It is almost a given situation that most people do not know that privacy rights when they are online. Know the problem is that the laws are already outdated even though they were put into the fact in the year 2000. But that is what Rahul Srinivas contends in his new article below. Be sure to check out the website http://www.theexpertoneverything.com for Edward David Gil’s Novel The Expert On Everything – Privacy Doesn’t Exist Anymore.

Of Privacy Laws and the Lack of Them

Rahul Srinivas, Sep 26, 2008 1643 hrs IST

82% of US netizens are worried about their credit card numbers being stolen; 72% think their online activities are being tracked by companies

According to a recent poll by the Consumer Reports National Research Center in the US, most US citizens are extremely concerned about their online privacy and are keen to know what exactly is being done with their personal information online. As much as 82% of the people are worried about their credit card numbers being stolen online --while another 72% think their online activities are being tracked by companies.

The telephonic survey conducted recently has brought to light several concerns and misconceptions held by the public in the US regarding privacy laws. Some glaring examples include the fact that a large percentage of US citizens (incorrectly) think their consent is needed for companies to USE their personal information. While others think, companies actually need a court order to be able to track your activities online -- which happens to be completely untrue.

While this kind of corporate consumer behavior tracking has been a hotly debated issue over the years in the US, India is just seeing a rise in awareness amongst its netizens about their online privacy rights. Currently, with little or no privacy laws governing cyberspace in India, the average Internet user is left exposed to nefarious practices by unscrupulous companies who have gained notoriety in selling off personal information to foreign companies in need of online browsing habits.

If that was not all, our very own government is planning to monitor our online activities. Thanks to a bunch of terrorists who decided to use e-mails as a medium to send their messages across. Do you really think it is right on the part of the government to have the right to see what you're doing online? Well, 47 percent of our readers thought it's OK! More on that story here.

Coming back to the US survey reports, here are some interesting statistics:

As much as 35% of the respondents used an alternate e-mail address to avoid providing real information to these companies. 26% of people surveyed use software that helped them hide their identity while another 25% provided fake information to websites that ask for personal information. Nice tactic. I do think providing fake information is a common practice here in India as well.

The survey has managed to highlight one common sentiment amongst Americans; they are increasingly demanding more control over their personal information being collected by companies.

In a related story, two of the major Internet service providers in the US, Verizon and AT&T have recently pledged not to track their customers unless they get an explicit permission to do so.

India seems to be still in its infancy when it comes to cyber laws. Most of us are grossly unware of our rights as far as online privacy laws are concerned. While most Indian companies have vendor-specific privacy policies, it is high time that our legal system implements laws that are uniformly applicable to all relevant industries. In our judiciary, the only reference to online privacy is seen in the IT Act of 2000, where Chapter XI, Section 72 has the following excerpt:

"Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy states that any person who secures any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material without prior consent and discloses the information to a third party is punishable under the Act. The punishment ranges from imprisonment or a fine which may extend to Rs. 100,000 or both."

That is as vague as it could be. And considering, this was implemented in 2000, it's past time our cyber-laws got a firmware update.
Via: Consumersunion.org


3. Support A Campaign and Lose Your Privacy.

I fully agree with Shaun Dakin when he proposes a National Political Do Not Contact Registry. It has come to the point where I do not answer the phone this time of year. He made some very valid points in regards to our lack of privacy.

Support a campaign and lose your privacy

Posted by Shaun Dakin September 16, 2008 05:05AM Categories: Opinion

Dakin is chief executive and founder of Citizens for Civil Discourse, a nonprofit group that has launched the National Political Do Not Contact Registry at StopPoliticalCalls.org.

While John McCain and Barack Obama have plenty to fight about, there is at least one thing that they agree on: Voters who interact with their campaigns have no privacy rights.

What does this mean?

It's simple: Voters do not have the right to opt out of unwanted campaign communications, either online or off-line. Voters don't have the right to decide who will contact them or how they will be contacted by the presidential campaigns.

This invasion of the voters' privacy is bipartisan. Republicans do it. Democrats do it. Heck, even Libertarians do it.

Last week, I received an e-mail from the Obama campaign that had the subject line: "Your Neighbors." Intrigued, I opened the message and learned that the campaign was launching a sophisticated program called "Neighbor-to-Neighbor" that makes "it easier than ever to connect with potential supporters in your community by phone or door-to-door." It continues: "Neighbor-to-Neighbor gives you the option to make phone calls or knock on doors -- the choice is yours."

The choice may be yours, but what about your neighbors, who may not want you to bother them at their homes?

