was an
> error on their part and they knew about it.
This has nothing to do with the topic. Actually, examined more
closely, it works against your privacy argument. The small bank pried
into every little corner and was intimately familiar with all the
private and personal details of your account. Is suppose you couldn't
walk in without each teller looking at you and knowing you'd been four
days late with your last loan payment.
Now that it's owned by MegaNational Bankcorp., you're complaining that
*no one is looking* at the fine details of your personal business -
unless you yourself bring a mistake to their attention *because only
you knew about it!*
Sounds like you had much *less* privacy with the small bank.
> The social security is effectively our universal ID number, but not
> all organizations properly verify it, and pass along adverse
> information keyed to SSN to others.
Small problem that has nothing to do with your privacy being violated.
k_f...@lycos.com
> On Aug 14, 10:49 am, "k_fl...@lycos.com" <k_fl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > Why can't you get your credit score? I know mine. I've kept track of
> > mine for years. My wife has. Everyone I know that I've inquired knows
> > what their credit score is.
>
> How does one get their credit score? Does this include the
> methodology of how the score was calculated? Since this is
> information about me, I presume there would be no charge to get this
> information.
Call one of the credit agencies. Talk to your banker... I regularly get
a printout of mine.
> > All legitimate uses of data. If you were a landlord, would you not
> > want access to criminal histories or credit scores? If you were a
> > lender, would you not want this? There's no legitimate privacy
> > interest in concealing a felony conviction from a landlord or a
> > potential employer.
>
> It's very possible that erroneous data could be in those "private"
> databases.
That's not a privacy issue; it's a bad data issue and it existed long
before computers were used to keep them. Remember the pencil and paper
days?
> You can get your official credit history, but where do you
> find the landlord database or get access to it? There are privately
> collected dossiers out there, how would you find about them?
Huh?
> > > Your employer is allowed to watch you at work. But should your
> > > employer be allowed to track you or look at your personal affairs,
> > > such as your credit report, as is done? Should your employer be
> > > checking your home telephone records--as has been done? Suppose you
> > > are looking for a new job but don't want your employer to know about
> > > it.
> >
> > Cite instances where employers have done this.
>
> Proctor & Gamble was cited for doing this; they demanded and received
> home telephone records of employees; they also watched employees on
> their lunch hour.
I think you just defeated your own argument. "P&G *was cited* for
doing this." You contradicted yourself above when you said "Should
your employer be checking your home telephone records?" Your own
answer was no, if they do, they will be taken to court because they
cannot get away with it. Are you thinking through the examples you're
providing?
> > No, that's the supercomputer system based in England through which
> > Bill Klinton was supposedly keeping tabs on every citizen on earth
> > whole getting blowed by Monica.
>
> You don't need a supercomputer these days. Cheap desktop PCs are
> plenty powerful, commercial grade PCs and mainframes are extremely
> powerful and can plow through massive amounts of data very quickly.
Not without the input they can't.
Look, what I am saying is that no one can be bothered to routinely
track 300 million people, let alone worldwide, every time they use a
toll booth or ping a cell tower. The fact that it's technically
possible to do so doesn't mean anyone is actually doing it or more,
that anyone even cares to do it.
> > > I do know
> > > for a fact there's an enomrous amount of data collection and
> > > information sharing going on out there that people aren't aware of and
> > > that data integrity and security is not a high priority. It's both
> > > public and private sector.
> >
> > That doesn't make it a privacy invasion. I collect data on people all
> > the time. So do you. It's called life.
>
> To me it is a privacy invasion. I guess we just disagree on this
> basic principle.
That's OK. But it's not a privacy invasion for me to collect whatever
may be publicly known about you. Google even provides me a "view
profile" link next to your name; is it an invasion of your privacy if
I check out what all you've posted?
> For me, I know how powerful computers have become, how easy it is to
> interconnect them, how much stuff is stored on them instead of in
> paper files, and how sloppy data entry is. More troubling is that
> corporations push very hard against privacy laws.
But no one cares. No one's viewing it. If you undress with your blinds
open but no one passes by the sidewalk, was your privacy invaded? If
you undress by your open window and someone *does* walk by but
doesn't look, was your privacy invaded? If you undress by the open
window and someone walking by does look, was your privacy invaded?
Now, if you undress and someone reaches in and lifts your closed
blinds and sees, *that's* a privacy invasion.
That's not the proper analogy to your computer storage issue. The
proper analogy is my first one: You engage in a transaction for which
records necessarily must be kept (you undress with your blinds open).
But no one is walking by or looking in your window because there are
billions of windows. We only look in your window if you bring an error
to our attention.
By the way, please don't re-enact this analogy at home! ;^)
> As to privacy and access to computerized records by court order, we
> must remember that we have Fifth Amendment rights for a reason. This
> isn't as strong in civil cases as in criminal cases, but I suggest it
> should be.
A paper trail you generate with third parties isn't self-
incrimination.
> I would not want to be a defendant in a court case where EZP was used
> against me, given how bad their data was.
Example?
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> pigst...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 6:18 pm, Al Balmer <albal...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:53:45 -0400, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@sun.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
>>>>> EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
>>>> How long before some bright lad thinks of rummaging
>>>> through the records looking for people who leave the
>>>> toll road thirty miles from the point of entrance but
>>>> only twenty minutes after entering?
>>> tickets.
