Comments on: Off The Radar

By: jakykong

jakykong — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:19:21 +0000

Evilkritter, most likely, nobody will care, other than you. However, if you manage to get on someone’s naughty list. Maybe you wrote a paper critical of the government (You terrorist you!), then that information is there for the taking. Data mining is an art form, it always has been. Even before computers, most of this information was easily tracked. Perhaps not methodically, but if you live in a small town where everybody depends on everybody for survival, it’s hard to keep secrets. Even if we ignore the wireless technology, tracking is easy enough. It’s one cost of living in a society. How far does it have to go? Well, I don’t think corporations or governments will have any problem tracking us, because Twitter and Facebook have taken the work off of their hands. If nobody bothers to exercise privacy, then the few people who *do* try stand out like a sore thumb. ————- (I wish this comment thing could do newlines) I encrypt my hard drive. I’m not particularly paranoid, I just don’t like people peeping at my files. It’s the same reason I have a lock on my file cabinet, or put my letters in an envelope before sending them. I also encrypt my e-mail and web traffic whenever reasonably possible. Why not? Nobody else needs to know what is there, so it’s an easy (1-2-3 easy) extra step toward privacy. However, since I’m one of a very select group of people to do that, I look suspicious, I stand out. ———- By the way, for anyone interested, encrypting your hard drive is easy. For windows machines, look up TrueCrypt. For Linux machines, look up Loop-aes. I’m sorry I don’t know about Macs. Great machines in general, but far outside of my budget. :)

By: Evilkritter

Evilkritter — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:08:03 +0000

I am probably stupid for admitting this, but having no privacy doesn’t worry me that much.

Who is going to spend that much time tracking someone? Who is actually going to see that information? Who will actually care? It is unlikely that someone will track you down, or devote the time and effort to see everything you have done. With that much time an effort, they might as well be following you…except that they are less likely to be caught.

In the long run, you are safe unless someone decides to get you personally.

Wait…

By: waecool

waecool — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:14:35 +0000

i have played this game called metal gear solid 4 and, well, in the game EVERYONE is tagged with nanotechnology h to know where you are what you are doing even what you are thinking, and yes, all the cloths weapons etc. are also tagged, so someone knows every thing about every one, and it’ll just be creepy if that happens in real life, and in the game… the chips are ALLOT smaller, and, there’s more then one, and, there putt in your blood stream, so the only way to get rid of them is to well. its impossible, well, unless you die, then they are disabled.

By: Matt Filmer

Matt Filmer — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:39:18 +0000

George Orwell wrote 1984 in the year 1948, not in the year 1984. I am curious as to why he posted on this site in 1984 when he wasnt even alive, he died in 1950…

By: Meandering

Meandering — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:33:17 +0000

I figure people are watching me already, so if they really are I am prepared for them.

By: steph

steph — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:55:58 +0000

woah do i see glenn beck comenting!! omg glenn your awesome!! i love your show!!
but i am willing to give away my privacy to be secure. implant me now!
again i glenn you rule!!

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 13 May 2008 01:37:58 +0000

Your worry about not being able to find or remove the small RFID chips is relatively unfounded. First, finding them is easy since by definition they must respond to the RFID equipment. Removing them might be hard, but rendering them harmless isn’t too hard (there is a machine at nearly every checkout that will do that using EMP, and a microwave oven will work as well).

However, if you are targeted specifically then you are in trouble because they will use RFID chips that are not in the normal range of RFID readers, so you won’t be able to trigger them to transmit without the specific frequency target. Also, RFID tags have been read over 65 feet away with special equipment, so it’s not true that you have to be in close proximity (we’re not talking about store checkouts here, we’re talking spy gear).

So, while you don’t really need to be afraid of commercial RFID, the technology could easily be misused.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:34:13 +0000

Creepy. It was 6:66 when I watched this.

By: The Brothers Winn

The Brothers Winn — Sat, 10 May 2008 18:13:41 +0000

Bryan and Tyler H – you are both correct. Most GPS devices that give you directions from point A to point B are receivers and can’t be used as locators. But OnStar, Lo-Jack and other GPS-based tracking systems can. We actually mean the latter, and should have been more specific than just saying “GPS”. Also, due to the rising thefts of GPS systems, most manufacturers are looking at putting tracking capability in what are now “read-only” devices.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 10 May 2008 09:24:32 +0000

“Tyler H
I thought GPS were read only devices? Meaning they don’t transmit their own signal, they simply pick up radio signals transmited by satellite and do some crazy trig to determine location.”