This new program is both tech-cool and privacy-rights-scary. When I clicked through to myBarackObama.com, I was able to create "walk lists" using a Google map showing me exactly where potential Obama supporters near me live. The Web site provided the names, addresses and phone numbers of these targeted neighbors and offered a prompt for printing out the list. The last step? Log back in and record the results of your "door-to-door" conversations with voters.

I don't know about you, but I do not want my neighbors knocking on my door asking me whom I'm going to vote for. I certainly do not want my name, address and phone number printed on a Google map for the world to see. And, without a doubt, I do not want anyone calling me at home during dinner.

This is an invasion of privacy, because these voters never explicitly gave their permission to have themselves targeted in a database that invites their neighbors to walk "door to door" to try to persuade them to vote for a particular candidate.

When I tried to opt out of this tool, I learned that while I could opt out of campaign e-mail spam, there was no way that I could quickly, securely and comprehensively opt out of voter communications that I do not want to receive.

John McCain's Web site is much the same: It provides no mechanism for voters to opt out of unwanted communications other than e-mail.

What can be done?

As a spokesperson for millions of voters inundated by political campaigns, I have testified this year before the Senate Rules Committee in support of the Robocall Privacy Act. Our members report receiving as many as 15 robocalls a day during election season. Mothers have their babies awakened from naps. Night-shift workers who sleep during the day can't get the rest they need. Seniors and others fear that a health emergency could occur while their phone is tied up.

While commercial organizations are required by law to respect the privacy rights of consumers, politicians at the federal level and in all but a few states have exempted themselves from these laws. More than 160 million phone numbers have been placed on the National Do Not Call Registry, which requires commercial organizations to stop calling consumers within 30 days of those consumers listing their numbers. Political campaigns will call many of those 160 million numbers with impunity this fall. Why should commercial companies be required by law to stop invading the privacy of potential customers while politicians are allowed to do whatever they wish to reach potential voters?

To answer this question, candidates usually cite the First Amendment -- the right to speak freely as part of the our nation's vital democratic process. That might be a legitimate criticism of an outright ban but not of a system in which voters are given the choice to opt out of unwelcome communications.

Thus, the real reason for their personal exemptions is obvious: Politicians write the laws, and politicians like regulation only when it applies to someone else.

The time has come for a Voter Privacy Bill of Rights built on a single, straightforward principle: Voters should have the right to opt out of all direct political communications that they do not want to receive. Period.

Interesting article in regards to Intellectual Property Rights and the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

EFF, Public Knowledge sue US gov't over secret IP pact

Grant Gross , IDG News Service, 09/18/2008

Two digital rights advocacy groups have filed a lawsuit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in an attempt to get the office to turn over information about a secret international treaty being negotiated to step up cross-border enforcement of copyright and piracy laws.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge filed the lawsuit Wednesday after USTR ignored their repeated requests to turn over information about the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

ACTA could include an agreement for the U.S., Canada, the European Commission and other nations that are part of the talks to enforce each other's intellectual-property (IP) laws, with residents of each country subject to criminal charges when violating the IP laws of another country, according to a supposed ACTA discussion paper posted on Wikileaks.org in May.

The document posted on Wikileaks also talks about increasing border searches in an effort to find counterfeit goods, encouraging ISPs (Internet service providers) to remove online material that infringes copyrights and increased cooperation in destroying infringing goods and the equipment used to make them. The full text of the ACTA has not been released, despite requests by EFF and Public Knowledge, as well as Canadian groups. Wikileaks is a site that posts anonymous submissions of sensitive documents.

"ACTA raises serious concerns for citizens' civil liberties and privacy rights," EFF international policy director Gwen Hinze said in a statement. "This treaty could potentially change the way your computer is searched at the border or spark new invasive monitoring from your ISP. People need to see the full text of ACTA now, so that they can evaluate its impact on their lives and express that opinion to their political leaders. Instead, the USTR is keeping us in the dark while talks go on behind closed doors."

A USTR spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In the lawsuit, Public Knowledge and EFF say the trade agreement's documents are subject to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which requires U.S. agencies to turn over most documents, with some exceptions, when a U.S. resident requests them.

The two groups filed an FOIA request in June, then clarified the request two weeks later. USTR did not respond after that, and in August, a lawyer for the two groups tried to reach a USTR official dealing with the FOIA request, but a voice message was not returned.

ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, not a treaty, meaning it wouldn't be subject to congressional scrutiny and approval, said Art Brodsky, Public Knowledge's communications director.

"This is an unusual situation," he said. "At this point, we're trying to figure out what's going on. The other side is clearly working with USTR. USTR will have public meetings and listen to us, but won't show us what's going on."