>
> seemed a perfectly logical and simple thing to do. It might
> actually be a little harder with EZPass than with pasteboard
> tickets: "Yes, I know you've shown that my car was going over
> 100 mph a week ago Thursday, but the speeding offense is the
> driver's and not the car's. How can you prove I was the person
> at the wheel when all this happened?"
>
>> using the toll tickets. I would like to see that stand up in a
>> court. Good grief man, any cop that would use that as a basis for
>> writing a ticket would be held in contempt.
>
> Why? All he needs to do is show that the clocks at the
> toll booths are adequately synchronized and that the length
> of road between them is measured with sufficient accuracy.
> Sounds no different from demonstrating that his radar gun is
> properly calibrated, maintained, and used.
>
The d/t calculation can very easily be done automatically
on the machine at the exit toll booth, at which time the
identity of the driver can be verified when needed and a
speeding ticket issued. If it's an EZPass booth there would
need to be a way of stopping offending vehicles and an
attendant to identify drivers and issue tickets. :)
At toll booths with human attendants that's covered. :)
Lawrence Statton
> The d/t calculation can very easily be done automatically
> on the machine at the exit toll booth, at which time the
> identity of the driver can be verified when needed and a
> speeding ticket issued.
Objection, your honor -- assuming facts not in evidence. The state
must demonstrate that the person who was driving as we passed through
the second toll gate was, in fact, the driver who is alleged to have
committed the offence.
> If it's an EZPass booth there would
> need to be a way of stopping offending vehicles and an
> attendant to identify drivers and issue tickets. :)
> At toll booths with human attendants that's covered. :)
--
Lawrence Statton - lawre...@abaluon.abaom s/aba/c/g
Computer software consists of only two components: ones and
zeros, in roughly equal proportions. All that is required is to
place them into the correct order.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
I understand that for the safety of the public there are monitoring
video cameras in some public lavatories, and various street poles.
Also to deter crime, e.g. pilferage, cheating et.c., there are
surveillance cameras in clothing try-on booths et.c.
So if you expose yourself in the lavatory, or scratch your ass
on the street, or fondle your consenting partner,
who has broken the law? You? or the Peeping Tom/Jane? who is
monitoring the equipment at that time?
As a recent cartoon illustrated a boss admonishing an employee at
an annual review "And please stop Mooning the cameras. You know
that the cubicles are under constant surveillance"
or perhaps it was just "Stop scratching your ass"
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urj...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>> The d/t calculation can very easily be done automatically
>> on the machine at the exit toll booth, at which time the
>> identity of the driver can be verified when needed and a
>> speeding ticket issued.
>
> Objection, your honor -- assuming facts not in evidence. The state
> must demonstrate that the person who was driving as we passed through
> the second toll gate was, in fact, the driver who is alleged to have
> committed the offence.
>
patrol car.
Eric Sosman
> On Aug 14, 10:49 am, "k_fl...@lycos.com" <k_fl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Why can't you get your credit score? I know mine. I've kept track of
>>mine for years. My wife has. Everyone I know that I've inquired knows
>>what their credit score is.
>
>
> How does one get their credit score? Does this include the
> methodology of how the score was calculated? Since this is
> information about me, I presume there would be no charge to get this
> information.
Quite a lot of presumption going on ...
Why should "information about me" be free to me?
When my doctor thumps my chest and listens to my heart
and does assorted other unmentionable things, all he's
doing is gathering information about me. Should he or
should he not be paid for the information? When my
accountant takes a lot of data I provide and distills
it down to a tax return, all he's done is write down
some information about me. Can I rightfully demand
that he hand me the completed forms without being paid?
The act of organizing information is in itself a
labor, and the fruits thereof can be a product. Anyone
who hangs around computers for any time ought to know
that much: After all, we do nothing but make copies of
pre-existing ones and zeroes and arrange them in nice
patterns ...
(I think the International Standard Zero and the
International Standard One, the references from which
all the others derive, are probably kept in vacuo in
a heavily-guarded, temperature-stabilized, vibration-
damped lab operated by CERN or someone. A team of
quantum philosophers is hard at work trying to develop
a replacement for the Standard Zero; rumor has it that
they'll unveil a new Zero on 2009-01-20.)
John Lansford
>On Aug 14, 2:12 am, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> "k_fl...@lycos.com" <k_fl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> You forgot the word "legally" in your sentence, Kevin. The current
>> administration has already said that if "keeping America safe from
>> terrorists" requires bending a few rules and rights, well, that's just
>> the price we have to pay.
>
>But their level of incompetence offsets it. ;-]
>> >> It's not the enormity of the data collection that stops them. The Stazi
>> >> kept files on everybody, though they only had manila folders (it was
>> >> very labor-intensive). The US is far more efficient than that, we sell
>> >> China the technology that they use to keep tabs on their citizens.
>>
>> >> So why do you think EZPass data is sacrosanct where none of those other
>> >> things is?
>>
>> >You already said it. The enormity. The gargantuan size of the info
>> >makes it useless because it cannot possibly be analyzed except in the
>> >crudest of fashions.
>>
>> Ever heard of supercomputers? They don't get tired and they don't
>> care how long a task takes.
>
>I understand that, but there's no point to the task. No one would
>devote all those resources to such pointless tasks as "where was John
>Lansford headed on Aug 13th?"
If there's a need to find out where I was, though, the long arm of the
law will go after whatever data they feel will tell them what they
want to know.
