It’s Finally Not Illegal to Sell Sex Toys in Texas
Posted in Commentary, News, Personal Interest, Privacy
Sunday, August 3rd, 2008 by James S. Huggins

Every now and then, government politely gives us a lesson in one of the many ways to do things that really aren’t government’s business. It is good to watch for these. After all, the United States of America exists, in part, because Mother England kept trying to do things that really weren’t any government’s business.

The 01.Aug.2008 issue of the Houston Chronicle carries this story
“State loses attempt to argue anew for sex toy ban”
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5919987.html 

I wonder how many of my tax dollars we spent trying to protect me.

In the comments of that article, I was alerted to a film entitled “Dildo Diaries”. It’s for sale. It is 63 minutes long. But an 11 minute excerpt is available for free on You Tube here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXUUsDGxkU

Free Credit Report and Free Credit Monitoring
Posted in Freebies, Privacy
Sunday, June 1st, 2008 by James S. Huggins

TransUnion (one of the big 3 credit bureaus) has lost a huge class action lawsuit … about $10 Billion dollars worth.

If you have used a credit card or carried any kind of debt or loan account in the past 21 years you probably qualify for a free credit report and free credit monitoring as part of this lawsuit.

This is worth about $60 to you. 

The settlement is expected to get final approval in September. But, starting June 16, you can go to www.listclassaction.com to participate in the settlement by filing a claim. 

Consumerwatch warns people not to respond to emails claiming to be from TransUnion. It could be a trick by spammers posing as the credit agency and going after your private information. TransUnion said it will only communicate through that website. 

For more information:

http://cbs2.com/consumer/Credit.report.TransUnion.2.737321.html 

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/30/straight_story

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcred315708532may31,0,2654628.story 

http://consumerist.com/tag/class-actions/?i=5012004&t=massive-transunion-settlement-to-reveal-credit-scores

Identity Theft Isn’t Theft at All
Posted in News, Personal Interest, Privacy
Friday, May 23rd, 2008 by James S. Huggins

For some time I’ve ranted that “Identity Theft” is not theft at all … it is fraud.

I believe that financial institutions and credit bureaus love the term “identity theft” because it seems to make the victim responsible.

But identity thieves didn’t steal your identity. Rather they committed what a new working paper from Harvard Business School — An Empirical Approach to Understanding Privacy Valuation — calls “impersonation fraud”.

The paper refers to a great article — Mitigating Identity Theft by Bruce Scheiner — that goes into this in more detail.

It is not identity theft. And, as Schiener points out, we should not expect individuals to solve the problem.

The very term “identity theft” is an oxymoron. Identity is not a possession that can be acquired or lost; it’s not a thing at all. Someone’s identity is the one thing about a person that cannot be stolen.

The real crime here is fraud; more specifically, impersonation leading to fraud. Impersonation is an ancient crime, but the rise of information-based credentials gives it a modern spin.

Scheiner has a monthly newsletter, Crypto-Gram and a great blog as well.

I’m Against Immunity for the Telecoms
Posted in Advocacy, Commentary, News, Privacy
Friday, February 1st, 2008 by James S. Huggins

I am totally and completely against President Bush’s attempt to excuse Ma Bell, Verizon and others for helping the government spy on us. The law says that if they have the proper court order they are already excused. And if they don’t, they shouldn’t have done it and should be held accountable.

There is a reason it is illegal for companies to help the government do illegal things. There are fundamental reasons not to excuse it.

Keith Olbermann recent Special Comment says even more.

(Depending on your browser security settings, may need to click twice to start the video. If you are receiving this via email, or want to open the YouTube page with the video, just click here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wZ_kK8OOp4M)

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment Regarding FISA
    By Keith Olbermann
    MSNBC Countdown

    Thursday 31 January 2008

    Transcript

    And finally, as promised, a Special Comment - of FISA and the telecoms.

    In a presidency of hypocrisy - an administration of exploitation - a labyrinth of leadership - in which every vital fact is a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma hidden under a claim of executive privilege supervised by an idiot - this one… is surprisingly easy.

