Free Vpn Services For Iphone

France really wants Google to Censor "right to be forgotten" Search results worldwide -

Google is currently fighting Internet censorship France on the most important legal case this year - and it involves the controversial right to be forgotten. Google recently filed an appeal with the highest court in France against the CNIL, the data protection authority of France. In 2015, the CNIL ordered Google to stop showing search results "forgotten" to everyone - essentially censor the Internet in places where France has no jurisdiction. Currently, Google follows Europe "the right to be forgotten" laws, but shows the search results "forgot" to people who use Google from a non-European IP address. In particular, the ongoing case between Google and France has nothing to do with the highly publicized raid on the Paris headquarters of Google by agents of the French tax authorities.

Although this Google vs France separate tax case may set a precedence for all other multinational companies whose nominal EU headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, this is far from the biggest thing going on between Google and the french Government. . If anything, the media hung predictable tax history at the expense of the "right to be forgotten" This story was drawn and played, so to speak; however, the tax story involves a raid high public and political officer at the right time, in daylight - the kind of thing that the media just loves Why EU law "right to be forgotten" as a sensitive point anyway [1945010?]

Force "right to oblivion" of censorship on the world? No, Thanks

Rick Falkvinge describes the problem with "right to forget" on the blog PIA There almost two years: " When the government can order something to forget, it gives the right to change history, to clear embarrassment, and protect its ranks against a free press, "the past is the past and the tool is now -. and has been used for good if porn revenge. More often, however, it has been used by Internet scammers to erase the evidence of their misdeeds. If people want in any jurisdiction this type of online environment, which is for them to vote; however, the base of a government to seek to enforce its rules on jurisdiction that has not explicitly made is amazing.

Google's general counsel, Kent Walker, explained why the company refused to acquiesce to the deeper demands of the French government: "... if the French law applies globally how long it until other countries - perhaps less open and democratic - start demanding that their laws governing information also are global "companies must resist blatant government requests - . there is no more effective way

TPP TTIP not seem to be coming around after all - here's why -

both disguised protectionist agreements on free trade agreements, TPP and TTIP, seem to encounter serious resistance - especially TTIP. This makes all of the attempted coup d'Etat unlikely to succeed

As detailed in the book Information feudalism.? Whose knowledge economy , the United States responded to its industrial obsolescence - as highlighted mainly by the rise of Toyota and fall of Detroit in the late 1970s - by diverting some global forums and try to push through so-called free trade agreements that were little more than attempts to redefine the value of production, and the economy in a way that forced the rest of the world to pay rent to the United States to safeguard its dominant position in the future.

(the committee recommends it was the Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations, the ACTN, which was led by Edmund Pratt Jr - then CEO of Pfizer. - And who reported directly to the Office of the President US ACTN the first tried to obtain such an agreement by the United Nations, that the big kicks on the street instead it was the GATT. - the General Agreement on tariffs and trade. - Who was hijacked and transformed into the WTO, an organization hawkwatching the so-called TRIPS agreement)

Since then, the US has tried to pursue this policy in an increase catch of unilateral advantages.

The most recent attempt was something called ACTA, deceptively called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, but that was a blatant attempt to give benefits to US companies at the expense of all the business and freedom of another. Error US negotiators made in this attempt was to try to make it a comprehensive agreement covering all economies, but China, in an attempt very thinly veiled to make someone fall in particular line.

However, this required all the major economies of the world to sign for it. If anyone does not, all would fail effort. And it is Europe - the world's largest economy - has mounted a particular resistance to the idea. If the largest economy of the world does not agree on the treaty, it is dead in the water.

On July 4, 2012, the European Parliament refused its consent to ACTA, effectively declaring independence from American special interests. ACTA was dead. Not only in Europe but worldwide.

Of course, these interests do not take kindly to the refusal of Europe to fall into line, and immediately went again. The next round, Europe would not even have the accident to kill a global treaty, and trade negotiators from the United States assured by negotiating a separate treaty with Europe.

Thus, the TPP - the Trans-Pacific "partnership" - ACTA was reborn for everyone, but Europe and the TTIP - the transatlantic treaty Huge Poppycock - was invented as a treaty between the United States and Europe, something that Europe could refuse without overwriting the "treaty" for everyone, as happened on July 4, 2012.

So far, the TPP seems to go on rails, like ACTA was.

