“My boyfriend who’s an electrical engineer but mostly does computer work says that the government has been able to track our cars since the 1980s. Is this true? How do they do it?” — Allison, Atlanta

Well, automobiles have unique Vehicle Identification Numbers and can be tracked that way, but I don’t think that’s what you are referring to. You’re asking whether or not there is some automatic vehicle tracking system in place in the country.

No, there isn’t. But that’s changing. Cars that are equipped with roadside assistance technologies like OnStar can be tracked, even without the knowledge or consent of the driver. Cell phones can be tracked, and more and more people drive around with cell phones in their pockets. And lastly, we’re starting to see automatic license-plate scanners that can be used to track cars, even by helicopter.

“If government puts a video/audio surveillance device on the utility pole across the street from me to catch a suspected terrorist or drug dealer, doesn’t that impact my privacy as well? What can I do about it?” — Biff from the Southeast

It’s even worse than that. The camera won’t catch any terrorists, and it’s unlikely to catch drug dealers, either. It won’t reduce crime.

Why do we have them, then? It’s complicated, but basically, most “security vs. privacy” debates are really about “liberty vs. control.” The police are in favor of control; that’s their job. So they tend to favor measures that increase control, even if there is no real anti-terrorism or anti-crime justification for them.

As to what to do about it, your primary recourse is politics. These decisions are made at the local level, and local politicians listen to their constituents. Get involved.

I can think of no better way to start off this discussion than to
recall an op-ed I wrote earlier this year for the Minneapolis StarTribune:

Over the past 20 years, there’s been a sea change in the battle for personal privacy.

The pervasiveness of computers has resulted in the almost constant surveillance of everyone, with profound implications for our society and our freedoms. Corporations and the police are both using this new trove of surveillance data. We as a society need to understand the technological trends and discuss their implications. If we ignore the problem and leave it to the “market,” we’ll all find that we have almost no privacy left.

Most people think of surveillance in terms of police procedure: Follow that car, watch that person, listen in on his phone conversations. This kind of surveillance still occurs. But today’s surveillance is more like the NSA’s model, recently turned against Americans: Eavesdrop on every phone call, listening for certain keywords. It’s still surveillance, but it’s wholesale surveillance.

Wholesale surveillance is a whole new world. It’s not “follow that car,” it’s “follow every car.” The National Security Agency can eavesdrop on every phone call, looking for patterns of communication or keywords that might indicate a conversation between terrorists. Many airports collect the license plates of every car in their parking lots, and can use that database to locate suspicious or abandoned cars. Several cities have stationary or car-mounted license-plate scanners that keep records of every car that passes, and save that data for later analysis.

The rest is here.

All this week, we are delighted to host as a guest blogger Bruce Schneier. For those who do not know him, Bruce is a renowned security expert who has come to exert enormous influence over the security debate in this country, not only because of his impeccable credentials as a security expert, executive in a security firm, and world-class cryptologist – but also because of his natural ability to strip away nonsense and clarify and highlight the real issues that lie at the center of many of the security debates of our time.

In May, the ACLU hosted him in our Washington National offices for a talk on “The Future of Privacy.” (WindowsMedia)

All this week, we are delighted to host as a guest blogger Bruce Schneier. For those who do not know him, Bruce is a renowned security expert who has come to exert enormous influence over the security debate in this country, not only because of his impeccable credentials as a security expert, executive in a security firm, and world-class cryptologist – but also because of his natural ability to strip away nonsense and clarify and highlight the real issues that lie at the center of many of the security debates of our time.

In May, the ACLU hosted him in our Washington National offices for a talk on “The Future of Privacy.” (WindowsMedia)

The talk is well worth viewing – please take a look if you have the time – and submit your questions now on security and privacy, today and in the future.

We’re blogging all this week on the lefty blog site MyDD.com. Here’s the first part of Ben Wizner’s MyDD entry on the Hamdan decision:

First things first, let’s be clear about what the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld did not address: the continued indefinite detention without charge or trial of the hundreds of men and boys held in Guantanamo. Notwithstanding President Bush’s peculiar statement last month that “we would like to end the Guantanamo [sic],” but “we’re waiting on our Supreme Court to act,” the Hamdan case has never been about closing Guantanamo, and the President has never needed the Court’s guidance or permission to do so.

Read more here, and check out MyDD.com all this week for more from staff in DC and NYC.