    President Bush has put protecting the telecom giants from the laws… ahead of protecting you from the terrorists.

    He has demanded an extension of the FISA law - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - but only an extension that includes retroactive immunity for the telecoms who helped him spy on you.

    Congress has given him, and he has today signed a fifteen-day extension which simply kicks the time bomb down the field, and has changed nothing of his insipid rhetoric, in which he portrays the Democrats as ’soft on terror’ and getting in the way of his superhuman efforts to protect the nation… when, in fact, and with bitter irony, if anybody is ’soft on terror’ here… it is Mr. Bush.

    In the State of the Union Address, sir, you told Congress, “if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger.”

    Yet you are willing to weaken that ability!

    You will subject us, your citizens, to that greater danger.

    This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough even for you to understand: If Congress approves a new FISA act without telecom immunity and sends it to your desk and you veto it - you, by your own terms and your own definitions, you will have just sided with the terrorists.

    Ya gotta have this law, or we’re all gonna die. But you might veto this law!

    It’s bad enough, sir, that you are demanding an ex post facto law which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive, and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans, under the flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.

    But when you then demanded again, during the State of the Union address, that Congress retroactively clear the Verizons and the AT&T’s, you wouldn’t even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared!

    ”The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America.”

    Believed?

    Don’t you know?

    Does the endless hair-splitting of your presidential fine print, extend even here?

    If you, sir, are asking Congress, and us, to join you in this shameless, breathless, literal, textbook example of fascism - the merged efforts of government and corporations who answer to no government - you still don’t have the guts to even say the telecom companies did assist you, in your efforts?

    Will you and the equivocators who surround you like a cocoon never go on the record about anything?

    Even the stuff you claim to believe in?

    Silly me.

    Of course Mr. Bush is going to say “believed.”

    Yes, it sounds dumber than if he had referred to himself as “the alleged president,” or had said today was “reportedly Thursday,” or had claimed “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq.

    But the moment he says anything else, any doubt that the telecoms knowingly broke the law, is out the window, and with it, any chance that even the Republicans who are fighting this like they were trying to fend off terrorists using nothing but broken beer bottles and swear words couldn’t consent to retroactively immunize corporate criminals.

    Which is why the Vice President probably shouldn’t have phoned in to the Rush Limbaugh Propaganda-Festival yesterday.

    Sixth sentence out of Mr. Cheney’s mouth: The FISA bill is about, quote, “retroactive liability protection for the companies that have worked with us and helped us prevent further attacks against the United States.”

    Oops.

    Mr. Cheney is something of a loose cannon, of course.

    But he kind of let the wrong cat out of the bag there.

    Because Mr. Bush - and the corporations he values more than people - didn’t want anybody to verify what Mark Klein says.

    Mark Klein is the AT&T whistleblower who appeared on this newscast last November, who explained, in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood I-T desk, how he personally attached all of AT&T’s circuits - everything carrying every phone call, every e-mail, every bit of web browsing - into a secure room…

    …Room Number 641-A, at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco - where it was all copied so the government could look at it.

    Not some of it; not just the international part of it; certainly not just the stuff some truly patriotic and telepathic spy might be able to divine had been sent or spoken by or to a terrorist.

    Everything.

    Every time you looked at a naked picture, every time you bid on eBay, every time you phoned-in a donation to a Democrat.

    ”My thought was ‘George Orwell’s 1984,’” Mr. Klein told me, reflecting back, “and here I am, being forced to… connect the Big Brother machine.”

    You know, Mr. Bush, if Mr. Klein’s “Big Brother Machine” - the one the Vice President conveniently just confirmed for us - if it was of any damn use at all at actually finding anything, you could probably program it to find out who started that slanderous e-mail about Barack Obama.

    Use Room 641-A to identify that E–assassin, sir, and I’ll stand up and applaud you.

    Yeah, I’m holding my breath on that one, too.

