So just what did the Director try to sneak onto our menu? If you paid attention to his testimony, in between his discussion about online extremist groups organizing terrorist acts like the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6 and the need to combat online rings of pedophiles, he took a dig at end-to-end encryption.

“We are concerned about end-to-end encryption…We will not be able to get access to the content that we need to keep people safe.” – Director Wray

Just what is end-to-end encryption? It’s a method to scramble data, such as messages, in such a way that only the person sending the message and the person intended to receive the message can view it. Any third party, including hackers, who might intercept the message en route will see only a mess of unusable characters. There are numerous methods, but let’s take a common one known as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) with 256 bits, or AES-256. Think of AES-256 as a giant digital lock on your data, and only you and the intended recipient have the key. No one else in the universe has this key, so a hacker’s main option is a “brute-force attack.” Basically, they just guess what the key is until the lock opens. If your phone has a 4-digit PIN, there are 10,000 possible combinations from 0000 to 9999. A laptop running password cracking software could crack that in minutes. By using the AES-256 lock, however, you have 78-digit PINs with 2,256 possible key combinations. Cracking that takes a little longer…about 27 octillion years according to some estimates with today’s technology.

If you use a virtual private network (VPN), your Internet traffic is effectively locked in this way between you and the VPN provider. If you use the “encrypt” button on your emails, you’re doing almost the same thing. This is normally no problem unless you’re under investigation by the FBI.

What does the FBI want? Despite claims by Director Wray that they do not want a “backdoor” (i.e., a permanent key for all those digital locks), that’s basically what they’re asking. There’s no denying that it would make life easier for law enforcement if people had no way to digitally lock up their data. It would also be easier if they could conduct constant surveillance on everyone, get rid of that pesky Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and implant us with tracking microchips in the name of public safety—“for the children.”

This debate isn’t new, but as a cybersecurity expert in the field, with the United States still reeling from major security breaches of late, including the SolarWinds and Microsoft Exchange Server hacks, I say that demonizing end-to-end encryption is the last thing this country should be doing. If there are break-ins in your neighborhood, you don’t want the police telling you to unlock all your doors so it’s easier for them to investigate, do you? The very idea is ludicrous on its face.

I support the FBI and its mission, and I sympathize with the difficulties they have in helping to prevent terrorist attacks and bring other criminals to justice. We can’t, however, sacrifice civil liberties, personal privacy, or at the very least sound cybersecurity practices in the name of making things easier for law enforcement.

J. Dallas Brooks is an Air Force veteran writer, cybersecurity expert, and adjunct professor of Cybersecurity who lives with his family on their ranch in southern Colorado. Find him on Twitter @GenXCandide or at www.jdallasbrooks.com.

The post Decrypting FBI Director Wray’s Intent on Tech User Privacy appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

[Missouri Is Fighting Alone Against Drug Monitoring (And Why The Entire USA Should Thank Them)]

Although not a new problem in our society, drug overdose seems to have received a lot more attention since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, with state governments scrambling to come up with viable solutions to curb what is being called an opioid epidemic. Their strongest push for creating a government-related program to fix a government-related problem comes in the form of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP). These programs promise to help prevent drug-related deaths by somehow curbing drug addiction – a feat not yet achieved despite decades of government intervention.

These attempts by governments to thwart addiction will continue to fail, as they have ever since New York implemented the first PDMP in 1918. If you think I sound overly sure of myself in making this claim, rest assured there is good reason – I am a recovering addict. On December 21, 2019, I celebrated 13 years being clean. This anniversary was especially momentous because it marked more years being clean than the years I spent in active addiction.

My experience with addiction comes not from studying from afar and in textbooks, but from firsthand experience dealing with my own addiction as well as my interactions with fellow addicts. The following is what I consider to be the top four reasons PDMP can’t battle addiction.

1. Chemical Dependence Does Not Equal Addiction

Conflating chemical dependence with drug addiction is, in my opinion, the most common misstep advocates of PDMP continue to make. You can find myriad sources stating that chemical dependency is the same as substance abuse; however, I would argue that is a misunderstanding.

There are many medical reasons why a person may develop a chemical dependence to a regimen of drugs. A common example is management of chronic pain which cannot be treated with a medical procedure. Many of these people don’t like their choices for pain management, and are always searching for alternative courses of action to take other than being chemically dependent on a substance. I would not call an individual in this situation an addict. After all, an addict would justify their drug use with medical necessity (among other reasons) rather than search for alternatives to substance use.