But the TTIP face Europe is faced with serious question marks.

And even if the TPP can theoretically live his own life, it is really meant to be used together with TTIP. As ACTA is designed to be about a global treaty ... well, or at least a global economic intimidation China.

From the UK we hear politicans make cautious statements that TTIP "may need a year or two." This is bureaucratspeak for the agreement being very not agree at all.

In Germany, we believe the strong statement of the Minister of Agriculture, Christian Schmidt, that access to the sale of German cars on the American market isn 't worth the price of renouncing the possibility of prohibiting the harmful chemicals in food. This is a very strong statement, particularly the German Minister: if Germany is not fully on board, then no one in Europe is on board

Many other politicians in Europe echoed the sentiments Similar .. You hear a little here and a little there, indicating that this so-called "treaty" seems so far that he is quite likely to miss its window to be possible. In particular, you hear opposition to something called ISDS, which essentially means that companies supersede parliaments when it comes to the law.

Because when you looked ACTA, all politicians were first agree it was a joyous good idea. It took coordinated synchronized events in 0 European cities, something that had never even happened before, to get the attention of politicians. And they have not forgotten.

In other words, if politicians should fail, there will be a ton of militant protests. And nobody really wants. So politicians try not to get into a position where these events occur, and therefore, it seems that "negotiations are taking another year."

It goes without saying that these treaties are extremely hostile to the Internet, privacy and freedom, as the particular modes of communication bypass existing industries.

With or without foul play like this, your privacy remains your own responsibility. And if politicians start to think this is a good idea after all, it is time to take the streets and flood legislatures who have concerns again.

These 17 countries do not believe that freedom of expression on the Internet is a fundamental human right -

freedom of expression on the Internet is taken for granted by many of us. Around the world, the securities are announcing that the UN adopted a resolution reaffirming the Internet as a human right and condemns any country that blocks certain parts of the Internet for any reason. The non-binding resolution reaffirms the commitment of each country to "resolve Internet security issues in accordance with their obligations to protect freedom of expression, privacy and other human rights online." While more than 70 countries supported this resolution on 'promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, "it is important to note the 17 countries that have campaigned for an amendment that would remove language protecting freedom of expression.

What country do not believe in freedom of expression on the Internet

17 countries are :?

Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burundi, China, Cuba, Republic of Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia. South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and Vietnam

Completely shut off Internet access is odious as it is; however, we must ensure that we do not get in a mindset where we believe it is OK for the government to cut off access to parts only the Internet. freedom of expression must be absolute or it does not exist. Even large prohibitions, such pornography, for moral or religious reasons, can lead to inappropriate sites takedowns widely used.

Take the story of Tumblr, for example. Tumblr has already dropped under the blocks by Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and China. In some of these cases, the government of the country was the adoption of the bans at the request of third parties that would create lists to fit "the morality of filters." Even without the pretext of religious offense, there are examples of secular governments blocking access to websites everyday pretext to stop terrorism. Remember when India tried to block Github and Archive.org?

Is the resolution of the United Nations anything?

At the end of the day, this is just a non-binding resolution. Even in such a discussion with the United Nations as a forum, some countries have shown their true selves. They are opposed to classify open access to the Internet as a fundamental human right because they want to continue to control their population. The governments of other countries could end up censoring access to certain corners of the internet. In fact, one of the countries that sponsored the initiative with the United States, Turkey, is one of the most heinous of open Internet violators. Voting for the resolution clearly means nothing; we find countries will eventually adopt laws to guarantee freedom of expression on the Internet as a basic human right.

There are two components in the current attack on freedom and freedom of opinion, assembly and speech -

There are two parallel branches being executed currently in cracking down on freedom of an unprecedented way: meeting the freedoms of expression, speech and of freedom in general. To understand the importance of what is happening, we need to see these two branches.

The first component is to introduce major exceptions to freedom of "extremist" or "terrorist" anything. If you are an extremist, you have no rights at all. We are basically at that time already.

The second component is to gradually expand the definition of these public-partnership rights appease eliminating keywords until they understand anything and anyone the government does do not like. We are basically at that time already, too

look more closely at these one by one :.