U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab announced plans last October to negotiate the trade agreement. USTR posted a notice asking for public comments on ACTA in February, but the only documentation included in that request was a one-and-a-half page

Nevertheless, several groups filed comments about ACTA. The Business Software Alliance, a trade group representing large software vendors, said it "strongly supports USTR's efforts to address counterfeiting and piracy through a plurilateral trade agreement."

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed comments offering suggestions for the trade agreement. Among its recommendations: Countries should allow investigators to treat piracy like organized crime, giving IP enforcement efforts additional resources used to fight organized crime. The RIAA also wants laws requiring ISPs to remove infringing materials posted by subscribers, the trade group said in its comments.

The Motion Picture Association of America also filed comments supporting ACTA and offering suggestions.

Other countries involved in the ACTA talks are Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates.

Huge issues hang on 2008 election

It is time for all Americans to think seriously about the issues and problems facing our country and stop listening to the media uproar around personalities and smear tactics on all sides of the political spectrum.

There are a few short weeks before we all head to the polls on November 4th. During this time we owe it to our country to be involved, engaged and curious when researching the issues and the candidates. Competency and explicit, well reasoned plans should be the basis for our final decision.

To listen, read and watch main stream media outlets these days it seems we have all but forgotten: how 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Iraq; how the current administration cherry picked intelligence to find a basis for invading Iraq; how much of our country's treasury and over 4,100 lives of our brave volunteer military have been lost due to poor planning, not enough or effective body armor, not enough up-armored fighting vehicles, not enough Arab-speaking military linguists (over 26 discharged for "don't ask don't tell"); how many private contractors have received no-bid contracts, overcharged the US government and are accountable to NO ONE; the lack of care and support, both mental and physical for our wounded veterans when they return, [Abu Ghraib] and the abuse and torture endured there; Guantanamo Bay where "enemy combatants" are held without charge indefinitely; almost anything about Afghanistan; how cronyism and loyalty in the current administration directly lead to the horrific disaster in the wake of Katrina; the bail-out of major banking institutions including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac due to decreased regulation, greed and creative accounting; skyrocketing energy costs and a flailing economy related in no small part to the 4 billion dollars a month the government is spending in Iraq and Afghanistan; GLOBAL WARMING and the responsibility we all share in conserving and protecting our planet; research and development of alternative energies and decreased reliance on all fossil fuels; how we still haven't secured our nation's chemical, nuclear and biological plants against attacks SEVEN years after 9/11; how our privacy and civil rights have been systematically eroded in the name of "security," and finally that not one person in a position of power or policy has been held accountable or responsible for the debacle they have created.

This long, albeit severely edited list of real problems and issues makes "lipstick" remarks seem petty and ridiculous to me.

Please realize more than the next four years hangs in the balance. The next President will most certainly be nominating at least one Justice to the Supreme Court and they may once again be revisiting privacy rights, free speech and Roe v. Wade. Separation of church and state and civil rights will also be important topics for both the Congress and the courts.

Our country's reputation around the world has been damaged by the reckless policies and the unapologetic arrogance of the current administration. We no longer can claim moral authority over anyone and have almost all but forgotten about a tried and trusted tool called DIPLOMACY.

Many of our problems will not be solved by a new administration but we must all resolve to be active in the political process. The next President may well ask us to sacrifice or shoulder more personal responsibility but Americans have always risen to the challenges put forth by our leaders.

Our democracy is a living treasure which must be tended by all its citizens. Get out in your community, talk to your neighbors and friends, read and research all you can find and when you step up to your ballot on November 4th you will be prepared to cast your vote for the most qualified, inspired and competent candidates. Our future and the future of our children, grandchildren, and the very earth depend upon YOUR involvement.

Sincerely,

Marta K. Herman

Spring City

6. Your Privacy Rights

Great article on the role mandated GPS installation plays in further destroying our privacy rights.

These devices intrude on a citizen's privacy

By TOMMY OVERTON • September 15, 2008 Tennesean.com

Only two states have held that the installation of GPS devices by police on a citizen's vehicle without a search warrant violates their state constitution as a governmental intrusion on its citizens' privacy rights. Tennessee should be the third.

An individual's right to privacy means no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs or have his home invaded without authority of law. The founding fathers could not have expected the effects of such advanced technology leading to diminished expectations of privacy. Certain acts of government presents the police with a web of rules that are meant to protect the privacy interests of the people.

