“…as a condition of participating in the modern economy, Americans are forced to disclose details of their private lives to a financial industry that has been too eager to pass this information along to federal law enforcement.”

A report from the House Judiciary Committee and Government Weaponization Subcommittee exposed the FBI for abusing the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) to spy on Americans’ bank accounts without a warrant.

“Documents show that federal law enforcement increasingly works hand-in-glove with financial institutions, obtaining virtually unchecked access to private financial data and testing out new methods and new technology to continue the financial surveillance of American citizens,” according to the report.

Apple and the satellite-based broadband service Starlink each recently took steps to address new research into the potential security and privacy implications of how their services geo-locate devices. Researchers from the University of Maryland say they relied on publicly available data from Apple to track the location of billions of devices globally — including non-Apple devices like Starlink systems — and found they could use this data to monitor the destruction of Gaza, as well as the movements and in many cases identities of Russian and Ukrainian troops.

At issue is the way that Apple collects and publicly shares information about the precise location of all Wi-Fi access points seen by its devices. Apple collects this location data to give Apple devices a crowdsourced, low-power alternative to constantly requesting global positioning system (GPS) coordinates.

Both Apple and Google operate their own Wi-Fi-based Positioning Systems (WPS) that obtain certain hardware identifiers from all wireless access points that come within range of their mobile devices. Both record the Media Access Control (MAC) address that a Wi-FI access point uses, known as a Basic Service Set Identifier or BSSID.

Access Your LexisNexis® Consumer Disclosure Report

See what information about you is maintained in our files by requesting a Consumer Disclosure Report. The report includes items such as real estate transaction and ownership data, lien, judgment, and bankruptcy records, professional license information, and historical addresses.

Verisk no longer receives driving behavior data from automakers to generate Driving Behavior Data History Reports. Verisk no longer provides Driving Behavior Data History Reports to insurers. If you’re interested in receiving a copy of your Driving Behavior Data History Report, please click on the link at the bottom of the page. The driving behavior related data Verisk can offer you will vary by auto manufacturer. See table below.

To find out how it happened, I called our dealership, a franchise of General Motors, and talked to the salesman who had sold us the car. He confirmed that he had enrolled us for OnStar, noting that his pay is docked if he fails to do so. He said that was a mandate from G.M., which sends the dealership a report card each month tracking the percentage of sign-ups.

G.M. doesn’t just want dealers selling cars; it wants them selling connected cars.

Our Bolt automatically came with eight years of Connected Access, a feature we didn’t know about until recently. It allows G.M. to send software updates to our car but also to collect data from it — actions consented to during OnStar enrollment. //

What I can say is that, regardless of who pushed the consent button, this screen about enrolling in notifications and Smart Driver doesn’t say anything about risk-profiling or insurance companies. It doesn’t even hint at the possibility that anyone but G.M. and the driver gets the data collected about how and where the vehicle is operated, which it says will be used to “improve your ownership experience” and help with “driving improvement.” //

A new car, like mine, has hundreds of sensors, the former employee said, so even just a 15-minute trip creates millions of data points, including GPS location — all of which is broadcast in near real time to G.M. He expressed concerns about the insurance industry’s use of this data because it lacked context about the situation that might have led a driver to slam on the brakes or swerve out of a lane. //

The House of Representatives failed to pass legislation renewing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a controversial provision allowing federal agencies to spy on noncitizens without a warrant.

Amid a strong push to “KILL FISA” from former President Donald Trump, more than a dozen Republican lawmakers voted against the measure, which would have renewed Section 702 for another five years. //

If Congress fails to pass legislation renewing Section 702 by the April 19 deadline, it is poised to sunset. This could signal that the tool might no longer be available for federal agencies to use for surveillance purposes.

Think of it as the modern form of,

“Give me six lines…”

[1] Contrary to what people think, guard labour [police] has little or no interest in either justice or correctly solving crime. As I’ve noted before their process is,

1, Build a list of suspects.
2, Prune the list down.
3, Look not for evidence but what a prosecutor can use to confound a jury thus get them to believe in nonsense to obtain a conviction.
4, Get any kind of conviction to keep politicians / funds holders happy.

