Eric Schmidt might advocate for making information “even more open and accessible,” but not when it comes to his mistresses. We’re told the Google CEO’s aggressive lawyers brought down ex-girlfriend Kate Bohner‘s online recovery diary this weekend.
We flagged the blog on Friday, reporting that Bohner had repeatedly mentioned Schmidt in a blog tied to a planned book about her recovery from alcohol and drug addiction, and predicting Schmidt, who is married, wouldn’t be thrilled.
Bohner removed the site after threats from Schmidt’s lawyers this weekend, according to a source close to the situation.
“When a billionaire threatens you, you get in line,” this person said.
It made for a frightening weekend for Bohner, and no wonder: Not only is the former CNBC and Forbes journalist trying to come to terms with her sobriety and past addiction, she doesn’t appear to be swimming in the money it would take to mount a plausible legal challenge to a powerful and well-connected tech executive worth $4 billion. A public records search indicates her four-month-old pad in Delray Beach, Florida is the latest in a series of apartments and, according to a sign visible on Google Maps Street View, located in a tidy complex of smallish one- and two-bedroom units.
The nuking of the blog seems especially extreme because Schmidt played such a small part in it. The executive did appear in three different posts (see quotes here), across maybe five paragraphs of text. But Bohner’s entries were long; the three most recent averaged more than 30 paragraphs each, which was typical.
Yes, there was the tidbit about Schmidt (aka “Dr. Strangelove”) giving Bohner an prototype iPhone, and being a “genuinely caring, concerned boyfriend.” But almost everything else was about Bohner’s yoga, time in a Buddhist temple in Thailand, friends in recovery and past addictive escapades.
If Schmidt is so concerned about his privacy, why not just ask Bohner to stop mentioning him? His extramarital dalliances, including with Bohner, are hardly fresh news any more; the Google chief is rumored either separated, as we’ve reported previously, or in an open marriage, as our Bohner-blog source insists. The Google CEO should be more concerned about the release of any fresh details about his sex life. Concerned, that is, assuming he won’t take his own advice and avoid having embarrassing secrets in the first place.
Bohner’s blog and book project seemed to have really inspired the ex-addict. Her entries were long, but also formed a potential lifeline for other addicts. In other words, they had merit aside from the bits on Eric “Not the Center of the World” Schmidt. So it’s too bad they’ll be gone. You can read them for a bit longer; they’re here, on a Web caching server provided, as fate would have it, by Schmidt’s company.
Send an email to Ryan Tate, the author of this post, at ryan@gawker.com.
The notion of roving cameras snapping pictures of license plates conjures up television shows like Fox’s counterterrorism series, “24.”
It’s not just fantasy, though. Americans are already watched by a variety of security agencies using electronic surveillance technology, and in this post-9/11 world, there seems to be no turning back.
Privacy advocates, though, are not altogether comfortable with license plate numbers being electronically recorded by commercial operations.
While their views on the gathering this data may vary, privacy groups uniformly agree that the real issue is what happens to the photos after they are taken: how long they are stored and by whom; how secure the data is and whether it might be shared with third parties. Are the photographed license plate numbers matched against other lists, like credit scores or addresses?
A student in the US city of Philadelphia is suing his local school district for spying on him using his school-issued laptop. Radio Host Alex Jones told RT said that software is available for all kinds of abuse. (To get more – Join our new Youtube channels at http://www.youtube.com/RTAmerica and http://www.youtube.com/thealyonashow)
Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw told the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee earlier this month that DPS plans to put metal detectors and X-Ray machines at the entrances to the state capitol to aid in “gun detection.” DPS solicited a security review from the US Secret Service and is in the process of updating legislative leadership on the plan.
This idea was considered and discarded after 9/11, but has apparently been revived after a man fired off gunshots outside the capitol in January after an argument with state Sen. Dan Patrick’s staffers.