Citizens of this state have a right to be free from the type of governmental intrusion that occurs when a GPS device is attached to their vehicle. The American Civil Liberties Union has objected to the use of such devices without a warrant by stating "the intrusion into private affairs with this device is quite extensive as the information obtained can disclose a great deal about an individuals life."

Vehicles are used to take people to a vast number of places that can reveal a citizen's preference and associations. When a GPS device is downloaded, it provides a record of every location the vehicle has traveled in the past.

It can provide a detailed record of trips to the doctor's office, banks, gambling casinos, places of worship, political outings, places where children are dropped off, etc.

A third party might be involved

It doesn't, however, distinguish the identity of the individual driver that is operating the vehicle. In many households, more than one family member has access to the family vehicle. It is definitely intrusive and offensive to be able to violate the privacy rights of a third party because a family member or some other driver of a particular vehicle might be a suspect involving criminal activity.

Allowing the use of GPS devices without a warrant would mean the above third-party individuals must more readily assume that they are the objects of government scrutiny. As one state judge writes, "an individual's freedom may be impaired as much if not more by the threat of the scrutiny as by the fact of the scrutiny."

The placement of a GPS device on an automobile without a warrant is nothing more than a fishing expedition into a citizen's private affairs. It is a technological substitute for vehicle tracking, regardless of whether the device is covertly installed by the police to the vehicle at a public place or while parked at a citizen's home. If police are not required to obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS device to a citizen's vehicle, there is no limitation on the state's use of these devices whether criminal activity is suspected or not. Courts have stated that one indication of whether a government action intrudes on a person's privacy right is whether a private individual would offend social and legal norms of behavior by engaging in the same kind of intrusion.

I should not be able to attach a GPS device to my neighbor's vehicle to track his activities or the activities of his family. Likewise, without court approval, the government should not, either.

Tommy Overton is a Nashville attorney.

7. Your Privacy Rights.

Very interesting article about wiretapping, telecom operators and how our privacy rights just keep being further eroded. The url to the site is here.

Niche Telecom Providers Assisting NSA Spy Operations

by Tom Burghardt / September 11th, 2008

What do the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program and enterprising capitalist grifters have in common? Workarounds…and lots of them. The kind that aren’t covered by any law.

Two highly-disturbing reports by CNET and the London Review of Books describe how government intelligence agencies and niche telecom providers have teamed-up to subvert our privacy rights–while providing security agencies with real-time cell phone tracking capabilities.

The stuff of paranoid delusions? Hardly.

According to London Review of Books editor Daniel Soar, to the Intelligence Support Systems Industry (ISS), “which sells analysis tools to government agencies, police forces and–increasingly–the phone companies themselves,” the least interesting thing about your call may be what you say. Soar writes,

At a very rough estimate half a trillion calls are made each day on the world’s mobile networks: their origin and destination, their time and duration and all identifying codes are logged on telecom provider hard-drives and generally retained, under emerging legislation, for up to two years. It’s impossible to exaggerate the value of these data. … At the frequent ISS conferences–Dubai, Qatar, Washington, Prague–one of the key topics of discussion tends to be how to identify targets for LI (that’s ‘lawful intercept’) in the first place: it’s a cinch to bug someone, but how do you help a law enforcement agency decide who to bug? (”Daniel Soar Considers Mobile Surveillance,” London Review of Books, 14 August 2008)

And with a swarming multitude of new companies crawling out of the woodwork to “service” the “homeland security” market, why its a snap. Firms such as ThorpeGlen, VASTech, Kommlabs, and Aqsacom all sell what CNET’s Chris Soghoian describes as “off-the-shelf data-mining solutions to government spies interested in analyzing mobile-phone calling records and real-time location information.”

Called “passive-probing” data mining, these companies are carving-out lucrative niche markets. Only there’s nothing “passive” about these intrusive operations undertaken in concert with a veritable army of state and corporate spooks.

According to Soghoian, while firms such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint directly collaborated with NSA on the agency’s driftnet-style surveillance programs, legal experts are now suggesting that the public-private partnership in illegal spying may run far deeper into the wireless phone industry than anyone suspects.

With over 3,000 wireless companies operating in the United States, the majority of industry-aided snooping likely occurs under the radar, with the dirty-work being handled by companies that most consumers have never heard of. (Chris Soghoian, “Exclusive: Widespread Cell Phone Location Snooping by NSA?”, CNET, September 8, 2008)

Indeed, a “Webinar” hosted by the UK’s ThorpeGlen in May, demonstrated that company’s tools by “mining a dataset of a single week’s worth of call data from 50 million users in Indonesia, which it has crunched in order to try and discover small anti-social groups that only call each other,” Soghoian reports.

