Why Biometrics?

Wednesday 25 August 2010 - 11:41:28 - Posted by Bradley Hall in National

As the first results of our Endorsement Survey are arriving, and we feel that we need to clarify one of our questions and share our reasons for opposing a particular law in Oklahoma.

The Pirate Party of Oklahoma is not opposed to the inclusion of an identifying facial picture on drivers licenses issued to Oklahomans. Our drivers license was not created to be an ID card, it's only purpose was to certify that the carrier of the license passed an examination by the Department of Public Safety and is authorized to operate a motor vehicle in the State of Oklahoma. For a law enforcement official to verify that the bearer of a license is the licensee in question, the official needs to be able to visually compare the person that is in possession of the license to the person the license was issued to. This objective is achieved by taking the picture at the time the license is issued and then printing it on the license.

The process we oppose is the collection of a biometric picture, in addition to biometric fingerprints, whenever a drivers license is being issued. Biometric facial pictures feature a higher resolution than is needed for a small picture on a license. This high resolution picture is then digitized, a biometric template is created, and together with a digital version of your fingerprint this information is stored in a database controlled by the Department of Public Safety.

Including a traditional photograph on your drivers license enables a law enforcement official to physically compare your face to the picture on the license. Taking your picture and adding your biometric profile stored in a database enables the Department of Public Safety to compare this profile to any other picture they want. This is already happening every time you renew your license, or when you change your address and have a new license issued. The Department of Public Safety takes a new biometric photo, converts it to a digital biometric profile, compares it with the previous biometric profile they have stored in your database, and if they match you get a new license.

The problem with technology like this is the always popular mission creep of our Government. Once the State of Oklahoma is in possession of your biometric profile, it can be used for many applications not originally indented by the legislators who wrote the law. Storing your biometric profile enables the state to use automated surveillance to monitor and log the activities of Oklahomans.

Using CCTV cameras already in use in many places, the state will be able to record crowds and use facial recognition software to scan the faces present at the event and match them to stored biometric profiles. Law enforcement officials would be able to use cameras mounted on vehicles to scan all the faces in a particular area and compare them to the database. Law enforcement officials on foot will be able to utilize hand-held video cameras to record your presence at a lawful rally, then scan all the faces and create a log of all people present. In short time the State of Oklahoma will have a database that shows that Oklahoman X was present at the Tea Party Rally, the Gay Pride Parade, and the Thunder playoff games. And by analyzing your past behavior, the state can anticipate your future actions.

While this might sound very futuristic and unlikely to many Oklahomans, we urge you to keep in mind that the same Department of Public Safety that is responsible for storing and using your Biometric Data is currently in the process of implementing an Automated License Plate Recognition System; one requirement of which is the ability to keep a database of the time and location each license plate was seen, even if no crime was committed.

Our Department of Public Safety has already demonstrated that given the opportunity to deploy an automatic system that gives them the ability to track the driving habits of any given vehicle in the state that passed the proposed camera systems, they will store this data even if no unlawful activity exists. This eagerness by the DPS to create a database of lawful activities does not give us much hope that they will be able to restrain themselves when it comes to the opportunity to perform additional monitoring of Oklahomans.

Oklahoma legislators are becoming increasingly aware of the threat created by technology such as this, and HB 2923 is a good example of turning towards the right path. HB 2923 would have deleted the biometric data stored by the Department of Public Safety, as well as requiring a return to non-biometric pictures on our license. If would also have prohibited the implementation of radio frequency identification technology , the use of which will require a separate article all together.

As Oklahomans who are concerned with privacy, and the increasing surveillance of our activities, we need to push our legislators to stop this invasive technology before it reaches a point of no return.
[Submitted by Pirate Party of Oklahoma]

• Comment(s): 0
• Category: National

Dear Mr. Schmidt

Wednesday 25 August 2010 - 11:24:38 - Posted by Bradley Hall in Misc

“In a world of asynchronous threats it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it.” – Eric Schmidt, Google CEO

There is so much wrong with this statement that we are having a hard time even deciding where to start. The Government will always attempt to increase the monitoring of the governed, and the self appointed leaders of the internet are only too eager to assist. Being able to identify all individual users, as well as being able to track their location and all activities, will benefit the business side of the online world more than anybody.

“True transparency and no anonymity” – Eric Schmidt, Google CEO

We have to admit that Mr. Schmidt is a master at marketing, and to be able to market effectively you have to be a master at spinning the truth. Transparency, after all, is a noble cause. Who would say no to transparency? It is one of the main issues the Pirate Party is pursuing. Mr. Schmidt picked his words very wisely, but the course he is pursuing will lead to only one outcome: Full surveillance and no privacy. Transparency is a choice where people make the conscious decision to reveal details about themselves and about their activities. We, not Google or the Government, weigh our options and decide to reveal the details. When these details are, as Mr. Schmidt himself states, demanded by the Government; then transparency becomes surveillance.