I’ve long considered the Texas Legislature one of the most “little d” democratic political institutions in the country, and a big part of what makes that true is the ability for average citizens to move freely around the capitol.
After 9/11, the Austin city council turned their offices into their own little fortress, installing metal detectors and ceasing the longstanding practice of allowing constituents to go directly to councilmembers’ offices to talk to staff, the councilmember, etc.. The result was to make them much less accessible, more insular, and ultimately IMO more aloof and full of themselves. The physical infrastructure created to protect these “important people” more than the rest of us had an unintended side effect on officeholders and staff, creating an even more significant psychological distance from constituents than the physical one. The change dramatically altered the culture at city hall, very much for the worse as far as I’m concerned.
I’d very much prefer not to see that happen to the Texas state capitol.
Last session, DPS operated metal detectors going into the balconies in the Texas House and Senate chambers respectively. At times it created significant logistical problems, not just from long lines to get into the gallery, but because there are actually offices on the other side of the chambers. In at least one instance to which I was privy, the long wait to get through security actually bogged up time-sensitive legislative communications related to the innocence compensation bill. How much more frequently will that happen when everyone entering the capitol must go through the equivalent of airport security lines?
In this case the shooter fired off shots outside the capitol. Wouldn’t he have more targets if there’s a huge gaggle of people waiting at the door to get through the metal detector?
For that matter, most of these legislators (including Sen. Patrick) claim to be pro-Second Amendment and supportive of the right to bear arms. How does that jibe with rhetoric about the need for “gun detection,” as though a gun is some scary bogeyman, even in the hands of the law abiding? How well will that message play, one wonders, with NRA members in Republican primaries?
There are plenty of armed troopers and cops at the capitol at any given moment (and often even one or two armed legislators!), plus committee chairmen can already request security at hearings if they think there’s a risk. I’d much rather see them beef up staffing for capitol security than waste every visitor’s time (including busloads of schoolchildren, tourists, countless lobbyists, etc.) with metal detectors, X-rays, taking off their belts and shoes, etc..
Even better: Maybe if legislators are concerned about security they should use some of their campaign funds to send themselves and their staff through the necessary training to get their concealed carry permits.
But for heaven’s sake, state officials shouldn’t let either fear or an overblown sense of self-importance spur security measures that degrade the fundamental culture of the institution. It’s important to protect legislators, but we hold elections every two years precisely to remind each of them that they’re replaceable. It’s not their capitol, it’s ours.
Silicon Valley doesn’t just produce innovative web companies — it’s also a mecca for the green tech boom. Bloom Energy, which launches officially on Wednesday, has built a refrigerator-sized box that can power your whole house.
Bloom Energy has actually been operating for 8 years, raising $400 million in funding from VCs including Kleiner Perkins (investors in Netscape, Amazon, Google and others). Its “Bloom Box” houses fuel cells that run on oxygen plus natural gas, landfill gas, bio-gas or even solar.
The company’s first customer was Google, which has been powering a datacenter on 4 Bloom Boxes for 18 months. Google’s boxes run on natural gas. eBay is also a customer — the company has 5 Bloom Boxes in San Jose, which it says have saved $100,000 in energy costs over 9 months.
The Bloom Box got its first TV appearance on CBS’ 60 Minutes tonight, which will no doubt drive interest in the launch. Look out for more news on Wednesday.
What do you think? Could Bloom Boxes power the future?
A path has been cleared for the government to publicly roll out dangerous full-body scanners after the failed terrorist attempt on flight 253. Neocons are quaking for the government to implement the human x-ray machines on a nationwide scale, radiating travelers with unhealthy amounts of ionic radiation all for the sake of preventing the next Mutallab from boarding another U.S. airliner.
Airport Travelers To Get Ionizing X-Ray Radiation
According to a recent Zogby poll, traveling Americans approve long lines and gridlock at airport passenger screening points. The majority polled appreciate delays and hassles of flying today’s suspicious skies and feel safer because the federal Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is in charge of airport screening. These happy line campers should be delighted to learn about TSA’s grossly invasive new security plans. The good times have just begun.