Another medical reason is a circumstance one of my own family members went through: treatable physical injury. Suffering from multiple degree burns in a house fire, this family member underwent several stages of treatment in the hospital – skin grafts to repair areas of their body too damaged to heal, followed with inpatient monitoring while the healing process ran its course. They were in severe pain the entire time, and pain management was required for the months they remained in the hospital.

This family member developed a chemical dependence on demerol, the drug chosen for pain management as they healed. A final stage of weaning off the drug was needed before treatment was complete, which was also done in the hospital under supervision. Sadly, this weaning process is more often not done in an inpatient setting, and this lack of medical supervision is where this form of chemical dependency can progress to substance abuse.

Herein lies a key difference, in my experience, between chemical dependence and addiction. Chemical dependence to drugs like Doxycycline 100mg seems to largely stem from medical necessity, whereas drug abuse and addiction, for the most part, does not have its origins with a physical medical purpose. PDMP laws are unable to acknowledge this distinction. They can only view all individuals in the same light. This is a disservice to medical patients and addicts alike, and it can push both away from safe medical treatment.

2. Dual Diagnosis Treatment

Dual diagnosis is a term describing a person with both a mental illness and a drug abuse problem. A preexisting mental illness, if left untreated, can lead to drug and alcohol addiction, and addiction can manifest a mental illness. In these situations, an addict needs to overcome their addiction and may need to be prescribed medication to treat the symptoms of their mental illness, which is a conundrum in itself without being exacerbated by government controls.

In a recent paper, researchers shed some light on how these individuals fall through the cracks of the US healthcare system, due in large part to drug policy and programs focusing on criminalization and incarceration rather than treatment. PDMP  is one such program which enables law enforcement in this endeavor, leaving these people untreated for both their addiction and their mental illness.

3. The Drug Of Choice Fallacy

Proponents of PDMP  also fall prey to another misunderstanding of addiction when advocating for these laws; the fallacy that addicts are addicts because of the drugs they use. Nearly every argument favoring PDMP I’ve encountered asserts that drug monitoring is effective in fighting addiction because it can be used to limit or restrict access to an abuser’s “drug of choice.” I can assure you, when in active addiction, I had no “drug of choice.” There were certain drugs I preferred, but I would have settled for whatever I could acquire soonest or easiest.

For an addict, the substance used is not as important as the craving to appease our addiction. I have known plenty of recovering drug like Accutane addicts who relapsed on alcohol, and even substances that aren’t considered drugs. I can relapse with what I can find in a grocery store, hardware store, gas station, or on the street corner. PDMP can’t do anything to address that. In fact, the very nature of this law will drive an addict to riskier, more dangerous substances.

4. Addiction Recovery Is Voluntary

This is going to be the hardest pill for drug control advocates to swallow. Seeking recovery from addiction is a voluntary choice. An addict cannot be compelled to quit. This renders legislators’ attempts to force addicts clean through required treatment and drug restriction by PDMP ineffective.

Nothing exemplifies this truth more plainly than the success of voluntary recovery programs. For more than half a century, a smattering of anonymous 12-step support groups have aided more people in recovery from addiction than all the government funded programs to date. Countless millions worldwide find solace from private community organizations, churches, and institutions that don’t even actively recruit. Just letting people know they are there is enough to attract those in need on a voluntary basis.

Perhaps that is part of the reason legislators think they need to compel individuals – so they can legitimize an ever-encroaching government co-opting what society can handle on its own when given the chance. Addicts don’t need government programs to hinder them. They need government out of the way so they can succeed.

The post Why Prescription Drug Monitoring Can’t Battle Addiction: An Addict’s Perspective appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Audrey Conklin 

–  Atlanta, Chicago, Washington, San Francisco, San Diego and Boston have made a top 50 list of the most surveilled places in the world.

–  Some city police departments use surveillance cameras to help with individual criminal cases, while others monitor entire networks of cameras at all times.

–  Amazon surveillance camera company Ring told The Washington Post in August that it has partnered with more than 400 local police departments as part of a plan called the “new neighborhood watch.”

Six U.S. cities have made a list of the top 50 most surveilled places in the world.

Atlanta, Chicago, Washington, San Francisco, San Diego and Boston made it on the list of the top 50 most surveilled places in the world, according to an August study by consumer information website Comparitech. Eight of the top 10 cities were in China.