In the case of the Indonesian analysis presented in ThorpeGlen’s “Webinar,” the London Review of Books reported that the VP of sales and marketing told prospective clients,

Everyone on a network … is part of a group; most groups talk to other groups, creating a spider’s web of interactions. Of the 50 million subscribers ThorpeGlen processed, 48 million effectively belonged to ‘one large group’: they called one another, or their friends called friends of their friends; this set of people was dismissed. A further 400,000 subscriptions could be attributed to a few large ‘nodes’, with numbers belonging to call centres, shops and information services. The remaining groups ranged in size from two to 142 subscribers. Members of these groups only ever called each other–clear evidence of antisocial behaviour–and, in one extreme case, a group was identified in which all the subscribers only ever called a single number at the centre of the web. This section of the ThorpeGlen presentation ended with one word: ‘WHY??’ (LRB, op. cit.)

The question arises: Is the NSA deploying similar technologies in the United States to spy on citizens doing no more than exercising their constitutional rights to protest state policies? If the swift preemptive raids by St. Paul police and the FBI during last week’s Republican National Convention are any indication, the answer inevitably is yes.

In other words, were the pin-point raids on homes shared by protest organizers and media workers such as I-Witness Video and the Glass Bead Collective simply the result of blind luck or human intelligence gathered by paid provocateurs? If report’s emerging on real-time cell phone tracking are any indication of the state’s desire to quash dissent–and those who document their repressive behavior, journalists–then the answer is a resounding no.

How then, would the NSA gather this information? Soghoian reports,

The massive collection of customer data comes down to the interplay of two specific issues: First, thousands of companies play small, niche support roles in the wireless phone industry, and as such these firms learn quite a bit about the calling habits of millions of U.S. citizens. Second, the laws relating to information sharing and wiretapping specifically regulate companies that provide services to the general public (such as AT&T and Verizon), but they do not cover the firms that provide services to the major carriers or connect communications companies to one other. [emphasis added]

That’s right. While it might be illegal for the NSA to obtain real-time customer location information from any of the giant telecoms, Bushist spooks can simply go to the companies that own and operate the wireless towers that the telecoms use for their networks “and get accurate information on anyone using those towers–or go to other entities connecting the wireless network to the landline network. The wiretapping laws, at least in this situation, simply don’t apply,” Soghoian writes.

Since networks “are more and more disaggregated and outsourced,” a single call is handled “by many more parties than the named provider today,” according to Albert Gidari, a lawyer at Perkins Cole in Seattle “who frequently represents the wireless industry in issues related to location information and data privacy.”

Such legal loopholes are in fact so massive that a fleet of tanker trucks could be driven right through them!

And since Sprint, AT&T or Verizon don’t actually own their own cellular towers, TowerCo, the company that does, “learns some information on every mobile phone that communicates with one of its towers.” But it gets worse, much worse. According to Soghoian, this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

There are companies that provide “backhaul” connections between towers and the carriers, providers of sophisticated billing services, outsourced customer-service centers, as well as Interexchange Carriers, which help to route calls from one phone company to another. All of these companies play a role in the wireless industry, have access to significant amounts of sensitive customer information, which of course, can be obtained (politely, or with a court order) by the government.

As we know, perverse laws such as the USA Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, not to mention FBI National Security Letters come with ready-made gag orders attached that forbid companies–or anyone else so served–from disclosing any information to the public or those whom the state is spying upon. Gidari told CNET,

“So any entity–from tower provider, to a third-party spam filter, to WAP gateway operator to billing to call center customer service–can get legal process and be compelled to assist in silence. They likely don’t volunteer because of reputation and contractual obligations, but they won’t resist either.”

Short of a whistleblower like Mark Klein or Babak Pasdar spilling the beans, the existence of these programs will likely remain a closely-guarded state secret. Why? Paul Ohm, a cyberlaw professor at the University of Colorado Law School and former federal prosecutor told CNET,

“Whether [a] vendor to a carrier to the public cooperates with agencies (either for a fee or by acquiescence in an order), is something you will not find out as FISA makes it so, regardless of whether the person is in the U.S. or communicating with a person abroad. Such means and methods largely are hidden.”

And there you have it. Niche telecom providers are the latest players in the West’s burgeoning “terrorism industry,” one that “keeps us safe” by destroying our privacy and our rights with hefty profits all around. Call it another seamless victory for the market’s “invisible hand” that clenches as it morphs into the state’s iron fist wrapped in American flags and blood-drenched corporate logos.