TSA Security Laboratory Director Susan Hallowell recently announced the agency’s intent to use back-scatter X-ray machines for passenger surveillance. These hugely expensive, closet-sized zappers can find the plastic bombs hidden in grandma’s underpants, while delivering a smacking dose of ionizing radiation to her breasts and thyroid gland.
Snooper X-rays penetrate a few centimeters into the flesh and reflect off the skin to form a naked body image for TSA security personnel to inspect. These machines are already being field tested at several U.S. airports, including JFK, LAX and Orlando.
The most lucrative growth industry of our times is the “terror” business. Legions of companies lusting for government contracts are churning out police state technology at a frantic pace. In the last 17 months, TSA has received over 30,000 proposals for Big Brother technology and equipment needed to keep 280 million citizen-suspects under careful surveillance from the inside out.
Big winners include companies whose equipment is assisting TSA’s Advanced Technology Checkpoint Project to nudify airline passengers. Digital Security Systems of Miami is promoting its ConPass Security Body Scanner, which can perform virtual cavity searches using deeply penetrating X-radiation. Company engineer Thomas Wiggins says the scanner can detect explosives hidden inside bodies or surgically implanted under flabby folds of skin. Wiggins admits that before 9-11, “The thought of using an X-ray system would have been like ordering our own death sentence.” Now Wiggins claims that the ConPass scanner “could scan a pregnant woman around 200 times without a health risk.”
Virtually all passengers and airline crews who pass through airport screening checkpoints in the U.S. may soon be forced to submit to compulsory, whole-body X-ray exposure. Some fliers could be “fried” several times in one day. Frequent fliers could get hit hundreds of times each year. Pregnant women, infants, the chronically ill and immune suppressed would get the rays. Grateful herds of traveling livestock, prodded by TSA drovers through federally-funded “nuke chutes,” are expected to believe Hollowell’s scientifically unsupported assertion that ionizing radiation delivered via backscatter will be “about the same as sunshine.”
Officials must naturally defend compulsory passenger X-rays as harmless. But they are signing no guarantees because ionizing radiation in the X-ray spectrum damages and mutates both chromosomal DNA and structural proteins in human cells. If this damage is not repaired, it can lead to cancer. New research shows that even very low doses of X-ray can delay or prevent cellular repair of damaged DNA, raising questions about the safety of routine medical X-rays. Unborn babies can become grotesquely disfigured if their mothers are irradiated during pregnancy. Heavily X- rayed persons of childbearing age can sustain chromosomal damage, endangering offspring. Radiation damage is cumulative and each successive dose builds upon the cellular mutation caused by the last. It can take years for radiation damage to manifest pathology.
A leading U.S. expert on the biological effects of X-radiation is Dr. John Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Gofman’s exhaustive research leads him to conclude that there is NO SAFE DOSE-LEVEL of ionizing radiation. His studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal co-factor in 50 percent of America’s cancers and 60 percent of our ischemic (blood flow blockage) heart disease. He stresses that the frequency with which Americans are medically X-rayed “makes for a significant radiological impact.”
This highly credentialed nuclear physicist states: “The fact, that X-ray doses are so seldom measured, reflects the false assumption that doses do not matter…[but] they do matter enormously. And each bit of additional dose matters, because any X-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the high-speed, high energy electron which causes a carcinogenic or atherogenic [smooth muscle] mutation. Such mutations rarely disappear. The higher their accumulated number in a population, the higher will be the population’s mortality rates from radiation-induced cancer and ischemic heart disease.”
A report in the British medical journal Lancet noted that after breast mammograms were introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma (12 percent of breast cancer) increased by 328 percent, of which 200 percent was due to the use of mammography itself. A Lawrence Berkeley National Lab study has demonstrated that breast tissue is extremely susceptible to radiation-induced cancer, confirming warnings by numerous experts that mammograms can initiate the very cancers they may later identify. Dr. Gofman believes that medical radiation is a co-factor in 75 percent of breast cancer cases. So why would girls and women want their breast tissues irradiated every time they take a commercial flight?