The first component makes exceptions to universal freedom when certain keywords are present. There is no shortage of "terrorist acts" in the world. Basically, none of them make terrorism a crime worse (preparation to cause widespread devastation is already a serious crime in most or all countries); instead, they take the rights to due process for those suspected of such crimes, and frankly, for people in general.

One example is the NDAA, which allows the United States to indefinitely lock someone for nothing without trial. Another example would be the UK law that can put you in jail for five years for refusing to yourself, or for not having the keys that do not exist in the first place incrimination.

This is in an appearance similar to the way the word "communist" was used in the red-scare McCarthy era in the US, where you basically had no rights if someone as you were a communist sympathizer.

More recently, we learn that Automated Web censorship will be applied to all that "extremist" or connotations "hate". This kind of censorship is generally forbidden not only at the legislative level in most countries, but in the constitutional level .

The second component redefines the keywords in question to include anything and everything. There is basically no activity, short of blindly actively support the government, which can not be described as "extremism" or "terrorism"

In the UK, for example, Theresa May -. Then Minister of the Interior (Interior Minister), and is now prime minister - has introduced new powers to strip British citizenship to the people if they were "extremists", "whose continued presence is not not conducive to the public good "

Let's review this time because it is boldly sweeping. An extremist can be someone who is" not conducive to the public good "Putting into words all the simpler days. all that is required to be labeled as the all-terrible "extremist" is that government does not like you .

Secretary Interior issued an order to expulsion on the grounds that his continued presence was "not conducive to the public good."

This is well in line with the peaceful protests outside the London Stock Exchange by Occupy London. whether you approve the message or the actions of Occupy, it should concern you that a peaceful meeting to ask the government for a redress of grievances has been labeled "low level terrorism" and therefore a legitimate target for all and all activities in the fight against terrorism.

we are now at a point where everything and everyone is extremist, terrorist, or both, solely for exercising the freedoms guaranteed to us. And once these keywords are mentioned, we stripped of all rights and freedom.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.

Featured Image from Flickr.

New Hacker vs Slashdot - Post Mortem Analysis -

In March, our two papers were presented on the front page of both Slashdot and Hacker News. After reading a recent post on HN with details of post mortem analysis, we realized that it was important that we share some of our analyzes as well. We recorded in our analytical account, and we were absolutely stunned .

• • •

Vive Slashdot

Our interview with Suren Ter published March 14, 2012, presented the most discussion among all messages to this date. We found it very interesting that the wire had lit so much discussion. When a colleague informed us that the article was presented on the website CmdrTaco, we prepared for the impact of the Slashdot effect.

Hacker News aka Literate News

Our article on Hacker News was on the loved and hated Bitcoin. With only 73 votes, the article remained on the frontpage for the greater part of the day March 17, 2012.

analysis

Since there are many variables involved, it would be naive to claim that these results can be used to draw a conclusion. However, it seems that it may be safe to say that the Slashdot Slashdot is that we all knew once. In addition, it is likely that readers of Slashdot scan the titles (or read abstracts / extracts) while pirates on Hacker News read and digest (or click and inactive). It is quite arguable that the content of the stories have played a role in the development of these results. However, based on the autopsy after further analysis of positions HN REFERENCES against the large volume of discussion on our Slashdot'd station, this argument may not be valid.

Statistics Alexa still show Slashdot as more popular than HN:

Web browsers

for the most part, it appears that Slashdot is read by a hand roughly equal Chrome users and FF, , and HN certainly favors Chrome.

Operating Systems

It was a bit of a shock. One could imagine Linux be the suitor of HN, but it seems the legacy of Steve Jobs remains the champion.

Please let us know in the comments if you've had the same or conflicting results to those we have published.

