Trying To Stay Anonymous On The Web May Put The NSA On Your Tail
John Naughton writes at The Observer, linked at RawStory, of a professor, Janet Vertesi, who ran a little experiment about whether she could keep her pregnancy a secret from online marketers. She told everyone verbally, over the phone, and asked them to avoid saying anything about it on social media. When one relative did, she immediately deleted his Facebook post about it and then unfriended him. (He pouted.) There's more:
Vertesi was nothing if not thorough. Instead of using a web-browser in the normal way - ie leaving a trail of cookies and other digital tracks, she used the online service Tor to visit babycenter.com anonymously. She shopped offline whenever she could and paid in cash. On the occasions when she had to use Amazon, she set up a new Amazon account linked to an email address on a personal server, had all packages delivered to a local locker and made sure only to pay with Amazon gift cards that had been purchased with cash.The really significant moment came when she came to buy a big-ticket item - an expensive stroller (aka pushchair) that was the urbanite's equivalent of an SUV. Her husband tried to buy $500 of Amazon gift vouchers with cash, only to discover that this triggered a warning: retailers have to report people buying large numbers of gift vouchers with cash because, well, you know, they're obviously money launderers.
At this point, some sobering thoughts begin to surface. The first is Melvin Kranzberg's observation that "technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral". Our technologies have values built into them, which is why Vertesi in her talk cites someone's observation that "the iPod is a tool to make us moral" (because it encourages people to buy music rather than download it illicitly) and philosophers argue about whether surveillance encourages moral - ie socially approved - behaviour (think speed cameras).
Even more sobering, though, are the implications of Professor Vertesi's decision to use Tor as a way of ensuring the anonymity of her web-browsing activities. She had a perfectly reasonable reason for doing this - to ensure that, as a mother-to-be, she was not tracked and targeted by online marketers.
But we know from the Snowden disclosures and other sources that Tor users are automatically regarded with suspicion by the NSA et al on the grounds that people who do not wish to leave a digital trail are obviously up to no good. The same goes for people who encrypt their emails.
This is why the industry response to protests about tracking is so inadequate. The market will fix the problem, the companies say, because if people don't like being tracked then they can opt not to be. But the Vertesi experiment shows that if you take measures to avoid being tracked, then you increase the probability that you will be. Which is truly Kafkaesque.
via @instapundit
So the encrypted emails sent from my financial adviser, who kinda obviously has reasons to encrypt all business emails, are "suspicious." I'd think it more suspicious if he did NOT encrypt them!
Shannon Howell at May 12, 2014 5:37 AM
Also, this is why I like public libraries having computers in them.
Shannon Howell at May 12, 2014 5:38 AM
Almost any non-trivial cash transaction you make at a bank is tracked by the IRS. This includes cashier's and bank checks, and wire transfers. The Treasury Department did away with currency denominations larger than $100 for the specific reason of making it difficult to execute large transactions in cash.
Cousin Dave at May 12, 2014 6:15 AM
Also, this is why I like public libraries having computers in them.
Why? you should presume that such computers are monitoring your activity.
It could be the library installing such software, or because they're a library and not an bastion of IT superiority, that another user has infiltrated their system with spyware. You don't know, and you don't have time to find out.
Unless you're booting it from a USB key into something like Tails.
I suppose having a copy of Tails is also "suspicious". Also, one needs to be careful using Tor, the FBI released a thingie that would walk you thru your set up of Firefox + Tor, only thing is they got to monitor your usage.
And it's probably legal because you clicked "I Accept". Not everything that's "free" to use on the internet is good for you.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 12, 2014 7:43 AM
When I was a kid we studied the Salem witch trials, and the McCarthy hearings in school, and got a very clear message that the idea that "The innocent have nothing to fear" is BS.
I'm pretty sure kids are not hearing that these days.
Farmer Joe at May 12, 2014 10:11 AM
I wish I'd gone this route when I was pregant both times. (both miscarried near the second trimester) Even after we'd cancelled all our registries and subscriptions we were being inundated with "free" samples, emails, mailers, etc... I checked every "do not contact" and "No solicitation" and "unsubscribe" box there was and still, we were flooded. I only visited a babycenter website ONCE and found myself on some mailing list. It's been over a year since the last pregnancy and we still get spam mail from our cancelled regisitry.I'd rather be thought a terrorist than have to deal with all that again.
Sabrina at May 12, 2014 11:37 AM
I always wondered about that, Sabrina, since we got so many unsolicited offers when I was pregnant with my daughter. I've lost a pregnancy and I would hate to be constantly reminded by people just trying to make money.
Sosij at May 12, 2014 3:35 PM
I miscarried late in my first trimester...some months later I got several letters from LA County Health and Human Services saying "According to our records, your baby should have been born by now." with information about where to go for pediatric checkups. No, not intrusive or offensive at all...especially since I'd also miscarried at a hospital in LA county. So if they knew I was pregnant, why didn't they know I miscarried?
Genevieve Hawkins at May 13, 2014 5:46 PM
Leave a comment