Consumer Data Privacy Protection Bill Proposed By Obama Administration Said To Add Little Or Even To Diminish Existing Consumer Protection Laws

       Saturday, 28 February 2015, WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Ninth Amendment submitted the below comment to the New York Times in response to the below linked article which comment has been published in today's New York Times digital edition.

BigMartin

 waronnothing 9 hours ago

The editorial board of the Ninth Amendment at www.waronnothing.blogspot.com finds it most unfortunate that the Obama Administration despite President Obama's campaign promises to the contrary having firmly established a horrific record of greatly extending and expanding the NSA and other Executive Branch agencies' gross abuses of all Americans' privacy and other rights by among other things universal surveillance and data mining largely begun under the Bush administration should extend those broken promises to consumer privacy rights proposing such abysmal apparently toothless or even counter-productive legislation apparently immediately criticized by nearly all notable consumer rights groups. It is most unfortunate that President Obama appears bound to leave such a sorry legacy in the vital area of Americans' privacy and related Constitutional rights in an era when the sustained attacks against these rights by the Government and corporations domestically threaten the very survival of the core fabric of the Constitution and thus further diminish the chances of the very survival of the United States as it has become so distracted sacrificing such essential liberties to protect itself from "national security" threats claimed not only from abroad but increasingly allegedly from within.

• Reply
 
• 9Recommend

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/business/white-house-proposes-broad-consumer-data-privacy-bill.html?hpw&rref=technology&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

Copyright 2015 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved

WARNING: Battery Power Data Alone Used To Track Android Phone Users By "Malicious" App Requiring No Access To GPS Nor Other Location Provider Such As Cellular Or WiFi Network But Only Power Data Of Unwary "Victims"

       Monday, 23 February 2015, PALO ALTO, CA - A team of three researchers from the Stanford University Computer Science Department along with a colleague from Rafael Ltd. have written a paper describing their creation of what they call a "malicious" app which can track the location of an android phone user using only battery power consumption data which varies with distance and obstacles between the android phone and a cellular tower while discounting all other unneeded consumption information "noise" with an algorithm that through "machine learning" takes into account power uses such as conversations and listening to music or using social media and eliminates them from the location equation (the "Paper") BBC Technology News reports.
       "The "malicious" app has neither permission to access the GPS nor other location providers (eg cellular or wifi network) the team reportedly wrote in the Paper to which a link is provided in the BBC Technology News article linked to below for readers interested in more information. The malicious person locator app requires only permission for network connectivity and access to the power data which the team reports are so commonly requested for apps as not to arouse suspicion of "victims" be they of criminal government spy organizations such as just for example the NSA, CIA, and GCHQ, presumably as well as ordinary civilian criminals, stalkers, law enforcement and all manner of privacy invaders and persons posing threats to personal safety.
       The team reports that the above are "very common permissions" for example currently requested by 179 apps available on Android app store Google Play. A cyber security expert notes that with smartphones so "stuffed with sensors" that users often already forget about others being able to track them and that with this latest discovery that merely power data can be used also to track these unwary android phone users that "[w]e are approaching the point where the only safe way to use your phone is to pull the battery out - and not all phones let you do that". As mentioned above interested readers will find the direct link to the full BBC Technology News article below which article in its body provides a link to the research team's Paper and after the article's conclusion provides links to at least four more BBC Technology News articles warning on cyber security issues including technology privacy invasion and cheap spyware dangers.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31587621

Copyright 2015 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved

Radar-R Detectors Rampant "Secret" Law Enforcement Likely Misuse Unconstitutional Since 2012 To See Through Walls Into Private Homes Illegal Warrantless Invasion Of Privacy Detects Humans And Movement - Further Concern Is Criminals "Casing" Homes Watching Occupants' "Every Breath"