Atlanta came in 10th overall on the list of most surveilled cities in the world and first place for the most surveilled city in the U.S. with 15.56 surveillance cameras per 1,000 people, falling behind Beijing, which has 39.93 cameras per 1,000 people, the study shows.

Chicago came in 13th overall and second in the U.S. with 13.06 cameras per 1,000 people, D.C. came in 28th overall and third in the U.S. with 5.61 cameras per 1,000 people, San Francisco came in 38th overall and fourth in the U.S. with 3.07 cameras per 1,000 people, San Diego came in 42nd overall and fifth in the U.S. with 2.48 per 1,000 people, and Boston came in 46th overall with 2.23 cameras per 1,000 people.

“I understand that there may be benefits to crime prevention, but the point is, we have rights, and until we talk about privacy rights and our concerns, then we can’t have the rest of the conversation,” Anti Surveillance Coalition activist Genevieve Jones-Wright told NBC San Diego Tuesday.

The cities use surveillance cameras in different ways. Police in San Diego use cameras to help individual crime cases, while Atlanta has an entire Video Integration Center that watches a network of cameras at all times, according to Route Fifty, an Atlantic Media publication covering local government.

Amazon surveillance camera company Ring told The Washington Post in August that it has partnered with more than 400 local police departments as part of a plan called the “new neighborhood watch.” 

“Ring’s mission is to make neighborhoods safer,” Ring told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an Aug. 2 statement. “We work toward this mission in a number of ways, including partnering with law enforcement agencies so they can share official, important crime and safety updates and work together with their local community through the Neighbors app.”

Atlanta police spokesman Sgt. John Chafee told Route Fifty that cameras “play a vital role” in maintaining the city’s safety, and Atlanta police are planning to increase the number of cameras they monitor.

“Access to these cameras multiplies the number of eyes we have on the street looking for criminal activity and assisting with situational awareness during large events and gatherings. They allow us to identify criminal activity as it is occurring, prevent and deter criminal activity, and capture video evidence when a crime does occur,” he said.

The city of San Diego said in a statement to CBS News 8 that it “welcomes community input” on its “smart streetlight program,” but “despite those efforts, there’s still a lot of misinformation being spread about the program from people pushing their own personal agendas.”

“While this project is a tremendous technological benefit to the city and our citizens, we recognize and value the importance of privacy. Raw video and image data are not accessible to general city staff or any members of the public,” the statement continued. “Additionally, the system is not equipped with license plate ready technology, facial recognition or pan-tilt-zoom capabilities.”

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post 6 US Cities Make List Of 50 Most Surveilled Places In The World: Study appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The company released a statement saying that customers can go to their account settings to opt out of matching features – keeping law enforcement agents away from their information. However, this also would not allow users to find distant relatives or other potential family members through the service.

“We came to the conclusion that if law enforcement created accounts with the same level of access to the database as the standard FamilyTreeDNA user, they would not be violating user privacy and confidentiality,” president and founder of FamilyTreeDNA Bennett Greenspan said in a statement to Gizmodo. “In order for the FBI to obtain any additional information, they would have to provide a valid court-order such as a subpoena or search warrant.”

FBI agents will still be able to access your identity and will be able to see who is related to you. This is dangerous information to be at the fingertips of any given FBI agent without prior investigation or a warrant. One of FamilyTreeDNA’s competitors, Living DNA, agrees. David Nicholson, founder of Living DNA, told Gizmodo:

“At Living DNA we only allow your DNA to be used for what you have asked us to do with it,” continuing on, “We feel a responsibility to our customers who provide their DNA that they need to be in charge of what happens with their DNA. As with all companies worldwide, we will act in accordance with the law but we do not freely open up our database to any 3rd party.”

From a quick glance, this partnership can offer some benefit to public safety. An benefit to the public, however, will come at a cost to the privacy of nearly 2 million people.

The post Popular DNA Testing Company Is Sharing Its Data With The FBI appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Eric Lieberman

The Spanish government reportedly fined Facebook $1.4 million for collecting data on people’s religious beliefs and ideology.

The Spanish Data Protection Agency (DPA) says Facebook has been violating the country’s privacy rules, which forbids the stockpiling of certain personal information without explicit consent, according to TechCrunch.

