Phil Mocek’s Techdirt Profile

pmocek

About Phil Mocek


http://www.linkedin.com/in/pmocek



Phil Mocek’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 2nd, 2017 @ 7:40am

    Re: nothing to hide

    Whether I have or have not anything to hide is not relevant in this situation (though I do agree that we should all have something to hide).

    That I set foot outside my home does not indicate consent to tracking of my movements, words, and associations by our government. That I am or anyone else is in public is not justification for performing surveillance of us. This does not indicate that we are hiding nefarious activity that we wish to hide.

    I want local control over surveillance equipment installed and used on our public streets. I want courts to approve surveillance, for minimization procedures to be followed so that information is not collected individuals who are not the specific targets of surveillance, and if it is collected incidental to targeted surveillance, I want it purged. I want equipment removed after the conclusion of an investigation, and I want public notice of what surveillance was performed after the risk of jeopardizing an investigation passes. I do not want data collected by such equipment to be slurped up into NSA’s Utah Data Center. I want any material support provided by municipal government to outside agencies’ for their surveillance programs to be budgeted and accounted for. I want us to provide informed consent for any public surveillance performed in Seattle.

    I would not accept a system whereby I was required to notify the federal government of my whereabouts, and I will not accept the federal government installing cameras to monitor the whereabouts of people going about their lawful business. If federal agencies are using the surveillance systems they have forced unto infrastructure owned by City of Seattle for targeted surveillance, then there should be no opposition to warrants, minimization procedures, sunset clauses, and public notification after the fact.

    None of these desires indicates that I have anything more to hide than anyone else does.

  • Feb 2nd, 2017 @ 7:40am

    Re: nothing to hide

    Whether I have or have not anything to hide is not relevant in this situation (though I do agree that we should all have something to hide).

    That I set foot outside my home does not indicate consent to tracking of my movements, words, and associations by our government. That I am or anyone else is in public is not justification for performing surveillance of us. This does not indicate that we are hiding nefarious activity that we wish to hide.

    I want local control over surveillance equipment installed and used on our public streets. I want courts to approve surveillance, for minimization procedures to be followed so that information is not collected individuals who are not the specific targets of surveillance, and if it is collected incidental to targeted surveillance, I want it purged. I want equipment removed after the conclusion of an investigation, and I want public notice of what surveillance was performed after the risk of jeopardizing an investigation passes. I do not want data collected by such equipment to be slurped up into NSA’s Utah Data Center. I want any material support provided by municipal government to outside agencies’ for their surveillance programs to be budgeted and accounted for. I want us to provide informed consent for any public surveillance performed in Seattle.

    I would not accept a system whereby I was required to notify the federal government of my whereabouts, and I will not accept the federal government installing cameras to monitor the whereabouts of people going about their lawful business. If federal agencies are using the surveillance systems they have forced unto infrastructure owned by City of Seattle for targeted surveillance, then there should be no opposition to warrants, minimization procedures, sunset clauses, and public notification after the fact.

    None of these desires indicates that I have anything more to hide than anyone else does.

  • Jan 26th, 2017 @ 5:01pm

    Re: In other words

    We at Seattle Privacy Coalition maintain such a map of cameras.

  • Jan 26th, 2017 @ 2:51pm

    Re: Lesson learned

    Consider the possibility that the utility would prefer not to communicate these public records to the public. Providing third-party notification and waiting six months so that the party can file for an injunction is an effective means to achieving such.

  • Jan 26th, 2017 @ 2:31pm

    Re: could SCL release info on which poles do not have FBI piggybacking?

    At 1h25m05s in that same video:

    Phil Mocek (Seattle Privacy Coalition): I'm curious if we're-- Is the idea of regulating who can crawl up onto a City-Light-owned pole and wire into it off the table? It seems odd to me that City Light would allow someone from an outside agency to go up there and hook into their--

    Kshama Sawant (City Council): I was wondering the same thing. What if I set up a camera? What would City Light do?

    Deborah Juarez (City Council): I'll help you. (laughter)

    Mocek: It would seem to present a danger to pole workers, also.

