The Gov wants to spy on your wilderness outing

Now that I have your attention:

As part of the EXPLORE Act, data collection (ostensibly to determine "usage") methods are being proposed to get accurate counts of trails, roads, campsites (dispersed and established), visitor patterns while in parks, and time spent in areas.

This applies to all federal lands.

Old methods of counting used to be a real person, counting and surveying individuals.

New methods include acoustic, infrared, and other optical sensors.  Not only at the trailhead, but also at points along the trail.

It's now been proposed that cellular data (to include WiFi and Bluetooth pings/proximity) be used to track visitors.  Of course, "anonymously."  This also includes location data stored on your phone while not in cell reception, but later pings when back in service.

Data is also acquired using social platforms (see excerpt below).  How it's being used is unknown.

You can read the PDF here:
https://eplanning.blm.gov/Documents/?id=3240C41B-9A70-F111-AB0D-001DD8084607&spid=5245bf21-9a70-f111-ab0d-001dd8084607

And leave a comment here:
https://eplanning.blm.gov/Participate-Now/?id=2f45bf21-9a70-f111-ab0d-001dd8084607&ppid=3240C41B-9A70-F111-AB0D-001DD8084607

DEADLINE IS TOMORROW, 7/29!

From the Document:

Novel approaches developed over the last two decades offer the opportunity to harness digital
content and computing capacity to describe recreation-use patterns in ways previously impossible.
These approaches generally involve using anonymized digital data generated by visitors to recreation
sites to describe recreation-use patterns at those sites. For example, the number of posts to a social
media platform made from within the boundaries of a park, online reviews posted about a popular
trail, or the bike tracks shared in an online community have all been used to describe recreation-use
patterns on public lands. Applying these efforts typically requires public-university or public-private
partnerships to handle the vast amount of data involved and the computing requirements.

It already all over the urban and much of the suburban environment. Government is starting to surveillance like they do in Europe, and they did not even ask. It is not jist traffic cameras. Wake up

Michael Catlettwrote:

It already all over the urban and much of the suburban environment. Government is starting to surveillance like they do in Europe, and they did not even ask. It is not jist traffic cameras. Wake up

The 🇺🇸 social credit system is on its way.  

While you cannot control physical trail sensors (like infrared beam-breakers), you can completely block your phone from transmitting tracking pings.

1. Turn Off Wireless Radios (Immediate Fix)

Airplane Mode: Turn this on to instantly cut off cellular signals.

Disable Wi-Fi and Bluetooth: Toggle these off directly in your settings menu. Merely tapping the icons in your pull-down control center often leaves the background "scanning" radios active for proximity pings.

2. Restrict Location Services

Disable GPS: Turn off Location Services (iOS: Settings > Privacy & Security > Location Services; Android: Settings > Location).

Audit App Permissions: The data the government purchases is collected by third-party apps (like weather, navigation, or fitness apps). Set your app location permissions to "Never" or "Only While Using the App" to prevent background tracking.

3. Limit Advertising & Tracking Identifiers 

Commercial location data is tied to an anonymous alphanumeric string assigned to your phone. You can break this link. 

Apple iOS: Go to Settings > Privacy & Security > Tracking and turn off "Allow Apps to Request to Track".Android: Go to Settings > Privacy > Privacy Dashboard > Ads and select "Delete advertising ID".

I used AI to compile and lay out this data for brevity. 

While we’re on the subject of surveillance and privacy:

https://deflock.org/

If you haven’t already, check out the map of Flock ALPR’s in your area- you’ll likely be quite surprised (horrified, disgusted, etc). They’ll track you on the way to the trailhead, too.

Nearly every vehicle sold in North America since 2020 has continuous tracking telemetry.  

All smart phones compile location data regardless of settings. 

Therefore it is highly recommended to store your smart phone inside your tinfoil hat and hitchhike to crags and trailheads. 

Daniel Shivelywrote:

Nearly every vehicle sold in North America since 2020 has continuous tracking telemetry.  

All smart phones compile location data regardless of settings. 

Therefore it is highly recommended to store your smart phone inside your tinfoil hat and hitchhike to crags and trailheads. 

You seem to love to derail important conversations with your troll posts. Why?

apogeewrote:

While we’re on the subject of surveillance and privacy:

https://deflock.org/

If you haven’t already, check out the map of Flock ALPR’s in your area- you’ll likely be quite surprised (horrified, disgusted, etc). They’ll track you on the way to the trailhead, too.