Cancer is number two cause of death in the U.S. behind heart disease. The more marathon walks and cookie eating contests we sponsor to fund the “war” on cancer, the more cancer we get. “America isn’t winning the war on cancer after all,” the Wall Street Journal recently reported. The National Cancer Institute admits that America’s cancer rates in almost every category are rising steadily. Airline pilots and cabin crews suffer a significant incidence of leukemia, skin and breast cancer due to chromosomal damage from ionizing cosmic radiation encountered during years of flying at high altitudes.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Dr. Gofman’s research reveals a dose-response relationship between medical X-rays and fatal heart disease, the number one killer of Americans. He found that X-radiation is a powerful atherogen, causing mutations in smooth muscle cells of coronary arteries. These radiation damaged cells are unable to process lipoproteins correctly, resulting in atherosclerotic plaques and mini tumors in the arteries. Radiation used to treat breast cancer can badly damage the heart.
As Dr. Gofman and other experts argue for improved diagnostic techniques and equipment to reduce medically necessary X-ray exposure, TSA gears up to impose frivolous, nonmusical exposure, even though conventional airline security measures have proven adequate since 9/11. To date, the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association have been silent about TSA’s sinister plan to deliver unlimited doses of carcinogenic, mutagenic, heart damaging radiation to the flying public. No health studies are planned to gauge short and long-term effects of the radiation TSA will deliver to inspect our innards.
Big Brother’s zap madness is a predictable result of America’s post 9-11 security hysteria. But here’s the irony: Dr. Gofman says X- radiation has the effect of “grenades and small bombs” on human cells. If we permit TSA to continually “bomb” our DNA in the name of security, what have we accomplished?
Besides ionizing beams, the feds are also testing other types of surveillance radiation. A flubbed holographic scanner developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory allows officials to strip search humans with ultra-high frequency radio waves. Millivision of Amherst, Mass., has engineered a millimeter wave scanner using radio frequencies 1,000 times higher than those of an FM broadcast. These waves pass through clothing, packaging and building materials. Ultra-high radio frequencies include radar, a spectrum of radiation known since WWII to cause cancer and neurological disability in humans. Microwave frequencies are documented by recent studies on cell/cordless phone radiation to be carcinogenic and teratogenic (causing abnormal embryonic development).
An example of unexpected health repercussions caused by high frequency radiation used on humans is fetal ultrasound technology. Ultrasound equipment bombards a fetus for up to one hour with megahertz radiation. This radiation, which cycles millions of time per second, can cause mutation and bleeding in the intestinal cells of rodents. Swedish scientists say routine ultrasound scanning of pregnant women may be causing subtle brain damage in unborn babies. Approximately half of all pregnancies in the U.S. result in prenatal or postnatal death, or an otherwise less than healthy baby. Many wonder if routine exposure of America’s fragile unborn to megahertz radiation might be a factor, among others, of this shocking national statistic. Is fetal ultrasound exposure playing some part in the national epidemic of delayed development in infants, plus learning and behavior difficulties suffered by millions of our school children? Exposing the unborn to ionizing X-radiation at airport checkpoints is an even more dangerous game of roulette.
Fedgov’s planned use of health damaging radiation on the traveling public seems especially tragic and abusive to those of us convinced that the War on Terror is a giant con job. Massive evidence indicates that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were intentionally staged to justify increased power over and surveillance of Americans. Key NORAD and other military officials had to be in on the ruse. President Bush ambushed himself when he openly lied about what he knew and when he knew it on the day the Twin Towers went down.. He has been caught lying about so many issues that Homeland Security should issue a red alert every time he is about to move his lips. The Bush administration’s ongoing cover-up of 9/11 is so blatant that even Bush’s own investigatory commission has expressed outrage at his efforts to block its requests for vital information and resources.
