What have you got to hide? The answer may shock you: If you’re like most Americans, you have far more than you realize that you need to be hiding, and not doing so may be putting you and your family in grave danger.
In his new book, Three Felonies a Day, attorney Harvey Silverglate holds that the typical American professional commits an average of three federal crimes a day, just going about their daily business, without even realizing it. And the only thing keeping them out of prison — make that keeping you out of prison — is the fact that federal prosecutors haven’t looked at you yet. “No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch,” reads a statement on the book’s Web site, “and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.”
While Three Felonies a Day illustrates the problem quite well, today I want to talk about solutions. Likely you have never thought you needed to protect yourself from the government. But you probably weren’t aware that so many federal laws are “impossibly broad and vague” that you were a “criminal” several times over today, just for going to work, picking up your kids, and eating dinner. Moreover, the concept of criminal intent has been largely removed from the law, so you can be imprisoned even if you had no idea what you were doing was against the law.
Under the English common law we inherited, a crime requires intent. This protection is disappearing in the U.S. As Mr. Silverglate writes, “Since the New Deal era, Congress has delegated to various administrative agencies the task of writing the regulations,” even as “Congress has demonstrated a growing dysfunction in crafting legislation that can in fact be understood.” Prosecutors identify defendants to go after instead of finding a law that was broken and figuring out who did it. Expect more such prosecutions as Washington adds regulations. — Wall Street Journal
One of the most powerful solutions against the sorts of miscarriages of justice that land people like you in prison is privacy. Privacy makes it much harder for an overzealous prosecutor to spin your perfectly innocent activities into “crimes.” Not to mention it also provides protection against the more mundane threats of identity thieves, psychotic ex-spouses, and so on.
A few people figured out long ago that the federal government wasn’t actually here to help, and one of them, “Boston T. Party,” (a pen name) in 1996 wrote Bulletproof Privacy, now out of print. The thin volume, most of which is now quite dated, provided a how-to manual with practical solutions for increasing your personal privacy. Boston has since rewritten and expanded it, and the new book, One Nation, Under Surveillance, is three times the size, and has at least three times the practical solutions for protecting yourself.
(I met Boston at this year’s New Hampshire Liberty Forum where he spoke on gun rights in the U.S. after the D.C. v. Heller case. He graciously sent me a signed copy of One Nation, Under Surveillance for free. Unfortunately it got buried under a huge stack of papers on my desk for several months and I only recently found it again.)
Privacy is an insurance policy against oppression. Privacy allows a tyrannized citizenry to think independently, freely, and clearly. (Imagine if book stores were regulated as gun stores!) To speak out, network, and organize against unruly government — all of this in perfect accord with your natural rights, and in tradition with our American history and Constitution. We did not form the servile institution of government for the goal of limitless obedience to that servant. Neither did the States federate themselves under the Constitution for the utter dissolution of their own autonomy and prerogatives. . . .
A government which knows everything about its people is an unassailable government, for the people can no longer safely congregate nor precipitate. In an Orwellian state in which all your communications, transactions, and associations are monitored/approved, from whence comes any possible readjustment — much less a successful revolution from it? . . .
When privacy goes, the people have in a sense “thrown away the key” to their shackles. Think of your decreasing privacy as being measured for a tailored straightjacket.
What do you have to hide? Today, perhaps nothing. Next year, maybe a lot depending on new information and revised priorities. Privacy is a comprehensive insurance policy. Keep up the premiums, even if you’re not quite sure why.
I’m not going to share much of the how-to with you. That’s in the book, which you should buy. Now. Or even months ago, and I’m sorry this thing sat under a bunch of junk on my desk for so long. I learned quite a few things I never knew, and refreshed myself on those I did. The thing about many of the privacy techniques shown in the book is that in order to protect your privacy most effectively, they have to be in place already before you are threatened.
That means you — no matter how innocent you think you are — need to protect yourself.
Virtually everything imaginable is covered, most in great detail. A few topics were not covered in detail, such as creating alternate identities, or trusts and financial instruments, since the information tends to go out of date rapidly, or would require their own books, or might be illegal to even talk about (in the supposed land of the free). So it is not a complete how-to, but it is nearly complete.
Most of the expanded content in this book deals with online privacy. This was hardly an issue in 1996 when Bulletproof Privacy was published and almost nobody had even heard of the Internet; today virtually everyone is online and too few people on the Internet do much of anything to protect their privacy. Consider the fugitive who fled to Mexico and then updated his status on Facebook. “People just don’t think through the privacy implications of putting their information on the Internet,” security expert Bruce Schneier wrote Monday. “Facebook is how we interact with friends, and we think of it in the frame of interacting with friends. We don’t think that our employers might be looking — they’re not our friends! — that the information will be around forever, or that it might be abused. Privacy isn’t salient; chatting with friends is.”
