The same people probably believe that Siri only listens after you say ‘Hey Siri/Hey google’. The more gadgets you have on you, the more surveillance they get.

Eric Blair / George Orwell must be shaking his head. Warnings went unheeded.

A simple survey to establish a ratio of users and non-users and you have a rough idea of troop strength. All given voluntarily to the enemy... shakes head... No sense whatsoever...

This is why I have disabled microphone & location tracking capabilities in my phone. And no, I don't have a fitbit.....

Like HIR I also disable everything on my phone for privacy. And a reason I am one of those die hard Blackberry users.

On the flip side...I wear a Garmin 920XT...and am on Strava. 😎 Strava is very convenient. That being said, you do have privacy control over your strava account, who can see it and who can't. I'm sure if the intent is there, any saavy computer geek could hack it though.

Realistically...I don't believe much of the privacy we are promised for "free" services are free at all. there needs to be a trade off. We have collectively evolved into trading off personal information for free apps, free social media, etc. This was one of the great undoings of blackberry. They marketed "privacy" in lieu of "free." And suffered the consequences. You can't give something for nothing.

Nothing is secure. Zip nada nothing. The only way to be off the grid is to revert to old ways. As some have said,it’s a matter of who is looking for you.

If you wish to meet with folks. Discuss names of future rendezvous locations when you meet. Give the future locations a letter and and then just say the letter and when you wish to meet.

Burn phones paid with cash with no names or key words spoken during convo are a quick option. But you need to know your purchase wasn’t compromised Phone is only ever used one time

...As some have said,it’s a matter of who is looking for you...

In reality, no one is looking for you.

If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia.
Margaret Atwood

Wayne. I know and understand that due to my past and current profession, that I come at this from a different angle or exposure but still, I would caution people on the board to keep good communication opsec. Open source news reports indicate that key words are logged, so that “may” mean that this board could be indirectly monitored. Same with phone and internet conversations.

Like or dislike trump, one sees that conversations can be picked up and used against people. The Mueller investigation is picking up tax evasion and a myriad of other non collusion issues and is a perfect example of what I speak of.

An example could be someone on this board chats with a person they really don’t know much about. The other person asks a question about bugging out, but the other person has no idea that the forum member is part of some wing nut group under surveillance. The innocent and well meaning person is not part of the original file but.... Nothing may ever come of it, but who knows what some bored or nosey investigator may decide to do. Maybe they look up this innocent persons profile and think they see something they don’t agree with. People are human and humans have prejudices. One way or another, this innocent person is forever on file as being linked to another person of interest.

Again, all open source info. It’s best to remember what the public has been told and build into their opsec. Typically, in a state of crisis, the state does not like free thinking and acting people. They fear them and that can draw heat or attention.

Clarence,

As you know, I worked in Intelligence and have done surveillance in its various forms, worked undercover and undertaken personal protection for dignitaries and witnesses in high-threat situations. I've undertaken major criminal investigations, worked with CSIS and the Joint-Forces Task Force into Organized Crime in Ontario. As an insider, I've come to realize how long the arm of the law is.

The take-away is:

1. Law abiding people have nothing to fear; and
2. Investigative/intelligence resources are never squandered

'Operational Security' by definition requires an adversary. In the civilian world, it has more to do with common sense than it does the need for covert operations. So one might ask what adversary does the average civilian need to protect themselves from? It's certainly not the Police. It could be from another individual who has criminal intent. The common sense required for a young lady not to go walking in a strange city, after dark, alone, or not writing your on-line banking password on a sticky note and leaving it attached to your computer...

Code words, secret rendezvous locations and burning pay phones could get you noticed. From my experience, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's likely a duck... Acting like you've got something to hide, usually means you do and that can certainly bring attention to you.

Wayne,

If police knocked on your door and asked for a warrantless DNA sample to rule you out as a suspect in a murder, would you provide one? You could refuse and say I'm an innocent law abiding citizen. But we both know you would immediately become a suspect. Now in your case being ex cop you may get a pass. But some of us....

Generally as an older white male I have little to fear from cops. Some of my ethnic friends may see it differently

Some light reading
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/everyone-in-neighbourhood-asked-for-blood-samples-by-police-to-prove-they-didnt-kill-pregnant-woman

Wayne,

If police knocked on your door and asked for a warrantless DNA sample to rule you out as a suspect in a murder, would you provide one? You could refuse and say I'm an innocent law abiding citizen. But we both know you would immediately become a suspect. Now in your case being ex cop you may get a pass. But some of us....