Meantime, TSA claims concern that Americans may feel humiliated at being viewed naked by X-ray screeners. But whatever airport nuke-nazis see through our clothing is nothing that the undertaker won’t see after excessive, state-mandated radiation puts us “down” for good. Mandatory airport surveillance radiation delivered to an already grossly ill population would afford our financially strapped government an ingenious “final solution” to numerous political and economic problems. No muss, no fuss, this cull in the Cuckoos’ nest. Each useless eater lines up for his deferred-lethal dose. The weak will die soonest, the strong will eventually become the weak–no questions asked and nothing proven. It’s hard for a Prozac nation to imagine such sinister motives behind the terror industry, but the documented truth is, our amoral leadership has been brazenly murdering Americans for decades. Genocide specialists have been especially fond of unleashing various forms of deadly radiation on the unwitting masses, as documented by the federal Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Now here we go again!
Consumers could derail TSA’s sinister surveillance projects in a heartbeat. It’s called boycott: We simply refuse to get nuked to naked. If we stop booking flights, the airline industry must grind to a halt. TSA would have little choice but to scrap its plans to endanger the national health with unnecessary radiation.
Americans who are still able to think must launch an effort to save ourselves and warn others. 1. Let’s demand that Congress mandate TSA’s radiation experiments be strictly voluntary. 2. We must demand the right to request that TSA conduct a non-radiation search of our persons. 3. We must demand our right to abstain from security procedures that may harm our children. 4. We must initiate an e-mail campaign to convince TSA and the airlines that forcible assault by radiation makes the cost of an airline ticket impossibly prohibitive.
TSA’s consumer e-mail address is: TSAContactCenter@dhs.gov. It’s toll free comment line is: 1-866-289-9673. [Source]
The German Interior Ministry confirmed on Monday that new identification cards containing radio-frequency (RFID) chips will be introduced starting November 1, 2010 – but some data protection experts are critical of the decision.
“It’s smaller than the old one, but can do a lot more,” Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière said in a statement.
The information on the card itself will be digitally stored on the RFID chip inside the card, in addition to two fingerprint scans that German citizens can choose to opt out of. The ID will also have a digital signature that can be used to complete official business with government offices and possibly beyond – accessed only by a six digit PIN number.
State officials are looking at beefing up the state’s electronic insurance verification system by setting up cameras across the state to randomly record vehicle tags.
Cameras set up at about 200 locations along selected highways would focus in on a tag’s bar code — found at the bottom of each tag — and record it. Bar code scanners would match the tag numbers with a national database containing real-time vehicle insurance information.
Vehicle owners without valid insurance would be mailed a ticket.
“That’s a horrible idea,” said Rep. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City. “It’s Big Brother at its finest.”
This October, Chris Soghoian — computer security researcher, oft-times journalist, and current technical consultant for the FTC’s privacy protection office — attended a closed-door conference called “ISS World”. ISS World — the “ISS” is for “Intelligence Support Systems for Lawful Interception, Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Gathering” — is where law enforcement and intelligence agencies consult with telco representatives and surveillance equipment manufacturers about the state of electronic surveillance technology and practice. Armed with a tape recorder, Soghoian went to the conference looking for information about the scope of the government’s surveillance practices in the US. What Soghoian uncovered, as he reported on his blog this morning, is more shocking and frightening than anyone could have ever expected
At the ISS conference, Soghoian taped astonishing comments by Paul Taylor, Sprint/Nextel’s Manager of Electronic Surveillance. In complaining about the volume of requests that Sprint receives from law enforcement, Taylor noted a shocking number of requests that Sprint had received in the past year for precise GPS (Global Positioning System) location data revealing the location and movements of Sprint’s customers. That number?
EIGHT MILLION.