The sections dealing with securing your computer and being private online are valuable content and the book is worth buying for this alone; Boston covered pretty much everything, from e-mail to cookies to malware to encryption to government raids. I did spot a few technical errors, but nothing that invalidated the techniques presented.
I do have a few minor nits to pick, though. The first is that I don’t feel enough attention was given to risk assessment. Any security expert will tell you that knowing what risks you face, how likely they are to occur, and how disruptive they would be if they occurred, is critical information in determining what you need to do to protect yourself. Boston assumes that his readers want as much privacy as possible, almost without regard to cost or inconvenience. I would have liked to see more treatment of specific risks and how particular techniques mitigate those risks, as well as how to assess risk generally. This, I think, would make the book more accessible and more useful to a wider audience.
Second, I will have to share one of Boston’s techniques. He recommends using Puppy Linux, a stripped down operating system distribution which can run from a CD or USB stick, instead of having your operating system installed on your hard drive. Puppy Linux can also encrypt your data and save it back to the same USB stick, which he recommends. This is probably workable for some people, and is practically necessary when using a public computer (since they can’t be trusted) but other people will be entirely unable to do this, myself included. His advice to never, ever use Windows for anything is sound, of course. But I do many things which pretty much require an installed operating system, such as video editing. For people who can’t live off a USB stick, I would recommend you install Ubuntu or Fedora, both of which are much more full-featured and also offer simple full-disk encryption for your hard drive which is stronger than that provided in Puppy Linux. (I helped test the full-disk encryption feature in Fedora and contributed a few small bits of code to it.)
Finally, with the rapid changes in technology, and the relentless encroachment of government into every aspect of people’s lives, doubtless much of the information in One Nation, Under Surveillance will be out of date, useless, or even potentially dangerous soon. I would like to see some sort of web site to serve as an online addendum to the book, which could contain errata, new information, perhaps a wiki, etc. Many books, especially dealing with technical topics, have such sites already and they serve to add further value.
One Nation, Under Surveillance should be on the bookshelf of anyone serious about privacy, both online and offline. If you aren’t sure, but you think you might need some privacy in the future, you should use it to get started now. By the time you’re sure you need privacy, it may be too late.
And if you’ll excuse me, I need to clean my desk.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 2527 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Jeff Hoyt
Oct 21, 2009
Hello, Michael.
Been a while now, but I still check in regularly.
Glad to get this information. I’ll start putting it to use in the weeks to come. I’m off to Amazon for a copy.
Thanks for the the time and work you put into this for all our sake’s.
Best,
Jeff
Michael Hampton
Oct 21, 2009
Oops, my links to buy the book were broken. I fixed them.
Oct 22, 2009
Roy Schestowitz (schestowitz) 's status on Thursday, 22-Oct-09 14:08:21 UTC - Identi.ca
Oct 22, 2009
Links 22/10/2009: Camp KDE 2010 Calls for Registration, Fedora 13 Details Emerge | Boycott Novell
Highlander
Oct 24, 2009
The comment were:
)
—————
2. Michael Hampton | October 21, 2009 3:37 am
Oops, my links to buy the book were broken. I fixed them.
—————
Okay. You’re forgiven … this time.
.
But DON’T let it happen again, or else …
.
.
Ulrich
Nov 17, 2009
Michael, this is a brilliant article. Here in Germany we say if you have committed less than five felonies a day you didn’t make it out of bed…
Boston T. Party
Nov 17, 2009
Thanks, Michael, for the kind praise in your helpful review!
You’ve good advice about having a complementing website for technical updates; I am working on that (even though I am supposedly retired from BTPness).
Molôn labé!
Boston
Santino
Nov 17, 2009
Why don’t our elected officials read this kind of stuff and do something about it???
V
Nov 17, 2009
Amazon? No thank you.
How far are we from the day when ownership of such knowledge is proof of intent, making purchasers subject to arrest?
So I suppose my question is, is this book available in bookstores for cash purchase?
Michael Hampton
Nov 17, 2009
Ulrich, if you can’t figure out how to commit a felony before you get out of bed, then something’s wrong.
Boston, thanks!
Santino, your elected officials do read this stuff, and they are doing something about it. What they’re doing, of course, is the opposite of what we would like to see.
V, I understand some people have concerns about buying from Amazon (though if you’re creative, you can find a way to do it privately; this is covered in the book). Any brick-and-mortar bookstore should be able to order it, if they don’t already carry it. You can also order directly from the publisher using, say, a blank money order.
secret
Nov 17, 2009
“such as video editing” — see the “ubuntu studio” distro
Michael Hampton
Nov 17, 2009
I did. But Ubuntu (and Debian) currently have a critical data-loss bug involving encrypted hard drives, and they haven’t bothered to fix it. So it is simply not safe to install these on your computer at this time.
nerd
Nov 17, 2009
honestly you can use windows and still be as secure as anyone using a bootstick or live version of linux, you just need to be smart about it. if this article is aimed at trying to get a normal american to be safe online, forget it, they don’t have the technical skills to do it without extreme baby steps and much hand holding. any person who knows what a live distro of linux is and how to use it can use windows safely. other than my nitpicking over the windows bashing, this article was good.
