No Safe Harbor. Essays About Pirate Politics.

“Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power danah boyd

Everyone’s abuzz with the “nymwars,” mostly in response to Google Plus’ decision to enforce its “real names” policy. At first, Google Plus went on a deleting spree, killing off accounts that violated its policy. When the community reacted with outrage, Google Plus leaders tried to calm the anger by detailing their “new and improved” mechanism to enforce “real names” (without killing off accounts). This only sparked increased discussion about the value of pseudonymity. Dozens of blog posts have popped up with people expressing their support for pseudonymity and explaining their reasons. One of the posts, by Kirrily “Skud” Robert included a list of explanations that came from people she polled, including:

You’ll notice a theme here…

Another site has popped up called “My Name Is Me” where people vocalize their support for pseudonyms. What’s most striking is the list of people who are affected by “real names” policies, including abuse survivors, activists, LGBT people, women, and young people.

Over and over again, people keep pointing to Facebook as an example where “real names” policies work. This makes me laugh hysterically. One of the things that became patently clear to me in my fieldwork is that countless teens who signed up to Facebook late into the game chose to use pseudonyms or nicknames. What’s even more noticeable in my data is that an extremely high percentage of people of color used pseudonyms as compared to the white teens that I interviewed. Of course, this would make sense...

The people who most heavily rely on pseudonyms in online spaces are those who are most marginalized by systems of power. “Real names” policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people. These ideas and issues aren’t new (and I’ve even talked about this before), but what is new is that marginalized people are banding together and speaking out loudly. And thank goodness.

What’s funny to me is that people also don’t seem to understand the history of Facebook’s “real names” culture. When early adopters (first the elite college students…) embraced Facebook, it was a trusted community. They gave the name that they used in the context of college or high school or the corporation that they were a part of. They used the name that fit into the network that they joined Facebook with. The names they used weren’t necessarily their legal names; plenty of people chose Bill instead of William. But they were, for all intents and purposes, “real.” As the site grew larger, people had to grapple with new crowds being present and discomfort emerged over the norms. But the norms were set and people kept signing up and giving the name that they were most commonly known by. By the time celebrities kicked in, Facebook wasn’t demanding that Lady Gaga call herself Stefani Germanotta, but of course, she had a “fan page” and was separate in the eyes of the crowd. Meanwhile, what many folks failed to notice is that countless black and Latino youth signed up to Facebook using handles. Most people don’t notice what black and Latino youth do online. Likewise, people from outside of the US started signing up to Facebook and using alternate names. Again, no one noticed because names transliterated from Arabic or Malaysian or containing phrases in Portuguese weren’t particularly visible to the real name enforcers. Real names are by no means universal on Facebook, but it’s the importance of real names is a myth that Facebook likes to shill out. And, for the most part, privileged white Americans use their real name on Facebook. So it “looks” right.

Then along comes Google Plus, thinking that it can just dictate a “real names” policy. Only, they made a huge mistake. They allowed the tech crowd to join within 48 hours of launching. The thing about the tech crowd is that it has a long history of nicks and handles and pseudonyms. And this crowd got to define the early social norms of the site, rather than being socialized into the norms set up by trusting college students who had joined a site that they thought was college-only. This was not a recipe for “real name” norm setting. Quite the opposite. Worse for Google... Tech folks are VERY happy to speak LOUDLY when they’re pissed off. So while countless black and Latino folks have been using nicks all over Facebook (just like they did on MySpace, by the way), they never loudly challenged Facebook’s policy. There was more of a “live and let live” approach to this. Not so lucky for Google and its name-bending community. Folks are now PISSED OFF.

Personally, I’m ecstatic to see this much outrage. And I’m really really glad to see seriously privileged people take up the issue, because while they are the least likely to actually be harmed by “real names” policies, they have the authority to be able to speak truth to power. And across the web, I’m seeing people highlight that this issue has more depth to it than fun names (and is a whole lot more complicated than boiling it down to being about anonymity, as Facebook’s Randi Zuckerberg foolishly did).

What’s at stake is people’s right to protect themselves, their right to actually maintain a form of control that gives them safety. If companies like Facebook and Google are actually committed to the safety of its users, they need to take these complaints seriously. Not everyone is safer by giving out their real name. Quite the opposite; many people are far LESS safe when they are identifiable. And those who are least safe are often those who are most vulnerable.

Likewise, the issue of reputation must be turned on its head when thinking about marginalized people. Folks point to the issue of people using pseudonyms to obscure their identity and, in theory, “protect” their reputation. The assumption baked into this is that the observer is qualified to actually assess someone’s reputation. All too often, and especially with marginalized people, the observer takes someone out of context and judges them inappropriately based on what they get online. Let me explain this in a concrete example that many of you have heard before. Years ago, I received a phone call from an Ivy League college admissions officer who wanted to accept a young black man from South Central in LA into their college; the student had written an application about how he wanted to leave behind the gang-ridden community he came from, but the admissions officers had found his MySpace which was filled with gang insignia. The question that was asked of me was “Why would he lie to us when we can tell the truth online?” Knowing that community, I was fairly certain that he was being honest with the college; he was also doing what it took to keep himself alive in his community. If he had used a pseudonym, the college wouldn’t have been able to get data out of context about him and inappropriately judge him. But they didn’t. They thought that their frame mattered most. I really hope that he got into that school.

There is no universal context, no matter how many times geeks want to tell you that you can be one person to everyone at every point. But just because people are doing what it takes to be appropriate in different contexts, to protect their safety, and to make certain that they are not judged out of context, doesn’t mean that everyone is a huckster. Rather, people are responsibly and reasonably responding to the structural conditions of these new media. And there’s nothing acceptable about those who are most privileged and powerful telling those who aren’t that it’s OK for their safety to be undermined. And you don’t guarantee safety by stopping people from using pseudonyms, but you do undermine people’s safety by doing so.

Thus, from my perspective, enforcing “real names” policies in online spaces is an abuse of power.

This article first appeared on the author's website at http://zephoria.org

Criminal of Innocence Travis McCrea

Charlie walked into class on Wednesday, like he did every Wednesday (and as he did every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday as well). This was, however, not an average Wednesday, as after the announce­ments were over, a girl walked into his class room, and delivered a note to Mr. Wiener (pronounced Whiner, but this did not stop the junior class from making the jokes).

“This is going to be me, I just know it.” Charlie said to himself. Of course, he said this to himself every time a note came into his class, as did every other student.

Charlie Wells was a 16 year old boy, who grew up in a small town in Kansas, just south of Topeka. A sandy haired boy, who had good grades, good friends, and was a good athlete. His favorite sport was wrestling, which had a meet coming up this Friday. Charlie was shorter than most of his classmates, but in general a high achiever. Rarely got in trouble at home, and never got in trouble at school (even won a student of the month award once).