    But of course, sir, this isn’t about finding that kind of needle in a haystack. This isn’t even about finding a haystack. This is about scooping up every piece of hay there ever was, and laying the groundwork for the next little job which you have to outsource to AT&T and Verizon.

    It was your Director of National Intelligence, Mr. McConnell, letting this one out of the same bag.

    The need for Homeland Security to stave off cyber-attacks against the government’s computer networks.

    And how do they do that, sir?

    By constantly monitoring the internet - the whole internet.

    And who actually, physically, does that, Mr. Bush?

    Right. The same telecom giants for whom you want immunity - Quickly. So quickly, you wouldn’t believe it.

    Because this previous domestic spying, and this upcoming policing of the internet - they may be completely evil, indiscriminate, unlawful. So you have to dress it up, as something just the opposite.

    It isn’t evil… it’s “to protect America.”

    It isn’t indiscriminate… it’s “the ability to monitor terrorist communications.”

    It isn’t unlawful… it’s just the kind of perfectly legal thing, for which you happen to need immunity!

    There’s yet another level to this, and here we move from Big Brother… to Sleazy Son.

    Mr. Bush’s new Attorney General, Mr. Mukasey, the one who has already taken four different positions on water-boarding, and who may yet tie that record on this subject of telecom immunity - he has a very personal stake in this.

    There happens to be a partner in the law firm of Bracewell and Giuliani, named Marc Mukasey. And Bracewell and Giuliani and the Attorney General’s son Marc, just happen to represent… Verizon.

    You know, Verizon - Telecom Giant.

    And all of a sudden this is no longer just a farce in which “protecting the telecoms” is dressed up for us as, ‘protecting us from terrorist conference calls.’

    Now it begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich trying to protect the Krupp Family industrial giants by literally re-writing the laws for their benefit.

    And we know how that turned out: Alfried Krupp and eleven of his directors were convicted of War Crimes at Nuremburg.

    Nevertheless.

    For those of us watching a President demanding this very specific law (the one the Germans had was called the “Lex Krupp”) there is one surprising bit of comfort in all this:

    Clearly, Mr. Bush is at his hyperbolic worst here.

    Consider how his former chief of staff Andy Card came on and scolded Chris Matthews and me after the State of the Union address.

    ”The President’s address tonight was very important,” Card said, “because it really was a sobering call to reality for us.

    ”And the reality is, we have an enemy who wants to hurt us. The primary job of the president to protect us.

    ”He talked about protecting us. He talked about the needs to have the tools to protect us.”

    Indeed, Mr. Bush.

    The primary job of any president is to protect us.

    Not just those of us who own Internet and Telephone companies - All of us.

    And even you, sir, with your intermittent grasp of reality… even with your ego greater than a 100-percent approval rating… even with your messianic petulance - even you could not truly choose to protect the corporations instead of the people.

    I am not talking about ethics here. I am talking about blame.

    Even if it’s you throwing out the baby with the bathwater, Mr. Bush, it still means we can safely conclude… there is no baby!

    This is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution, or protecting the people from terrorists, sir.

    It is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution, or pretending to protect the people from terrorists.

    Sorry, Mr. Bush. The eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat, the thwarting of which could hinge on an e-mail or a phone call going through room 641-A at AT&T in San Francisco next week or next month.

    Because if there were, Mr. Bush, and you were to, by your own hand, veto an extension of this eavesdropping, and some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists, you would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people, you would not merely be guilty of stupidity, you would not merely be guilty of treason… but you would be personally, and eternally, responsible.

    And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again under any and all circumstances, it is that you are never responsible.

    Good night and good luck.

(Transcript courtesy of Truthout.org)

May I See Your Papers Please - How the Immigration Law Will Create a National ID
Posted in Advocacy, News, Privacy
Wednesday, June 27th, 2007 by James S. Huggins

The feds tried it with drivers licenses. The Real ID Act wants to mandate that every state create a driver’s license so complex it would be a nightmare to administer. State after state (16 so far) is saying “no”.

