Since its inception, technology has been at the core of our society. Nearly everything we do, centers around technological innovations. Now that various instances of technological innovations have been examined, it is important to analyze where such technology may progress to.
Various technological innovations have been set forth in recent years, while others have been around for some time now. It is difficult to predict what path our technology will lead us, as our technology has taken unpredictable paths. But one this is for certain, our society has clearly evolved more progressively in the past century than it has during the previous centuries combined.
Radio Frequency ID’s (RFID) will continue to expand in some form or another but it is when RFID’s are combined with other technological items is when the issue becomes truly complicated. This is simply because each item is made to stand out on its own. Each item has a basic purpose for making life easier and solving problems in society. But when does social conditions actually become a social problem?
Keylogging software and Global Positioning System (GPS) transmissions have made a mark as well, similar to RFID tags. All three were made to monitor the movements of individuals without their consent. Each item will continue to expand and will continue to monitor the lives of unsuspecting individuals as well. Fortunately, advocacy groups and lobbyists are making an effort to mandate laws to limit the expansion of such items for unwarranted purposes.
Wiretapping, roadside cameras, and full body scanners were made to expand on safety as well as compromise privacy. While various privacy issues come into play, if proper regulations are maintained, there should be minimal issues regarding the use of such technological items. It is when such items are used for personal gain or intended malice, is when the items would seriously pose a threat.
If technological items can be consistently regulated as they are being developed, there should be no complications or any implications to society’s need for privacy. But what happens if our technology overwhelms our society, would an effort to regulate such an expansion still be possible?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Airport security- Are virtual strip searches the new way of security?
New airport security measures are being established through the use of full body scanners. These scanners use state of the art invasive scans to essentially “x-ray” the entire body. The idea here is that metal scanners will eventually phase it out and bring forth this alleged new, speedier process to reduce travel delay without compromising national security.
What benefits will these scanners have? According to Kristin Lee, spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), these scanners “detect both metallic and nonmetallic threat items to keep passengers safe.” “It is proven technology, and we are highly confident in its detection capability.” Unfortunately, the problem here is that the images rendered are quite intrusive.
The images essentially render a nude image of the traveler, implying a full virtual strip search. It is so intrusive, that privacy advocates are demanding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to eliminate the use of these full body scanners.
Currently, there are six major airports which have already begun using the full body scanners as a primary means for security. These airports are: San Francisco, Ca; Miami, Florida; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Las Vegas, Nevada.
According to the TSA, 99% of travelers prefer this method of security over others. One big factor is the speed of the process involved. A full scan may take anywhere from 15 to 30 seconds, while a pat down search may range anywhere from 30 seconds to 4 minutes. In addition, those with metal replacements of the body may enjoy the convenience of this new found machine. This is because traditional metal detectors would often sound when an individual with any sort of metal replacement within the body which ultimately resulted in pat downs. Basically, the scanner would generate a small radio frequency roughly a small fraction of what a cell phone frequency would emit. Next, the scanned image would be produced in a secured room separated from the actual scanning area; thus preventing security personnel at the scanning site from viewing the image, while the security personnel who actually views the image, has no view of the passenger’s identity.
While an overwhelming majority prefers this method, is it rather that the sample was too small to conclude? Or rather is it that many individuals simply would not challenge the new revolutionary procedure regardless if they are opposed to the scan or not? Overall, while this scanner is still in its Beta stage, the TSA assures travelers that precautionary measures will continue to be used to protect the identities of the scanned travelers.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/11/24/bc-canadian-airport-screening-new-technology.html
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-02-19-airport-scanners_N.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/05/18/airport.security.body.scans/
Monday, October 19, 2009
Traffic cameras- are they useful or more detrimental to drivers on the road?
Traffic cameras began in the mid ‘60s but did not progress into digital means until the 90’s. It was during this time, when the expansion of technological innovations such as these was fully being taken notice by local, state, and federal agencies. The idea was these cameras could not only deter individuals from running red lights, but actually bring in revenue for the respective states.
According to the Washington Post, “despite producing more than 500,000 tickets (and generating over $32 million in revenues), red-light cameras didn't reduce injuries or collisions but rather increased the number.” The problem here is that while revenue has increased significantly in areas where traffic cameras had been implemented, it also seems to indicate that an increase in rear ended collisions are directly proportional to that increase. Why? Simply because many drivers who approach camera lights often fear receiving a ticket and apply their brakes suddenly; thus resulting in a rear ended collision.