“Mr. Wells,” Mr. Wee-ner always seemed to have a condescending tone, he could tell someone they won the lottery, and they would instantly think of all the things their parents taught them about money. “You have been requested to the office by Mr. Jay.”

Mr. Jay was the vice principal of the school, though typically the stu­dents call this position the “disciplinary principal” around adults. Though, when they were in private they would of course call him “Mr. BJ” due to high school students uncanny ability to find a sexual reference in anything.

“Will I need to take my stuff?” Charlie asked, as does every student who is being called out of the room, there should be a check box on the little slip that comes to the room… of course Mr. Wiener knows about as much about this trip to the office as Charlie does. Mr. Wiener simply told him to leave his stuff under his desk and he can get it after his meeting, and if class was over he would set it on the counter.

As annoying as Mr. Wiener was, Charlie always had a certain respect for him. Sure he sounded condescending, but Charlie’s voice was still relat­ively high and he mocked himself that he sounded like a girl. That’s not his fault as much as it was Wiener’s for sounding like a dick (there it is again). Wiener always looked out for his students, and on more than one occasion has even wrote Charlie a late pass to his next class, just so he could stay and finish up some math problems, so he wouldn’t have homework.

Charlie didn’t even see the girl who brought the note leave, he must have been in the zone or just didn’t care, but now as he walked to the office he wanted the company of that girl. He didn’t even know her name, she looked like she might be a freshman, “How do you even be­come the office helper person?” he quietly thought to himself.

Charlie didn’t want to talk to the girl because he was particularly attrac­ted to her, though at his age he was attracted to anything with breasts, he simply wanted to stop thinking about what awaited him at the office.“They caught me for using the proxy to check my Facespace account.”

He turned the hall to the office.

“No, I was signed in under a guest account, they would have no way of knowing that.”

Charlie entered the office, and smiled at the receptionist. She greeted him, and told him to take a seat and that Mr. Jay would be out to see him shortly. “The receptionist could have been working at Wal-Mart,” Charlie thought to himself.

After sitting in the uncomfortable seat, trying to focus on reading old magazines which were probably scrounged from the library’s discard pile, Charlie finally told himself that the best response to this situation was to have Mr. Jay tell him what he did wrong, and to only answer questions with short direct answers until this situation played out for him.

Charlie started to get a little frustrated, because it had been about ten minutes, and Mr. BJ (Charlie chuckled to himself), had not called him into his office. For a guy who cares about education, he sure was disrupting Charlie’s class time... though of course Charlie was not concerned about his class, rather, he just didn’t like stewing in his chair, not knowing what he did wrong.

As the door handle turned, Charlie jumped. Inside the room were the stern faces of Mr. Jay, and school resource officer (SRO), Officer Clark. Their eyes seared into his soul, like that of his mother’s when she would catch him in a lie (which, admittedly, was not that often). He was ready to throw everything out the window and confess for everything he did, even the things he wasn’t sure were against the rules like leaving Physical Education after he had already changed clothes, but before the bell like his classmates.

“Son,” This was the only pet peeve Charlie had, the names “son,” “buddy,” “champ,” “boss,” etc. It wasn’t necessary and made it seem as though the person was talking down to him. Of course in this situation, Mr. Jay was. “Do you know why you are here?”

Charlie knew he had to give them something, but thought he should start with something light. “I leave Physical Education a couple minutes early, so I can have some time to get to my locker before the bell rings?”

Officer Clark raised his eyebrow, and looked to Mr. Jay. However, Mr. Jay seemed to have been somehow offended by this answer, and raised his voice slightly “Charlie, we are not here to play games with you, what you did was serious, and if you do not cooperate with us… your pun­ishment will be very severe.

Charlie didn’t know what was going on, if he wasn’t being yelled at he would have laughed and thought it was a joke. He tried to stammer out that he did not know what Mr Jay was talking about and so the SRO turned on the TV that had been behind them.

Charlie watched the screen, as he watched himself come around the “C” hallway, which was the furthest hallway running horizontally cut­ting though the two main hallways in that wing of the school, and walk down main hallway 2 until he was out of the frame.

Charlie was very confused at this point, and asked “Can you please ex­plain to me what this is?”

Mr. Jay was very upset at this point and explained to Charlie that he had given him plenty of chances to explain himself, and that he had pushed his patience to the limit. Jay further went on to explain that there was a bag of pot found in that hall at the end of that period, and that Charlie had been the only student to have been using the hall.

“Sir, this must be a misunderstanding,” Charlie exclaimed, nervously “I don’t even smoke pot, I don’t think any of my friends do either!”

“Charlie, why would you be walking down that hallway at that time? You were supposed to be in Science, and that’s on the other wing of school. The only class you had down that way was your math class, and it had been a couple periods before.” Officer Clark seemed to talk much more reasonably; however, he too stared at Charlie like he was a criminal. Heck in their eyes he WAS a criminal.

“I left my binder in Math class, I didn’t need it in any of my other classes after Math, and so I went back to get it so I could turn in an as­signment for Science.” Charlie felt guilty, like he really had done some­thing wrong. That feeling like going through US Customs trying to re-enter his country, where after you tell them the trip was for pleasure, they ask what kind of pleasure, what did you do, how long... to the point you start questioning it yourself.

“I am growing tired of your lies, Mr. Wells,” Back to Mr. Jay (‘was this some form of bad cop, worse cop?’ Charlie was thinking to himself). “We had spoken with Mr. Wiener, and he insisted that you never came by his class... and also if you look at that video there is no binder.”

Charlie was so scared, he should have been frustrated… of course he should have been, but he didn’t get frustrated. Heck, he hadn’t even cared when they put up these dumb cameras. He didn’t do anything wrong so there was no fear of him getting in trouble for them... so he thought.

Charlie explained that he saw Mr. Wiener was instructing his class, so he decided to get his binder later. This caused Mr. Jay to believe that he was changing his story, and decided this was enough cause to search his locker for drugs.

As Charlie, Officer Clark, and Mr. Jay reached his locker, the end-of-period bell rang, and all the students flooded the halls. Charlie didn’t realize how many students there were in his school, or how many went by his locker, until every single one of them were staring at him.

More embarrassment came to Charlie as he opened his locker. All the things that had seemed funny, stupid, or weird that he had put in the door of his locker, now seemed much worse when he had the cop and disciplinary principal behind him. Charlie could just feel the eyes burn­ing into the back of his neck, knowing they were judging him for the picture of the midget swimsuit model, or the comic about teachers running off a cliff after a penny.

They didn’t find anything in Charlie’s locker. However, it was not over for Charlie. The principal gave him a day of in-school suspension for wandering the halls, and the resource officer called Charlie’s parents to tell them that their son had been suspected of at the very least being in possession of marijuana, and potentially distributing it.

After this whole ordeal, it had changed Charlie into a very anti-authoritarian person, he had started putting tape up over the cameras, and fighting (to a degree some would consider excess) for the rights of other students, even ones he didn’t know. Charlie would tell the other students, “I thought that as long as I would go with the system, I would never have to worry about rights, or any of that stuff, I was wrong. Even the innocent are treated as guilty in a system that takes away rights. If the system wants to treat innocent people like criminals, well then I am going to be a criminal.”

This story was originally published on the author's webs ite at http://travismccrea.com

Privacy Now, Nothing Later Ryan Moffitt

Let me propose a scenario for you. I'd say close your eyes, but you might need them to read said proposal:

Imagine living in a world where you are photographed at practically every street corner. Imagine living in a world where every time you check your email or search for a recipe, it's recorded and stored in a database. Imagine living in a world where tracking devices record and report your every movement. Imagine living in a world where you have to stop and wonder who may be watching or listening.

Sounds like a scary place from an Orwell novel or some dark third-world corner of the planet, doesn't it? Many of us can't actually imagine living in a world where privacy is just a word. Luckily for those people, they don't have to imagine such a dystopia. They just have to wake up in the morning. We experience this world every day. Data retention laws exist, GPS tracking devices have been installed and used by intelligence agencies, and the average person is recorded by CCTV and other surveillance equipment over 300 times a day. This is all happening right here, in the developed world, and it doesn't seem to bother people in the slightest.

Think about what you depend on privacy for. When you go to vote on election day, you vote for the person you want to vote for because you know the ballot is secret. Nobody will know who got your vote, and it doesn't get traced back to you. When you are with your partner, you know that what goes on behind closed doors is your own business. You hope that when you send an email, text or other form of instant message, your intended recipient will receive that message in confidence, allowing you to express yourself freely and openly. Government and corporate whistle-blowers depend on privacy and confidentiality to protect themselves after exposing wrong-doing. Without privacy, your entire world can be flipped upside down, and chances are you may not even notice.

But before we start marching on Washington, we must consider another issue: Big Brother doesn't have to be the one watching, and that information doesn't have to be forcibly taken.

When talking about loss of privacy, governments and people in power are usually the first to be blamed, and rightfully so. However, you can either knowingly or inadvertently volunteer more information to surveillance-friendly corporations who will pass it along to Big Brother than Big Brother himself could reasonably take from you. Companies like Google and Facebook have voluntarily turned over personal information about criminal suspects and activists, without ever so much as asking for a warrant, and without the targeted people being notified of the leak. It's pointless to demand the end of surveillance without demanding the end of corporate cooperation.

So what does this all mean? Are we doomed to a future where there are cameras in your dashboard and your email comes with a 3kb attachment stating your message is “Department of Homeland Security Approved”? It depends. The ordinary citizen may view a bad privacy policy or a new airport screening measure as a small sacrifice. The future will lie in just how much the masses are willing to sacrifice.

Personal Privacy Travis McCrea

Privacy is a funny issue for a lot of people, they are so willing to yield so much of their privacy to people who tell them it’s for “their safety,” yet will squawk like a chicken if they find out that their public posts to Twitter are being indexed by a company (or a government entity). I have found (and I think many already know this) that the general public is highly susceptible to fear mongers, and when they are told that something is bad or out to get them, they listen intently and then throw their arms up in the air not knowing exactly what is wrong, but that it is wrong and that they are against it. The government says that Homeland Security has to do full body scans of people as they try to board an airplane because it will protect from bad people getting on an aircraft and blowing it up, what they don’t tell you is that now every time you want to board an aircraft, someone gets to look at you naked.

I, myself, could be viewed as someone who treats his privacy with little regard online. You can do a quick Google search of “Travis McCrea” and find my phone number, full name, background, and if you search hard enough, some of my previous addresses. I also have a Gmail account which is operated by the “evil” Google Inc., hell I even have a Facebook page that lets almost anyone view my information. I do this because it was already out there, if I give my phone number to even a couple people online‚ I have pretty much committed it to the public domain. Since I already know that at that point someone who wants to harm me by obtaining my phone number, can already get it… I might as well make it easier for the good people who want to call me as well.

Here is the difference between Travis McCrea, and Joe Blow off the street when it comes to digital privacy: I know that everything I post online is viewable by the world. If I don’t want the world to see it, rarely do I ever even say it online (not even in private). However, I do still maintain the tools necessary to facilitate a private conversation if I must… and I do use them. When I use tools that I expect to be anonymous, I will use TOR (which isn’t exactly privacy guarding either). As much random stuff I search, I have never found a need to use haystacking or anything like that… I use https://www.google.com and that makes me feel good enough.

Most people will point out as well that I trust Google a lot, and I am a self-labeled Google fanboy and I am okay with that. I can see the argument of, “sure you can trust Google now, but can you trust them in 30 years?”, but I also am sure that Google understands that putting the interests of its customers over the interests of governments or other corporations is a better business model. Yes, they have made calls in the past that I have disapproved of… but again it’s an understanding: I accept that Google gives me cool free stuff, if I am willing to give them anonymous pieces of information about myself. Google honestly does not even have the man-power to read.001% of the emails that are sent every day if it wanted to. It may turn data over to the police if subpoenaed, but they do the best job at reporting legal notices and government requests than any other major service provider I have seen. Even searches alone, who else are you going to trust with your data? Microsoft?

The biggest fear of corporations is that they sell your information to other corporations, or lose your information to hackers in a worst-case-scenario. The biggest fear of government is that they come to your house, take you away, erase all your evidence of being born, tell people you are a terrorist, and never give you a fair trial. I am not saying give full confidence to corporations either. Corporations have very little restrictions as to how they must handle the private information of its customers. They don’t HAVE to MD5 sum your passwords, or encrypt your personal data in their database‚ some do, just to protect their customers. Others don’t care. Some companies do things to try and help their users with simpler interfaces, and actually enable their customers to easily give up their privacy. I think this is what happened to Facebook: They had no intentions on being evil by making people’s information show up to everyone by default, they were simply making it easier for their members to find each other… however, their default settings put anyone who created an account at risk of potential employers and ex-girl/boyfriends stalking them.

The main point, is that it’s very important for people to understand exactly what is happening with their information. Read through the privacy agreement, and if it’s in legalese I encourage you to email the website, company, etc. and ask them to explain your rights, and what steps you can do to protect your privacy, and what steps they take to protect it. Twitter does a very good job of explaining each line of legalese in plain English if you read their privacy policy.

