New “fast-pass” traffic lanes between California and Mexico promise to speed processing of the 55,000 vehicles that enter the U.S., provided they’re willing to be tagged with background check information encoded into their SENTRI PortPass, which features Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) transponder technology.

This sprint toward fascism is met by the popular press without criticism. On the “morning news” this week (which is easily the happiest TV news there is) they were hyping the new $99.95 “Clear Card” which allows travelers to jump to the head of the security line in participating airports. It doesn’t actually get you through security, it just pops you to the top. And all you have to do is submit your bio stats, along with a retinal scan, and this data is encoded into the card for easy scanning!

The angle they played up was the convenience. The angle they didn’t play up was that this data was stored by a government contractor: “Clear® is a subsidiary of Verified Identity Pass, Inc.” A contractor, mind you — which means that they take your data for profit. A corporation storing your data. That’s… um… I think they have a word for that.

It’s not even the clear card itself, but the press’ attitude toward these things that really got me. Where’s the outcry? (Well, it’s online, but that’s not surprising.) This is how the fascists win: by making it “convenient” to give up your freedoms, and by framing “privacy” as difficult or, even worse, as suspicious.

» Share on Facebook

Seiko Epson’s complaint, filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), calls for a general exclusion order banning the import or sale of less expensive third party cartridges in the U.S.

Epson is able to sell cheap printers because its business model is such that profits can be gained from the sale of replacement ink cartridges. However, Epson is not so interested in fair competition, from outward appearances. And who can blame them? After posting a 56 percent drop in quarterly profits last month, and with more losses forecasted, the company can barely afford to play on an even field.

Meanwhile, the question for consumers becomes: would you buy a toaster that accepted only one brand of bread?

» Share on Facebook

Take the commonly-cited Safeway Club Card, which purports to offer shopping patrons lower prices, instantly! The cost? Only the time it takes to fill out the registration form, of course–and this is true as long as the participant is willing to forego some privacy in the process. At the same time, the marketers never pass a chance to foster brand loyalty. It’s a symbiotic relationship:

The result is a changing consumer universe in which customers increasingly are asked to make an Information Age trade-off: In exchange for discounts and other blandishments, they must share data with corporations about who they are and what they buy. This bargain can open individuals up to unprecedented scrutiny. (via Washington Post)

This image of convenience with no strings attached is carefully-managed by public relations firms working in tandem with such marketing corporations as the Catalina Marketing Company (“Influencing attitudes with incentives…”), one of the largest data warehousers collecting data from supermarkets across the country.

But how far does this go? Can the practices used to compromise basic consumer privacy also be used to erode civil liberties? Certainly, if it translates to additional comfort. And convenience is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s opiate of choice for its latest ploy to foil the nasty terrorists.

New “fast-pass” traffic lanes between California and Mexico promise to speed processing of the 55,000 vehicles that enter the U.S., provided they’re willing to be tagged with background check information encoded into their SENTRI PortPass, which features Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) transponder technology.

That’s not too much of a sacrifice to ensure safety for all, is it? Especially if it means you can fast-pass it! Can we afford such frivolous (and increasingly obsolete) luxuries as privacy when unprovoked terror threatens us from every corner? After all, the innocent should have nothing to hide, isn’t that right? And if there’s one good thing about living in the Panopticon: at least you know you’re safe from each other.

“To be incessantly under the eyes of the inspector is to lose in effect the power to do evil and almost the thought of wanting to do it.” – Jeremy Bentham, 1791

Very comforting indeed.

» Share on Facebook

When New London, Connecticut (pop. 25,000) officials decreed they would destroy residents’ homes in order to make room for an office complex on its so-called “revitalized waterfront,” working-class citizens filed suit. The city’s official site states, “New London, Connecticut is not just willing, it is eager to assist with the development of new businesses, help to grow and retain our existing businesses and create jobs!” No kidding. New London’s city government stated that private development plans outweighed the property rights of mere homeowners, and quick to agree were Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Apparently, wealthy developers with plans to build another shopping mall now need only convince local governments that such projects will generate delicious tax revenue. Minority Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas disagreed however. Wrote O’Connor, “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

Country resident William Von Winkle was optimistic in spite of the Supreme Court’s ruling. “I won’t be going anywhere,” he said. “Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.”

» Share on Facebook

BeNow Inc., a Wakefield, Massachusetts marketing company will be managing the database, which contains such personal data on high school students as grade-point averages to ethnicity. Only now being disclosed in a notice under the Privacy Act, the database was actually created in 2003. Pentagon officials have stated that they did not initially realize such disclosure was required.

In its statements, the Pentagon added that anyone may opt out of the system “by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate suppression file.” Can armbands be far behind?

» Share on Facebook