    Jim Baggs (City Light): Our-- Again, this analysis was done some time ago, but the primary concern from City Light's perspective is the safety concern. You're in an area where it's dangerous and only qualified workers should be in that area doing any kind of work on electrical facilities. My understanding is--this predates me, but if you go back several years to when City Light first became aware or somehow got involved in allowing federal agencies--FBI, ATF, whoever--to install these cameras, perhaps on City Light poles, that there was an evaluation of the qualified nature of the people and the workers that would be doing these installations, and that at that time, the utility was convinced to its satisfaction that anyone who would be doing this work would be completely qualified in doing the work. [...] And we were satisfied at the time that he safety considerations would be met, and have since allowed the practice until, as I said, more recently here a year or two ago, when we made the determination that even involvement really at all of either keeping records or tracking or giving permission was not really utility function, it was really more of a law enforcement function and to the degree to which it was either made sense or it was okay or not okay was something that we wanted to back away from.

    David Robinson (Seattle Privacy Coalition): Does that mean that the ATF or whoever had their own bucket trucks and their own linemen, and their own fake Seattle City Light decals on the trucks?

    Baggs: I don't believe they had any fake City Light decals, but yes, they have their own equipment and people.

  • Jan 26th, 2017 @ 11:28am

    Re: could SCL release info on which poles do not have FBI piggybacking?

    Hi. Co-subject of the article, here.

    Seattle City Light's current position is that they do not track what is on their poles, so, as reported by their representative Jim Baggs at a Tuesday city council meeting, he "To his knowledge, there are no cameras in place on City Light poles at this point in time." (at 54m30s in the video archive). As they later confirmed, they are unaware of any cameras because they no longer track what the feds are doing on their poles.

  • May 13th, 2012 @ 3:35pm

    Re:

    Marissa wrote, "So they don't normally ask for an ID when you present your boarding pass?"

    No, my experience has been that airport security guards do ask for documentation of identity of people who wish to cross the TSA barricade. But they don't demand it. TSA publishes lots of false information about this topic, but the truth is that they do not require us to show any paperwork other than a boarding pass.

  • Apr 10th, 2012 @ 10:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't want to be a founding father or a revolutionary leader. I want to be left alone to go about my lawful business without interference from agents of our government unless they have good reason to suspect I've done something unlawful.

    When someone's lawful behavior -- whether it be as calm and respectful as my behavior at the airport that day or more rude and distasteful than I ever behave -- *bothers* agents of our government, I want those agents not to lock that person in a cage and lie about that lawful behavior in an attempt to justify having taken away that person's freedom.

    I want agents of our government who engage in such misconduct to be removed from their positions of power.

  • Apr 10th, 2012 @ 7:41am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Dohbill, there is no requirement to present documentation of identity to the airport security guards at the TSA barricade in order to proceed into the terminal -- just a boarding pass. I did that.

    As for prior contact, that was an unrelated project. It had been something like eight months since that contact, and I had contacted 50 U.S. airports at the suggestion of TSA staff.

  • Apr 9th, 2012 @ 8:04pm

    Re:

    Why act like what? I presented my boarding pass as required, and then calmly and respectfully declined to stop recording. I had previously contacted TSA at that airport and learned that there were no rules barring photography. Nearly everyone else involved later lied about the incident, so it's extremely fortunate that I had a recording of what really happened.

    What other offenses do you wish I had been charged with? I didn't commit any of the four offenses of which I was accused. I didn't violate any law.

  • Jan 25th, 2011 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Really

    PandaMarketer, you're correct that the video does not show what happened before the video begins. Mr. Breedon, the airport security guard who is pictured in the video first, testified in court about what happened prior to him noticing that I was using my camera. He testified that I was cooperative and did not yell. Audio of his testimony and of most of the trial is available for download or streaming on Internet Archive. The Identity Project published a helpful index to the audio, with direct download links to various segments.

  • Jan 25th, 2011 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re:

    It varies by state, but the law requires you to identify yourself under certain circumstances. A police officer can't simply approach you on the street and compel you to identify yourself simply because he feels like doing so.