“Google will have to turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users’ names and IP addresses, to Viacom, which is suing Google for allowing clips of its copyright videos to appear on YouTube, a judge ruled Wednesday.”- wired
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/judge-orders-yo.html
RFID keeps getting smaller. On February 13, Hitachi unveiled a tiny, new “powder” type RFID chip measuring 0.05 x 0.05 mm — the smallest yet — which they aim to begin marketing in 2 to 3 years.
By relying on semiconductor miniaturization technology and using electron beams to write data on the chip substrates, Hitachi was able to create RFID chips 64 times smaller than their currently available 0.4 x 0.4 mm mu-chips. Like mu-chips, which have been used as an anti-counterfeit measure in admission tickets, the new chips have a 128-bit ROM for storing a unique 38-digit ID number.
The new chips are also 9 times smaller than the prototype chips Hitachi unveiled last year, which measure 0.15 x 0.15 mm.
At 5 microns thick, the RFID chips can more easily be embedded in sheets of paper, meaning they can be used in paper currency, gift certificates and identification. But since existing tags are already small enough to embed in paper, it leads one to wonder what new applications the developers have in mind.
article from http://www.pinktentacle.com/2007/02/hitachi-develops-rfid-powder/
It’s official. Through use of current technology, law enforcement agencies are now capable of tracking your every move and listening in on your every conversation. And the most frightening part? A recent court opinion has unequivocally stated that this is perfectly legal, thanks in part to federal wiretapping laws put in place by the “Patriot” Act. The source of this decidedly Orwellian surveillance capability: your cell phone. Farewell Freedom’s very own Hooded Soldier and The Laughing Man report:
A recent opinion by US District Judge Lewis Kaplanhas revealed some startling information about that cell phone in your pocket. It has been made public that it is possible to remotely activate a mobile phone’s microphone to covertly eavesdrop on nearby conversations. The technique, dubbed a “roving bug,” is accomplished through the remote installation of software (no physical contact with the handset is necessary), made possible by methods meant for delivering upgrades, maintenance, and access to downloadable content (ie ringtones, games, etc); this process is referred to as "flashing the firmware." Activation can be accomplished whether the phone is turned on or off, and, according to Judge Kaplanhas’ decision, it’s perfectly legal, because “federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect’s cell phone.”[1]
Kaplan’s opinion (reported online by CNET) revealed for the first time information about the FBI bugging of cell phones used by Genovese crime family member John Ardito and his lawyer, Peter Peluso. A listening device installed in Ardito’s phone "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off, intercepting conversations within its range wherever it happened to be," Kaplan wrote. Using such technology for surveillance is nothing new. In 2003, the FBI attempted to eavesdrop in cars equipped with OnStar. An appellate court, however, rejected this technique, not for privacy reasons, but because it interfered with the system’s emergency features.[1]
Recent reports have also brought to light that, in addition to this “roving bug,” it is also possible to track a person’s every move through the use of cell phones. With current technology, cell phone providers are now able to locate a person within 300 feet of a cell phone tower at any given time. This type of tracking is possible regardless of whether the person is using the phone or not; it only has to be turned on. Whenever a phone is activated, it is constantly in communication with cell towers. In order to route incoming calls, the cell phone needs send data to the tower continuously. The cell tower records the strength of the incoming single, and the side of the tower the signal came from, enabling the tower to determine the approximate location of the caller. In addition, with GPS technologies becoming increasingly more common in newer phones, it is possible to location any cell phone user with a high degree of accuracy.[2]
Use of this tracking capability is swiftly being embraced for several applications, and is naturally raising questions of privacy. Companies IntelliOne and AirSage have proposed utilizing cell phones to determine traffic jams in Atlanta, Georgia. From www.foxnews.com:
“Both systems rely on wireless companies allowing them to process the data from their towers that calculate the posit ion of each phone about twice a second when it is being used and once every 30 seconds when it is not. By using anonymous data from wireless providers to mark how fast cell-phone handsets are moving — and overlaying that information with location data and maps — IntelliOne and AirSage hope to offer more detailed information and pragmatic advice than other firms that monitor traffic through radar, helicopters or cameras. But some critics are not so sure the benefits outweigh the potential privacy risks.”[3]
Law enforcement agencies have already begun to make use of this tracking capability as well. Let’s examine the recent trial against 41-year old bouncer Darryl Littlejohn. Littlejohn has been charged with the murder of Imette St. Guillen, a graduate student of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. It is not eye-witness accounts that have place Littlejohn at the scene. In fact, one police source went as far as saying, "It’s a way to track people that is stronger than relying on witnesses." As the New York Daily News reports:
“The NYPD traced Littlejohn to that lonely corner of East New York, off the Belt Parkway, by tracing the invisible "pings" that his T-Mobile cell phone sent to the antenna-studded tower, sources said.”
“The big, blue tower apparently took notice that Littlejohn’s cell phone was nearby, even though he wasn’t making a call — and it stored that information, which was later retrieved from T-Mobile by cops.”[4]
Through use of this cell phone “ping” information, law enforcement have been able to trace a portion of Littlejohn’s movement throughout the day, down to when he left his house all the way to his reaching the site where is accused of dumping the body.
Beneficial or not, this technology clearly raises privacy issues. As Melissa Ngo of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center stated, "This is your personal information. Shouldn’t you have the right to control whether people know where you are? When I signed up for a cell phone, I did not sign up to be tracked."[3] Others have been quite supportive. For example, Catholic University of America law professor Clifford Fishman expressed a rather adamant endorsement, apparently not concerned with potential abuses: "The government has legitimate reasons to follow people. This is the technology law enforcement needs to use to get probable cause to search you, arrest you and throw you in jail."[2]
[1]- http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1165815713294600.xml?starledger?ntop&coll=1
[2]- http://www.wired.com/news/politics/privacy/0,70829-0.html
[3]- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227603,00.html?sPage=fnc.technology/innovation
[4]- http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/399892p-338804c.html
more…