Apart from increased revenue, traffic cameras allow officers to focus on other duties in which may serve a more beneficial use apart from simply issuing tickets. Speed cameras have already been implemented in many countries such as Canada, Brazil, and Portugal, and have begun to appear in the U.S. as well. Such cameras are adding to the comfort of increased revenue and reallocation of officers’ duties but such actions do not actually reduce speeding. Individuals approaching an intersection with a red light camera or areas with speed cameras may simply reduce their behavior in that particular location but as a whole, the cameras serve no educational tool to reduce such actions.
Now that red light cameras and speed cameras have begun to expand, it seems that stop sign cameras may not be too far off. One prospective idea on how a stop sign camera could work is by adding pressure pads to the limit lines of a stop sign; thus forcing a vehicle to remain in that position for the weight to balance out to trigger a green light, indicating that a successful stop was established. If a vehicle were to ignore the indicator, a picture may be taken. While this may seem rather absurd, chances are something of this nature may be in the cross hairs as increasing revenue for the cities and states, would aid in lowering state’s debts, and what state is opposed to that?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/2420766.html
According to the Washington Post, “despite producing more than 500,000 tickets (and generating over $32 million in revenues), red-light cameras didn't reduce injuries or collisions but rather increased the number.” The problem here is that while revenue has increased significantly in areas where traffic cameras had been implemented, it also seems to indicate that an increase in rear ended collisions are directly proportional to that increase. Why? Simply because many drivers who approach camera lights often fear receiving a ticket and apply their brakes suddenly; thus resulting in a rear ended collision.
Apart from increased revenue, traffic cameras allow officers to focus on other duties in which may serve a more beneficial use apart from simply issuing tickets. Speed cameras have already been implemented in many countries such as Canada, Brazil, and Portugal, and have begun to appear in the U.S. as well. Such cameras are adding to the comfort of increased revenue and reallocation of officers’ duties but such actions do not actually reduce speeding. Individuals approaching an intersection with a red light camera or areas with speed cameras may simply reduce their behavior in that particular location but as a whole, the cameras serve no educational tool to reduce such actions.
Now that red light cameras and speed cameras have begun to expand, it seems that stop sign cameras may not be too far off. One prospective idea on how a stop sign camera could work is by adding pressure pads to the limit lines of a stop sign; thus forcing a vehicle to remain in that position for the weight to balance out to trigger a green light, indicating that a successful stop was established. If a vehicle were to ignore the indicator, a picture may be taken. While this may seem rather absurd, chances are something of this nature may be in the cross hairs as increasing revenue for the cities and states, would aid in lowering state’s debts, and what state is opposed to that?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/2420766.html
Monday, October 5, 2009
GPS transmission- open door to hackers?
Global Positioning System (GPS) transmissions have been around for decades but its initial establishment was direct towards military use. It was not until 1983, when President Ronald Reagan declassified the GPS system and expanded its use towards the general public. While the declassification was established, the prevalence of GPS would not take full force until much later.
GPS transmissions through public use began to spread when the World Wide Web was unveiled in the early 90’s. Since then, new found technology has been incorporating new and intuitive ways of implementing GPS transmissions. GPS transmissions are widely known to transmit information wirelessly through the use of satellites. But given such ease with the service, does that mean private valued information may be intercepted as well?
Just this past year, several researchers from Virginia Tech and Cornell University have uncovered vulnerability in GPS navigation by “spoofing” the GPS receivers with falsified information. The concern here is that GPS usage has never been thought to have any vulnerability concerning loopholes and potential hacking. Given this new found vulnerability, researchers hope to patch the vulnerability to prevent further problems from arising in the future. According to Mark Psiaki, associate Professor at Cornell University, "Our goal is to inspire people who design GPS hardware to think about ways to make it so the kinds of things we're showing can be overcome." The idea here is that while there are vulnerabilities to anything, the key is identifying such flaws internally as to prevent third party hackers from further complicating the technology with more security flaws and problems.