Michael Hampton
Nov 17, 2009
Sure, it’s possible to make Windows reasonably safe. But doing so is outside the reach of the typical Windows user, as you pointed out. And people like me have better things to do with our time than babysit our computers.
As for Windows bashing, well, I’ve been doing that since the days of Windows 3.1 and I don’t see any good reason to stop. It deserves every bad word.
On that note, it’s my theory that the reason so many people need so much hand holding is that Windows actually prevents them from learning about their computer, as much as possible. One has to be very highly motivated in order to learn anything about computers or the Internet when working within Windows.
Johnny de Vulcan
Nov 18, 2009
ECHELON has been spying on our PCs and listening to our phone-conversations for years . We just don´t care anymore; that may be the only way they will ever hear the truth. The mountain of evidence of a dawning fascist-police state are so obvious that it is impossible not to speak about.The 1 world government will fail just like all the spectacular mistakes they allready have commited; 9/11 was un-veiled, the mass-theft of murcans savings and pensions were found out, and the pandemic flu is allso falling apart; they are too stupid to succeed and too divided- and they know that no criminal , selfish plans involving departure from the truth has no real power compared to that of the wrath of the PEOBLE.
reviculous
Nov 19, 2009
I said this years ago, having already been a victim, and now I am very careful what goes online. Having been hacked both online and in a sense, in my real life, I’m pretty much gun-shy now.You can make anyone ANYONE look like a criminal if you try hard enough, but really it’s easy.
Most people assume that the accused must have been doing SOMETHING bad (as they sit there watching TV, drinking beer, smoking a doob, downloading porn, and pirating CD’s) because they KNOW they are doing stuff they shouldn’t, so doesn’t everyone?
When I got hit, I was doing nothing wrong that I knew of, still, that is no excuse anymore(?!)no matter how right you are, how much lack of evidence, I was advised that jurors are generally people who are “not smart enough to avoid jury duty” so are much more likely to respond emotionally rather that factually.
All you have to do to make someone appear guilty is generate emotional outrage. Even if the person is found innocent there will still be lingering doubt.
That was my lesson, free to you about why you should be concerned. Maybe you think you have no enemies. Maybe you don’t- yet. Maybe you aren’t breaking any laws on the books -yet. Things can change. You will be just fine… right up to the day you are not!
Highlander
Nov 20, 2009
The remarks were:
—–
15 Fire alarm systems:
.
Surveillance in the right place and time is actually helpful in nabbing real criminals. This is the basic problem in security, differentiating good guys from bad, and this comes at the expense of privacy et all.
—–
.
The essence of your remarks is just this: Since you believe that all conversations, connections, transactions and/or other events on the Internet are ‘fair game’ for the ‘watchers,’ then perhaps YOU wouldn’t mind wearing a GPS locator and a ‘wire’ such as to capture your every move and word so that they may be analyzed and later used to incriminate you of the most innocent of acts?
.
If you can’t buy that, then your words are without value.
.
The fact of the matter is just this: Surveillance should happen ONLY when there has been a POSITIVE correlation between someone’s previous acts and a known crime, such as to associate the suspect with the crime.
.
All other such ‘surveillance’ is actually against the law.
.
And should YOU decide to pop-off with ‘Well, if you have nothing to hide …’ I’ll reply with: THAT remark is the quintessential essence of an accusation of guilt.
.
According to the one whom expresses such a thought, why ~everyone~ is guilty of something, and it’s only a matter of time before we’re all found out.
.
We —the Citizens of the United States— don’t live in a freaking surveillance society, inasmuch as there’s NO enumeration in the U.S. Constitution for any such activity by the United States.
.
No enumeration? NO POWER, and NO AUTHORITY.
.
Ergo, any such ‘surveillance’ by whatever agency of government is without legal validity to exist, except as noted.
Larry
Dec 13, 2009
I was electronically attacked while working for a lobster precessor that had a DOD contract. My rights were violated as well as my privacy. There methods are effective. Our Govement does violate its citizens rights in the name of profit for the connected! I now fear my Goverment more than the terrorists, don’t be ruled and controlled by fear! The best way to reverse course and get our rights back is to shrink the Goverment’s income is by cutting taxes and only having laws against crimes that have a real victim.
Jan 26, 2010
Why You Should Abstain from the Census « Reboot The Republic