The social media company accumulates, maintains and then utilizes data for marketing purposes, whether directly for itself or third-party partners. In doing so, the watchdog bureau identified three main transgressions, one costing about $715,000, and two costing about $360,000 each.

Facebook told TechCrunch that it plans on appealing the decision.

“We take note of the DPA’s decision with which we respectfully disagree,” said a representative for Facebook. “As we made clear to the DPA, users choose which information they want to add to their profile and share with others, such as their religion. However, we do not use this information to target adverts to people.”

Several U.S. tech companies have been receiving fines abroad in recent months and years. A French regulatory agency fined Facebook about $180,000 for six violations of collecting users’ information “without having a legal basis.” Similar agencies in other countries like Belgium and the Netherlands also criticized Facebook for infringing upon EU rules by tracking users browsing activity without an adequate amount of notification. (RELATED: Germany Is Investigating Facebook’s Collection Of Private Data, Says Report)

The European Commission, an institution of the EU, issued a $122 million penalty on Facebook in May for “providing incorrect or misleading information” pertaining to its purchase of the messaging platform WhatsApp. The EU’s antitrust arm slapped Google with a record $2.71 billion fine June 27, 2017 for allegedly favoring some of its own price-comparison search results over those of its rivals. Following the steep financial punishment, reports showed that the massive American-based tech conglomerate was vamping up its legal team in the European jurisdiction.

In contrast, a U.S. judge recently threw away a legal complaint that claimed Facebook tracks users after they log out of their accounts and navigate other parts of the web. U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of San Jose, Calif., said at the time that the plaintiffs failed to make their case, specifically that they suffered any “realistic” economic harm or that their privacy was significantly infringed upon. (RELATED: Facebook Ordered To Delete ‘Hate Speech’ After Country’s Green Party Leader Is Insulted)

Facebook did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment by time of publication.

Follow Eric on Twitter

Send tips to eric@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post Facebook Gets Hit With Another Fine For Collecting Data On Users appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Kody Fairfield

What’s the easiest way to gain access to technological information about someone? AppaWhat’s the easiest way to gain access to technological information about someone? Apparently offer them a free pizza.

A report from MarketWatch explains:

74% of people in the U.S. believe it’s “very important” to be in control of who can get information about them and 60% say they would never feel comfortable sharing their email contacts.

Information which is based on a recent study of 3,108 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) students published the National Bureau of Economic Research found, explained MarketWatch.

Oddly enough however, the same MIT study showed that nearly all of the college students (98%) were willing to give away their friends’ emails when presented with the option of free pizza.

“Whereas people say they care about privacy, they are willing to relinquish private data quite easily when incentivized to do so,” the study’s authors write. (The study’s main focus was establishing a cryptocurrency community at MIT and measuring how students adopted the complex technology, per MarketWatch)

More worrisome yet for the friends of anyone at MIT was the fact that the incentive really did not appear to play a major role in the motivation to give the private information away. MarketWatch reports:

Fewer students — 94% — gave up friends’ email addresses when not given any incentives. In the non-incentivized group, 6% input fake emails to protect their friends’ identities. Not giving an email address was also not an option.

Christian Catalini, an author on the study, said the results show people either overstate how much they care about privacy when asked in surveys or else that they do care about privacy but make rushed decisions online without considering future consequences, reported MarketWatch.

“If the second [conclusion] is true, then it becomes important to rethink how ’consent’ is given in all these applications, mostly to make sure that consumers are actually making a choice consistent with their preferences,” Catalini said. “As more of our lives are becoming digital, making sure we have control over how and when our data is used will become more important over time.”

MarketWatch explained that this is not the first time a disparity in practicing what is preached has appeared when it comes to privacy and security. More people than ever are susceptible to hacking and yet they routinely put their online privacy at risk by doing things like accessing public Wi-Fi or using weak passwords, explained the report.

Apparently you shouldn’t trust your friends in college, especially if they like pizza.

Follow Kody on Twitter.

Send news tips to EICfairfieldTLR@Gmail.com.

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post Study: Students Willing to Trade Each Other’s Privacy for Pizza appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Liam Kirsh

Last Wednesday, Burger King aired a 15-second TV ad featuring a man dressed as a Burger King employee speaking directly to the camera:

You’re watching a 15-second Burger King ad. Which is, unfortunately, not enough time to explain all the fresh ingredients in the Whopper sandwich. But I got an idea. Okay Google: What is the Whopper burger?