Mr. Schmidt also was very wise in picking the word anonymity. For many people anonymity implies that you have something to hide, that you must be “up to something” or you would not try to hide your activity. “Privacy” is a word that is received more favorably, and that is the reason it was not used. Anonymity and privacy have the same meaning: That you will reveal information about yourself and your activities selectively. It does not imply malicious intent or bad character, and frequently it is the perceived privacy of the internet that encourages many to turn online for help: A partner in an abusive relationship looking for help to leave their abuser; a couple who just had a miscarriage looking for support; a person with an addiction trying to change their life. Without privacy these people might never take the first step towards help.

“If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go,” – Eric Schmidt, Google CEO

If you do not take issue with any of the previous statements, we would hope that these words alarm you. Not only content with monitoring your activities, Mr. Schmidt is proclaiming an age where he will predict your future activities based on the data gained from routine surveillance. More worrisome than the possibility of being surrounded by custom advertising based on Google’s projection of where we will be tomorrow at 4 PM is the thought of the Government running projections about our daily lives. The biggest obstacle to controlling a population is being able to predict their actions.

Predict where a person will be, and you can make sure someone is there watching him. Predict where a person will go for information, and you can control what information she will find. Predict the formation of a group that disagrees with the political forces in power, and you can stop opposition before it starts.

Would people be so accepting of Mr. Schmidt’s statements if they were placed in the context of the physical world? If the government demanded “full transparency and no anonymity” in your real life, would people sit back and agree?

Would we agree to provide the clerk at the gas station with documentation disclosing all your personal information in order to purchase gas? What about being “transparent” with your information to the cashier at Walgreens so you can buy condoms?

What would you do if Ford decided to track where and when you are driving, and then share that information with the government? How would you feel if every store would track your identity and your purchases, and then forward that information to the government? If you talk to your pastor about problems in your marriage, do you want him to report the status of your union to the government?

It is easy to give up your privacy online, and allow the companies to spy on us and call it transparency. After all, the internet is not the “real world”, it feels different. But once we give anybody that kind of power, and consent to surveillance of all our activities, where will it stop? When will we say “enough”, and will it be in time to restore our privacy?
[Submitted by Marcus Kesler]

• Comment(s): 0
• Category: Misc

Facts Concerning The Pirate Party In The Google-Verizon Proposed Legislative Framework

Tuesday 24 August 2010 - 12:40:01 - Posted by Brittany Phelps in National

Here is the link to the text document of the proposal put forth by Google-Verizon:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.google.com/googleblogs/pdfs/verizon_google_legislative_framework_proposal_081010.pdf

This post is merely of facts contained within the document that I have looked into and that concern the Pirate Party in terms of our platforms.
______________ _________________________ ____________

“Consumer Protections: A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from

preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from--

(1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice;

(2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and

(3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or

service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service.
”

Concern: The concern is mainly with 1 and 2 in this passage where they use the term “lawful”. The question arises “what do these companies deem as 'unlawful' ?” and “what consequences can come from an alleged breach of such 'unlawful' use?”. With the government not providing much oversight in the decisions of these private entities, the companies can simply claim somebody has been “unlawful” and then deny service to the person based on their decisions as a company. The process of appeal for the accused in such case is not laid out in full by the company nor is it outlined what is and isn't lawful in their eyes or how they would go about monitoring such activities. One can be denied services by mistake and possibly have to go through a lengthy process to contest the charge and/or incur legal fees due to appealing their denial of service by the company.

_______________ _________________________ ___________

“Case-By- Case Enforcement: The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and

nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no

rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions.”

Concern: The FCC would be tasked with enforcing the non-discrimination policy, however, they hold no “rulemaking authority” when it comes to such provisions. The FCC would not be allowed to make rules if situations of discrimination of service rise and the FCC may feel there's a need to make such rules. This takes the power out of the hands of our elected government and puts it into the hands of private companies who won't be held accountable to the public.

_______________________ _________________________ ___

“Parties would be encouraged to use non-
governmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely-recognized
Internet community governance initiatives, and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate
deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups.”

Concern: In a case of service discrimination, the companies are proposing a “non-governmental” dispute resolution process. Which means that independent third party groups could weigh in on cases of discrimination and the FCC would basically just bring them up in conversation during the dispute resolution process and neither the government nor the company is obligated to take those suggestions as if they are demands from the government that are enforceable BY the government nor is the company obligated to comply with requests by those speaking out against a case of discrimination. This allows both the companies and the government to pick and choose what they wish to bring into the conversation on a dispute resolution with nothing actually binding being made.