       Thursday, 22 January 2015, WASHINGTON, D.C. - Law enforcement agencies secretly starting in 2012 with federal agencies such as the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service at the vanguard and since having spread like an aggressive malicious cancer (to already dangerously "militarized" through the deranged DOD "1033 program" giveaway bonanza of everything from machine guns to tanks given to untrained police even college campus police departments all over the country) the Ninth Amendment has discovered that these past three years among other widespread unconstitutional actions they further are engaging in Orwellian activities secretly violating the privacy of and using exterior wall-held radar to see into Americans' homes with a $6,000 device (likely bought with unconstitutional "forfeitures" of frequently uncharged and/or innocent citizens' cash and property which DOJ has stopped allowing under federal law with over $2 billion worth of booty already taken by feds and police but state and local police still continue often after taking pricey "seminars" reportedly widely given by the company Desert Snow where former law enforcement officers apparently share special techniques not taught at the police academy on how better to to seize as much cash and easily fenced items as possible).
        The completely invasive radar device has for more than two years often been used by unchecked and unmonitored police placing the largely secretly used device against an exterior wall to detect the presence of every living person just by their breathing as well as track their every movement and location for a distance of greater than fifty feet within their home, business, office or wherever. Doubtless if there were technology available to such police in the same spirit of unchecked lawlessness they might prefer invading everyone's homes by watching them through their television sets (if not by their computer cameras which incidentally according to the New York Times technology writer should be kept covered with tape when not intentionally in operation by the computer user not because of law enforcement specifically but for protection from any hacker).

       In the opinion of the Ninth Amendment editorial board this widespread uncontrolled distribution of a device with such uses so obviously threatening including to core constitutional rights against warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment and the right to privacy especially in one's home and personal spaces (although the maker casts the device largely as a tool for search and rescue and safety operations) not only theoretically but as a known fact as to the indiscriminate sale of these these "Radar-R" detectors from L-3 Communications - CyTerra Corporation is irresponsible and one would think might expose any entity in the supply chain to potential liability.
      Our strictly lay view is that the known and now widely reported fact (such as in the USA Today article linked to below) of their widespread unlawful use shows a reckless disregard along the supply chain for the consequences of the uncontrolled availability of the devices demonstrated to have been used largely secretly doubtless because of well-founded concerns about the unconstitutionality of their use by law enforcement agencies intentionally by not informing those they legally should nor seeking legal opinions as to the need for probable cause, search warrants and so on with the devices serving as a virtual invitation to violate the Fourth Amendment and right to privacy among other things.
       It reasonably could be expected as well that all manner of criminals from more "sophisticated" types such as burglars preying on the wealthier casing empty homes to other very dangerous criminals willing to break and enter an occupied dwelling such as not only a burglar but a stalker, sex offender or others with violent intentions now are virtually invited to violate the most sacred sanctity of one's home with a device that can either identify an unoccupied dwelling or track the occupants of one that is occupied.
       This device in the wrong hands poses a quite plausible threat to that most strongly felt of last American strongholds that "One's Home is One's Castle" where any man and/or woman has every right and reason to feel secure in their dwelling for the sake of themselves, their family and loved ones without the added concern about a potentially dangerous individual tracking them with exterior wall contact radar as if being right in their homes which should that actually occur by long tradition justifies the strongest of responses by the homeowner or occupants under invasion or threat of severe bodily harm or death in the sanctity of their most private of places because such an intrusion clearly can lead to the most fearful and dangerous of circumstances and events. (Since the actions one legally may take vary greatly from state to state for home defense from similar acts of defense in some states being perfectly legal while in other states potentially being considered murder by the home occupant readers absolutely must consult a properly licensed attorney on this matter for legal advice which this does not purport to be and most definitely is not as the Ninth Amendment cannot and does not provide any legal advice whatsoever at all.)   

       This post is not meant by any means to be an advertisement nor encouragement by informing anyone not previously aware of this potentially so widely illegally used device by sneaks, snoops, rogue cops and criminals so that they might seek to use these devices but to spread awareness of their existence to a greater audience that they may be aware of them. Even as quoted from a federal appeals court below many may wish them more widely controlled and monitored if they share the view that they likely are too often used for unconstitutional and criminal purposes.
       Some may believe as there are very few others who could have a legitimate need or use to acquire such a device to "see" into people's homes, businesses, offices or whatever by coming within the curtilage of a dwelling or other personal private indoor place and press the device against an exterior wall to use radar to check for the presence of occupants and giving those just pressing this device against exterior walls the ability to track one's every breath and movement inside one's own home, business or wherever claimed by the maker of the device to extend to a tracking distance of more than fifty feet inside the structure.