>And in the end, as with electronic toll violations and photo speed
>enforcement, there always must be human beings at the end to cull the
>data. I am personally familiar with the fact that while the
>computerized system can scoop up a beachful of sand, the number of
>grains rejected is enormous and humans must sign off on the ones that
>get sent out.
But that number is a lot less than the total number that get sifted;
if there's a need then the effort would be made.
k_f...@lycos.com
> Lawrence Statton wrote:
> > "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urj...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> >> The d/t calculation can very easily be done automatically
> >> on the machine at the exit toll booth, at which time the
> >> identity of the driver can be verified when needed and a
> >> speeding ticket issued.
> >
> > Objection, your honor -- assuming facts not in evidence. The state
> > must demonstrate that the person who was driving as we passed through
> > the second toll gate was, in fact, the driver who is alleged to have
> > committed the offence.
> >
> Yeah, yeah. The same when you are stopped for speeding by highway
> patrol car.
I think that was the point of his objection. It's not the same. The
highway patrol officer who stops you can verify that you are the
driver. The ticket reading machine at the toll booth cannot.
John Lansford
Actually the SSN was never intended to be used as an ID number.
That's just how businesses started using it when they asked you for
it. After a lot of complaints, the government admitted that no
business had the right to ask you for it, nor did you have to give it
to them. My office, in fact, no longer requires us to use it for
typical security reasons, and issued us a "personnel #" we now use in
routine operations.
k_f...@lycos.com
Then it would not be an invasion of privacy.
> >And in the end, as with electronic toll violations and photo speed
> >enforcement, there always must be human beings at the end to cull the
> >data. I am personally familiar with the fact that while the
> >computerized system can scoop up a beachful of sand, the number of
> >grains rejected is enormous and humans must sign off on the ones that
> >get sent out.
>
> But that number is a lot less than the total number that get sifted;
> if there's a need then the effort would be made.
Exactly. Only if there's a need. Otherwise, billions upon billions of
transactions are happening without any iuntrusion into privacy. That
was my point. No one is tracking you or the other guy. There is no
loss of privacy by the fact of the collection of the unseen data.
Free Lunch
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in
<1187116223.3...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>On Aug 14, 10:49 am, "k_fl...@lycos.com" <k_fl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> Why can't you get your credit score? I know mine. I've kept track of
>> mine for years. My wife has. Everyone I know that I've inquired knows
>> what their credit score is.
>
>How does one get their credit score? Does this include the
>methodology of how the score was calculated? Since this is
>information about me, I presume there would be no charge to get this
>information.
You can get your credit report free, but your score is proprietary to
Fair Isaac and they don't tell anyone how the score is calculated.
John Mayson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, k_f...@lycos.com wrote:
>
> Kewl by me! As long as there's an acknowledgment that it's not the
> same thing. An employement relationship is fundamentally different
> than a citizen of the state relationship.
I understand completely what you're saying. The Bill of Rights does not
extend to private enterprises. For instance my employer asks I do not use
their name or logo in my personal blog postings. That doesn't violate my
First Amendment rights to free speech. Only the state. I'm free to use
their name and logo and the government won't go after me. I might lose my
job though.
- --
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFGwle52kz4fWh3iuERAtkHAKChOZUVHn5cFlxqFwBBXZ9uyI47wACgh6A0
4Brgp96td6XboBvKkHPN2xA=
=qYeo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
"If it's an EZPass booth there would
need to be a way of stopping offending vehicles and an
attendant to identify drivers and issue tickets. :)
At toll booths with human attendants that's covered. :) "
So why is the toll booth attendant a less acceptable witness
as to who is driving at the time that the car stops (is stopped)?
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
"No you don't have to tell us your SSN (or other requested info ...).
But then we decline to serve you ..."
"Oh and do note the clause on the bottom of the contract where you
swear that all the information you provide is true, else we can bring
a suit against you for (unspecified) damages"
--
Rostyk
Sancho Panza
<k_f...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1187101526....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> in the end, as with electronic toll violations and photo speed
> enforcement, there always must be human beings at the end to cull the
> data.
The experience of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and its New York
consortium with E-ZPass is exactly the opposite. The system was supposed to
pay for itself by collecting extra fines from violators. For its few years,
the automated system went completely haywire, and the governor had to step
in and tell them to halt the stupidity.
Sancho Panza
<kh...@jersey.net> wrote in message
news:1187101844.0...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
More prevalent is using "guards" over the plates that supposedly impede the
photograph.
Sancho Panza
<k_f...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1187065035....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 13, 9:41 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> As the other poster noted, a rent-a-car company tracked drivers and
>> nailed them with surcharges.
>
> Did you miss my response?
>
> The *government* took the rent-a-car company to administrative hearing
> to *shut down* that practice. "Big Brother" is enforcing your right to
> privacy even when it's data that proved you broke the law. You picked
> an example that contradicts you.
Maybe word of that hasn't gotten around. The major car rental company I used
last month made a point of telling customers about the GPS system on their
vehicles' roofs. The car-rental company distributes a clear list of what
areas or states a vehicle is permitted to be taken and states clearly that
driving anywhere else in their car without their permission is not allowed
and will be subject to major penalties.
danny burstein
>The experience of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and its New York
>consortium with E-ZPass is exactly the opposite. The system was supposed to
>pay for itself by collecting extra fines from violators.