Use a VPN or your Google searches are public -

Privacy is risk more than ever. Our team of research and development has recently stumbled upon something that puts the AOL search debacle to shame. The discovery that we describe should serve as a serious and urgent warning. If Google searches are not conducted by a VPN or Tor, you run the risk that these searches are made public and linked to your IP address. It is well known that many companies track users across the Web. This monitoring has become a huge internet industry, resulting in huge amounts of personal data extracted and sold or used in retargeting. In general, most people were indifferent to what followed, as it was kept very discreet and therefore out of sight of most of society. However, we have just discovered something that is living proof that our privacy is in grave danger. At least one site was identified which makes your search traffic available to the public on the Internet in its entirety, including web crawlers from Google. This is not some company thugs, but instead, a website monitoring service that is used in a wide variety of sectors of the internet. DISCLAIMER: We do not name or link to the site that we truly believe to be potentially damaging the lives of many people. We will, however, screenshots to illustrate the damage that can be caused. This particular URL Web Site tracks, referring URL, and Google search queries for each site on which it is activated. Then he creates pages that list each of the search queries or SEOs with the IP address of the visitor. Google will index these pages, making it easy for anyone to find an IP address and connect to a visit to a specific website or a search query site. Shown below is an example of some of the violations of privacy that it caused. Most people agree that, while some of these searches are harmless, some were definitely made with the hope of privacy. When viewing the image, imagine that you have done a google search of your IP address, and these recordings have appeared. So imagine someone else is doing a google search to your IP address. As Lil Flip said, "Game over."

queries search engines and referring URLs are listed. This can be used to show what you want or what sites you've visited. A common misconception is that the solution is to attack or attempt to close the monitoring site. However, this is only one site. There could be many others who work in the same way, operating under several different jurisdictions. In addition, there are countless other monitoring sites that have exactly the same data, but have not made public. But just because it is not public today does not mean it will not be public tomorrow. Hackers could break and release the data, or it could be sold in bulk to other companies whose motives are unknown. Stopping a site does not protect anyone. Even using the private or incognito browser mode will not hide your IP address. The only way to protect yourself is to be truly private by your IP address invisible for the first monitoring sites. So next time you Google, please, use a VPN.

Cash removal attempts are more a privacy if disaster -

throughout the western world, politicians seem keen on the elimination of money as a concept. There are several reasons for the surface - preventing robberies of armored vehicles, the fight against organized crime, which makes it hard money laundering, and so on. However, this is a project of typical ivory tower elite who do not work in practice, nor escape many of the negative impacts. Attempts to remove silver are not only a disaster for privacy but also a disaster for national security and resilience.

The politicians suggest that the money should be progressively replaced by transactions by credit card and direct banking, which makes every single movement of traceable money, graspable and reversable. This is not only a disaster for privacy, it is also a disaster resilience. I had the privilege of having a long conversation with the head of security of one of the largest European banks, and he said the result was a given - there will always be some kind of cash. Whether issued by a central bank is completely beside the point; if money from the central bank are not readily available, people will create a means of trade between them without involving a third party.

There are not that privacy that requires cash or equivalent. There is also the possibility of negotiating without having tons of paperwork, including a third treatment, which - to top it all - clearly establishes a merchant class (with the possibility of receiving money) and a class of consumers (with the ability to pay and shut up). However, money was always peer-to-peer

Let's take it again, because it is important. Money is and always has been peer-to-peer. (One can easily observe the popularity of other technologies peer-to-peer is with governments.)

But the fight against money peer-to-peer is also a disaster for national security, and I do not think most politicians understand the ramifications of this. We have already seen how the US killed organizations in pointing a finger of death ^TM to them when Visa, MasterCard and PayPal off their ability to accept money as if it was made with one voice. High-profile cases in point: WikiLeaks

Now, two questions:

- If you were an entrepreneur, would you be comfortable with the fact that someone else was holding the main key to your entire. operations and could stop the moment you become inconvenient? There is no WikiLeaks who was arrested by the credit card agreement; many small mom-and-pop shops that sold sex toys and completely legal and moral-similar properties were also closed. This already happened citing "acceptable use policies" We are effectively outsourcing policies democratically unaccountable credit card companies under the jurisdiction of a foreign power

. - . If you were a politician outside the United States, would you be comfortable with the fact that a foreign power (the US government, to issue letters of Visa and MasterCard) could stop your entire consumer economy (the ability to pay at points of sale) as easy as flicking a Big Red switch? You should not. This should have politicians wake up at night screaming in terror. the United States can effectively eliminate a country without a single shot if that country has been foolish enough to remove silver.

in summary, the policy attempts to eliminate cash are very nearsighted, and I would add dangerous the society . Bitcoin can come to the rescue before the credit card companies and myopic politicians knew what hit them.