       Nevertheless the Ninth Amendment editorial board does recognize that such a device doubtless does have some legitimate uses in some instances but only if in lawful hands properly authorized with a warrant or some very exigent circumstances as clearly delineated by official legal opinions IN ADVANCE as well as being regulated in its possession and use even possibly to the point of being licensed given already such clear evidence of its apparently nationwide illegal unconstitutional use for three years now by rogue law enforcement from the federal to the local level which until this time was not known to the Ninth Amendment nor is it known at this time what may be the extent of criminal use of the device which inevitably can be expected to find its way into the wrong hands

       Moreover when it is misused those wronged whether by supposed "law enforcement" as well as criminals in our lay opinion where possible might consult their properly licensed attorney about the possibility of initiating legal demands and/or actions against those in the supply chain of such devices as well as in the case of law enforcement unlawful use the community governments responsible legally for their conduct. These federal and local law enforcement agencies according to the USA Today article linked to below largely have secretly used these devices to see people through their walls into their homes since at least 2012. USA Today notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously imposed warrant requirements on law enforcement dogs sniffing around houses, law enforcement using thermal imaging to see into homes, and even earlier expressed significant concerns about the warrantless use of this radar device to see into homes.
       The Ninth Amendment brings this to the attention of readers for their information and out of concern that just as with police use of wiretaps, searches of cars, dwellings and so on that this must be a public issue specifically with clear legal guidance. Somehow it seems however that this issue has gone "under the radar" (bad pun) because law enforcement has up until now apparently tried its best to keep its use "secret" as USA Today euphemistically reports or probably more accurately law enforcement aware of likely legal "impediments" has deceived prosecutors, courts and others who would demand that the use of such devices to the extent permitted must be consistent with legal requirements to be determined.    
       This would seem to be particularly true since the Supreme Court already specifically has held (the Ninth Amendment in its lay opinion believes) that police generally cannot tap corded phone lines without a warrant, search dwellings generally without a warrant, nor creep around the curtilage (immediate privately owned area) of one's dwelling nor peer into the windows nor of course hang from the eaves and listen (eavesdropping). Persons needing legal advice on any of these issues must consult a properly licensed attorney as the Ninth Amendment cannot and does not purport to nor provide any legal advice whatsoever. Local ACLU chapters with "answer lines" as well as NOLO website information and books often can be a good source of some legal information.

       The USA today article linked to below (with audio) does include the following concerns about the device expressed by one federal appeals court:

Agents' use of the radars was largely unknown until December, when a federal appeals court in Denver said officers had used one before they entered a house to arrest a man wanted for violating his parole. The judges expressed alarm that agents had used the new technology without a search warrant, warning that "the government's warrantless use of such a powerful tool to search inside homes poses grave Fourth Amendment questions."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/P22007615/

Copyright 2015 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved

National Academy Of Sciences Issues Report Concluding That There Is No Substitute For the Mass Collection Of All Americans' Telephone Records

       Friday, 16 January 2015, WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a report ordered by President Obama in the wake of disclosures by former United States contractor Edward J. Snowden the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in consultation with unidentified "communications and cybersecurity experts" who for all the Ninth Amendment editorial board knows work for telephone companies who will be tasked with storing all this information in the future and doubtless need mucho expensive computer equipment to do so purchased by you know who and internet security companies who for all we know stand to profit immensely from the not-so-subtle implications of the report since we know U.S. "intelligence" agencies routinely do not have enough "intelligent" personnel not to rely extensively on contractors often apparently with no valid credentials whatsoever as well as "Senior Intelligence Officials" who in light of the recent Senate Torture Report we would not trust to tell the truth even if their lives depended on it unless it were by mistake in the reportedly detailed report find unsurprisingly that there is no substitute for mass collection of data on all Americans' telephone communications. Oddly no academics or other disinterested participants such as computer programming experts were asked to participate in preparing the report. Good work President Obama.
        The Ninth Amendment is equally certain that there would be no substitute for kidnapping all Americans' children and holding them in CIA "black sites" under threat of death for the federal government to keep better track of what their parents were doing with their lives. The Ninth Amendment is equally confident that there would be no substitute for having a federal government secret "intelligence" agent or outsourced contractor with "mental" and "anger management control challenges" such as at Guantanamo Bay living in every American dwelling to have a better idea of how every household in America spent its days. Although the United Constitution might in the past have at least presumably called into question such practices a growing body of judicial opinions from totally partisan apparently largely deranged senile and/or Alzheimer's suffering federal jurists who do not seem to understand why the U.S. Constitution provided that they have lifetime tenure as well as the notable inaction of the Obama administration in prosecuting any members of the CIA or the past Bush Administration for any crimes extensively documented in the Senate's Torture Report apparently because an ancient Justice Department legal opinion based on "inaccurate information" in other words "lies" from the CIA it would seem the United States Constitution has become more of an artifact to display in the Capitol rotunda or wherever or a way for publishers to make money selling pocket Constitutions or certainly to be thrust in the face of other countries to "suggest" how they might wish to run their countries other than any type of living document having anything at all to do with the more evolved functioning or non-functioning as it were of the United States Government .
       In any case for interested/concerned readers a more "sophisticated" analysis follows helping hopefully to sanitize and sound perhaps make more palatable the NAS final report and its implications in the link to the following New York Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/politics/report-finds-no-alternative-to-bulk-collection-of-phone-data.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Copryright Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved

Google Intelligence Agency "GIA" Grossly Undercounts Four Pageviews To Three Separate 16 and 17 October 2014 Ninth Amendment Posts Re: The First 6 Reasons To Destroy Your Smartphone, CREDO Mobile Recent Deals, And Booting Out FBI Director James Comey And All Domestic Spies Who Still Interfere With The U.S. Tech Company Fight To Preserve, Protect , And Promote Privacy Rights As Hypocrite Obama State Has Failed Attacking Not Protecting Americans' Core Critical Fundamental Constitutional First And Fourth Amendment Rights And Privacy Penumbras Which Must Be Saved Now Or The Battle Lost For All Developing Communication And Data Storage With Default Encrypt Phones And Devices Before The Federal Government Illegally Further Attempts Criminally To Destroy All Americans' Sacred Privacy Rights Now And Forever For Our And All Future Generations Whom The State Would Deny Liberty Should WE THE PEOPLE Not Take Up The Fight The Time Is Nigh Our Duty Now To Stand Firm In Battle For Liberty In The Blood And The Name Of The Founding Fathers, This Great Nation, Ours And Our Children's Future From All Further State Intrusion Into The Private Lives And Essential Liberties Of The People Who But Suffer The State At Their Will

       Sunday, 26 October 2014, WASHINGTON, D.C. - All but our most distracted readers still with us must either be learning to read the hard way or must realize that not only is the Ninth Amendment's headline "mind-numbingly long" (in the words of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in an unrelated matter) but that the editorial board believes the Nation to be at one most significant crossroads of the many competing at this time. First summarily to dispose of Google here suffice it to say that we have found its conduct in reporting Blogger statistics to be so erratic, contradictory, uninformative and basically somewhere below the floor for uselessness such that the Ninth Amendment has gotten to the point where it receives allegedly Google generated reports suddenly showing a day of over seven hundred pageviews which follows a previous report of hundreds less encompassing the same broader period all the while providing different categories of statistics which do not add up and identify a bizarre uncommon collection of several year old posts suddenly being read out of the blue.
       As for isolated posts in the midst of some days showing some hundreds of pageviews as mentioned above the Ninth Amendment still has received no correction nor explanation why in the midst of that site activity two or three posts could continue apparently just to stay stuck at one or two pageviews. Two as to the smartphone "rebellion" and latest CREDO mobile offer do not merit further attention here.
       However as the unwieldy headline of this post suggests the Ninth Amendment editorial board believes that the issues raised in FBI Director James Comey's recent remarks to the Brookings Institution are well worth interested readers' attention and being uncertain as to the current digital distribution of the Ninth Amendment the board wished to emphasize what is more thoroughly covered in an earlier post which has persisted in showing just one pageview which while we feel highly inaccurate the Ninth Amendment believes it worth pointing out the recent earlier post on this subject and the reason for the strength of our position is that in the wake of his publicly shared remarks concerning security in the computer age interested readers who missed it earlier may wish to return to that post and also should they care to and not already have had the opportunity also to read the New York Times piece linked to that post below.

Copyright 2014 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved