Walter S

I'd just as soon not be tracked and have my whereabouts recorded.

Catherine Crump: The small and surprisingly dangerous detail the police track about you
Catherine Crump: The small and surprisingly dangerous detail the police track about you | TED Talk | TED.com

I'm not doing anything illegal (of course!) but I don't mind getting around on my bicycle quietly. I don't trust the justice system to get it right. So the less they know the better.

JBHoren

Enlightening. Not owning an auto for several years, it's news to me. As she mentioned toward the end of her talk, cellphones can easily be tracked -- even more so, smartphones and other GPS-enabled devices. To paraphrase the old saying: "You can ride, but you can't hide."

Walter S

Good point about cell phones. Turn it off and it won't be tracked. Of course you won't get calls either...but you still get voicemail.

Roody

Good post. From a very reputable source:

CliffordK

Sitting here typing on a public forum.....

There is so much data that could be tracked in the modern world, and we'll be wrestling about who gets what info for a long time.

Long term storage of information... Much of the information that the police is collecting, for example video and audio recording, can be subpoenaed and used against them, that is, if the courts weren't so biased. Destroying info that could be subpoenaed is improper, and while I don't like the idea of personal data being stored... I'd feel less comfortable with selective deletion of data.

Dahon.Steve

Interesting.

Her advice was to have your elected officials force the police dump their data. Guess what? That’s not happening. A much simpler solution is to go carfree and buy a cheap flip phone and remove the battery once you get home. Simple.

I-Like-To-Bike

Better stay off of the Internet too, especially if paranoid about the swarms of invisible black helicopters and storm troopers out to harsh the bliss of the carefree car free folks.

tandempower

True, I think it is more likely to be policed via internet than to have your cellphone tracked. What local police are going to get a message from FBI giving the whereabouts of some cyclists stealth camping and follow them? No one is policing you when you bike around and/or stealth camp, except yourself. This is why I don't like legal ambiguity because it leaves you wanting more unambiguous rights and freedoms; but the legal system allows a lot of posturing to go on where it really shouldn't.

People can question your rights and suggest that they don't apply, even when they do. This practice is so widespread in societal culture that many people believe there are different laws and rights than there actually are. It's so widespread that even lawyers and judges spin laws to support popular misconceptions over the actual purpose and intent of laws.

ThermionicScott 

Meh, there might have been a time when you could "bug out" and no one would know where you were, but that ship sailed long ago, and it's not coming back. The vast majority of people are okay with increased surveillance if it helps catch terrorists and criminals. The youngest generations especially, since they're being raised by helicopter parents and are used to having all their activities posted online, so they're not going to push back.

I suggest making your peace with it.

Walter S

Right. We can't be invisible. But not paying attention to the issue at all, you become way more vulnerable than by plugging a few big information leaks.

Roody

Dead wrong.

What Americans think about NSA surveillance, national security and privacy | Pew Research Center

ThermionicScott 

Of course people say they disapprove when the survey asks them scary questions. Sort of like how people might say they hate gas prices if you took a poll. But does that translate into change? Rolling back the "surveillance state" doesn't seem to be a priority among national or local governments. Heck, even in the Republican debate, opposition to mass surveillance came off as a fringe opinion.

I'd be interested in seeing a better age breakdown of that Pew survey, as well as the polling method(s) -- the younger generations of which I spoke are much less likely to have land lines.

Roody

First, what makes your wild hunch more accurate than a scientific poll?

Second, Pew is one of the most respected public opinion companies in the world. They have thought about the methodology issues (including demographic representation and access to land lines) a lot more than you or I have. Their research methods are easily available online to those who are able to operate a search engine.

ThermionicScott 

I'm not doubting Pew's honesty or methodologies per se, I was just disappointed not to find a better breakdown by age. 54% of the people polled probably did say that they oppose surveillance, so I might have been technically wrong in my first post. But do they care enough to demand a change, or are they just complaining? My point, perhaps better phrased, is that people are comfortable enough with surveillance that I don't see the trend reversing.

I also think it's naive to think that the Snowden revelations will cause any true reversal in information-collecting policy -- more likely that the powers that be will automate more of the information processing (obviating specific personal culpability) and get better about hiding it. But that's just my hunch.

Cyclosaurus

This is a classic case of where the government's interest is at odds with that of the people. However our political climate is so steeped in fearmongering that the public is essentially bullied into keeping quiet about it. The most telling example in recent past was when Rand Paul (who I am otherwise no fan of) was very loudly insisting that better oversight and stronger limitations be imposed on surveillance, and his fellow party members publicly said that the next terrorist attack would be his fault. Rand Paul had public opinion on his side and yet was universally opposed.

Roody

BTW, if some of you think this thread is relevant to LCF and should remain on the forum, I suggest you express your views to the forum staff, either before or after they move the thread. If you're silent, those who want to censor the forum will surely prevail.

I-Like-To-Bike

FWIW, I don't think this thread is relevant to car free living at all and is just another in a long line of political screeds trying to associate the poster's political views with bicycling and or car free living.

P&R is where this discussion belongs regardless if some LCF posters are interested in this political issue.

Dahon.Steve

I think it does have relevance in living carfree. The government is take photographs of million of license plates without your approval. The motorist is being monitored in ways that weren’t possible years ago. Today, it’s impossible to avoid this owning a car but one who is carfree can avoid buying a cell phone altogether and keep their privacy. Advantage -- Carfree!

Mobile 155

I have pretty much figured LCF has little LCF issues and a lot of civil and social issues. So I visit here with that in mind.

So when Thermionicscott said get used to it I think about what is happening in LA. The mayor decided to visit London to see how they deal with people trying to stay under the radar. The answer from the very liberal English was? CCTV. It is coming, get used to it sounds about right.

You're being watched: there's one CCTV camera for every 32 people in UK | World news | The Guardian

B. Carfree

The jackboots can't track me by my car license plate. I actually have a car, unregistered and sitting on my property; it exists solely to reduce my homeowner insurance costs and to be a vehicle for an auto insurance policy when I rent a car. However, just to play fair, I do use a Spot gps locator on many of my rides to make it easier for friends and family to know when I'll be back and to allow me to ask for help when I'm out of cell phone range (most of the time). I guess they could hack the Spot data (easy as hacking one of several email accounts) and see where I'm at and where I've been.

Oddly, I see this as no big deal. However, I do generally appreciate the efforts of those who do fight for privacy. That said, I think the police SHOULD track car license plates. I also think we should have automated traffic tickets for speeding, running red lights and running stop signs for motorists. I think breaking the law causes one to forfeit any privacy that driving might have afforded one. (I'm not sure driving warrants any privacy at all.)

Roody

Interesting point. I don't think I agree, but I'll have to think about it.

One objection is that many people would see driving more as a necessity than an option, so the government should not routinely monitor people in their cars, since they feel they have no option but to us their cars. For example, if the police had been monitoring license plates in the 1960s, the FBI surely would have used the data to spy on and persecute Dr. King (and other dissidents at the time), even beyond what they were already doing. If King had not been able to drive, his activities in opposition to the government would have been greatly hindered.

jfowler85

Right on the money. Excellent post.

Roody

Pew is very open and transparent about their methods. Just dig around on their extensive websit, and you and @ThermionicScott can disconer the answers to your questions.

To get you started, here's a link to the "parent study" for the data about NSA surveillance:
The Political Typology: Beyond Red vs. Blue | Pew Research Center

ThermionicScott 

Once again, I'm not casting doubt on Pew's integrity. All I wished for was a breakdown by age, and groupings like "The Next Generation Left... Roughly half (52%) are younger than 40" (meaning almost half the group is still over 40) and "Young Outsiders are one of the youngest typology groups; 30% are under 30 and most are under 50" are less than satisfying.

I'm old enough (34) to remember a lot more implicit privacy and a greater ability to move around undetected (for a while at least), but despite some grumbling here and there, I just don't see the will to go back in that direction. Advances in data storage are what have enabled so much of this surveillance, so I feel like it was probably going to happen eventually. Just think of what the future will bring!

(Just for the record, I'm not necessarily in favor of having every detail of everyone's lives recorded and tracked. It feels a little icky, that we're not being fully trusted, or treated as innocent until proven guilty. I think it's just the world we live in now, for better or worse.)

jfowler85

Annnd spar. We never had any questions. The comments in question are not concerned with what people say but what people do. Talk is cheap. I could yak all day about how I support veterans, but if I never actually do anything to give any support then I must not really support veterans, but rather some nebulous, useless thought of support. Perhaps it's support in concept or theory.

Americans say they're against surveillance, but yet people can't get off their damn phones. So, they may be philosophically opposed to it, or opposed to the concept or in thought, but they are obviously not opposed to it enough to actually put said phones down. This also applies to social media, driving, etc.

I for one have no problem admitting that, although I disagree with mass surveillance, I'm not actually going to do anything about it. Therefore it must not be that much of a concern.