United States thongs on the protection of international online privacy of the UN, he criticized the original -

with the recent attention on the massive monitoring the Internet, Brazil and Germany proposed a resolution at the United Nations ( "UN") General Assembly November 7, 2013, which would extend the right to privacy in online communications. The resolution was born after revelations that the leaders of Brazil and Germany have been spied at some point by the National Security Agency (NSA). U.N. resolution proposed to incorporate the right to privacy online in the International Covenant on Civil and 1976 political rights under the general right to privacy. The proposed resolution included declarative references against the extra-territorial and illegal surveillance while calling on all nations to end violations of privacy by encouraging compliance with human rights, establish accountability and oversight surveillance of communications, and possibly author of a report on the protection of the right to online privacy by the high Commissioner of the United Nations on human rights in the General Assembly.

initial opposition to the resolution included the United States ( "US") and its partners, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and Australia ( known as the "five eyes"). Opponents of the U.N. resolution argued that no universal right to privacy exists and that governments should recognize the privacy of a person just outside their own country. Were these arguments prove incorrect, current practices monitoring of the NSA would be considered highly unethical and potentially a huge violation of international human rights. This reasoning could explain US efforts to quietly change the resolution instead of outright combat the U.N. After all, the US has never engaged in illegal mass of online espionage practices; rather, it contributes instead to the legal supervision authorized by federal law, congressional oversight, and approval by the Federal Courts. Assuming a compromise can be reached, then the US and its partners can possibly claim that they are against illegal mass surveillance of online activities, while continuing to pursue those activities.

As lobbyists and diplomats involved with changing the resolution of privacy, the United States and its watered partners down by removing the language describing illegal surveillance and disavowing extraterritorial monitoring illegal. The most notable compromise resolution was made to the withdrawal of the language implies that interception and collection of communications and personal data or "mass surveillance" national and international could constitute a violation of human rights. For US red lines to the proposed U.N. resolution, the Bay blog turtles is accused of the information here. After the amendments were approved, the UN resolution to extend the right to privacy in online activities could now be approved by the US and its partners.

Despite the weakening portions of the language of the UN resolution, the overall integrity of the commitment to the protection of online private life remains intact. The resolution was adopted the Human Rights Committee U.N. November 26, 2013, with the unanimous approval. This draft resolution also has the approval of five major human rights and privacy organizations, and international access information, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Given that the resolution currently has at least 50 co-sponsors means that the resolution will likely pass the General Assembly when it is voted on in December.

Although the passage of the resolution will not automatically reign in unscrupulous practices of the NSA, he will keep the theme of fresh mass surveillance in people's minds. The importance of the current UN resolution is to initiate an ongoing conversation on the mass line in oversight to the groups to develop best practices for the promotion and maintenance of freedom while balancing the need for governments investigate the illegal online activities. We hope that the U.N. resolution once approved will help to establish and integrate the right to privacy in online activities across all nations, it may eventually be recognized as a universal human right, it should be.

What is the privacy right, anyway? -

"I have nothing to hide, so I had nothing to fear . "

If you talk about privacy in your circle of friends, how many of them will respond more or less exactly that?

this sentence is, unfortunately, quite common. It is also one of the most dangerously ignorant attitudes towards privacy today It assumes that your particular habits. - normal daily habits that hurt nobody. - will not be outlawed by the next parliament unreasonably It assumes that you are 100% respectful of the law, even by the smallest stupid laws, you are not (person). It assumes that you do nothing at all that could be interpreted as another by an opponent looking for patterns that differ from anything ordinary something.

There are many things we do every day that could cause problems for us if the wrong person used against us. this is the case for everyone. That's why we have this notion of privacy. It is a guarantee that small offenses that we do every day - jaywalking, speeding up a bit to keep up with the flow of traffic, just do the work of the company with its all written and unwritten rules, that all these small offenses are regularly ignored. (Written communications and unwritten rule sets tend to contradict the degree.)

Most things that could cause problems for us in the wrong hands are not even illegal, just as taboo a form of another. Imagine a British politician with any form of sexuality, for example, who came to the attention of the public by any mechanism. Natural that for every person - no, all creature of all species in the world, it would still kill the career of this politician, because of unwritten rules

There a reason why the NSA. collect tons of communications for the explicit purpose of finding something to discrediting undesirable and troublesome individuals.

Have you ever do anything that was the least troublesome for everyone in power? No? Someone richer than you, someone influential? Of course you did. Everyone does. To ensure that this continues to happen, our checks and balances set a clear framework that is supposed to make people equal before the law. mass surveillance kill this principle and could put ahead on the right.