__________________ _________________________ ________

“The FCC could grant injunctive
relief for violations of the consumer protection and non-discrimination provisions. The FCC
could impose a forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection
or non-discrimination provisions. The proposed framework would not affect rights or
obligations under existing Federal or State laws that generally apply to businesses, and would not
create any new private right of action.
”

Concern: Google and Verizon have a lot of money. So even if they are forced to cough up $2MIL for a violation, keeping in mind that the procedure to determine if a violation occurred is suggestive and non-binding from both sides, they could of made a profit that covers more than that in the process of discriminating services against one or many internet users. This allows for “pay for play” on the internet where services can be denied and by the time it's brought up or even found out the company would of already made more than enough money to cover the penalty. It therefore provides no effective deterrent from violating the discrimination policy.

________________ _________________________ __________

“Regulatory Authority: The FCC would have exclusive authority to oversee broadband Internet

access service, but would not have any authority over Internet software applications, content or

services. Regulatory authorities would not be permitted to regulate broadband Internet access

service.
”

Conce rn: The authorities (the FCC) are allowed to “oversee” but not have any “authority” to regulate broadband internet access service. This means that they must sit and watch with no real way to step in for the consumers when the service provider denies access service to people. Since our core principles are a belief that internet and computer access is a human right that should remain open and free, the fact that elected officials who appoint members to the FCC for regulation of such services would not be allowed to regulate broadband access should be a red flag that we're possibly losing internet rights from this.

__________________ _________________________ ________

“Broadband Access for Americans: Broadband Internet access would be eligible for Federal

universal service fund support to spur deployment in unserved areas and to support programs to

encourage broadband adoption by low-income populations. In addition, the FCC would be

required to complete intercarrier compensation reform within 12 months. Broadband Internet

access service and traffic or services using Internet protocol would be considered exclusively

interstate in nature. In general, broadband Internet access service providers would ensure that

the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
”


Concern : The companies are asking the government, who they don't want regulating the private industry's services, to foot the bill and compensate them in order to give the companies incentive to build broadband services in low-income areas as well as provide their services to the disabled. So basically when it comes to them providing services for the less fortunate, they want to do it, but only if the government subsidizes the cost to them for doing it. Even then it is presumed that they would also not want the government to be able to make any rules, any binding decisions that force the company to do what the government and the people ask them to do, and be able to deny services according to their own view of what they deem as “unlawful” use of their services even though our tax dollars paid for the building of those services.

[Submitted by Jay Emerson]

• Comment(s): 0
• Category: National

USPP Stance on Wikileaks

Thursday 12 August 2010 - 19:00:54 - Posted by Renee Schroeder in National

Wikileaks And the US Pirate Party

There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about Wikileaks, first over the release of the video they called “Collateral Damage” in April, then with the arrest of PFC Manning, and most recently and importantly, with the release of thousands of diplomatic messages.

The release has sparked many heated debates and accusations, and lots of airtime and column-inches going backwards and forwards. What is the US Pirate Party's position on this? As a political party, we are bound by regulation to obey the law, which means we can't support or condone any actions that break the law. Did PFC Manning's actions break the law? Possibly, although we stand by "innocent until proven guilty". We can't support his actions, if he is found to have broken the law. Did the activities of Wikileaks break the law? The fact that as Mr. Assange was neither in the United States or a United States territory during the time of the leak complicates the issue of jurisdiction and the application of US law. However, the laws passed to deal with the so-called threat of terrorism, plus the alleged association between PFC Manning and Wikileaks mean that there could well be a case, and that the actions of Wikileaks are illegal.

The one issue that has strenuously been avoided is 'why'. Why, in a supposed democracy, are sites like Wikileaks able to exist? If our government is open and accountable, there should be no need for any leaks. In other words, such sites would have no purpose if the government were already providing us with this information. The damage has come, not from the data itself, but because it had to be leaked because it was being hidden. The Pirate Party applauds and stands strongly behind the intent and goals of Wikileaks in this respect--that transparency and accountability are central to any form of democracy. We cannot, however, support the actions of PFC Manning – we are not allowed to, regardless of our wishes.

There will always be people willing to leak confidential information for vengence, for personal gain, or because it's the right thing to do. The US Government even recognizes that, and that it can be of enormous public good. This is why the WhistleBlower Protection Act was passed in 1989 - to protect government workers that report agency misconduct. Many states have similar laws. The act of whistleblowing is not bad or evil, but is a natural part of civilization, and a fundimental part of basic human decency.

The US Government's reaction to the leak is also not an area we can support or condone. President Obama had promised a more open and transparent government, and there have been baby-steps toward this goal. Had this been pursued with more vigor, the situation may never have happened. Despite these small steps, however, President Obama has taken up the lamentable task of overseeing the most prosecutions of whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. Rather than prosecuted, these brave men and women should be defended.

A concern often mentioned is the possibility that people may have been endangered by the leaks. Any information that endangers the lives of others is of great concern to the USPP. At the same time, if we remain unaware of information that brings to light issues that can have a negative impact on our entire nation, we cannot act on said issues. This, we feel, is a greater danger to all citizens. We see the duality of the situation and deplore any negative effects that the release of the Wikileaks information may have had while also praising the intent to be transparent with the information leak and giving it to mainstream media outlets.

The problem is that the laws on these subjects are not clear. In the last ten years, dozens of laws, often running hundreds of pages each, have been passed, and often with little cursory examination. Famously, the USA Patriot Act was introduced on a Tuesday (October 23 2001), passed the House the next day, the Senate the day after, and was signed into law by the President on Friday. With that lack of interest in the contents, the content of laws can often be ignored, let alone their interactions.

Finally, for people like Marc Thiessen, we have nothing but the utmost condemnation. His August 3, 2010 op-ed in the Washington Post (http:// www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/ 2010/08/02/ AR2010080202627.html) underscored extensively why the reputation of the United States sometimes suffers. In the aforementioned opinion piece, Thiessen appears to suggest kidnapping – not just any kidnapping, but kidnapping from a sovereign nation (aka an act of war). He also seems to call for the US to interfere in the actions of a democractically elected government of a foreign allied power. It would also appear he threatens violence unless certain political changes were made, which is the definition of terrorism. When you couple that to his job history – speech writer to the Secretary of Defense from 2001-2004, and then to President Bush from 2004-2009, you can understand that, far from championing a solution to the problem that engenders leaks, Mr. Thiessen seems to be an advocate of such flawed methods.

• Comment(s): 1
• Category: National

Third Parties & Independents not welcome in Oklahoma

Friday 06 August 2010 - 11:36:42 - Posted by Brittany Phelps in Oklahoma

Today Democrats and Republicans across Oklahoma are turning to the polls to pick the candidates for their respective parties. Democrats pick Democrats, Republicans pick Republicans, and everybody else is well aware that they are not welcome. Oklahoma suffers from the horrible combination of having a closed primary, as well as the most restrictive ballot access laws of the nation.

Members of the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Party, the Constitution Party, and of course the Pirate Party, are unable to show their party affiliation when running for any office in Oklahoma. There might be other third parties present in Oklahoma, but they all share the same fate. I am sure that there are also many true Independents in this great state, and they proudly run for office with the label “Independent” on the ballot to show that they have shed the restraints that come with a party affiliation. But many others are proud members of the third parties that seek to make a difference in Oklahoma. Our labels mark our ideals, our convictions, and our goals. Yet the Elephant and the Donkey show bipartisanship when it comes to keeping competition off the ballot.

In addition to keeping Independents off the ballot, Oklahoma has also made it very clear that we are not welcome during the primary season. This decision is a double edged sword, keeping democracy away from the voters, and taking away the “independent vote” that could decide the election for either party.

We frequently have races where only one party is running multiple candidates for one open position. Independent voters, and voters of the opposing “major” party have to sit on their hands while a minority of voters decide who will represent us when it comes running this state or this country. We have no input on this decision, standing by as “they” declare who they have picked for us. Why do the major parties think it would be so dangerous to let independents vote in their primaries, or to let members of the “other” party vote in their primary. Closed primaries only reinforce the mindset of partisanship by forcing a mindset of “If I can’t vote for a Democrat/Republican, then I will vote for nobody!” Is it so unlikely that a Republican/Democrat might say: “I like Candidate X from the other party, I will vote for him/her in their primary so that I can vote for him/her in November.” Are the major parties so paranoid of each other that they only see manipulation instead of bipartisanship if primary elections were opened up to everybody regardless of political affiliation? Keep the current “you can only vote for one party” regulation, but open up the option of picking a primary in which to vote.

By keeping independents out of the primaries, the major parties also rob themselves of the much desired Independent Vote. Instead of letting your base alone pick your candidate, and then trying to win the independent vote after the fact, why not let the Independents pick the candidate most likely to win the Independent vote? What good does it do if the Republican that the Republicans like the best wins the primary, only to loose to the leftover Democrat who appeals to more Independents? (This scenario applies to both parties) If the Independents vote in a primary, and make a difference in the outcome, then that support will follow the winner all the way to the November elections. If a candidate wins his parties nomination with the independent vote, then he will have the backing of those independents during the general elections.

Instead both the Republican Party of Oklahoma and the Democratic Party of Oklahoma have made it very clear that they do not care about the Independent voters of Oklahoma, except of course when our few percentage points make the difference between wining and loosing in November.
[Submitted by Marcus Kesler]

• Comment(s): 0
• Category: Oklahoma