GPS transmissions have expanded from its initial focus for tracking individual movement, to convenient navigational tools which are used ritually by millions of American citizens. Integration of GPS technology into mobile devices began in the late 90’s; but nowadays, such technology has become programmed into mobile phones as a core service. Consumers are not the only ones benefiting from GPS services, many corporations have integrated GPS services into their systems to monitor inventory, update tracking progress on various items, as well as maintain remote monitoring on each particular location. GPS technology has become a valuable fundamental stepping stone in our country. If it were attacked, it would be highly detrimental to our society. It is essential for further research to be established to aid in identifying further loopholes which may compromise valuable consumer data as well as personal information which could lead to an increase in identity thefts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dspdesignline.com/news/210604818;jsessionid=L2LUUDC4GANHIQSNDLQCKH0CJUNN2JVN
http://home.online.no/~sigurdhu/GPS_history.htm
http://www.articlesbase.com/gps-articles/the-history-of-gps-technology-732921.html
http://www.w3.org/History.html
GPS transmissions through public use began to spread when the World Wide Web was unveiled in the early 90’s. Since then, new found technology has been incorporating new and intuitive ways of implementing GPS transmissions. GPS transmissions are widely known to transmit information wirelessly through the use of satellites. But given such ease with the service, does that mean private valued information may be intercepted as well?
Just this past year, several researchers from Virginia Tech and Cornell University have uncovered vulnerability in GPS navigation by “spoofing” the GPS receivers with falsified information. The concern here is that GPS usage has never been thought to have any vulnerability concerning loopholes and potential hacking. Given this new found vulnerability, researchers hope to patch the vulnerability to prevent further problems from arising in the future. According to Mark Psiaki, associate Professor at Cornell University, "Our goal is to inspire people who design GPS hardware to think about ways to make it so the kinds of things we're showing can be overcome." The idea here is that while there are vulnerabilities to anything, the key is identifying such flaws internally as to prevent third party hackers from further complicating the technology with more security flaws and problems.
GPS transmissions have expanded from its initial focus for tracking individual movement, to convenient navigational tools which are used ritually by millions of American citizens. Integration of GPS technology into mobile devices began in the late 90’s; but nowadays, such technology has become programmed into mobile phones as a core service. Consumers are not the only ones benefiting from GPS services, many corporations have integrated GPS services into their systems to monitor inventory, update tracking progress on various items, as well as maintain remote monitoring on each particular location. GPS technology has become a valuable fundamental stepping stone in our country. If it were attacked, it would be highly detrimental to our society. It is essential for further research to be established to aid in identifying further loopholes which may compromise valuable consumer data as well as personal information which could lead to an increase in identity thefts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dspdesignline.com/news/210604818;jsessionid=L2LUUDC4GANHIQSNDLQCKH0CJUNN2JVN
http://home.online.no/~sigurdhu/GPS_history.htm
http://www.articlesbase.com/gps-articles/the-history-of-gps-technology-732921.html
http://www.w3.org/History.html
Monday, September 28, 2009
WireTapping- Newfound Security? Or Privacy Infringing?
Wiretapping became widespread following the passing of the Patriot Act. Wiretapping was long being used for national safety and citizen protection. While few legal wiretaps are being conducted on a routine basis, the reality is that illegal wiretaps are becoming more prevalent as our country matures and advances its technological innovations. What is wiretapping? Wiretapping is the interception of a phone, internet, or any other communications transmission by encrypting the third party stream tapped into the routine stream. In order to replicate the transmission to the third party line, splitters are used which deviate routine transmission streams into any device capable of recording such transmissions. In a sense, it is a form of electronic eavesdropping. But when is such actions crossing the line?
Mark Klein, an engineer who worked for AT&T for many years, has come forth and announced that AT&T had been secretly tapping into our internet lines and copying all transmission streams being sent and received regardless of what such information contains. The internet cables were replicating all data streams being processed through AT&T’s servers which not only included their customers, but other companies’ customers as well. Why is such information being pulled on a large scale? AT&T has remained tight lipped about the entire operation as anyone involved had been issued a gag order.
How was Mark Klein able to remain immune to the gag order imposed on anyone involved? That’s because Klein was not involved. He was competent enough to comprehend the exact nature of why large transmission cables were being relocated to a maximum security room. According to Klein, AT&T installed splitters to the transmission cables to replicate all incoming and outgoing transmissions. Now that AT&T has been unveiled regarding the illegal wiretap operation, where does this stand with the ethical principles of this country?