That is once you are on the guard labours short list they immediately fail to carry out one of their primary requirments which is that of “impartiality”. That is they don’t look for, ignore, or hide information that might show you are innocent, so they can get the case closed quickly and most importantly as cheaply as possible.

This legislation is a Joe Biden Special, signed off after a bipartisan statute was delivered to his desk. Rep. Thomas Massie attempted to defund the mandate but his amendment was defeated in a 229 - 201 vote.

The kicker is that the technology demanded by Congress to accurately detect whether a person is intoxicated or incapacitated doesn't exist yet. It's effectively Congress taking control of private industry and demanding that they meet a requirement with a technology that they now have to develop quickly, and I can't imagine it being accurate or even safe right out the gate. //

If you think this is about drunk drivers you're sadly mistaken. That's just how it's being sold. What this will swiftly develop into is a way to control the movement of the populace. This is a technology that can be abused with reckless abandon. Authorities and politicians will be able to stop your car from moving for many different reasons.

For instance, if you're suspected of belonging to a group a politician in power doesn't agree with and has labeled as dangerous, they could find an excuse to shut down your vehicle in the name of public safety. They will follow the same guidelines as red flag laws for guns, requiring you to prove that you're not a danger to the public before they reactivate your vehicle.

This could also open the door for usage limits. Politicians may attempt to push environmental policies that involve fewer cars on the road for less time, forcing your vehicle to shut down after a certain amount of miles or time in use, and pushing you to utilize public transit for the sake of the "environment."

The possibilities for expansion and abuse of this are many, but at the core of it is the ability to monitor you while you're in your car. Your car is often considered an extension of your home, and while many state laws differ in the particulars on this, your car is your private property. What the government is doing is effectively installing a monitoring system in your car by which they can watch your performance and track your movements.

While arguing against the kill-switch provision, Rep. Massie referred to it “a backseat driver” for American drivers. During an appearance with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, he laid out the issues with the requirement.

People said I’m a conspiracy theorist for saying this is in the legislation, but I actually had to read the Democrats the bill that they passed two years ago. They passed this in 2021 as part of a 1,039-page bill to require that your car can monitor your driving performance and if it thinks you are not driving well, it could disable your vehicle. //

The provision is included in Section 24220 and mandates that all cars manufactured after 2026 would have to feature the kill-switch. Massie’s amendment would have removed this provision, but it was defeated by a 229 to 201 vote. Interestingly enough, 19 Republicans voted to keep the kill-switch requirement in the legislation. //

I’m reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s famous line: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” This requirement almost perfectly embodies Franklin’s warning and presents a deceptive trade-off: Allow the government to have control over your car in exchange for possibly saving a few lives from drunk driving. //

stickdude90
a day ago
Great way to make sure you don't drive more than your allotted mileage each week - to save the environment, of course...

In that ecosystem of advertisers, content consumers, ad networks, and content distributors, ad blockers aren't the disease, they're the symptom. Trying to neutralize a symptom alone leaves the disease thriving while the host just gets sicker. In this case, the disease isn't cynical freeloading by users, it's the basic dishonesty of online advertising. It promises things to advertisers that it cannot deliver, while blocking better ways of working. It promises revenue to content providers while keeping them teetering on the brink of unviability, while maximizing its own returns. Google has revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars, while publishers struggle to survive, and users have to wear a metaphorical hazmat suit to stay sane. None of this is healthy. //

Content providers have to be paid. We get that. Advertising is a valid way of doing that. We get that too. Advertisers need to reach audiences. Of course they do. But like this? YouTube needs its free, ad-supported model, or it would just force Premium on everyone, but forcing people to watch adverts will not force them to pony up for what's being advertised.

The pre-internet days saw advertising directly support publishers who knew how to attract the right audiences who would respond well to the right adverts. Buy a computer magazine and it would be full of adverts for computer stuff – much of which you'd actually want to look at. The publisher didn't demand you have to see ads for butter or cars or some dodgy crypto. That model has gone away, which is why we need ad blockers.