Everyone in NJ who actually believed that stupid claim
prior to construction probably probably believes in the tooth fairy.
Anyone taking more than 10 seconds to look at the
projected finances knew that it was garbage.
(I don't remember any such similar silliness
over in NY. Methinks you might be mithtaken there).
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
k_f...@lycos.com
wrote:
That defeats the purpose of an automated toll booth. Cars don't stop.
Post an attendant and your costs go up dramatically. Might as well do
away with the transponders and just have toll collectors again.
On E-470 tollway, cars pass under the collection gantry at 70+ mph.
k_f...@lycos.com
wrote:
> John Lansford wrote:
I've never been denied any service when refusing to give my SSN to
someone not legally entitled to demand it.
> "Oh and do note the clause on the bottom of the contract where you
> swear that all the information you provide is true, else we can bring
> a suit against you for (unspecified) damages"
That begs the question as to why you would give out false information
on such a form. If you used someone else's SSN, that would make *you*
the one who was invading someone else's privacy!
CBFalconer
> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> writes:
>
>> The experience of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and its New
>> York consortium with E-ZPass is exactly the opposite. The system
>> was supposed to pay for itself by collecting extra fines from
>> violators.
>
> Everyone in NJ who actually believed that stupid claim prior to
> construction probably probably believes in the tooth fairy. Anyone
> taking more than 10 seconds to look at the projected finances knew
> that it was garbage. (I don't remember any such similar silliness
> over in NY. Methinks you might be mithtaken there).
I don't recall if it was Joisey, but I vaguely recall reading
something of the sort several years ago. Might have been ten or
more years. Seems to me it was around the time that Connecticut
removed all its thru and parkway tolls, due to a foul accident.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
CBFalconer
> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> writes:
>
>> The experience of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and its New
>> York consortium with E-ZPass is exactly the opposite. The system
>> was supposed to pay for itself by collecting extra fines from
>> violators.
>
> Everyone in NJ who actually believed that stupid claim prior to
> construction probably probably believes in the tooth fairy. Anyone
> taking more than 10 seconds to look at the projected finances knew
> that it was garbage. (I don't remember any such similar silliness
> over in NY. Methinks you might be mithtaken there).
I don't recall if it was Joisey, but I vaguely recall reading
jmfb...@aol.com
Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>In alt.folklore.computers hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>In other threads, people denied that privacy was a risk by modern
>>computer systems, such as EZPASS. They said the data was secured and
>>not distributed.
>>
>>Well, as it turns out, the data is NOT secured, but freely available
>>to court attorneys in many states. In states where it's not,
>>attorneys are fighting to get the data.
>>
>>See:
>>
>>http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20070813_E-ZPass_can_take_a_toll_
on_marriage__too.html
>
>I suspect, that in the not-too-distant-future, they'll be *required*.
>IOW: If you don't have one, you'll have to identify yourself and your
>car and *buy* one on entering the system; otherwise, like the person
>without payment, you'll be refused entry.
>
>This, of course, will be touted as "an improvement of service".
>
It's going to be worse than that. Our local and insane liberals
are promoting the idea that all people have to use the transponder.
This will allow all roads to become toll roads. Furthermore,
road use will have to have a finger in your bank account
to withdraw money as you use any road.
Privacy is a secondary thing to worry about; you should be thinking
about your bank account.
/BAH
rsh...@gmail.com
> On Aug 13, 6:18 pm, Al Balmer <albal...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:53:45 -0400, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@sun.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >k_fl...@lycos.com wrote On 08/13/07 14:26,:
> > >> [...]
> > >> But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
> > >> EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
>
> > > How long before some bright lad thinks of rummaging
> > >through the records looking for people who leave the
> > >toll road thirty miles from the point of entrance but
> > >only twenty minutes after entering?
>
> > Nothing new about that. They've been doing it for years, with toll
> > tickets.
>
> using the toll tickets. I would like to see that stand up in a
> court. Good grief man, any cop that would use that as a basis for
> writing a ticket would be held in contempt.
>
> bother with the toll tickets???
> It defies reason, They want to catch you in the act, not wait until
> you pay the toll.
>
> I have travelled thousands of miles on every toll road in the US, and
> I have never experienced such a thing, and I don't know anyone who
> has. Has it ever happened to you??? Like I said, it defies reason.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Al Balmer...I think you are "balmie"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My, oh, my, we are sensitive are we not?
I guess you are the usenet police, or whatever.
Try it on the Thruway? Could you come up with a more ridiculous
statement? I have been on the Thruway countless times, and it has
never, ever happened to me. Exactly what do you think, the toll
collectors look at the time stamp of each ticket and sit there and
say, well you covered this distance too fast and I am calling a
trooper.
You do know they are timed and if they take too long they get written
up, did you ever think about that???
Oh, but then you will say they get brownie points for catching a
speeder. Good grief man, that sun must be really getting to you. And
what are the time standards, two minutes over, well no ticket for you,
but 3 minutes, you get nailed.
Get real, man, they are not doing it, they have never done it,and they
will never do it.
Oh, I get it now, that machine they stick the toll ticket into, yeah,
it calculates the elapsed time, if you are too fast, a red light comes
on and you are held for the arrival of a NY State Trooper.
I want to see that happen.
Please cover your head when you go out in the sun.
Randy
I sort of skipped over the post you mention because of its
ridiculousness, but yours I could not pass by.
rsh...@gmail.com
> pigsty1...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 6:18 pm, Al Balmer <albal...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:53:45 -0400, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@sun.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> k_fl...@lycos.com wrote On 08/13/07 14:26,:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
> >>>> EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
> >>> How long before some bright lad thinks of rummaging
> >>> through the records looking for people who leave the
> >>> toll road thirty miles from the point of entrance but
> >>> only twenty minutes after entering?
> >> Nothing new about that. They've been doing it for years, with toll
> >> tickets.
>
> seemed a perfectly logical and simple thing to do. It might
> actually be a little harder with EZPass than with pasteboard
> tickets: "Yes, I know you've shown that my car was going over
> 100 mph a week ago Thursday, but the speeding offense is the
> driver's and not the car's. How can you prove I was the person
> at the wheel when all this happened?"
>
> > using the toll tickets. I would like to see that stand up in a
> > court. Good grief man, any cop that would use that as a basis for
> > writing a ticket would be held in contempt.
>
> toll booths are adequately synchronized and that the length
> of road between them is measured with sufficient accuracy.
> Sounds no different from demonstrating that his radar gun is
> properly calibrated, maintained, and used.
>
> > bother with the toll tickets???
>
> they need to do is add one step: Divide distance (obtained
> from the same table lookup that calculates the toll) by time
> (subtract two time stamps), nail the malfeasor very cheaply.
> What's inferior or illegal about that?
>
> > It defies reason, They want to catch you in the act, not wait until
> > you pay the toll.
>
> catch you in the act, but that's surely not the only way.
>
> Moving to a different area of law enforcement: Cop responds
> to a burglar alarm at SellFones Iz We, finds the building broken
> open but nobody around. Two blocks away he finds a guy carrying
> a crowbar, a set of lock picks, a glass cutter, and a sack of
> cellphones. Even though he did not catch anybody in any act at
> all, I think he's got a case. The case might or might not stand
> up in court, but it has every chance of getting there.
>
> > I have travelled thousands of miles on every toll road in the US, and
> > I have never experienced such a thing, and I don't know anyone who
> > has. Has it ever happened to you??? Like I said, it defies reason.
>
>
> --
> Eric Sosman
> esos...@ieee-dot-org.invalid
I don't either, but like I told Mr Balmer, do you really think the
toll collectors look at the time stamps of every toll ticket. Also as
I told him, they are timed and if they take too long with each patron
they are written up.
A speeding ticket is an infraction, not a criminal charge. It is
written on the person in violation. A trooper has to see the
violation to write the ticket. A time stamp on a toll ticket would
not be sustainable in court.
It does not happen, has never happened, and will never happen.
And I will tell you something else. All a trooper has to do is clock
you over 1/4 mile to sustain a speeding charge.
Why should they bother with the time consuming reading of time stamps
of toll tickets?
Or do you think the machines they stick the toll tickets in read those
time stamps automatically and call the trooper while you wait.
Good grief this is probably the most ridiculous dicsussion I have ever
seen.
Randy
rsh...@gmail.com
> On Aug 13, 6:18 pm, Al Balmer <albal...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:53:45 -0400, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@sun.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >k_fl...@lycos.com wrote On 08/13/07 14:26,:
> > >> [...]
> > >> But "Big Brother" still isn't culling through the billions of annual
> > >> EZPass transactions to keep his eye on you.
>
> > > How long before some bright lad thinks of rummaging
> > >through the records looking for people who leave the
> > >toll road thirty miles from the point of entrance but
> > >only twenty minutes after entering?
>
> > Nothing new about that. They've been doing it for years, with toll
> > tickets.
>
>
> > > http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/1911
>
> > --
> > Al Balmer
> > Sun City, AZ
>
> It's never been done. And amongst the number of reasons why, there's
> a simple, legal reason: Where were you speeding? In NJ, no matter
> what road you were on, you can fight the ticket in court in the town
> you were caught speeding in. If you are on a 100 mile road that goes
> thru 25 towns and 6 counties, what jurisdiction were you speeding in?
> So on that alone, it can't be proven you were speeding at any one
> point in time.
>
> Also, unless the speed limit remains consistant from toll plaza to
> toll plaza, what speed limit were you exceeding? Unless both plazas
> were on the mainline, with lanes that don't require reducing the speed
> limit, you would be required to slow down when getting to the toll
> plaza, or on the off-ramp to get to the plaza. Again, you encounter
> different speeds.
>
> At any rate, find someone who has gotten a ticket. No - not a friend
> of a friend - an actual person. And see the ticket. Again - it's
> never happened.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you, thank you, thank you. 1000 times, thank you. I should
have thought of that.
One minor thing. In Bergen County, I believe the Troopers and the
Bergen County Police can write a ticket to a county court and not a
specific municipality.
Some years ago, I got a ticket from a county cop for an inspection
violation that was written to the county court.
Randy
kh...@jersey.net
What toll authority writes up their employees if they take too long
with a customer???
>
> A speeding ticket is an infraction, not a criminal charge. It is
> written on the person in violation. A trooper has to see the
> violation to write the ticket. A time stamp on a toll ticket would
> not be sustainable in court.
>
> It does not happen, has never happened, and will never happen.
>
> And I will tell you something else. All a trooper has to do is clock
> you over 1/4 mile to sustain a speeding charge.
> Why should they bother with the time consuming reading of time stamps
> of toll tickets?
>
> Or do you think the machines they stick the toll tickets in read those
> time stamps automatically and call the trooper while you wait.
>
> Good grief this is probably the most ridiculous dicsussion I have ever
> seen.
>
> Randy- Hide quoted text -
rsh...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
For the third time. The toll collectors are timed and are written up
if they take too long.
Also as has been pointed out, a specific jurisdiction is required to
write a ticket.
Umm what jurisdiction has this taken place in??? It would be very
expensive to pay the toll collectors for court time.
This continues one of the most ridiculous discussions I jhave ever
heard.
Randy
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Actually the SSN was never intended to be used as an ID number.
> That's just how businesses started using it when they asked you for
> it. After a lot of complaints, the government admitted that no
> business had the right to ask you for it, nor did you have to give it
> to them. My office, in fact, no longer requires us to use it for
> typical security reasons, and issued us a "personnel #" we now use in
> routine operations.
Regardless of what the govt says, the SSN remains a mandatory personal
ID number.
The reality is that any person who wishes to venture outside beyond
their front door has no choice but to give out their SSN to businesses
they deal with. It is very hard to function in society today without
a credit card, insurance, or bank account, for example, particularly
being on the road. Refuse to give it to a prospective landlord, and
see if you still get a nice apt. Sure, you don't _have_ to have
EZPASS, but if you're a regular motorist it does save much time and
money.
The other reality is that many organizations we must deal with are
sloppy about their data control and bad SSNs are in wide use, both by
error and intent.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I've never been denied any service when refusing to give my SSN to
> someone not legally entitled to demand it.
That's nice, but I submit that's not the experience most of us would
face.
First off, there are a great many transactions in which the SSN is
indeed mandatory.
Secondly, someone might simply decline to serve you: If a prospective
landlord wants to run a credit check on you first, and you don't give
him your SSN, yes you still might get the apt. But I suspect not.
Third, the reality is that bucking the system takes an awful lot of
time, energy and work. Yes, there are places that will accomodate
your special request. But being "special" has many disadvantages, I
assure you. Many business procedures and computer systems don't
handle "special" cases very well. (Handicapped accessibility is
another example, people are request it are supposed to get it but
somewhere often communications break down and a wheelchair bound
person gets stuck.) For non-SSN customers, one will find themselves
always flagged as special, delaying their routine transactions while
the high school kid clerk scratches his head, tries to dig up the
manager and figure it out.
Business systems today mostly are geared to high volume standardized
mass production. That's one way big chains make money; they leverage
complex systems and procedures development over thousands of outlets.
They _theorectically_ can handle "special cases" but often in the real
world that fails and such customers are shunted to the side, waiting
and waiting.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
>
> The d/t calculation can very easily be done automatically
> on the machine at the exit toll booth, at which time the
> identity of the driver can be verified when needed and a
> need to be a way of stopping offending vehicles and an
> attendant to identify drivers and issue tickets. :)
Presently automation generates traffic violations. Example--red light
cameras. The ticket is issued to the vehicle and mailed to the
vehicle's owner. No points (at least in my state) are assigned, just
the fine.
An EZPASS detected speeding violation could work in a similar
fashion. It would be easy to calculate the minimum lawful required
time between two any EZP monitors*. If the motorist is faster than
that minimum time (including a reasonable buffer amount), then a
ticket could be mailed to the vehicle. With a reasonable buffer, only
the very fastest drivers would be caught (ie those doing 76+
_continuously_ in a 65 zone), but there would be no doubt that had
sped and could be issued a ticket in the same manner as a vehicle that
ran a red light and was caught on camera.
*The EZP monitors need not even by the same authority, for example,
between the Goethals Bridge and the Veranzo Bridge, or the NJTPK exit
and the Goethals Bridge.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Call one of the credit agencies. Talk to your banker... I regularly get
> a printout of mine.
As someone else mentioned, you get a credit history, but your credit
score is not available to you. Perhaps your banker will issue it,
presuming one has a regular relationship with a banking official.
> > It's very possible that erroneous data could be in those "private"
> > databases.
>
> That's not a privacy issue; it's a bad data issue and it existed long
> before computers were used to keep them. Remember the pencil and paper
> days?
You miss the point. In pencil paper days bad information languished
in one filing cabinet, buried never to see the light of day again. It
was way too costly to pull out folders, copy them by hand, mail it
out, refile them, etc.
But we are no longer in those days. Almost everyone uses computers to
store data, and much of it is stored in a uniform format. (Even in
mainframe days data sharing was tough since everybody did their own
formatting in mainframe file systems*).
That means bad data is easily spread around.
> > You can get your official credit history, but where do you
> > find the landlord database or get access to it? There are privately
> > collected dossiers out there, how would you find about them?
>
> Huh?
Data is collected about you by entities you know nothing about. That
data may nor may not be accurate, if it's bad, you have no ability to
fix it.
> I think you just defeated your own argument. "P&G *was cited* for
> doing this." You contradicted yourself above when you said "Should
> your employer be checking your home telephone records?" Your own
> answer was no, if they do, they will be taken to court because they
> cannot get away with it. Are you thinking through the examples you're
> providing?
The point is that corporations are interested in spying on their
people even outside of work, not that one got caught doing it. There
are people in business, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, who
feel the need to know about their underlings and work to get
information on them. They of course rationalize this as legitimate
internal security (such as preventing industrial espionage or employee
theft).
> > You don't need a supercomputer these days. Cheap desktop PCs are
> > plenty powerful, commercial grade PCs and mainframes are extremely
> > powerful and can plow through massive amounts of data very quickly.
>
> Not without the input they can't.
I submit data is too easy to get, either legally or illegally.
> Look, what I am saying is that no one can be bothered to routinely
> track 300 million people, let alone worldwide, every time they use a
> toll booth or ping a cell tower. The fact that it's technically
> possible to do so doesn't mean anyone is actually doing it or more,
> that anyone even cares to do it.
Obviously no one is doing it just to do it, nor sitting there all day.
But there are organizations that like to collect personal information
for resale, for whatever reason. This example is spurred by divorce
lawyers. Other lawyers would like it to. As explained, employers can
seek it.
> > To me it is a privacy invasion. I guess we just disagree on this
> > basic principle.
> That's OK. But it's not a privacy invasion for me to collect whatever
> may be publicly known about you. Google even provides me a "view
> profile" link next to your name; is it an invasion of your privacy if
> I check out what all you've posted?
> But no one cares. No one's viewing it. ....
My idea of privacy is not a 'legal' concept. That is, just because
info is publicly out there are me doesn't mean I agree that it should
be out there. I do want to eat and have a life, and to do so, I must
be a willing part of the system, whether I like it or not.
For example, if I go away on vacation but I choose to keep to myself
where I've gone, whom I'm with, where I've stayed, what I did, and how
much it cost me, those facts are nobody's damn business. But there
are entities that want to know, perhaps for marketing purposes,
perhaps to see if I'm cheating on my spouse, committing illegal
activity, insurance qualification, credit worthiness, newspaper
reporting, etc., as well as just plain gossip.
If privacy is no big deal, why don't we search everyone who returns
from vacation for illegal drugs and other contraband? (Not just
international, but domestically as well). We could pick up a lot of
criminals and cheating spouses in that manner.
> That's not the proper analogy to your computer storage issue. The
> proper analogy is my first one: You engage in a transaction for which
> records necessarily must be kept (you undress with your blinds open).
> But no one is walking by or looking in your window because there are
> billions of windows. We only look in your window if you bring an error
> to our attention.
I must disagree completely. It is a fact that entities are searching
and cross matching databases, not for "an error we bring to their
attention", but for patterns and situations that meet their interest.
Some are pretty benign, such as the supermarket looking at buying
patterns and issuing promotions. (For real: they determined from
purchases that I have a cat so they send me cat supply ads). But
others are not so benign, such as an insurance company seeking to
raise your rates, or attorneys seeking to reduce your position in
litigation.
> > I would not want to be a defendant in a court case where EZP was used
> > against me, given how bad their data was.
>
> Example?
The NJ Tpk EZP generated many false volations, that is, sending fines
to people who never used the Tpk. So, you're in a divorce case and
they introduce "evidence" that you indeed travelling to New Brunswick
for whatever when in fact you didn't.
* Which is why we had the Y2k mess. Some people stored a date as
YYDDD, some as YYMMDD, some as MMDDYY, etc. On IBM mainframes, there
were several internal "binary bit patterns" to choose from. Sharing
data meant conversion, by writing code, to a consistent format and
data layout. Modern computer storage is much more universal,
conversion, if required, is done automatically and easily).
CBFalconer
>
... major snip ...
>
> Good grief this is probably the most ridiculous dicsussion I have
> ever seen.
New to Usenet? :-)
Walter Bushell
Eric Sosman <Eric....@sun.com> wrote:
> (I think the International Standard Zero and the
> International Standard One, the references from which
> all the others derive, are probably kept in vacuo in
> a heavily-guarded, temperature-stabilized, vibration-
> damped lab operated by CERN or someone. A team of
> quantum philosophers is hard at work trying to develop
> a replacement for the Standard Zero; rumor has it that
> they'll unveil a new Zero on 2009-01-20.)
>
> --
I remember when I started computing we could only use one's because
zeros had not been invented.
Walter Bushell
Lawrence Statton <yankee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Objection, your honor -- assuming facts not in evidence. The state
> must demonstrate that the person who was driving as we passed through
> the second toll gate was, in fact, the driver who is alleged to have
> committed the offence.
A clear case where the defendant does not take the stand. Does the right
not to do so hold for infractions? OTOH at some point, IIRC, speeding
does become criminal.
Down in Florida on the superhighways I would be going the speed limit.
And see a car behind me, catch me and zoom past it must have been going
120. This not once but many times. It was _really_ flat ground so the
car came over the curve of the earth and disappeared below in a very
short time, and me pushing the limit.
Walter Bushell
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because it is difficult to change drivers during a high speed chase or
during a stop, not so much over the course of traversing the New Jersey
Turnpike, for example.
It would be interesting to see what the law made of a case of a fully
dual controlled care with easy switching at speed. "He was driving." "No
him." Actually they'd say nothing until court where the lawyer would
make the case.
Walter Bushell
"Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote:
> k_f...@lycos.com wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 7:16 pm, "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote:
> >> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >>> In other threads, people denied that privacy was a risk by modern
> >>> computer systems, such as EZPASS. They said the data was secured and
> >>> not distributed.
> >>> Well, as it turns out, the data is NOT secured, but freely available
> >>> to court attorneys in many states. In states where it's not,
> >>> attorneys are fighting to get the data.