Credit: Screenshot from YouTube

If you’re using a screen reader to listen to this article, that last line may have activated your Google smart device and caused it to read from the Wikipedia article on the Whopper. That’s what Burger King’s marketing team had in mind, and they planned for it.

Background

The prior week, on Tuesday, April 4, a user under the name Burger King Corporation edited the article to include the following line in the product description:

The Whopper, also known as America’s favorite burger, has a flame-grilled patty made with 100% beef with no preservatives, no fillers and is topped with daily sliced tomatoes and onions, fresh lettuce, pickles, ketchup and mayo, served on a soft sesame seed bun.

The edit was reverted by another editor within 20 minutes. The attempt was made twice more under the username Fermachado123 (the same username used by Burger King marketing chief Fernando Machado on Twitter) and reverted again but then left in with minor changes.

The day of

The TV ad was released at about noon EDT on Wednesday, April 12. Over 20 minutes, in an attempt to change the Google devices’ response to the commercial’s trigger, vandals made a series of edits to the Wikipedia article. They added ingredients such as “medium-sized child”, “toenail clippings”, “cyanide”, and “rat”. Wikipedia volunteers reverted each edit, and an administrator eventually locked the page to prevent edits from unregistered and recently registered users.

As of 2:45pm EDT, Google issued an update blacklisting the sound clip so Google devices would not respond to it. In response, Burger King created a revised version of the ad that aired on both The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon as well as Jimmy Kimmel Live, bypassing Google’s block and triggering devices once again.

In an emailed statement to The Washington Post, Burger King spokeswoman Dara Schopp proudly announced that Burger King had seen a 300 percent increase in “social conversation” on Twitter that day. Wikipedia editors published an open letter demanding an apology.

Concerns

Burger King violated several Wikipedia policies. One of these is the conflict of interest guidelines, which require editors to disclose conflicts of interest and advises against making direct edits to articles. As an administrator and long-time member of the wikiHow community, I know that volunteers spend a great deal of time patrolling edits for vandalism or low-quality contributions. Wikipedia is a non-profit, and the content is created and maintained entirely by volunteers. It’s distasteful for Burger King to commercialize articles for their own financial gain, and Burger King owes the Wikipedia community an apology.

More importantly, however, these events demonstrate the urgent need for voice authentication in smart devices. Google Home and Amazon Alexa are susceptible, as well as Android devices configured to accept commands from the lockscreen. Sure, this TV commercial was harmless. But it raises more serious concerns. A television ad, family member, or guest in the home could perform any of the following:

• make unauthorized purchases (Google Home and Alexa offer shopping capabilities)
• play adult content over speakers, or stream it to the TV (see this examplewhere a child’s parents stopped Alexa just in time)
• tamper with the lights or thermostat
• reveal personal photos, videos, or information to bystanders
• perform incriminating web searches

Unlocked smartphones and tablets, or those configured to accept commands from the lockscreen, have even more capabilities and could be hijacked by any person or speaker within hearing range.

Future considerations

Recently, Google implemented a Smart Lock feature in some phones, which identifies the owner’s voice and only unlocks the phone when they say “Okay, Google.” Google is developing a similar feature for Google Home, but hasn’t announced a roadmap or release date. Unfortunately, this doesn’t go far enough. Imagine a conference presenter who was recorded using Smart Lock to unlock their phone outside the venue — an audience member could replay the presenter’s voice to unlock their phone and embarrass them during the presentation. Or worse: a person could replay their ex-spouse’s voice to the smart device to learn personal details about them. Manufacturers are putting their customers at risk by leaving out reliable security mechanisms in smart assistants.

For a solution, companies might look to the verification implemented by HSBC Bank in their telephone banking system last year. This system requires the user to recite a new set of words each time they authenticate themselves. Ideally, smart assistants would require this authentication by default for high-security actions (purchases, banking, etc.) and offer the option to enable it for calls, texts, and calendar events.

The burden lies on Google, Amazon, and Apple to design a reliable security mechanism for their smart home assistants. This feature should be an utmost priority, and I won’t be using a smart assistant until it’s added.

EDITOR’s NOTE: This Op-Ed was originally published on Medium. The Libertarian Republic has received expressed permission to republish.
EDITOR’s NOTE: The views expressed are those of the author, they are not representative of The Libertarian Republic or its sponsors.