Generally as an older white male I have little to fear from cops. Some of my ethnic friends may see it differently

Some light reading
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/everyone-in-neighbourhood-asked-for-blood-samples-by-police-to-prove-they-didnt-kill-pregnant-woman

I would be happy to provide the Police with my DNA (although they already have it), as I'd have nothing to fear (unless I was guilty of something). Presence of DNA requires corroboration. Even in a rape case, it can only prove that sexual intercourse occurred; consent is a separate issue. Becoming a suspect, doesn't affect you as much as you think. It has to be that the evidence establishes you as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This doesn't usually occur to someone who's innocent of the crime.

If you work in an ethnic neighborhood, you soon get to understand the gangs involved and how they operate. Some are far more aggressive than others and the police react to the threat not the ethnic mixture that's present. As far as organized crime is concerned, I've dealt with Italian, French, Columbian, English, Black, White, Chinese and Mexican groups/gangs/cartels/triades, as well as and organizational groups (motorcycle, supremist, jihad), etc.). I've placed many in jail regardless of their origin, language, or skin colour. If they break the law, they were on the wrong side of me and my team.

Perhaps the ethnic groups felt they were persecuted because of their colour, religion, cast, etc. From my perspective they were prosecuted not persecuted for good reason.

Wayne,

Think you are missing the point. Explain why I should become a suspect (even though you say it's no big deal) because I won't give up my right to privacy? And try to do it without using the " nothing to hide, nothing to fear " argument. If I have done nothing wrong why am I being asked to give up my privacy?

As far as your ethnic response, it sounds like you were already targeting a specific group because of criminal activity. Their racial background was irrelevant. I'm talking about police targeting random people due to their ethnicity. Carding would be an example of this.

We all are part of one Society. The Police have a job to do and that's to serve and protect that Society. This includes everyone. All colours, all creeds, regardless of ethnic origin, everyone. If a person witnesses a crime, they don't have to tell the police. 'I didn't see nothin...' Crime gets worse. The police's job becomes increasingly more difficult.

The state of Society is only as good (or bad) as that Society allows. For me, I'd like to do what I can to support the emergency services that works to help me and my family. If there is a fire and the fire department want's to use water out of my lake, I'd let them. Even though I would have the right to order them off my property. As far as the Police is concerned, I want to cooperate. If I can help, I choose to. Regardless of my rights, I want to make my world a better place. I have some control on what I choose to do. That means that I try to do the right thing regardless of any right that allows me to act otherwise.

I am not saying to become a Suspect. Where did you get that idea from?

Regarding DNA, it can help convict you, or it can remove all suspicion. If I'm guilty, I can see why I would demand my rights. If I'm innocent, I want to cooperate. The police are there to put the bad guy in jail. If I'm not him, I have nothing to worry about.

Regarding targeting specific ethnic groups. I liken this to a Patrolman receiving a report of a robbery involving two men wearing black hats. If I happened to be wearing one, would my privacy be violated if I was stopped and questioned? Personally, I don't think so. If In a predominantly black neighbourhood there is a report of numerous cases of break and enters involving black teenagers. Is stopping and checking groups of black teenagers wrong? If they meet the description of those responsible, I don't think so. The same would be true if the offences involved any identifiable group. How else would you proceed?

The police are only trying to do their job the best way that they can. Every time you put unreasonable restrictions on the police their job becomes more difficult. Whatever the restrictions are, it's not up to the police to determine. Society will have to live with the result. People have more rights than they once did. Is Society a safer place? Absolutely not.

If Society wants to allow unchecked gun control, there is a cost. You either restrict the rights for the benefit of all, or live with the result. Personally, I've had it up to my eye lids with people screaming about their rights. I'd recommend that these whiners sit a watch in a patrol car in 52 or 14 Division in Toronto and get a look at the real world. Perhaps then they would appreciate what is being done for them.

Wayne,

Think you are missing the point. Explain why I should become a suspect (even though you say it's no big deal) because I won't give up my right to privacy? And try to do it without using the " nothing to hide, nothing to fear " argument. If I have done nothing wrong why am I being asked to give up my privacy?

As far as your ethnic response, it sounds like you were already targeting a specific group because of criminal activity. Their racial background was irrelevant. I'm talking about police targeting random people due to their ethnicity. Carding would be an example of this.

In most democracies "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is actually the opposite of how the rule of law works. The burden of proof lies with the Crown. God forbid the day we have to live under "nothing to hid, nothing to fear."

That being said, assisting law enforcement by ruling oneself out may help them in that they no longer have to allocate limited resources to you..and can concentrate on other avenues to solve a crime. But electing not to assist, and keeping one's own privacy is a right. Your an innocent citizen and choosing not to give the police anything they ask for is not an admission of any guilt

Place holder