It's extremely illegal and ill advised to point a laser pointer at a surveillance camera because it destroys the sensor 

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

This is blatantly unconstitutional. We need an analog revolution. This is one one of the reasons why I'm keeping my old truck running 

Edit to add: "effects" means personal belongings. Phones and their data (location data) are your belongings. Ergo, this is unconstitutional 

George Haydukewrote:

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

This is blatantly unconstitutional. We need an analog revolution. This is one one of the reasons why I'm keeping my old truck running 

While I strongly believe that such surveillance is wrong and dangerous and should be seriously restricted by statute,unfortunately according to Court decisions, it isn't unconstitutional, as technically there is no 'search' or 'seizure' involved when the surveillance happens in publicly accessible locations. However, the issue of to what extent the government can access certain information without specific probable cause was dodged by SCOTUS last month in the geotracking case, as it was sent back to the trial court for further fact-finding.

George Haydukewrote:

You seem to love to derail important conversations with your troll posts. Why?

I contributed two important points for consideration and ended my post with a bit of levity to engage humorously. If you are “derailed” by this you’ll never rise to the level of an authentic monkey wrencher, no matter your chosen internet identity. LOL

1.  Once they start any tracking, it will absolutely NOT remain anonymous.  Palentir or flock types will be paid billions to add it to big brother.
Many local governments did not intend all the misuses of the flock cameras, but it's happening anyway.
ICE seizures of US citizens and raids on private homes are happening, despite being unconstitutional for several reasons.
Minneapolis is much further than 100 miles from the Canada border. 100 miles is supposed to be the max limit for DHS special searches.

2. I have heard that it supposedly takes a high powered laser to disable a flock camera, not a normal laser.

edit -
3. License plate tracking may get some type of approval as an exception to the 4th amendment since you sacrifice some rights to get the privilege of driving on public roads.
That particular argument exception does not apply to cell phones or tracking when not driving.

tom donnellywrote:

2.  I have heard that it supposedly takes a high powered laser to disable a flock camera, not a normal laser.

Spray paint, subsonic + suppressed .22lr/.300 blk, or even BBs will also work 

Alan Rubinwrote:

While I strongly believe that such surveillance is wrong and dangerous and should be seriously restricted by statute,unfortunately according to Court decisions, it isn't unconstitutional, as technically there is no 'search' or 'seizure' involved when the surveillance happens in publicly accessible locations. However, the issue of to what extent the government can access certain information without specific probable cause was dodged by SCOTUS last month in the geotracking case, as it was sent back to the trial court for further fact-finding.

Then why do data brokers exist? To sell our data to governments. It’s because there’s a loophole in the 4th Amendment. Private companies are free to surveil us and sell our data to anybody including the government. You should listen to darknet diaries. It’s both frightening and enlightening 

Brian Howardwrote:

Then why do data brokers exist? They sell our data to governments. It’s because there’s a loophole in the 4th Amendment. Private companies are free to surveil us and sell our data to anybody including the government. You should listen to darknet diaries. It’s both frightening and enlightening 

I thought the government was prohibited from engaging an outside non-governmental agency to do something that the government is prohibited from doing on its own by the Constitution. This was an issue when the government was threatening social media companies with the revocation of section 231 of the communications decency act (the law that let's them play the roles of platform and publisher at the same time without liability) if they didn't act to censor "misinformation." You know, stuff like claiming COVID originated as a lab leak.

Kristian Solemwrote:

I thought the government was prohibited from engaging an outside non-governmental agency to do something that the government is prohibited from doing on its own by the Constitution. This was an issue when the government was threatening social media companies with the revocation of section 231 of the communications decency act (the law that let's them play the roles of platform and publisher at the same time without liability) if they didn't act to censor "misinformation." You know, stuff like claiming COVID originated as a lab leak.

I asked a chatbot and this is what it said  

“The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for government searches where you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." But under the third-party doctrine (from 1970s-era Supreme Court cases like Smith v. Maryland), courts have generally held that once you voluntarily share data with a third party — your phone carrier, a weather app, a browser — you lose that expectation of privacy in it. The legal theory is that you "voluntarily" shared your location with the weather app, so you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in data you handed over to a third party — so the government can buy it without a warrant.”

I would bet good money that if the government wants to surveil us in the wilderness, theyre just gonna use the existing infrastructure of rec.gov/booz Allen Hamilton to do it with 

Definitely don't do this to them.

George Haydukewrote:

It's extremely illegal and ill advised to point a laser pointer at a surveillance camera because it destroys the sensor 

A deeper dive on this oft-repeated non-strategy has me dubious about this (not that anyone should try such a thing).

apogeewrote:

A deeper dive on this oft-repeated non-strategy has me dubious about this (not that anyone should try such a thing).

Sounds more like a good way to blind oneself, or a great way to self-report to the surveillance infrastructure. 

learning anchors from shorts ❌

Learning Monkey wrenching from shorts ✅

Now that we’ve gone on a related tangent, reminder today is the last day to comment.

In the amount of time it takes to write a comment here on MP, a comment can be submitted.