Since the unveiling, this ordeal has erupted into a large bombshell considering the secrecy involved and the amount of information being pulled. Klein has stepped forward urging Congress to refrain from issuing the telecommunications companies immunity for such actions. Klein has teamed up with lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation which opened a class action lawsuit against AT&T [Hepting v. AT&T] in federal court.
Wiretapping holds its benefits for national security as well as citizen protection; however, it is crucial to maintain a strict provisional guideline, to regulate how wiretaps may be performed. It is evident that if unregulated wiretapping becomes prevalent in our society, the hunger for power will emerge and the rights our founding fathers established for us can be considered a thing of the past. Not only will such actions open the door for even more privacy infringing activities, the structure of our country may collapse without the proper balance of power.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/07/AR2007110700006.html#
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs9-wrtp.htm
Mark Klein, an engineer who worked for AT&T for many years, has come forth and announced that AT&T had been secretly tapping into our internet lines and copying all transmission streams being sent and received regardless of what such information contains. The internet cables were replicating all data streams being processed through AT&T’s servers which not only included their customers, but other companies’ customers as well. Why is such information being pulled on a large scale? AT&T has remained tight lipped about the entire operation as anyone involved had been issued a gag order.
How was Mark Klein able to remain immune to the gag order imposed on anyone involved? That’s because Klein was not involved. He was competent enough to comprehend the exact nature of why large transmission cables were being relocated to a maximum security room. According to Klein, AT&T installed splitters to the transmission cables to replicate all incoming and outgoing transmissions. Now that AT&T has been unveiled regarding the illegal wiretap operation, where does this stand with the ethical principles of this country?
Since the unveiling, this ordeal has erupted into a large bombshell considering the secrecy involved and the amount of information being pulled. Klein has stepped forward urging Congress to refrain from issuing the telecommunications companies immunity for such actions. Klein has teamed up with lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation which opened a class action lawsuit against AT&T [Hepting v. AT&T] in federal court.
Wiretapping holds its benefits for national security as well as citizen protection; however, it is crucial to maintain a strict provisional guideline, to regulate how wiretaps may be performed. It is evident that if unregulated wiretapping becomes prevalent in our society, the hunger for power will emerge and the rights our founding fathers established for us can be considered a thing of the past. Not only will such actions open the door for even more privacy infringing activities, the structure of our country may collapse without the proper balance of power.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/07/AR2007110700006.html#
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs9-wrtp.htm
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Keylogging software- new wave of security? or just an invasion of privacy
Keystroke logging software has been around for nearly as long as the internet has but what invoked the creation of such a software? Frankly, is it a new wave of security for individuals to conform to or rather a Constitutionally imposed invasion of privacy?
Keystroke logging software began as a virus in which hackers would deliver such a software to unsuspecting victims to obtain crucial personal information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, and account information. What it does is it secretly runs on a computer without the impending victim's knowledge, then records all keyboard activity and stores all information for the perpetrator to obtain.
Keystroke logging software began to take notice to private citizens as well as government agencies as a useful tool to use around the home and office. What emerged, was the creation of new found software which allowed private citizens to purchase to install on their own computers or where desired. In 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) first implemented the use of keystroke logging software on the computer of Nicodemo Scarfo. Again in 2007, ecstasy manufacturers, Mark Forrester and Dennis Alba, had become the victims to the FBI's keystroke logging software. Is that permissible? Should there be an exception for such extreme cases?
According to the 9th District Court of Appeals, the federal government did not violate Scarfo’s Fourth Amendment rights and have right to proceed with such acts as long as the information they are obtaining are related to the warrant.
Now if the courts view using keylogging software as outside the meaning of the Fourth Amendment then does that mean police departments around the country will begin implementing the procedure into their daily patrol routines? Are we now fully vulnerable to having our right to privacy invaded? If the courts have established that keystroke logging software is permissible as long as it pertains to warrants, then installing cameras or other technological items within a dwelling may be around the corner as well. One issue that must be imposed is will the courts approve of law enforcement using such software to develop probable cause?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9741357-7.html
http://forums.techjunkie.com/3241_userID=1245235063/T=14353-32/Keystroke_logging
Keystroke logging software began as a virus in which hackers would deliver such a software to unsuspecting victims to obtain crucial personal information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, and account information. What it does is it secretly runs on a computer without the impending victim's knowledge, then records all keyboard activity and stores all information for the perpetrator to obtain.