Note: Since Antifascist Calling published “New Spy Software Coming on-Line: ‘Surveillance in a Box’ Makes its Debut,” last month, we’ve received an intriguing package from the good folks at Quintessenz, “IT and telco surveillance equipment–data sheets and presentations.”

Described as, “A collection of network monitoring and datamining suites made by Nokia Siemens, Ericsson, Verint and others. All systems are compliant to ETSI and CALEA ‘lawful interception’ standards, the vendors themselves are involved in the standardization. While the official name of the game is still ‘lawful interception’ the newer suites also perform ‘high speed government surveillance’. From Iran to China they are ab/used to track down the democratic opposition, dissidents, ethnic and religious minorities. The vendors are mostly European and US companies.”

The power-point presentations and accompanying documentation are definitely worth a look and are highly recommended! Check out, “The making of the European Surveillance Union, 1993-2001,” a real eye-opener!

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly, Love & Rage and Antifa Forum, he is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press. Read other articles by Tom, or visit Tom's website.

This article was posted on Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 5:59am

8. Privacy Does Not Exist Anymore

It seems like every day we hear how our privacy is either being taken away or our rights are being eroded. The article that follows talks about how you can do it yourself with ID protection. Full Article

ID protection can be do-it-yourself

So if you want to put the job in someone else's hands, make your choice based on cost

By Mitch Lipka

Globe Correspondent / September 7, 2008

Looking at a chronology of data breaches compiled by the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, it seems you can't even go a week without significant numbers of people having their identifying information stolen.

In fact, nearly 28 million people were victims of identity theft between 2005 and 2007, according to a nationwide survey by Javelin Strategy and Research, a consultancy firm for the financial services and payment industries. The constant news of data losses and the heightened awareness of victimization have fueled a growing industry built around monitoring individuals' credit.

So we took a look at what some of these services offer, what they charge, and whether there is a value for consumers to use them. Among the biggest firms offering credit monitoring services are LifeLock, Debix (LoudSiren), Intersections (Identity Guard), and Trusted ID. The services also are sold by the three major credit reporting agencies: Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax.

Beth Givens, director of the education and advocacy group Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, doesn't see great value in the credit monitoring services scrambling to get your attention. In fact, she says much of what they offer is available to consumers at no charge.

However, what they do provide is policing of your credit reports and regular communication with the credit bureaus.

But is it worth the money? Givens said, for the most part, the answer is no. LifeLock, perhaps the most popular of the services - boosted by an ad campaign featuring the chief executive offering his Social Security number - serves as an example of why not, she said. (Someone took out a payday loan in Texas using LifeLock's CEO's Social Security number, but the company says the loan didn't affect his credit and the service still works because it keeps people from accessing your credit report.)

For $120 a year per adult, LifeLock offers to put fraud alerts on your accounts, limit your junk mail, and provide your credit report annually from each of the three credit reporting agencies.

"They're not offering anything you can't do yourself," Givens said.

Many credit protection companies, including LifeLock, tantalize consumers with the notion of having a $1 million policy protecting their losses - and being there to help when you need them. While some identity theft losses can be significant, mostly the cost is in the time and energy spent to repair the damage. Credit card losses due to identity theft are limited to $50 - and even that is rarely charged.

For senior citizens, in particular, there are inexpensive or free actions they can take themselves to prevent identity theft. Any senior - or anyone not normally subject to a credit check - should put a freeze on their credit report ($5 each to the three reporting agencies), Givens said. That would prevent anyone from getting credit in their names.

Givens's group, at www.privacyrights.org, and government agencies including the Federal Trade Commission, also offer considerable resources on identity theft.

Still, if you use credit a lot - and especially if you believe you're a potential target for ID theft - one service stands out. The Globe's pick, LoudSiren by Debix, charges $24 a year per adult and $40 for a couple. For a fraction of competitors' prices, Debix also offers an innovative telephone verification system anytime someone tries to access your credit.

The service also has been the choice of several government agencies to provide credit monitoring for people whose personal information was accessed in recent breaches.

LOUDSIREN BY DEBIX
Cost: $24 a year per adult
Pros: It is by far the least expensive service. You will be called on any of three phone numbers anytime your credit is accessed.
Cons: It still is unnecessary for most people.
Final Word: In this case, cheaper is better. If you're going to use credit monitoring, the price makes it a reasonable choice.

TRUSTED ID
Cost: $120 a year per person
Pros: The company says it scans black market websites to see whether anyone is marketing your credit card numbers.
Cons: Like many of its competitors, much of what Trusted ID offers you can do yourself, at little or no cost.
Final word: It's your money. Spend it if you must.