Remind your friends how important it is to protect their privacy, and when you hear people spouting off about “national security‚” ask them if they mind if you go look through their underwear drawer due to “national security.” It’s your patriotic duty to stand up against a government who treats its citizens as the enemy, and say that you will not accept it anymore.

Fight the fight, be a patriot of our digital revolution.

This story was originally published on the author's webs ite at http://travismccrea.com

Notes on the Fourth Amendment The Electronic Frontier Foundation

The Fourth Amendment says, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

A seizure occurs when the government takes possession of items or detains people.

A search is any intrusion by the government into something in which one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Some examples of searches include: reaching into your pockets or searching through your purse; entering into your house, apartment, office, hotel room, or mobile home; and examining the contents of your backpack or luggage. Depending on the facts, eavesdropping on your conversations or wiretapping of your communications can also constitute a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment requires searches and seizures to be "reasonable", which generally means that police must get a search warrant if they want to conduct a legal search or seizure, although there are exceptions to this general rule. If a search or seizure is "unreasonable" and thus illegal, then police cannot use the evidence obtained through that search or seizure in a criminal trial. This is called the exclusionary rule and it is the primary incentive against government agents violating your Fourth Amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches whether or not you are a citizen. In particular, the exclusionary rule applies to all criminal defendants, including non-citizens. However, the exclusionary rule does not apply in immigration hearings, meaning that the government may introduce evidence from an illegal search or seizure in those proceedings.

The Fourth Amendment applies whenever the government — whether local, state or federal — conducts a search or seizure. It protects you from an unreasonable search or seizure by any government official or agent, not just the police.

The Fourth Amendment does not protect you from privacy invasions by people other than the government, even if they later hand over what they found to the government — unless the government directed them to search your things in the first place.

Your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be suspended — even during a state of emergency or wartime — and they have not been suspended by the USA PATRIOT Act or any other post-9/11 legislation.

If you are ever searched or served with any kind of government order, contact a lawyer immediately to discuss your rights. Contact a lawyer any time you are searched, threatened with a search, or served with any kind of legal papers from the government or anyone else. If you do not have a lawyer, pro bono legal organizations such as EFF are available to help you or assist in finding other lawyers who will.

The Fourth Amendment only protects you against searches that violate your reasonable expectation of privacy. A reasonable expectation of privacy exists if 1) you actually expect privacy, and 2) your expectation is one that society as a whole would think is legitimate.

This rule comes from a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1967. Katz v. United States, holding that when a person enters a telephone booth, shuts the door, and makes a call, the government can not record what that person says on the phone without a warrant. Even though the recording device was stuck to the outside of the phone booth glass and did not physically invade Katz’s private space, the Supreme Court decided that when Katz shut the phone booth’s door, he justifiably expected that no one would hear his conversation, and that it was this expectation — rather than the inside of the phone booth itself — that was protected from government intrusion by the Fourth Amendment. This idea is generally phrased as "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."

A big question in determining whether your expectation of privacy is "reasonable" and protected by the Fourth Amendment arises when you have "knowingly exposed" something to another person or to the public at large. Although Katz did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the sound of his conversation, would he have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his appearance or actions while inside the glass phone booth? Probably not.

Thus, some Supreme Court cases have held that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information you have "knowingly exposed" to a third party — for example, bank records or records of telephone numbers you have dialed — even if you intended for that third party to keep the information secret. In other words, by engaging in transactions with your bank or communicating phone numbers to your phone company for the purpose of connecting a call, you’ve "assumed the risk" that they will share that information with the government.

You may "knowingly expose" a lot more than you really know or intend. Most information a third party collects — such as your insurance records, credit records, bank records, travel records, library records, phone records and even the records your grocery store keeps when you use your "loyalty" card to get discounts — was given freely to them by you, and is probably not protected by the Fourth Amendment under current law. There may be privacy statutes that protect against the sharing of information about you — some communications records receive special legal protection, for example — but there is likely no constitutional protection, and it is often very easy for the government to get a hold of these third party records without your ever being notified.

Here are some more details on how the Fourth Amendment will — or won't — protect you in certain circumstances:

Residences. Everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home. This is not just a house as it says in the Fourth Amendment, but anywhere you live, be it an apartment, a hotel or motel room, or a mobile home.

However, even things in your home might be knowingly exposed to the public and lose their Fourth Amendment protection. For example, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations or other sounds inside your home that a person outside could hear, or odors that a passerby could smell (although the Supreme Court has held that more invasive technological means of obtaining information about the inside of your home, like thermal imaging technology to detect heat sources, is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant). Similarly, if you open your house to the public for a party, a political meeting, or some other public event, police officers could walk in posing as guests and look at or listen to whatever any of the other guests could, without having to get a warrant.

Business premises. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your office, so long as it’s not open to the public. But if there is a part of your office where the public is allowed, like a reception area in the front, and if a police officer enters that part of the office as any other member of the public is allowed to, it is not a search for the officer to look at objects in plain view or listen to conversations there. That’s because you’ve knowingly exposed that part of your office to the public. However, if the officer does not stay in that portion of the premises that is open to the public — if he starts opening file cabinets or tries to go to private offices in the back without an invitation — then his conduct becomes a search requiring a search warrant.

Trash. The things you leave outside your home at the edge of your property are unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. For example, once you carry your trash out of your house or office and put it on the curb or in the dumpster for collection, you have given up any expectation of privacy in the contents of that trash. You should always keep this in mind when you are disposing of sensitive documents or anything else that you want to keep private. You may want to shred all paper documents and destroy all electronic media. You could also try to put the trash out (or unlock your trashcan) right before it’s picked up, rather than leaving it out overnight without a lock.

Public places. It may sound obvious, but you have little to no privacy when you are in public. When you are in a public place — whether walking down the sidewalk, shopping in a store, sitting in a restaurant or in the park — your actions, movements, and conversations are knowingly exposed to the public. That means the police can follow you around in public and observe your activities, see what you are carrying or to whom you are talking, sit next to you or behind you and listen to your conversations — all without a warrant. You cannot necessarily expect Fourth Amendment protection when you’re in a public place, even if you think you are alone. Fourth Amendment challenges have been unsuccessfully brought against police officers using monitoring beepers to track a suspect’s location in a public place, but it is unclear how those cases might apply to more pervasive remote monitoring, like using GPS or other cell phone location information to track a suspect’s physical location.

Infiltrators and undercover agents. Public meetings of community and political organizations, just like any other public places, are not private. If the government considers you a potential criminal or terrorist threat, or even if they just have an unfounded suspicion that your organization might be up to something, undercover police or police informants could come to your public meetings and attempt to infiltrate your organization. They may even wear hidden microphones and record every word that’s said. Investigators can lie about their identities and never admit that they’re cops — even if asked directly. By infiltrating your organization, the police can identify any of your supporters, learn about your plans and tactics, and could even get involved in the politics of the group and influence organizational decisions. You may want to save the open-to-the-public meetings for public education and other non-sensitive matters and only discuss sensitive matters in meetings limited to the most trusted, long-time staff and constituents.