Now they are doing the same thing using immigration as the justification. I mean, you want to be sure that only real Americans get work don’t you? Don’t you? Then you won’t mind if we create a new national ID to be sure. But don’t worry. It can’t hurt you … at least not any more than that old Social Security Number can. It will only be used for this one thing. And I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Check out this analysis from Caroline Fredrickson (director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office):

Immigration is a hot topic these days, and everyone seems to be talking about the many problems with the Senate’s immigration reform bill. Unfortunately, for some reason there has been very little talk about several of the bill’s key provisions that would undermine the civil liberties of all Americans.

For instance, Title III of the bill expands the error-plagued Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS), creating a vast federal database to verify the eligibility to work of all job applicants in America — including U.S. citizens. This expansive system would contain extraordinary amounts of personal information on everyone who seeks or holds a job, all of it keyed to a person’s Social Security number. If the immigration bill passes as written, all Americans will need to have their eligibility to work approved by the Department of Homeland Security. Invariably, DHS will confuse the files of people with similar names or use outdated or erroneous information to deny people the right to work, creating a ‘No Work List’ similar to the government’s ‘No Fly List.’ They have testified that they will need to “manually reverify” the work-eligibility of eight percent of all workers.

EEVS itself is based on the abject failure known as the Basic Pilot Verification System, used by only 16,000 of the nation’s 8.4 million employers. Technological snafus, database errors and bureaucratic bungling in that pilot project have caused, and will continue to cause, delays and financial losses to both employers and potential employees. Expanding this program nationwide will only exacerbate these problems.

Bad enough? I don’t think so.

There is another amendment from Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). If it passes, it would require every American to carry a “hardened” Social Security card containing the their personal, biometric information like their DNA or fingerprint. With this amendment you could be force to carry not one, but two, national ID cards — a Real ID compliant drivers’ license and the “hardened” Social Security card. As Fredrickson notes:

These IDs would become a key part of a system of identity papers, databases, status and identity checks and access control points — an “internal passport” that would be used to track and control law-abiding Americans’ movements and activities.

If you think it’s a bad idea, you can make a difference. Make a call. See here for info: https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?alertId=303&pg=makeACall 

And don’t say I didn’t warn you.

How Secure Are Your Credit Cards?
Posted in Humor, Privacy
Wednesday, May 30th, 2007 by James S. Huggins

Think all that “security” really matters?

Check these pranks.

The Visa Prank
http://www.zug.com/pranks/visa

The Credit Card Prank
http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/

The Credit Card Prank II
http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit_card/

The Credit Card Criminal
http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit-cards/

How TJX Gave Away Credit Card Numbers, Driver’s License Numbers, Military Identification and Social Security Numbers
Posted in Privacy
Saturday, May 5th, 2007 by James S. Huggins

This Wall Street Journal article tells the story of the massive TJX information theft which may have compromised as many as 200 million credit card numbers.

How did it happen? TJX did not have basic wireless security installed to protect the wireless data they were sending between hand-held price-checking devices, cash registers and the store’s computers.

The $17.4-billion retailer’s [Marshall's] wireless network had less security than many people have on their home networks, and for 18 months the company — which also owns T.J. Maxx, Home Goods and A.J. Wright — had no idea what was going on.

investigators now believe, hackers pointed a telescope-shaped antenna toward the store and used a laptop computer to decode data streaming through the air



 

Click here to receive updates to my blog via email

Add to Yahoo Reader Add to Google Reader or Homepage Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe in Rojo Add My Ephemerae to Newsburst from CNET News.com Add to My AOL Subscribe in FeedLounge Add to netvibes Subscribe in Bloglines Add to The Free Dictionary Add to Plusmo Subscribe in NewsAlloy Add to Excite MIX Add to netomat Hub Add to Webwag Add to Attensa Add My Ephemerae to ODEO Subscribe in podnova Subscribe using PodCastReady.com Add to Pageflakes