Sprint received over 8 million requests for its customers’ information in the past 13 months. That doesn’t count requests for basic identification and billing information, or wiretapping requests, or requests to monitor who is calling who, or even requests for less-precise location data based on which cell phone towers a cell phone was in contact with. That’s just GPS. And, that’s not including legal requests from civil litigants, or from foreign intelligence investigators. That’s just law enforcement. And, that’s not counting the few other major cell phone carriers like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile. That’s just Sprint.
Here’s what Taylor had to say; the audio clip is here and we are also mirroring a zip file from Soghoian containing other related mp3 recordings and documents.
[M]y major concern is the volume of requests. We have a lot of things that are automated but that’s just scratching the surface. One of the things, like with our GPS tool. We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month, and we just passed 8 million requests. So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement, just for GPS alone. So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement. They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy, so, just the sheer volume of requests they anticipate us automating other features, and I just don’t know how we’ll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in.
Eight million would have been a shocking number even if it had included every single legal request to every single carrier for every single type of customer information; that Sprint alone received eight million requests just from law enforcement only for GPS data is absolutely mind-boggling. We have long warned that cell phone tracking poses a threat to locational privacy, and EFF has been fighting in the courts for years to ensure that the government only tracks a cell phone’s location when it has a search warrant based on probable case. EFF has also complained before that a dangerous level of secrecy surrounds law enforcement’s communications surveillance practices like a dense fog, and that without stronger laws requiring detailed reporting about how the government is using its surveillance powers, the lack of accountability when it comes to the government’s access to information through third-party phone and Internet service providers will necessarily breed abuse. But we never expected such huge numbers to be lurking in that fog.
Now that the fact is out that law enforcement is rooting through such vast amounts of location data, it raises profoundly important questions that law enforcement and the telcos must answer:
How many innocent Americans have had their cell phone data handed over to law enforcement?
How can the government justify obtaining so much information on so many people, and how can the telcos justify handing it over?
How did the number get so large? Is the government doing massive dragnet sweeps to identify every single cell phone that was in a particular area at a particular time? Is the government getting location information for entire “communities of interest” by asking not only for their target’s location, but also for the location of every person who talked to the target, and every person who talked to them?
Does the number only include requests to track phones in real-time, or does it include requests for historical GPS data, and if so, why did the telcos have that incredibly sensitive data sitting around in the first place? Exactly when and how are they logging their users’ GPS data, and how long are they keeping that data?
What legal process was used to obtain this information? Search warrants? Other court orders? Mere subpoenas issued by prosecutors without any court involvement? How many times was this information handed over without any legal process at all, based on government claims of an urgent emergency situation?
Looking beyond Sprint and GPS, how many Americans have had their private communications data handed over to law enforcement by their phone and Internet service providers?
What exactly has the government done with all of that information? Is it all sitting in an FBI database somewhere?
Do you really think that this Orwellian level of surveillance is consistent with a free society and American values? Really?
These questions urgently need to be asked — by journalists, and civil liberties groups like EFF, and by every cell phone user and citizen concerned about privacy. Most importantly, though, they must be asked by Congress, which has failed in its duty to provide oversight and accountability when it comes to law enforcement surveillance. Congress should hold hearings as soon as possible to demand answers from the government and the telcos under oath, and clear the fog so that the American people will finally have an accurate picture of just how far the government has reached into the private particulars of their digital lives.
Even without hearings, though, the need for Congress to update the law is clear. At the very least, Congress absolutely must stem the government’s abuse of its power by:
Requiring detailed reporting about law enforcement’s access to communications data using the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), just as it already requires for law enforcement wiretapping under the Wiretap Act, and make sure that the government actually fulfills its obligations rather than ignore the law for years on end.
Requiring that the government “minimize” the communications data it collects under ECPA rather than keep it all forever, just like it is supposed to do with wiretaps.
Prohibiting the government from using in a criminal trial any electronic communications content or data that it obtains in violation of ECPA, just as the government is prohibited by the Wiretap Act from using illegally acquired telephone intercepts.