Importantly, the threat of infiltrators exists in the virtual world as well as the physical world: for example, a police officer may pose as a online "friend" in order to access your private social network profile.

Records stored by others. As the Supreme Court has stated, "The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed." This means that you will often have no Fourth Amendment protection in the records that others keep about you, because most information that a third party will have about you was either given freely to them by you, thus knowingly exposed, or was collected from other, public sources. It doesn’t necessarily matter if you thought you were handing over the information in confidence, or if you thought the information was only going to be used for a particular purpose.

Therefore it is important to pay close attention to the kinds of information about you and your organization’s activities that you reveal to third parties, and work to reduce the amount of private information you leave behind when you go about your daily business.

Opaque containers and packages. Even when you are in public, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of any opaque (not see-through) clothes or containers. So, unless the police have a warrant or qualify for one of the warrantless search exceptions discussed below, they can’t go digging in your pockets or rummaging through your bags.

Laptops, pagers, cell phones and other electronic devices are also protected. Courts have generally treated electronic devices that hold data as if they were opaque containers.

However, always keep in mind that whatever you expose to the public isn’t protected. So, if you’re in a coffee shop using your laptop and an FBI agent sitting at the next table sees what you are writing in an email, or if you open your backpack and the FBI agent can see what’s inside, the Fourth Amendment won’t protect you.

Postal mail. The mail that you send through the U.S. Postal Service is protected by the Fourth Amendment, and police have to get a warrant to open it in most cases.

If you’re using the U.S. Postal Service, send your package using First Class mail or above. Postal inspectors don’t need a search warrant to open discount (media) rate mail because it isn’t supposed to be used for personal correspondence.

Keep in mind that although you have privacy in the contents of your mail and packages, you don’t have any privacy in the "to" and "from" addresses printed on them. That means the police can ask the post office to report the name and address of every person you send mail to or receive mail from — this is called a "mail cover" — without getting a warrant. Mail covers are a low-tech form of "traffic analysis," which we’ll discuss in the section dealing with electronic surveillance.

You don’t have any privacy in what you write on a postcard, either. By not putting your correspondence in an envelope, you’ve knowingly exposed it, and the government can read it without a warrant.

The police may be able to come into your home or office if you have opened those places to the public — but you can also ask them to leave, just as if they were any other members of the public. If they don’t have a warrant, or don’t qualify for any of the warrant exceptions, they have no more right to stay once you’ve asked them to leave than any other trespasser. However, undercover agents or officers need not announce their true identities, so asking all cops to leave the room before a meeting is not going provide any protection.

Search Warrants Are Generally Required For Most Searches and Seizures.

The Fourth Amendment requires that any search or seizure be reasonable. The general rule is that warrantless searches or seizures are automatically unreasonable, though there are many exceptions.

To get a warrant, investigators must go to a neutral and detached magistrate and swear to facts demonstrating that they have probable cause to conduct the search or seizure. There is probable cause to search when a truthful affidavit establishes that evidence of a crime will probably be found in the particular place to be searched. Police suspicions or hunches aren't enough — probable cause must be based on actual facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the police will find evidence of a crime.

In addition to satisfying the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement, search warrants must satisfy the particularity requirement. This means that in order to get a search warrant, the police have to give the judge details about where they are going to search and what kind of evidence they are searching for. If the judge issues the search warrant, it will only authorize the police to search those particular places for those particular things.

What should you do if a police officer comes to your home or office with a search warrant?

Be polite. Do not get in the officers' way, do not get into an argument with them or complain, even if you think your rights are being violated. Never insult a police officer. But you should say "I do not consent to this search." If they are properly authorized, they will search anyway. But if they are not, then you have reserved your right to challenge the search later.

Ask to see the warrant. You have a right to examine the warrant. The warrant must tell in detail the places to be searched and the people or things to be seized, and may limit what time of day the police can search. A valid warrant must have a recent date (usually not more than a couple of weeks), the correct address, and a judge's or magistrate's signature. If the warrant appears incomplete, indicates a different address, or otherwise seems mistaken, politely point this out to the police.

Clearly state that you do not consent to the search. The police don't need your consent if they have a warrant, but clearly saying "I do not consent to this search" will limit them to search only where the warrant authorizes. If possible, have witnesses around when you say it.

Do not resist, even if you think the search is illegal, or else you may be arrested. Keep your hands where the police can see them, and never touch a police officer. Do not try to leave if the police tell you to stay — a valid warrant gives them the right to detain any people that are on the premises while the search is conducted. You are allowed to observe and take notes of what the officers do, though they may tell you to sit in one place while they are conducting the search.

Don't answer any questions. The Fifth Amendment guarantees your right not to answer questions from the police, even if they have a warrant. Remember that anything you say might be used against you later. If they ask you anything other than your name and address, you should tell them "I choose to remain silent, and will not answer any questions without a lawyer." If you say this, they are legally required to stop asking you questions until you have a lawyer with you.

Take notes. Write down the police officers' names and badge numbers, as well as the names and contact information of any witnesses. Write down, as best you can remember, everything that the police say and everything you say to them. Ask if you can watch the search, and if they say yes, write down everything that you see them search and/or seize (you may also try to tape or take pictures, but realize that this may escalate the situation). If it appears they are going beyond what is authorized by the warrant, politely point this out.

Ask for an inventory. At the conclusion of the search, the police should typically provide an inventory of what has been seized; if not, request a copy but do not sign any statement that the inventory is accurate or complete.

Call a lawyer as soon as possible. If you don't have a lawyer, you can call EFF and we'll try to find you one.

If the police believe a computer is itself evidence of a crime — for example, if it is stolen or was used to commit a crime — they will usually seize it and then search its contents later. However, if the evidence is just stored on the computer — for example, you have computer records that contain information about the person they are investigating — instead of seizing the whole machine, the police may choose to:

Search the computer and print out a hard copy of the particular files they are looking for (this is rarely done)

Search the computer and make an electronic copy of the particular files

Create a duplicate electronic copy of all of the computer's contents (this is called "imaging" or creating a "bitstream copy" of the computer hard drive) and then search for the particular files later

"Sneak and Peek" Search Warrants Are Easier to Obtain Than They Used to Be

Generally, police officers serving a warrant must "knock and announce" — that is, give you notice that they are the police and are serving a warrant (although they might not do this if they reasonably suspect that they will be put in danger, or that evidence will be destroyed, if they give such notice). If they have a warrant, they can enter and search even if you aren't home — but they still have to leave a copy of the warrant and an inventory of what they seized, so you'll know that your place was searched.

However, thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act, it is much easier for law enforcement to get permission from the court to delay notice rather than immediately inform the person whose premises are searched, if agents claim that giving notice would disrupt the investigation. Since the goal is not to tip the suspect off, these orders usually don't authorize the government to actually seize any property — but that won't stop them from poking around your computers.

The delay of notice in criminal cases can last months. The average delay is 30 to 90 days. In the case of super-secret foreign intelligence surveillance to be discussed later, the delay lasts forever — no one is ever notified, unless and until evidence from the search is introduced in open court.

The risk of being targeted with such a "sneak-and-peek" warrant is very low, although rising quickly. Law enforcement made 47 sneak-and-peek searches nationwide from September 2001 to April 2003 and an additional 108 through January 2005, averaging about fifty per year, mostly in drug cases. We don't know how many foreign intelligence searches there are per year — it's secret, of course — but we'd guess that it's much more common than secret searches by regular law enforcement.

Secret searches can be used to install eavesdropping and wiretapping devices. Secret searches may also be used to install a key-logging device on your computer. A key-logger records all of the keystrokes that you make on the computer's keyboard, for later retrieval by the police who installed it. So if you are concerned about government surveillance, you should check your office computers for new added hardware that you don't recognize — especially anything installed between the keyboard and the computer — and remove it. A hardware key-logger often looks like a little dongle in between the keyboard plug and computer itself. Keyghost is an example of a hardware key-logger.

However, the government also has the capability to remotely install software key-loggers on your computer — or search the contents of your hard drive, or install surveillance capability on your computer — using its own spyware. There were rumors of such capability a few years ago in news reports about a government software program code-named “Magic Lantern” that could be secretly installed and monitored over the Internet, without the police ever having to enter your house or office. More recently, news reports revealed that the government had in one case been able to hack into a computer remotely and install software code-named “CIPAV” (the "Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier"), which gave the government the IP addresses with which the infected computer communicated.

In response to a survey, all of the major anti-spyware companies claimed that their products would treat government spyware like any other spyware programs, so you should definitely use some anti-spyware product to monitor your computer for such programs. It's possible that a spyware company may receive a court order requiring it not to alert you to the presence of government spyware (several of the companies that were surveyed declined to say whether they had received such orders), but you should still use anti-spyware software if only to protect yourself against garden-variety spyware deployed by identity thieves and commercial data harvesters.

There Are Many Fourth Amendment Exceptions to the General Rule of Warrants

In some cases, a search can be reasonable — and thus allowed under the Fourth Amendment — even if the police don't have a warrant. There are several key exceptions to the warrant requirement that you should be aware of.

Consent. The police can conduct a warrantless search if you voluntarily consent to the search — that is, if you say it's OK. In fact, any person who the police reasonably think has a right to use or occupy the property, like a roommate or guest in your home, or a coworker at your office, can consent to the search. You can make clear to the people you share a home or office with that they do not have your permission to consent to a search and that if police ask, they should say no.

Privacy tip: Don't accidentally consent!

If the police show up at your door without a warrant, step outside then close and lock the door behind you — if you don't, they might just walk in, and later argue that you implied an invitation by leaving the door open. If they ask to come in, tell them "I do not consent to a search." Tell roommates, guests, coworkers and renters that they cannot consent on your behalf.

Administrative searches. In some cases, the government can conduct administrative searches. These are searches done for purposes other than law enforcement; for example, for a fire inspection. Court authorization is required for involuntary administrative searches, although the standards are lower. The only time the government doesn't need a warrant for an administrative search is when they are searching businesses in highly regulated industries such as liquor, guns, strip mining, waste management, nuclear power, etc. This exception to the warrant requirement clearly does not apply to the average homeowner, activist organization or community group.

Privacy tip: Just because they're "inspectors" doesn't mean you have to let them in!

If someone shows up at your home or office claiming to be a fire inspector, building code inspector, or some other non-law enforcement government employee who wants to inspect the premises, you can tell them to come back with a warrant. You don't have to let them in without a warrant!

Exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances are emergency situations where it would be unreasonable for the police to wait to get a warrant, like if a person is calling for help from inside your house, if the police are chasing a criminal suspect who runs into an office or home, or if evidence will be destroyed if the police do not act immediately.

Privacy tip: Don't get tricked into consenting!

Police could try to get your consent by pressuring you, or making you think that you have to let them in. For example, they may show up at your door claiming that your neighbor saw someone breaking into your home or office, saw a criminal suspect entering the premises, or heard calls for help, and that they need to take a look around. You should never physically interfere if they demand to come in (which they will do if there are indeed exigent circumstances), but no matter what they say or do, keep saying the magic words: "I do not consent to a search."

Plain view. The police can make a warrantless search or seizure if they are lawfully in a position to see and access the evidence, so long as that evidence is obviously incriminating. For example, if the police enter a house with a valid search warrant to search for and seize some stolen electronics and then see a bag of drugs in plain view on the coffee table, they can seize the drugs too, even though the warrant didn't specifically authorize that seizure. Similarly, the police could seize the drugs without a warrant, or look at any other documents or things left in plain view in the house, if there were exigent circumstances that led the police into the house — for example, if a suspect they were chasing ran into the house, or if they heard gunshots from inside. Even a law-abiding citizen who does not have any contraband or evidence that the police would want to seize may still have sensitive documents in plain view that one would not want the authorities to see.

The plain view exception alone does not allow the police to enter your home or office without a warrant. So, for example, even if the police see evidence through your window, they cannot enter and seize it. However, plain view can combine with other exceptions to allow searches that might otherwise require a warrant. For example, if the person with the bag of drugs in the previous example saw the police looking through his window, then grabbed the bag and ran towards the bathroom as if he was about to flush the evidence down the toilet, that would be an exigent circumstance and the police could enter without a warrant to stop him.

Automobiles. Since cars and other vehicles are mobile, and therefore might not be around later if the police need to go get a warrant, the police can search them without one. They still need probable cause, though, because you do have a privacy interest in your vehicle.

If the police have probable cause, they can search the entire vehicle (including the trunk) and all containers in the vehicle that might contain the object for which they are searching. For example, if the police have probable cause to believe that drugs are in the vehicle, they can search almost any container, but if they have probable cause to believe that a murder suspect is hiding inside the vehicle, they must limit their search to areas where a person can hide.

Also, it's important to know that the "plain view" exception is often applied to cars. That means that the police aren't conducting a search just by looking through your car windows, or even by shining a flashlight in your car. And if they see evidence inside your car, that can then give them probable cause to search the rest of the vehicle under the automobile exception.