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post Smart Voice Assistants: a Whopper of a Risk appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr (R-WI) told town hall attendees that ‘Nobody’s got to use the Internet’ after one attendee raised concerns about privacy protection placed by the Obama administration reported the Washington Post.

The Federal Communication Commission’s regulations limited what Internet providers such as Verizon and AT&T could do with their customers’s internet history. Congress voted to undo these regulations last month.

The town hall attendee criticized Sensenbrenner and the notion that ISPs are comparable to Facebook.

“Facebook is not comparable to an ISP. I do not have to go to Facebook,” the town hall attendee told Sensenbrenner Jr. “I do have one provider. … I have one choice. I don’t have to go on Google. My ISP provider is different than those providers.”

In response to this, Sensenbrenner said:

“Nobody’s got to use the Internet. … And the thing is that if you start regulating the Internet like a utility, if we did that right at the beginning, we would have no Internet. … Internet companies have invested an awful lot of money in having almost universal service now. The fact is is that, you know, I don’t think it’s my job to tell you that you cannot get advertising for your information being sold. My job, I think, is to tell you that you have the opportunity to do it, and then you take it upon yourself to make that choice. … That’s what the law has been, and I think we ought to have more choices rather than fewer choices with the government controlling our everyday lives.”

This drew criticism from several people on social media while also being slammed by a liberal SuperPAC, American Bridge.

Sensenbrenner’s spokesman stood by the Republican politicians remarks, telling the Post, “Actually, he said that nobody has to use the Internet. They have a choice. Big difference.”

Watch the exchange below, courtesy of the Washington Post. 

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post GOP Lawmaker Says ‘Nobody’s got to use the Internet’ After Voting To Kill Obama-era Privacy Protections appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By: Eric Lieberman

Uber, the ride-sharing startup turned tech conglomerate, has been accused of creating and operating three invasive spy programs in recent months and years, indicating the lengths the company will go to in order to survive and thrive in the ride-hailing market.

Authorities investigated Uber in 2014 for a tool the company reportedly uses called “God View” or “Heaven.”

The software would allow workers (usually at a higher level) to track riders without their permission. The company ultimately agreed to pay a $20,000 penalty and modify its privacy and security practices, after the New York attorney general’s office launched an official investigation. (RELATED: Uber Is Tracking Your Location Even After The Ride Is Over)

A whistleblower announced in December he was suing Uber, his former employer for wrongful termination. In the legal complaint, which was filed almost two years after initial allegations, he accuses the company of continuing to use the “God View” functionality to spy on customers.

“Uber’s lack of security regarding its customer data was resulting in Uber employees being able to track high profile politicians, celebrities, and even personal acquaintances of Uber employees, including ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, and ex-spouses,” Ward Spangenberg, who worked as a forensic investigator for the ride-sharing service, wrote in the court declaration.

Bruce Schneier, a prominent security technologist, called the feature “creepy” in a CNN op-ed.

Another secretive proprietary tool of Uber’s called Greyball would use data gathered from the Uber app to identify and sidestep officials who sought to catch it in the act of providing its service, according to a March report from The New York Times.

The tool, which was originally created and approved in-house, was part of a larger program called VTOS, or “violation of terms of service.” The program would allow the company to detect and evade undercover law enforcement authorities and regulators, as well as pinpointing competitors who were aggressively trying to disrupt its platform.

“This program denies ride requests to users who are violating our terms of service — whether that’s people aiming to physically harm drivers, competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who collude with officials on secret ‘stings’ meant to entrap drivers,” Uber said in a statement, evidently not denying the technology’s existence, according to TheNYT.

Uber allegedly used the elusive methods in cities like Portland, Boston, Las Vegas, and Paris and countries like Australia, China, Italy and South Korea. Such places have at one point imposed rules that restrict, or altogether, ban the ride-sharing services, usually due to the respective officials favoring the local, well-established (and sometimes cozy) taxi companies. (RELATED: Dem Who Tried To Kill Uber Took Bundles Of Money From Taxi Industry [VIDEO])

Uber’s spying programs weren’t exclusive to regulators, law enforcement, officials and the average customer. The company has been using covert software known as “Hell” to spy on drivers using Lyft, its little brother ride-sharing competitor, reports TechCrunch.

The computer program allegedly creates fake Lyft passengers accounts with locations dispersed across a certain area to track as many of the company’s drivers as possible. Some of the data Uber reportedly sought includes the prices of rides, how many drivers were available at a particular point, and who was working for both companies.