The conflict between the written and unwritten laws, moreover, are not only usable by people in power. There is a beautiful form of labor dispute in South America called strike to the rule , where workers insist on following every single rule written. Each time, he grinds the production stopped. When bus drivers in a city - maybe Buenos Aires - go on strike, they decided to follow every single traffic rules. The whole town got bottled in a heartbeat.

We must be aware that there is a clear and present conflict between the written laws and unwritten rules that make society tick, and that we are normally expected to let the latter take precedence over the former . But with the mass surveillance eroding privacy, you can be held responsible for the violation or ruleset - you should necessarily do as they conflict

This is how selective enforcement between involved .. as in the application of selective laws. When you have so much data on everyone, and I know that everyone breaks the law or the rules on a daily if not hourly, and that moves dramatically priorities.

At this time, law enforcement moves its operations from punishing troublesome actions to punish troublesome people .

This is why privacy is important.

Freedom of expression is not only the freedom to state an opinion or observation that you like. It is the ability to state an opinion or observation without fear of reprisal for the . Here, a much higher freedom, and is essential to keep power in check.

If you have the case of privacy like this to your friends, chances are they'll respond with something completely different from the "I have nothing to hide" cliché. If they do not always receive the picture, ask them if they close the door behind them when they go to the bathroom, and the following conversation may take place:

- Of course, I lock the door when I go to the bathroom. ? Does not everyone
- So what do you have to hide it? What laws you break
- What? No! I just want some privacy, I think I have the right to that!

Next, look at the penny dropped, in most cases.

The rights and freedoms of our relatives -

Our parents had certain rights and freedoms they took for granted, inherited from our grandparents. They are not passed on to our children. This is a huge failure of our generation.

Our parents were able to write a private letter. They took absolutely privacy for granted. We can say that the letter paper took some time to deliver, but nobody read it in transit, nor does the letter in itself be connected databases to be used against those who communicate at a later date. The factor would never be held responsible for the content of the letter by corporate interests who did not like what was communicated.

Our parents could put a private phone call without being wiretapped and eavesdropped on. Their phonecalls are not connected to be used against them at a later date. They took this right and freedom for absolutely granted.

Our parents could freely communicate privately without corporate and government interests stepping in mid-sentence and interrupting with "You mentioned a forbidden subject.. Please do not discuss forbidden topics "(This would be the case for some time if links to the Pirate Bay were posted on Facebook, for example.)

They were able to go to the library - on their own feet, it is true - and search for information. They have absolute privacy making, and took private life for granted. Nobody connects what information they were seeking to use it against them, no one was looking they receieved information in response to questions, nor how our browsed parents, learned, and used this information. The fact is, no agency recorded that our parents had been to the library in the first place.

When our parents a something mistake and correct themselves, or perhaps even changed their mid-sentence mind and decided not to say anything, no one took notice attention to that they thought the first but never expressed.

When our parents read a newspaper, there was no one looking over their shoulder to see exactly what newspaper they read, which articles they read in this document, in what order, and how of time. any body has not what friends log our parents contacted after reading a particular article. This was the privacy that was made absolutely and fundamentally for granted in our parents' generation.

Our parents could freely walk around the city without having logged almost every step by the government. Law enforcement has never been able to check exactly where a certain individual had been several years in the past, and that person was talking to the most recent. This was the privacy that our parents took for granted.

When our parents thought that to date, as they were looking at the pictures and phone numbers, there was no one who carries their partner preferences to use against them later. When our parents were visiting a travel agency, nobody took careful notes of trips that were never booked.

When our parents deposit money of their own money in a bank, they must first show ID. It was an obvious right - to deposit your money in the bank, in your own account, without question

When our parents wanted to travel around the country, they do not need to show any other document the. ticket. It was a right that was completely taken for granted, especially after WW2. Nobody kept careful log of each trip they made to be used against them later.

When our parents bought a pack of gum, a sandwich, or a pack of beer, which has never been recorded in giant databases that could be used against them later.

Our children have lost all those rights and freedoms. Each. All these rights, our parents took for granted, have the freedoms that we have failed to pass on to our children. I firmly believe that this is the worst conceivable failure of our generation, and I think the future will judge us harshly for that.

Privacy remains your own responsibility. It is the privacy of your children.