If you are pulled over by a police officer, you may choose to stop somewhere you feel safe, both from traffic and from the officer herself. In other words, you can pull into a lighted gas station, or in front of someone's home or somewhere there are other people present, rather than stopping on a dark road, so long as you indicate to the officer by your driving that you are in fact stopping. You are required to show the officer your license, insurance and registration. Keep your hands where the officer can see them at all times. For example, you can wait to get your documentation out when the officer is standing near your car so that she can watch what you are doing and have no cause to fear that you are going into the glove box for a weapon. Be polite and courteous.

Airport searches. As you certainly know if you've flown recently, the government is allowed to search you and all your luggage for bombs and weapons before you are allowed to board a plane, without a warrant. Always assume that the government will look in your bags when you fly, and pack accordingly.

Border searches. The government has the right to warrantlessly search travelers at the border, including international airports, as part of its traditional power to control the flow of items into and out of the country. The case law distinguishes between "routine" searches, which require no cause, and "non-routine" searches, which require reasonable suspicion, but no warrant. "Non-routine" searches include strip searches, cavity searches, involuntary X-rays and other particularly invasive investigative techniques. Several courts have found that searching the contents of your laptop or other electronic devices is "routine" and doesn't require a warrant or even reasonable suspicion.

One solution to this problem is to bring a blank "traveling" laptop and leave your personal information at home. You could then access the information that you left at home over the internet by using a VPN or other secure method to connect to a server where you've stored the information.

However, bringing a clean laptop means more than simply dragging files into the trash. Deleting files will not remove them from your hard drive. See our software and technology article on secure deletion for details.

Another solution is to use password-based disk encryption to prevent border agents from being able to read your files. The consequences of refusing to disclose a password under those circumstances are difficult to predict with certainty, but non-citizens would face a significant risk of being refused entry to the country. Citizens cannot be refused entry, but could be detained until the border agents decide what to do, which may include seizing your computer.

Stop and frisk searches. The police can stop you on the street and perform a limited "pat-down" search or "frisk" — this means they can feel around your outer clothing for concealed weapons.

The police don't need probable cause to stop and frisk you, but they do at least need to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on specific facts. This is a very low standard, though, and the courts usually give the police a lot of leeway. For example, if a police officer is suspicious that you're carrying a concealed weapon based on the shape of a lump under your jacket or the funny way that you're walking, that's usually enough.

If, while patting you down, a police officer feels something that he reasonably believes is a weapon or an illegal item, the officer can reach into your clothes and seize that item. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

Search Incident to Arrest (SITA) doctrine is an exception to the general requirement that police obtain a warrant before conducting a search. The purpose of this exception is to protect the officer by locating and seizing any weapons the person has and to prevent the destruction of any evidence on the person. According to the SITA doctrine, if an arrest is valid, officers may conduct a warrantless search of the arrestee and the area and objects in close proximity — i.e. the "grab area" — at about the same time as the arrest.

Officers may also perform inventory searches of the arrested person at the time of the arrest or upon arrival at the jail or other place of detention.

So, the police are allowed to search your clothing and your personal belongings after they've arrested you. They can also search any area nearby where you might conceal a weapon or hide evidence. If you are arrested inside a building, this usually means they can search the room they found you in but not the entire building. If you are arrested while driving, this means they can search inside the car, but not the trunk. But if they impound the car, then they can search the trunk as part of an inventory search. This is another example of the way that multiple exceptions to the warrant requirement can combine to allow the police a lot of leeway to search without going to a judge first.

When searches are delayed until some time after the arrest, courts generally have allowed warrantless searches of the person, including containers the arrestee carries, while rejecting searches of possessions that were within an arrestee's control. These no longer present any danger to the officer or risk of destruction because the arrestee is now in custody.

The question remains whether the SITA doctrine authorizes warrantless searches of the data on cell phones and computers carried by or located near the arrestee. There are very few cases addressing this question. In one case in Kansas, for example, the arresting officer downloaded the memory from the arrestee's cellphone for subsequent search. The court found that this seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officer only downloaded the dialed and incoming numbers, and because it was imperative to preserve the evidence given the volatile, easily destroyed, nature of cell phone memory.

In contrast, in another case in California, the court held that a cellphone search was not justified by the SITA doctrine because it was conducted for investigatory reasons rather than out of a concern for officer safety, or to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence. The officers could seize the phone, and then go obtain a warrant to do any searching of it. The decision rejected the idea that the data searched was not private, in light of the nature and amount of information usually stored on cell phones and laptops.

If the police arrive at your home or office with an arrest warrant, go outside, lock the door, and give yourself up. Otherwise, they'll just force their way in and arrest you anyway, and then be able to search nearby. It is better to just go peacefully without giving them an excuse to search inside.

If you are arrested, the officers are going to seize all the property on your person before you are taken to jail. If you have a cell phone or a laptop, they will take that too. If you are sitting near a cell phone or laptop, they may take those as well. The SITA doctrine may allow police to search the data. It many also allow copying for later search, though this is well beyond what the SITA doctrine's original justification would allow.

You can and should password protect your devices to prevent this potentially unconstitutional privacy invasion. But for much stronger protection, consider protecting your data with file and disk encryption.

Prudent arresting officers will simply secure the devices while they get a warrant. There's nothing you can do to prevent that. Do not try to convince the officers to leave your phone or laptop behind by disavowing ownership. Lying to a police officer can be a crime. Also, prosecutors may use your statements against you later to argue that you do not have the right to challenge even an illegal search or seizure of the device, while still being able to introduce information stored on the device against you.

In addition to search warrants, the government has another very powerful legal tool for getting evidence — the subpoena. Subpoenas are legal documents that demand that someone produce specific documents or appear in court to testify. The subpoena can be directed at you to produce evidence you have about yourself or someone else, or at a third party to produce evidence they have collected about you.

Subpoenas demand that you produce the requested evidence, or appear in court to testify, at some future time. Search warrants, on the other hand, are served and executed immediately by law enforcement with or without your cooperation.

Subpoenas, unlike search warrants, can be challenged in court before compliance. If you are the recipient of the subpoena, you can challenge it on the grounds that it is too broad or that it would be unduly burdensome to comply with it. If a judge agrees, then the court may quash the subpoena so you don't have to produce the requested evidence. You may also be able to quash the subpoena if it is seeking legally privileged material, or information that is protected by the First Amendment, such as a political organization's membership list or information to identify an anonymous speaker. If the subpoena is directed to a third party that holds information about you, and you find out about it before compliance, then you can make a motion to quash the subpoena on the grounds of privilege or constitutional rights regardless of whether the third party decides it would otherwise comply. However, you have to do so before the compliance date. Subpoenas that are used to get records about you from third parties sometimes require that you be notified, but usually do not.

