Shared publicly  - 
 
Anonymous is Not

The major impact of the Petraeus affair has nothing to do with the military, sex, or celebrity -- it is that there is no such thing as anonymous, and that the US government is able to access internet and credit card records without warrants, just because they ask to. Your digital life is not private from the government, ever; therefore, your life is not private. Read the details in this important reporting by +Andrew Leonard 

"[This] debacle confirms something that some privacy experts have been warning about for years: Government surveillance of ordinary citizens is now cheaper and easier than ever before. Without  needing to go before a judge, the government can gather vast amounts of information about us with minimal expenditure of manpower. We used to be able to count on a certain amount of privacy protection simply because invading our privacy was hard work. That is no longer the case. Our always-on, Internet-connected, cellphone-enabled lives are an open door to Big Brother."

I have nothing to hide; I am just saying anonymous is not anonymous.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/16/paula_broadwells_big_mistake/

This article below, linked in the above article, is likewise worthwhile.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/15/collatoral-damage-of-our-surveillance-state/
43
26
Irving Drommond's profile photoAdam Pearce's profile photoBenjamin Wright's profile photoDPW Walendziewicz's profile photo
20 comments
 
It can be stopped, but you have to be pretty paranoid in your use of the net.
 
Anonymous is not invisible. Why anyone would use the largest data storage/retrieval house as their communication channel is a mystery. Google's business model relies on knowing who you are. They keep track of a lot of stuff and can fill in the gaps on lots more. 
 
The story also teaches that the radical decline of privacy is a two-way street.  Institutions (like the CIA) are no more capable of keeping secrets than are individuals.  Big Brother is being watched.
 
"I have nothing to hide...." You know how many people died because they thought that? :s
 
+Benjamin Wright Interesting analogy there.  When one thinks about it the FBI is pretty much in control of who gets snooped on but I think it would be more interesting to learn how much the various agencies snoop on each other for political purposes.  Just when everyone thought the Nixon days of doing business were over bingo they're back.
 
They made the assumption that they were hiding from their spouses, and that law enforcement wouldn't break the law to snoop on actions that weren't actually illegal.  Alas, big brother is in fact the neighbourhood gossip, and she works for the FBI (:-))
 
+Brian Ferguson and +David Collier-Brown FBI is no more immune to the ravages of digital transparency than anyone else.  In the story, FBI was embarrassed because one of its agents (Frederick Humphries, a married man) is reported to have sent a shirtless photo of himself to the lady (Jill Kelley) whose complaints kicked off the original investigation.  FBI reprimanded its agent in connection with the scandal.
 
Declan McCullagh pointed out recently that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act allowed your "cloud based" emails to have less legal protection than a physical document that you retain in your posession. This is not entirely a matter of the feds violating privacy. It is a matter of badly drafted, old legislation.
 
+charles platt Even after Congress updates and improves the ECPA for the cloud age, people like Petraeus and Broadwell would be fools to think their secrets are safe.
 
Another reason I've never sent e-mails to anyone outside of close friends and family.
 
I think the real elephant in the room is the criminal business practice this kind of power could tempt agents into... Taking prior knowledge of deals and using that to intercept money.
 
That you have nothing to hide is really irrelevant. Even if you have something to hide you are entitled to privacy.
 
+Thomas Scoville One thing you forgot to mention is the deliberate entries into the system in regards to any Judiciary whereby law enforcement whether honest or in some cases dirty do so to run rackets by locking people up and when appeals are filed the ever so present use of a phony person mystically appears with the /s/ signature as if the documents where actually signed.  That's another way people get set up.  Most people fall for that quickly and it's how the judicial system is structured but today we have more than ever warrant-less wiretaps etc.  Recently an individual tried that with my cell phone but that was easily spotted. 

When it comes to stupidity, the younger generation you mention merely are doing what they see on TV and in all advertising so do we blame it on Apple because they've outsold everyone else in the cell phone market or do we place blame on the parents who somehow never teach their children right from wrong or do we simply shrug it off and place blame on YouTube for allowing repeatedly posted stupid videos showing dumb things?
 
Thomas, maybe this time is a little different in that Facebook self-revelations are more widespread than 1960s indulgences really were (they just seemed widespread because of media coverage). When the judge sentencing you can be confronted with his own Facebook posts from back-in-the-day, maybe this will encourage judicial restraint and tolerance? Maybe?
Add a comment...