IDENTITY GUARD
Cost: $180 a year per person
Pros: Scans all three credit bureaus for activity on your accounts. Offers an identity theft recovery team to help if you become a victim.
Cons: It's expensive and not really worth the investment for the vast majority of people.
Final word: Too expensive.

LIFELOCK
Cost: $120 a year per person
Pros:Just as its competitors do, LifeLock will do things you could do yourself. It claims to help restore credit damaged by identity theft.
Cons: Little value for the investment.
Final word: This company advertises everywhere. That doesn't mean it's worth using.

It seems like every day we hear how our privacy is either being taken away or our rights are being eroded. The article that follows talks about how you can do it yourself with ID protection. Full Article

ID protection can be do-it-yourself

So if you want to put the job in someone else's hands, make your choice based on cost

By Mitch Lipka

Globe Correspondent / September 7, 2008

Looking at a chronology of data breaches compiled by the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, it seems you can't even go a week without significant numbers of people having their identifying information stolen.

In fact, nearly 28 million people were victims of identity theft between 2005 and 2007, according to a nationwide survey by Javelin Strategy and Research, a consultancy firm for the financial services and payment industries. The constant news of data losses and the heightened awareness of victimization have fueled a growing industry built around monitoring individuals' credit.

So we took a look at what some of these services offer, what they charge, and whether there is a value for consumers to use them. Among the biggest firms offering credit monitoring services are LifeLock, Debix (LoudSiren), Intersections (Identity Guard), and Trusted ID. The services also are sold by the three major credit reporting agencies: Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax.

Beth Givens, director of the education and advocacy group Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, doesn't see great value in the credit monitoring services scrambling to get your attention. In fact, she says much of what they offer is available to consumers at no charge.

However, what they do provide is policing of your credit reports and regular communication with the credit bureaus.

But is it worth the money? Givens said, for the most part, the answer is no. LifeLock, perhaps the most popular of the services - boosted by an ad campaign featuring the chief executive offering his Social Security number - serves as an example of why not, she said. (Someone took out a payday loan in Texas using LifeLock's CEO's Social Security number, but the company says the loan didn't affect his credit and the service still works because it keeps people from accessing your credit report.)

For $120 a year per adult, LifeLock offers to put fraud alerts on your accounts, limit your junk mail, and provide your credit report annually from each of the three credit reporting agencies.

"They're not offering anything you can't do yourself," Givens said.

Many credit protection companies, including LifeLock, tantalize consumers with the notion of having a $1 million policy protecting their losses - and being there to help when you need them. While some identity theft losses can be significant, mostly the cost is in the time and energy spent to repair the damage. Credit card losses due to identity theft are limited to $50 - and even that is rarely charged.

For senior citizens, in particular, there are inexpensive or free actions they can take themselves to prevent identity theft. Any senior - or anyone not normally subject to a credit check - should put a freeze on their credit report ($5 each to the three reporting agencies), Givens said. That would prevent anyone from getting credit in their names.

Givens's group, at www.privacyrights.org, and government agencies including the Federal Trade Commission, also offer considerable resources on identity theft.

Still, if you use credit a lot - and especially if you believe you're a potential target for ID theft - one service stands out. The Globe's pick, LoudSiren by Debix, charges $24 a year per adult and $40 for a couple. For a fraction of competitors' prices, Debix also offers an innovative telephone verification system anytime someone tries to access your credit.

The service also has been the choice of several government agencies to provide credit monitoring for people whose personal information was accessed in recent breaches.

LOUDSIREN BY DEBIX
Cost: $24 a year per adult
Pros: It is by far the least expensive service. You will be called on any of three phone numbers anytime your credit is accessed.
Cons: It still is unnecessary for most people.
Final Word: In this case, cheaper is better. If you're going to use credit monitoring, the price makes it a reasonable choice.

TRUSTED ID
Cost: $120 a year per person
Pros: The company says it scans black market websites to see whether anyone is marketing your credit card numbers.
Cons: Like many of its competitors, much of what Trusted ID offers you can do yourself, at little or no cost.
Final word: It's your money. Spend it if you must.

IDENTITY GUARD
Cost: $180 a year per person
Pros: Scans all three credit bureaus for activity on your accounts. Offers an identity theft recovery team to help if you become a victim.
Cons: It's expensive and not really worth the investment for the vast majority of people.
Final word: Too expensive.

LIFELOCK
Cost: $120 a year per person
Pros:Just as its competitors do, LifeLock will do things you could do yourself. It claims to help restore credit damaged by identity theft.
Cons: Little value for the investment.
Final word: This company advertises everywhere. That doesn't mean it's worth using.