Systems such as GM’s onstar uses gps to find the location of the vehicle if there is an accident or other emergencies. The gps maps such as tomtom, which is what I think you’re talking about work differently.

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Sat, 10 May 2008 01:11:29 +0000

I remember when I was a kid in the store with my big brother and I stuck a CD alarm sticker on the back of his shirt…He walked out through the detectors and Beeeeep! He was questioned and had his bag searched(lol) He didn’t find the sticker so I placed it under the sole of his shoe’s later that night… Every time he went to a store with those shoes on he would get harassed and he never could find it! I thought it was funny but you can see how easy it could be!

By: madpoet

madpoet — Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:26 +0000

Frankly, this seems pretty timely. Whether or not the U.S. or any government has benevolent interests now, that’s not to say that the government always will have benevolent interests, or even that the information being gathered is 100% secure.
Remember the episode a few days ago about food, and how Janet Reno wanted to keep an eye on anyone interested in food storage?

Yeah…

And remember how we keep hearing these stories about government laptops with people’s personal information on them being lost or stolen. I mean, ignoring the obvious question of why that information was on a laptop in the first place…

Yeah…

Insert plug for Cory Doctorow’s new book, Little Brother, available as a free download at http://craphound.com/littlebrother/ HERE. It’s already got me doing more research into privacy, and refreshed my interest in cryptography.

Anyway, great show.

By: Lodinkinni

Lodinkinni — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:54:44 +0000

If you aren’t an african or european swallow….do you still carry coconuts?

By: Tyler H

Tyler H — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:41:20 +0000

I thought GPS were read only devices? Meaning they don’t transmit their own signal, they simply pick up radio signals transmited by satellite and do some crazy trig to determine location.

By: Laura B

Laura B — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:37:01 +0000

Glenn Beck….no kidding, take the chip or off with you’re head!

By: Laura B

Laura B — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:34:00 +0000

I find this tech very problematic. It can have uses for both “good” and “evil”, just depending on who has control of it.

By: Anonymous GI

Anonymous GI — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:03:20 +0000

I loved the african or european swallow line.

By: NeuroBallroomNinja

NeuroBallroomNinja — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:50:35 +0000

I think I’ve found a way to beat the system. I don’t wear designer clothing; in fact, some of my clothing were actually taylor made for me while I was living in the Dominican Republic so I know they’re clean (relatively speaking), I don’t own a car or a cell phone, and I only use my debit card at the supermarket or on campus (which doesn’t exactly tell you much). Take that Neo-Fascism!!!!

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:59:42 +0000

Kiernan, please stop spamming us with your site. It’s getting annoying.

By: Kiernan Holland

Kiernan Holland — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:08:36 +0000

Check this out.. This is soooooooooo cooooooool:
http://www.chann3lz.com/?code=1PdN2XYkRnU

By: Kiernan Holland

Kiernan Holland — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:41:57 +0000

BTW check out this cool Thai Music Video:
http://www.chann3lz.com/?code=Z3gsD6Nr2vg

Oh it’s FeedJit, where you get those cool maps that show everyone on your site and what they are looking at..

By: Kiernan Holland

Kiernan Holland — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:37:11 +0000

I found my moms house on google maps via street view.
She told me her house is one zillow.com as well, it’s a site that tells people the estimated price of everyones houses and properties, and gives people four directional perspectives on the properties (I am not kidding).

As for ids in underwear, the sensors for RFID must be fairly close to the RFID’s to be effective, you can’t read them clear across the room. Also, the greater the density of transmitters, the harder it is to collect the id information. So even if you could, you’d be having to tell all the other RFID’s to shut up..

As for Cellphones, yep, they can use several methods to locate your cellphone, without the aid of a GPS feature. If three cellphone towers can determine the direction of of your cellphones ping, the point of intersection of there rays is where your cellphone is. However, I’ve thought up ideas about how to use cellphones to fight terrorism even.

You didn’t talk about Bluetooth did you? It has the potential to connect with 7 devices in a 10 yard radius.

GPS only works well if you are within plainview of what is it 7 satelites? I think the minimum is 4.. That should theoretically give your location and altitude.

Check out my site:
http://www.chann3lz.com/

It us registration and loginless, and anyone can moderate the site, however if I catch anyone excessively trashing or adding videos in the hundreds in a day, I will ban you by IP address. Got that?

BTW, don’t bother to check out the little map below showing the approximare locations of all those visiting my “chann3l” site..

By: MrSketch09

MrSketch09 — Fri, 09 May 2008 09:55:57 +0000

Do I think there has to be a trade off between technology and privacy no; Not really. It just so happens the possibility are their and are being used in a good way as well as being exploited.