Subpoenas are issued under a much lower standard than the probable cause standard used for search warrants. A subpoena can be used so long as there is any reasonable possibility that the materials or testimony sought will produce information relevant to the general subject of the investigation.

Subpoenas can be issued in civil or criminal cases and on behalf of government prosecutors or private litigants; often, subpoenas are merely signed by a government employee, a court clerk, or even a private attorney. In contrast, only the government can get a search warrant.

What should you do if a government agent (or anyone else) shows up with a subpoena?

NOTHING.

Subpoenas are demands that you produce evidence at some time in the future. A subpoena does not give anyone the right to enter or search your home or office, nor does it require you to hand over anything immediately. Even a "subpoena forthwith", which asks for immediate compliance, can not be enforced without first going to a judge.

So, if someone shows up with a subpoena, don't answer any questions, don't invite them in, and don't consent to a search — just take the subpoena, say thank you, close the door and call a lawyer as soon as possible!

This selection is part of a larger entry on Surveillance Self-Defense and can be found on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's SSD website at https://ssd.eff.org/

No Safe Quarter Loreley MacTavish

The above is a common phrase repeated often by the uninformed in regards to our growing surveillance society. Not only is it an uninformed opinion; it is irresponsible and unconscionable for those who call themselves Americans. Those people, as I’ve dubbed those who say such things, are effectively spitting upon the Constitution, namely the Fourth Amendment.

Our society has disintegrated, becoming a place where everyone is considered a potential threat until proven innocent. But what is the definition of innocent? Innocent of what crime? Simply behaving “suspiciously” is now enough to be reported. For example, the Department of Homeland Security has launched the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign. If you see what? The videos give examples of people leaving bags in public places. What about those of us who forget our items? I’ve lost my purse, but I’d rather someone try to return it to me instead of calling the authorities!

One has to also wonder if holding political opinions is wrong. I always considered holding informed opinions as being responsible. However, in Pennsylvania, this was not considered as such. In fact, in the fall of 2010, watch lists were made of various groups – Tea Parties, anti-gas drillers, anti-puppy mill groups, etc. From this I gathered that being informed and having an opinion was considered threatening by the government, warranting attention from authorities!

For a long time after this, I was afraid to speak out and let my opinion be known, something I’d always enjoyed until then. Following the watch list incident, I’d have nightmares of DHS personnel hiding in the shrubbery, tapping my phones, listening to my conversations about underwear shopping or family problems. Sometimes I still do. When the lists were discovered, it was fear like I’d never known before. I felt betrayed, like all I’d believed about America was a lie, like some child finding out Santa Claus wasn’t real. But this was worse. Knowing there’s no fat man dressed in red to bring presents doesn’t cause any sort of raw terror. Finding out the document I thought protected my rights was about as real as Narnia was quite another story.

Afterward, I spoke with many senior citizens who attended political events. (My old city had a large elderly population.) These folks in their walkers or toting canes were just as afraid as I, wondering if they would be barred from boarding a plane, wondering if there would be any repercussions to the lists.

Fear is, perhaps, one of the most powerful weapons to use against people. I still have bad dreams about those lists. And I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong. I suppose since 9/11 that the definition of “wrong” has changed.

This is another rephrasing of the first quote, yet a little more insidious, a little farther reaching, if you will. Doing wrong and having nothing to hide can be two completely different things. This phrase suggests that you should be an open book. It also makes me think of that quote from Eric Schmidt of Google notoriety: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”[1]

How about going to rehab, marriage counseling, cancer treatment, purchasing scandalous lingerie, or treating an embarrassing health problem? It seems as if, according to Schmidt and those people , we all ought to ignore our personal problems, pretend they don’t exist, wear “granny panties,” and just let whatever that nasty little problem is continue untreated.

And, I for one, do have things to hide! Like my titties and hoo-hoo when I go to the airport. If I were a stripper, I’d have a lot more money. But, I certainly don’t relish the thought of stripping for strangers for free. Oh, wait, actually, considering I buy the plane tickets, I’m paying! What kind of raw, pervy deal is that?

Going on vacation should not cause anxiety; it should be a fun, lighthearted time. Yet, waiting in the queue to be screened by those clunking around in jackboots tends to cause a large amount of anxiety. If you’ve ever been the victim of sexual harassment, the situation can be very bad, indeed. And then, of course, there’s the thought that maybe I might have ended up on a list because someone in power didn’t like a letter to the editor, a USPP newsletter, a speech I gave at a rally, or this essay. Now, I haven’t done anything wrong, other than state my beliefs, a practice allegedly protected by the First Amendment.

It seems that people back in Pennsylvania forgot about that list. No one brings it up anymore. The head of the department stepped down after that fiasco and that seemed to satisfy the masses. Yet how can the people there feel they are safe to continue as they would? The Patriot Act is still in effect, the reason for the list in the first place.

It has frustrated me that no one seems to realize all the other issues don’t matter if your voice is taken away. How can you speak if you’ll be punished, watched like a criminal? If we allow our voice to be outlawed, we will have no say in anything.

To make it worse, the TSA is now moving to the streets in Tennessee. They set up checkpoints along roads! How long until this comes to other states? How long until we start getting questioned about personal effects in our vehicles and are forced to “show our papers?” How long until the biggest stressor while driving is no longer the harried person cutting off other motorists?

Perhaps one of the most disturbing items I’ve read about lately is IntelliStreets. These are streetlights that have the capability to take pictures, give security alerts, reprimand people for littering or jaywalking, and broadcast ads and security alerts. Yet, there’s one other capability these devices have – the ability to record conversations!

Ron Harwood, the inventor of Intellistreets, claims, “This is not a system with spook technology.”[2] Really? Then what is the purpose of street lights being able to record a conversation? Obviously there’s a reason he decided to include that capability in his design, and I’m doubting it’s because he’s a voyeur.

How many freedoms have we lost? We’re treated like criminals, have to fear expressing ourselves, must wonder if our phone conversations are being recorded…and the list goes on. However, far more than anything else, our own government and the corporations that benefit by creating this spook technology, to use Harwood’s term, are what frighten me the most. Who is going to protect us from them?

The Universal Declaration for Human Rights The United Nations

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

(1). Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

(2). No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

(1). Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2). Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

(1). Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2). This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

(1). Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2). No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

(1). Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

(2).They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3).The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

(1). Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2). No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

(1). Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2). No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

(1). Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2). Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3). The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

(1). Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2). Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3). Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4). Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

(1). Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2). Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

(1). Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2). Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3). Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

(1). Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2). Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

(1). Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2). In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3). These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World War. With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the international community vowed never again to allow atrocities like those of that conflict happen again. It can be found online at http://www.un.org/ en/documents/udhr/index.shtml