> >>> See:
> >>> http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20070813_E-ZPass_can_take_...
> >> Also remember to turn you cell phone off and to NOT use it at all (better
> >> yet,
> >> leave it home!), as cell phone tower 'ping' records are also subpoenable,
> >> as
> >> well as records relating to what towers actually handled calls.
> >>
> >> There was a case in Los Angeles a few years ago where someone successfully
> >> used cell phone tower 'ping' records to exonerate himself from a murder
> >> rap -
> >> he claimed to have been at a Dodger game at the instant that the crime
> >> occurred and cell phone company records showed that his phone was indeed
> >> 'pinged' by a tower located just outside of Dodger Stadium at that very
> >> time
> >> (the crime occurred elsewhere in the metro area, well away from Chavez
> >> Ravine).
> >
> > Uh, Michael...
> >
> > The example you gave was of a man *exonerated* by the ability to track
> > records of his cell phone's location. Yet you recommend people turn
> > them off? Sounds like this guy was *saved* by the system.
>
> Well, you turn it off when you don't want your spouse to know where you've
> been. ;-)
It's evidence, but not proof. You could have loaned your cell phone.
Even the guy at the game could have had a friend carry it, although that
would have to be the type of friend who would help you move bodies, as
most people would testify, "I thought I was helping him commit adultery,
not murder."
Walter Bushell
"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe word of that hasn't gotten around. The major car rental company I used
> last month made a point of telling customers about the GPS system on their
> vehicles' roofs. The car-rental company distributes a clear list of what
> areas or states a vehicle is permitted to be taken and states clearly that
> driving anywhere else in their car without their permission is not allowed
> and will be subject to major penalties.
In that case, I suppose I am enough of a free market type to let it
pass. But it does have to be _clearly stated_. I remember renting a car
and being _surprised_ to learn it was limited to one state. But I read
the contract, which most people don't do, and would not expect to be so
limited. Maybe now the word has spread.
Walter Bushell
Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> It's no secret that
> they plant spies in groups that oppose government policy (nothing new
> about that, of course).
Spies and one would have to think agents provocateurs which has a long
history. If you're in a group and someone suggests really extreme
action, check said person for government or big corporate involvement.
grey...@spurious.com
London (UK) charges for car journeys on all city roads, not sure how
it works, and our people here are thinking of doing the same. (Oh, in
Dublin.. now, if we could charge for people using London roads, oh,
joy!)
--
Greymaus
Just Another Grumpy Old man
Lawrence Statton
> k_f...@lycos.com wrote:
> > Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> >> Lawrence Statton wrote:
> >>> Objection, your honor -- assuming facts not in evidence. The state
> >>> must demonstrate that the person who was driving as we passed through
> >>> the second toll gate was, in fact, the driver who is alleged to have
> >>> committed the offence.
> >>>
> >> Yeah, yeah. The same when you are stopped for speeding by highway
> >> patrol car.
> > I think that was the point of his objection. It's not the same. The
> > highway patrol officer who stops you can verify that you are the
> > driver. The ticket reading machine at the toll booth cannot.
> >
> But in my posting I also wrote:
> "If it's an EZPass booth there would
> need to be a way of stopping offending vehicles and an
> attendant to identify drivers and issue tickets. :)
> At toll booths with human attendants that's covered. :) "
>
> So why is the toll booth attendant a less acceptable witness
> as to who is driving at the time that the car stops (is stopped)?
Because the person who was driving when the car stops may NOT have
been the person driving when the car was moving in excess of the
limit.
It is a question of specificity -- a gedankenexperiment if you will:
On a 150 mile stretch of turnpike, the posted limit is 60 miles per
hour and the "tolerance limit" is 70 mph. (I know these are not the
precise values, but it makes the math easier. Mulitplying or dividing
by 1.083 where appropriate is left as an exercise to the reader.)
Driver 1 begins the trip and drives for 30 miles over 30 minutes,
averaging 60 miles per hour (some time was spent getting settled in,
and going up and down hills, but say for sake of argument he never
exceeded 65 mph). At the rest stop they pick up a friend whose car
broke down.
Driver 2, a real bat-out-of-hell driver takes over and covers 90 miles
in 60 minutes. (d/t = 90 mph)
Finally Driver 3, a timid sort who gets nervous at Driver 2's risk
taking demands to finish the trip, and covers the final 30 miles in
thirty minutes having left driver 2 at the Sbarro's near the gas
station. (d/t = 60 mph).
Total distance is 150 miles over 2 hours ( 75 mph ). Toll taker at
the end of the stretch says, "HaHAH -- You were speeding at some
point." But there is a big bucket of reasonable doubt as to the
elements of the offense - a lack of specificity as to both time and
place and most importantly: Person.
Now -- since the entire thread started with AUTOMATING this process -
there is no human at the end-point - just a machine issuing an
automated summons.
Finally, in the jurisdiction I have the most experience (California),
the operation of such a system would be in violation of VC Section
40802 prima facie, itself a criminal act.
--
Lawrence Statton - lawre...@abaluon.abaom s/aba/c/g
Computer software consists of only two components: ones and
zeros, in roughly equal proportions. All that is required is to
place them into the correct order.
Charlie Gibbs
rsh...@gmail.com (pigst...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Good grief this is probably the most ridiculous dicsussion I have ever
> seen.
Then why are you sticking around?
Wait... I'll fix it for you (at least on my end)...
*plonk*
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!