Real ID
Google Cookies
EFF
Social Networking
The response:
Google Link
The following is the full and complete text of the provided link:
Google resolve crumbles on ‘cookies’ pledge
By Richard Waters in San Francisco
Published: April 21 2008 00:03 | Last updated: April 21 2008 00:03
Google has failed to make any headway in dealing with one of the most controversial issues of online privacy, despite promising a year ago that it would take the lead in tackling the problem.
The lack of progress points to a broader resistance in the internet industry to making significant changes to a practice central to online advertising but which critics say exposes web users to potential invasions of privacy.
I can only deduce that this article in some way deals with a promise that Google made in regards to the way that cookies are distributed or stored. My problem with this link, especially in the context of the other readings that will be discussed, is the fact that it is not entirely viewable without going through a “it’s quick, free and without obligation...” registration process. If the registration process is in fact quick, free, and without obligation, than what purpose could it possibly have? If I were to register, I would most likely use fake information with no ties to my actual identity. With that being said, I don’t want even my alias to be associated with this worthless online drivel. My inbox does not need fifty-thousand more NO OBLIGATION “increase your breast size by one full cup” registration emails.
Real ID Act or: How I decided to stop giving a shit and just move to Europe.
While I had initially intended the Dr. Strangelove addendum as a veiled, albeit thinly, attempt at some humor, I became intrigued. In light of this, I decided to Google ‘”real id” AND “dr Strangelove”’ and came across a very interesting Daily Kos article. For those not in the know, Daily Kos is a political blog that has risen to super-uber-mega-internet-powerhouse status and become the premier political blog on the internet. The article (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/23/14321/1510) details many of the things about the Real ID Act that author smintheus finds aggravating. While he has a penchant for using words that the Average Joe (see: booboisie) would need a dictionary to understand (see also: nascent, draconian, onerous, et. Al), /* I’ve been reading Palahniuk as of late and his penchant for word interjections amuses me. */ he makes quite a few very valid points.
The real question becomes, what does the Daily Kos article have to do with the Wiki entry about the Real ID Act? Other than providing a scathing criticism of the act itself, it provides real world reactions to the “addendum.” While the Wiki entry establishes the history of Real ID and some of its implications, it is obtuse and even difficulty verbose at times. The Daily Kos article provides big words, humor, fun, and even Board of Directors presentation approved graphics (eat your heart out IT security presentations, this one has nasty red triangles and multiple colors).
Essentially, Real ID is a program that takes identification policies out of the hands of the individual states, currently responsible for driver’s licenses, id cards, etc., and places it in the hands of the Federal Government. It was signed into law in 2005 with an institution period of two years. This was then postponed twice, each time for an additional two years. Currently, it is not supposed to be “in effect” until 2011 and is provisioned as follows:
After 2011, "a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless the state is meeting the requirements" specified in the REAL ID Act. States remain free to also issue non-complying licenses and IDs, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose. The federal Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security check-in at airports, so bearers of non-compliant documents would no longer be able to travel on common carrier aircraft without additional screening. (Wikipedia)
Six years might seem pretty ridiculous for a bill to become a law (Schoolhouse Rock was apparently lying), but not as ridiculous as the path it took to become a law in the first place. Normally, a bill takes a process like the one depicted in this picture:
This bill however had a little “smoothing over” (ala the photoshopping) and went something like this:
Clearly, the process by which it was even CONSIDERED to become a law is ridiculous, but that isn’t even the best part. A number of states (Illinois included) have flat-out refused to comply with this law, these states can be found with the angry red triangles on the Daily Kos map. One of the most notable refusals was Montana’s Governor who had this to say about the refusal to comply, “Montana governor Brian Schweitzer declared victory Friday after the Department of Homeland Security sent his state an extension to the Real ID act, despite his insistence Montana will never comply with a mandate he describes as a "boondoggle." "If I were writing the headline, it would be 'DHS Blinks," Schweitzer, a Democrat, told THREAT LEVEL by phone late Friday” (Daily Kos). He clearly opposes the institution of such a “law” if he is going to fervently use made-up words like “boondoggle.” Though opposition seems to be the general tone throughout these articles, and as that is my stance, it makes it QUITE difficult to argue about anything.
ATT & The NSA
Again, I find it quite difficult to argue about a good portion of the points made by the EFF in this article. However, given their penchant for defending the “Average Joe” I am quite surprised at the amount of consideration they are willing to give to the telecommunication companies in regards to their actions. I suppose this shouldn’t be all that surprising given that they are not the ACLU, but I still found it quite troubling. The fact that the EFF is essentially willing to give ATT the benefit of the doubt, and allow certain legislative accommodations to be made regarding their prosecution of their offenses is asinine in my opinion.
The most critical points of this particular article are clearly discernable from the included rubric, as well as being defined by the frequent presence of repeated statements and largely bolded words. That being said, it would be a waste of my precious digital paper space to reiterate what has already been said. Keeping all of this in mind, I do have one important question that occurred to me after reading all of these articles again. How it that these articles can mention FISA, ECPA, The Wiretap Act, and the Fourth Amendment, with absolutely NO mention of The Patriot Act? The Patriot Act is the “elephant in the room” when it comes to privacy in the digital age and is especially pertinent when it comes to bastardization of civil liberties in regards to digital rights. Any “Government Spying” act and I use that term VERY loosely, that has TWO “miscellaneous provisions” sections cannot be good for the welfare of the general population. As if that wasn’t enough, there are eight additional clauses in “The Act” that afford Papa Bush the ability to pretty much do whatever the hell he damn well pleases in the name of “National Security.” The fact that a paragraph long response to said government legislation requires obscene use of quotation should be evidence enough of the ridiculous nature of the entire thing.
Clearly I’m not the only one that thinks this way because SURPRISE, the ACLU is on board too. http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html is a website document detailing the ACLU suing of the NSA in 2007 in regards to illegal domestic wiretapping. You didn’t think you were alone did you EFF? Of course this was again dismissed and appealed, and dismissed, and appealed (IS ANYONE ELSE GETTING THE PICTURE HERE?) into legal purgatory. However, the ACLU seemed to have a little bit more success because:
On June 27, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to the White House, Vice President and the Justice Department for documents about this warrantless surveillance program. After missing a second deadline in August, Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) declared he would move towards holding the adminstration in contempt. In October, after nearly four months without meaningful reply, the ACLU once again asked the Committee to go forward with contempt proceedings against White House officials for refusing to cooperate with the subpoenas and reminded Congress of its constitutional authority to do so. (ACLU)
Still, the issue remains cemented in some sort of legislative limbo and will probably never see the inside of courtroom during the tenure of the current administration.
Social Networking Privacy
Privacy? What privacy? If you are publishing your personal information on the Internet, you shouldn’t be stupid enough to think that other people can’t find it. Additionally, Fakebook and BullshitSpace both provide options for privatizing certain areas of your profile from non-friends, as well as allowing access to be restricted to users of your choosing. FURTHERMORE, who ever said you couldn’t use a pseudonym to access these sites? Maybe three years ago when Zuckerberg (pre-sellout) required a school e-mail address for Facebook, but this has not been an issue for quite some time. If people don’t want to get busted for having underage drinking parties, they shouldn’t put the pictures on the damned Internet. Sure, it is the job of the corporation to protect your information from “baddies” on the internet, but it is YOUR job to limit the information in the first place. If you don’t want people to know that you are a nineteen year old male who smokes, drinks, and does crack, then DON’T PUT THAT SHIT ON THE INTERNET.
~Me