Clarifying that ECPA can only be used to get specific data about particular individuals and cannot be used for broad sweeps, whether to identify everyone in a particular geographic area or to identify every person that visits a particular web site.
It’s time for Congress to pull the curtain back on the vast, shadowy world of law enforcement surveillance and shine a light on these abuses. In the meantime, we give our thanks to those like Chris Soghoian who are doing important work to uncover the truth about government spying in America.
The comments made by a Sprint corporate security officer during a recent conference have been taken out of context by this blogger. Specifically, the “8 million” figure, which the blogger highlights in his email and blog post, has been grossly misrepresented. The figure does not represent the number of customers whose location information was provided to law enforcement, as this blogger suggests.
Instead, the figure represents the number of individual “pings” for specific location information, made to the Sprint network as part of a series of law enforcement investigations and public safety assistance requests during the past year. It’s critical to note that a single case or investigation may generate thousands of individual pings to the network as the law enforcement or public safety agency attempts to track or locate an individual.
Instances where law enforcement agencies seek customer location information include exigent or emergency circumstances such as Amber Alert events, criminal investigations, or cases where a Sprint customer consents to sharing location information.
Sprint takes our customers’ privacy extremely seriously and all law enforcement and public safety requests for customer location information are processed in accordance with applicable state and federal laws.
This response provides some important answers, while raising even more questions. First off, Sprint has confirmed that it received 8 million requests, while denying a charge that no one has made: that 8 million individual customers’ data was handed over. Sprint’s denial also begs the question: how many individual customers have been affected?
As for Sprint’s claim that in some instances a single case or investigation may generate thousands of location “pings”, that is certainly possible, but that doesn’t make the 8 million number any less of a concern, or moot any of the important questions raised by Soghoian in his report or by EFF in its post regarding the lack of effective oversight and transparency in this area.
Even assuming that Sprint’s statement about “pings” is true, 8 million — or, in other words, 8,000 thousands — is still an astronomical number and more than enough to raise serious concerns that Congress should investigate and address. Moreover, the statement raises additional questions: exactly what legal process is being used to authorize the multiple-ping surveillance over time that Sprint is cooperating in? Is Sprint demanding search warrants in those cases? How secure is this automated interface that law enforcement is using to “ping” for GPS data? How does Sprint insure that only law enforcement has access to that data, and only when they have appropriate legal process? How many times has Sprint disclosed information in “exigent or emergency circumstances” without any legal process at all? And most worrisome and intriguing: what customers does Sprint think have “consent[ed] to the sharing [of] location data” with the government? Does Sprint think it is free to hand over the information of anyone who has turned on their GPS functionality and shared information with Sprint for location-based services? Or even the data of anyone who has agreed to their terms of service? What exactly are they talking about?
These questions are only the beginning, and Sprint’s statement doesn’t come close to answering all of them. Of course, we appreciate that Sprint has begun a public dialogue about this issue. But this should be only the beginning of that discussion, not the end. Ultimately, the need for Congress to investigate the true scope of law enforcement’s communications surveillance practices remains. Congress can and should dig deeper to get the hard facts for the American people, rather than forcing us to rely solely on Sprint’s public relations office for information on these critical privacy issues.
Louder than bombs: LRAD ’sonic cannon’ debuts in U.S. at G20 protests
Sam Gustin
Daily Finance
September 26, 2009
Pittsburgh police on Thursday used an audio cannon manufactured by American Technology Corporation (ATCO), a San Diego-based company, to disperse protesters outside the G-20 Summit — the first time its LRAD series device has been used on civilians in the U.S.
An ATC sales representative confirms to DailyFinance that Pittsburgh police used ATC’s Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD). “Yes, we sold one LRAD unit to a government agency — I don’t know which one — which was used in Pittsburgh,” the representative said. American Technology Corp.’s stock was trading up over 15 percent in heavy activity late Friday.
PortalScape 