4 ms·

You don't even have to have been there at all. Once an entity holds all your personal information like that, they can just say "Oh you were here, here, here and

You don't even have to have been there at all. Once an entity holds all your personal information like that, they can just say "Oh you were here, here, here and here at these times" even if it was not true. Who would doubt them? After all they have all the information right? RIGHT? Perfect way to set up someone you don't like.

imgabe 12y ago
If the government has devolved to the point that we have to worry about them framing people unjustly, we have FAR, FAR bigger problems than a database of location information. Hiding the information in that scenario is, at best, a temporary band aid. The appropriate fix is limiting the power of the government and requiring strict and transparent conditions on when and why someone can be arrested.
- billiam 12y ago
  I'm sorry, I just don't follow this slippery slope argument. We have lots of examples of the government abusing their use of online information. For the haves, we have the still-minor indignities of the no-fly list and targeting certain political stripes for IRS audits. For the have-nots, it is terrorism fusion data centers, predatory civil forfeiture and, jeez, a lot of the criminal justice system. So that world does exist now. Many of these excesses have been driven by "limiting the size of government" by defunding local governments and relying on private information brokers (license plate readers, etc), rather than passing better laws.
  - Guvante 12y ago
    > We have lots of examples of the government abusing their use of online information. That isn't what he said. He said that if the government is going to forge information, then the availability of location information is not necessary nor useful for that task.
  - imgabe 12y ago
    The things you've mentioned are all generally Bad Things and things that we should be fighting to stop. Fighting to obscure your location information and even protect your privacy in general doesn't stop any of the things you mentioned if you believe the government is acting in bad faith.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      It mitigates the risk. Someone cannot do bad things with your location information if they do not have your location information.
      - imgabe 12y ago
        I think it is naive to think that a bad actor who intends you harm will be stopped or even slowed down by the fact that there isn't a log of every location you've visited.
        seanflyon 12y ago
        I think that that is a ridiculous statement. Of course giving a bad actor more opportunity to act badly increases the risk.
        imgabe 12y ago
        A threat to your safety or your freedom needs to be dealt with directly by eliminating it, not hiding from it. If you're envisioning a bad actor with the resources to compile and analyze a comprehensive log of your location, the simple fact that you use service A instead of service B is not going to do a thing to stop them if they're out to get you. You have far bigger problems on your hands.
        seanflyon 12y ago
        What about a potential threat? You are not allowed to "eliminate" those. Maybe just don't give that potential threat more power.
  - mirkules 12y ago
    It looks like someone is systematically downvoting rational arguments in this thread without explanation, yours among them..
- x0x0 12y ago
  The government has so devolved -- they're using (most likely illegal) nsa spy tools and stolen data to arrest drug dealers, then lying to everyone involved about how they "stumbled" across the information, or so-called "parallel construction" [1]. While all the tools whine about slippery slope fallacies, the fact of the matter is we're already sliding down. The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses. [2] Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges. [3] [1] http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2014/02/10/dea-parallel-construction-manuals-available-now-online/ http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2014/02/10/dea-parallel... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/dea-surveillance-cover-up_n_3706207.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/dea-surveillance-co... [3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE...
- mathrawka 12y ago
  One thing that people do is just say "the government" like it is a single entity. It is not one entity. It is made up of hundreds of thousands of individuals. You know that guy that used to scare your wife/daughter with his stalking? Well he just happens to have a government job and may be in a position to abuse the knowledge that he has access to for personal gains.

imgabe 12y ago

If the government has devolved to the point that we have to worry about them framing people unjustly, we have FAR, FAR bigger problems than a database of location information. Hiding the information in that scenario is, at best, a temporary band aid. The appropriate fix is limiting the power of the government and requiring strict and transparent conditions on when and why someone can be arrested.

billiam 12y ago
I'm sorry, I just don't follow this slippery slope argument. We have lots of examples of the government abusing their use of online information. For the haves, we have the still-minor indignities of the no-fly list and targeting certain political stripes for IRS audits. For the have-nots, it is terrorism fusion data centers, predatory civil forfeiture and, jeez, a lot of the criminal justice system. So that world does exist now. Many of these excesses have been driven by "limiting the size of government" by defunding local governments and relying on private information brokers (license plate readers, etc), rather than passing better laws.
- Guvante 12y ago
  > We have lots of examples of the government abusing their use of online information. That isn't what he said. He said that if the government is going to forge information, then the availability of location information is not necessary nor useful for that task.
- imgabe 12y ago
  The things you've mentioned are all generally Bad Things and things that we should be fighting to stop. Fighting to obscure your location information and even protect your privacy in general doesn't stop any of the things you mentioned if you believe the government is acting in bad faith.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    It mitigates the risk. Someone cannot do bad things with your location information if they do not have your location information.
    - imgabe 12y ago
      I think it is naive to think that a bad actor who intends you harm will be stopped or even slowed down by the fact that there isn't a log of every location you've visited.
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        I think that that is a ridiculous statement. Of course giving a bad actor more opportunity to act badly increases the risk.
        imgabe 12y ago
        A threat to your safety or your freedom needs to be dealt with directly by eliminating it, not hiding from it. If you're envisioning a bad actor with the resources to compile and analyze a comprehensive log of your location, the simple fact that you use service A instead of service B is not going to do a thing to stop them if they're out to get you. You have far bigger problems on your hands.
        seanflyon 12y ago
        What about a potential threat? You are not allowed to "eliminate" those. Maybe just don't give that potential threat more power.
- mirkules 12y ago
  It looks like someone is systematically downvoting rational arguments in this thread without explanation, yours among them..
x0x0 12y ago
The government has so devolved -- they're using (most likely illegal) nsa spy tools and stolen data to arrest drug dealers, then lying to everyone involved about how they "stumbled" across the information, or so-called "parallel construction" [1]. While all the tools whine about slippery slope fallacies, the fact of the matter is we're already sliding down. The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses. [2] Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges. [3] [1] http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2014/02/10/dea-parallel-construction-manuals-available-now-online/ http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2014/02/10/dea-parallel... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/dea-surveillance-cover-up_n_3706207.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/dea-surveillance-co... [3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE...
mathrawka 12y ago
One thing that people do is just say "the government" like it is a single entity. It is not one entity. It is made up of hundreds of thousands of individuals. You know that guy that used to scare your wife/daughter with his stalking? Well he just happens to have a government job and may be in a position to abuse the knowledge that he has access to for personal gains.