The title of “Hell” is likely a contrastive reference to the once-secret feature called “Heaven” or “God View.” (RELATED: Uber Has Suffered So Many Embarrassments, It’s Hard To Keep Track)

While Uber’s surveillance capabilities may not be as comprehensive as certain federal government agencies, the reports of the spying programs show that Uber may more about its customers than many would expect.

Follow Eric on Twitter

Send tips to eric@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post Three Spy Programs Show How Far Uber Is Willing To Take Market Competition appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Paul Meekin

“Out with the old spiritual mumbo jumbo, the superstitions, and the backward ways. We’re gonna see a brave new world where they run everybody a wire and hook us all up to a grid. Yes, sir, a veritable age of reason.” – O Brother, Where Art Thou

Is this how privacy ends? Not with a bang, but with an NFC implant? It’s a possibility, and Epicenter, a ‘digital innovation’ company in Stockholm, Sweden, could be ground zero.

Its website is rife with buzzwords that sound exciting but don’t explicitly state what, exactly, they do. Probably Skynet… Making Skynet is probably what they do.

In the meantime they’ve started tagging employees’ palms with chips that allow them to open doors, access various network connected devices, and purchase goods from vending machines, without the need for a password, key card, wallet, or cash – and in the future? anything goes – gym memberships, grocery shopping, and many other wonders of convenience and terror.

You can actually board an airplane with these things.

“The small implants use Near Field Communication (NFC) technology…When activated by a reader a few centimeters (inches) away, a small amount of data flows between the two devices via electromagnetic waves. The implants are “passive,” meaning they contain information that other devices can read, but cannot read information themselves.” reports The Associated Press.

About 150 employees at Epicenter have the implants. In fact, the program is so popular Epicenter is actually having ‘implant parties’. Thus, if you use the most basic definition, Epicenter has about 150 cyborgs walking around.

Contained in that implant is the data of what doors they open – and when, what drinks they buy, what printer they use and possibly what they print. Essentially where you go, what you do, how you do it, how much you paid, and how long you stayed can be tracked.

And its all just the start. 150 people try out this new technology, see how neat it is. Epicenter makes a deal with a local coffee shop to let their cyborgs buy coffee with their chips. The coffee shop sees how convenient this is and talks about it. Then another business signs on, and on and on and on.

The employees who want to pay with cash or credit see how much longer it takes, and opt for an implant, too. Soon, a major chain starts to accept them. It catches on with the public. Epicenter offers them for an affordable price. It’s creepy, sure, but look at how much *easier* it makes our lives.

Soon it’s omnipresent. Then we don’t need wallets or cash – everything would be digital and connected to a little tiny device in our hand we can’t see or manipulate and remove.

Then the justice department gets involved, and gain the ability to subpoena any and all data associated with implant activity to track accused criminals.

Suddenly, no matter where you go, there you are, recognized by a chip reader or electronic device by a little tiny device in the palm of your hand. Removing it requiring self surgery. Removing it preventing you from buying goods and services, opening locked doors or connecting to local wifi.

And God forbid the thing goes bad.

This sounds crazy.

Another crazy thing: the iPhone is only 10 years old. Look how quickly that technology has come to dominate and control our lives. It’s nearly unheard of to not have a smartphone.

Sure, you’re not required to have a smartphone, and its doubtful it’ll ever be mandatory to have a NFC implant. But folks will be left behind and there will be a gap between people willing to be on the cutting edge of this technology and those who refuse. The workforce and employment market and the basic of idea of human capability may never be the same again.

The Epicenter CEO states in a video, this isn’t really anything new. Citing pacemakers as a form of electronic implant we’ve had for years. Which is true, but a pacemaker doesn’t open doors for you and send data to third party sources.

You may recall an article on this noble publication forewarning of synthetic embryo research and what that could mean for the future of humanity. That was a biological concern. This is a technological one – and scarier.

Scarier because there is nothing to be done. No Libertarian would stop someone from getting an implant like this if they wanted one. This is progress. Progress in the right or wrong direction?

If you are skeptical of the government, big data, and big business?

Well, to quote screenwriter Max Landis: “Hold on to your suspension of disbelief, because it’s about to take a f****** beating.”

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post You’ve Been Warned: Thanks to NFC Implants We Have Cyborgs In Stockholm appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.