Someone actually wants to do something to protect your privacy rights. Barbara L. Minton reports on the Campaign for Liberty headed by Ron Paul. It is obvious that the two political parties do not want to tackle the real issues that face us today. It is time for us to do what they do not have the will to do. The article below gives us a good start.

You can also find the article at Natural News

Ron Paul Kicks Off Campaign for Liberty, August 31 to September 2
by Barbara L. Minton (see all articles by this author)

(NaturalNews) Remember Ron Paul, the candidate who annoyed reporters, the left and the right by trying to talk about the real issues facing Americans during the presidential contender's debate? Although he gets very little media coverage aside from ridicule, he is still around and trying to get Americans to wake up to the threat to their liberty presented by the forces behind globalization. His latest initiative is the Campaign for Liberty, scheduled to kick off at the Rally for the Republic in Minneapolis from August 31 to September 2.

The Campaign will be the largest organization for peace, freedom, the Constitution, and sound money in American history. It will launch in grand fashion with lots of special guests, celebrities and media attention. Tickets to the three day Rally for the Republic event are already selling rapidly for a patriotic $17.76.

The mission of the Campaign for Liberty as stated is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of education and political activity.

The following is the statement of principles for the Campaign for Liberty. This statement eloquently reflects what Ron Paul tried to tell us during the debates but was not allowed to by the main stream media:

Americans inherit from their ancestors a glorious tradition of freedom and resistance to oppression. Our country has long been admired by the rest of the world for her great example of liberty and prosperity –- a light shining in the darkness of tyranny.

But many Americans today are frustrated. The political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all. For all their talk of "change", neither major political party as presently constituted challenges the status quo in any serious way. Neither treats the Constitution with anything but contempt. Neither offers any kind of change in monetary policy. Neither wants to make the reductions in government that our crushing debt burden demands. Neither talks about bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the world. Our country is going bankrupt, and none of these sensible proposals are even on the table.

The destructive bipartisan consensus has suffocated American political life for many years. Anyone who tries to ask fundamental questions instead of cosmetic ones is ridiculed or ignored.

The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of what the Campaign for Liberty stands for, since the very least we can demand of our government is fidelity to its own governing document. Claims that our Constitution was meant to be a "living document" that judges may interpret as they please are fraudulent, incompatible with republican government, and without foundation in the constitutional text or the thinking of the framers. Thomas Jefferson spoke of binding our rulers down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution, and we are proud to follow in his distinguished lineage.

With our Founding Fathers, we also believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy. Inspired by the old Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party, we are convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with 700 military bases around the world, troops in 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military overstretch is undermining our national defense and bankrupting our country.

We believe that the free market, reviled by people who do not understand it, is the most just and human economic system and the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known.

We believe with Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and F.A. Hayek that central banking distorts economic decision making and misleads entrepreneurs into making unsound investments. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' interference with interest rates sets the stage for economic downturns. And the central bank's ability to create money out of thin air transfers wealth from the most vulnerable to those with political pull, since it is the latter who receive the new money before the price increases it brings in its wake have yet occurred. For economic and moral reasons, therefore, we join the great twentieth-century economists in opposing the Federal Reserve System, which has reduced the value of the dollar by 95 percent since it began in 1913.

We oppose the dehumanizing assumption that all issues that divide us must be settled at the federal level and forced on every American community, whether by activist judges, a power-hungry executive, or a meddling Congress. We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution.

We oppose the transfer for American sovereignty to supranational organizations in which the American people possess no elected representatives. Such compromises of our country's independence run counter to the principles of the American Revolution, which was fought on behalf of self-government and local control. Most of these organizations have a terrible track record even on their own terms: how much poverty have the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actually alleviated, for example? The peoples of the world can interact with each other just fine in the absence of bureaucratic intermediaries that undermine their sovereignty.

We believe that freedom is an indivisible whole, and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well, all of which are historic rights that our civilization has cherished from time immemorial.

Our stances on other issues can be deduced from these general principles.

Our country is ailing. This is the bad news. The good news is that the remedy is so simple and attractive: a return to the principles our Founders taught us. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, individual liberty, sound money, and a noninterventionist foreign policy constitute the foundation of the Campaign for Liberty.

Reference:

Mission and Policy Statements are from the Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty website. If you have been moved by what you have read, you can donate to the Campaign at this website:
(http://www.campaignforliberty.com/mission/)

Tickets to the Rally for the Republic kickoff event can be purchased at:
(http://www.rallyfortherepublic.com/)

About the author Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using "alternative" treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.


11. Privacy Rights
Your privacy rights are being severly curtailed. These blog posts will explore that issue.