Personally I don’t think our government is trying to do bad things. But I don’t think there the smartest lot in the bunch either. And as a general rule of thumb, like with anyone, I don’t trust them as far as I could throw them.

And in response to the above “well if you’ve done nothing wrong you should have nothing to fear argument, and they should be allowed to do whatever they want bs” (Our fed government is a body of people which by no means has had a perfect record, in honesty, or in always working for the people)

My point of view on that is, if you’ve done nothing wrong then you DESERVE to have your privacy be respected and rights respected.

I thought it was innocent until proven guilty. But its your guilty till proven innocent.

This is the same damn system that was in kindergarten when I was in school. One kid do something bad, they always used the blanket system. Everyone got punished. Load of BS.

As for ad agencies, if I have to deal with ads no matter what, I would rather have ads tailored to me, then ads talking about woman products or cigarettes.

Of course this is my humble opinion take it as a grain of salt.

By: Johnny O

Johnny O — Fri, 09 May 2008 09:49:20 +0000

If they are going to put devices in my clothing I just wont wear clothing. YEAH! IM FINALLY FREE OF THE BONDAGE OF CLOTHING. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 09 May 2008 09:27:14 +0000

In response to Alex’s post. The argument that only criminals should fear the technology and that if you aren’t doing anything wrong you should be ok with it isn’t a good argument. Are you willing to have the government put cameras in your home? Only people doing illegal things would have anything to worry about. I know that is a little extreme but I hope you see the point. However, what if the police decide that they want to use your car’s gps system to track if you’re speeding? What if, because of the sites you visit on the internet, you might be a little to radical and decide that they should keep a closer eye on you? The government has already been accused of using the Patriot Act for other than it’s intended reasons. Do you really trust them to not abuse this kind of technology as well?
Even if all the technology was used as it was meant to be used, you have no private life. Every purchase, all your movements, everything you do is available to someone. It may not seem like a big deal to you but to some of us it is. Of course, no one who shouldn’t have that information would ever get it. I mean, no one’s ever illegally accessed thousands of people’s credit card info by hacking into a data base.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 09 May 2008 07:03:46 +0000

It’s one of the dangers of modern society. You want to be safe, but you also want to be private. I understand that people fear that criminals might obtain their information and misuse it. There are a lot of crooks in the world.
What I don’t get is how people are afraid of their government misusing this information. The only people who have to fear for this are criminals. People who break the law. And we make the law (as we are a democracy)…. theoretically.
The only thing I do really fear for is advertising agencies using my information. These people are really unscrupulous. I already have a true hate for them and I fear that if they would know everything about my life they would even know they could make it a living hell for me.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 09 May 2008 04:10:12 +0000

This could be compared to trading freedom for security…actually, its close to it. In which case I can quote Ben Franklin (although i might be laughed at): “Those willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both.” or something like that. just replace freedom with privacy and replace security with either technology or “comfort” and i guess you have it…just my slightly less than two cents.

By: John from NIU

John from NIU — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:47:59 +0000

yeah this sucks.
hopefully, resistance to this tracking technology in the open market will quell it…..hopefully.

By: Crono

Crono — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:34:05 +0000

I guess its just as hard to avoid as it is easy to being trackable. With everything slowly becoming wireless, even the handheld consols. Everything can be altered. You can get a program that will give out false IPs, you can turn off your cellphones. I’m pretty sure to anything that gives away your privacy, there will be someone saying you can keep it.. at a price. Hey, if it makes money, it can be done.

By: Ali

Ali — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:41:57 +0000

I kind of agree with Nester, or at least hope that is the case. As long as people don’t start putting microchips in me , I am fairly alright with it.

By: Christian

Christian — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:34:36 +0000

when this happens Emp devices will be the most sold item on the black market

and we are sooo doomed

By: Nester

Nester — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:24:00 +0000

Well, it’s hard, if not impossible to function in today’s society without being monitored or tracked. In that sense, I guess I’ll have to endure it regardless. However, the silver lining to this 1984 cloud is that there are so many of us, and so much data that it’s unlikely anyone cares about what you or I are doing. So statistically we’re fairly anonymous in that way. Of course for the few unlucky ones.. I just hope nothing personal was monitored…

By: Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:21:14 +0000

Well im mostly fine until they wan to put it on my hand or forehead but besides no need to worry AHH THEY GOT M…………7y 7ytyhgbvt

By: George Orwell

George Orwell — Sun, 01 Jan 1984 23:14:04 +0000

... It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran. ... click here for complete post