Keystroke logging software began to take notice to private citizens as well as government agencies as a useful tool to use around the home and office. What emerged, was the creation of new found software which allowed private citizens to purchase to install on their own computers or where desired. In 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) first implemented the use of keystroke logging software on the computer of Nicodemo Scarfo. Again in 2007, ecstasy manufacturers, Mark Forrester and Dennis Alba, had become the victims to the FBI's keystroke logging software. Is that permissible? Should there be an exception for such extreme cases?
According to the 9th District Court of Appeals, the federal government did not violate Scarfo’s Fourth Amendment rights and have right to proceed with such acts as long as the information they are obtaining are related to the warrant.
Now if the courts view using keylogging software as outside the meaning of the Fourth Amendment then does that mean police departments around the country will begin implementing the procedure into their daily patrol routines? Are we now fully vulnerable to having our right to privacy invaded? If the courts have established that keystroke logging software is permissible as long as it pertains to warrants, then installing cameras or other technological items within a dwelling may be around the corner as well. One issue that must be imposed is will the courts approve of law enforcement using such software to develop probable cause?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9741357-7.html
http://forums.techjunkie.com/3241_userID=1245235063/T=14353-32/Keystroke_logging
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
RFID technology: added safety measure? or secret eye?
The 21st century has sparked extraordinary levels of new found technology which has garnished new items from revolutionary computers to remote monitoring equipment. But one particular item has caught my eye, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) chips. Such technology has been around for decades but it was not until the past several years, that RFID chips have been implemented on various personal documents such as passports, drivers' licenses, and electronic toll emitters. RFID chips work by emitting a small frequency towards an RFID reader which in turn decrypts the information available to a nearby computer coded for such information. This new way of monitoring gained enormous backing by the U.S. government, particularly during the Bush administration. It was not until October of 2006, when President Bush announced that all U.S. passports will bear an RFID chip, essentially wirelessly transmitting personal information such as name, age, gender, address, date of birth, and a photograph. In addition, several states have slowly begun implementing RFID chips into driver's licenses. What brought forth this new form of monitoring? 
RFID chips are intended to expand on the convenience of citizens as well as government officials who simply need a quicker and much more efficient way to identify an individual when needed. There are two types of RFID chips, active and passive. Active chips emit information consistently and have a greater range for the acquisition of data, whereas passive chips emit information but such information is stored on a database where the information may be decoded. But what about the security measures for such personal information? Proponents argue that such chips are encrypted with state of the art technology which aids in preventing potential hackers from swiping such personal information. However, hackers have still found their way into such personal information.
To potentially ease citizen worry, the Bush administration issued a statement back in 2006 stating "the new passports will be outfitted with anti-skimming material in the front cover to mitigate the threat of the information being surreptitiously scanned from afar."
What exactly is anti-skimming material? well, according to the Bush administration, the "anti-skimming material" is a physical component which shields the frequency from the RFID chip whenever the passport cover is closed. But what about drivers' licenses?
While there are clearly concerns over privacy matters regarding RFID chips, there are quite a few benefits to them as well. RFID chips are actually implanted into vehicles, in which alarms may be remotely deactivated as well as if the vehicle were to get stolen, there is a greater possibility of locating the vehicle; inventory of merchandise to let stores know exactly what is selling and what may need to be shifted; credit cards, many individuals probably are not aware that the swipe free convenience incorporates an RFID chip; animal tracking; as well as human implants, which was initially experimented on by Kevin Warwick, a British professor of cybernetics in 1998.
It is currently unclear on where the RFID chips will lead to, as the door is currently wide 
open.
Unfortunately, there is no indicator on when an individual is being "scanned" which eliminates consent but what about if there is no probable cause or need to scan? Does that indicate a strong vulnerability among those with RFID chips on their personal documents? Maybe, it is difficult to assess without proper empirical evidence suggesting one way or the other. If such instances arise, is that essentially the government intending to act like "Big Brother"? Is our country ready for such overwhelming technology that it may compromise citizens' personal liberties and freedoms? Let's hope not.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://tech.yahoo.com/blog/raskin/447
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/52270.html?wlc=1253601801
http://news.cnet.com/Passports-to-get-RFID-chip-implants/2100-7348_3-5913644.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)