Slashdot Mirror

Knee-jerk reactions to this event (and others like it) are not likely to 1) prevent these types of activities 2) be fully thought out to maintain our liberties. I can't, for the life of me, understand how making plastic knives illegal in airports will really help prevent a catastrophy like this.

Government Officials are already calling for restrictions on cryptography (prohibiting export, key escrow, etc). Sigh. I direct those interested to a review on key escrow here.

Our liberties are constantly under siege. From overzealous profit motivated sources to foreign (or even domestic) aggressors our freedom is slowly being eroded away. Without the federal government helping us protect our rights there is no hope. Misguided legislation could push us drastically in the wrong direction. Giving up rights is remarkably easy (and in some cases the loss may go unrecognized), getting them back (or obtaining them at all) can be at a tremendous cost.

For those eager, or at least not reluctant, to temporarily give up your liberties I suggest the following links and their references (note: I have drawn from these sources to some degree).

This Month's Cryptogram
Activists Defend Civil Liberties in Wake of Attack at privacy.org.

I've been an At-Large member since ICANN started the project. Although I am on the announcement list I haven't received a single e-mail about meetings, initiatives or what-have-you in months (at a minimum).

I, for one, am tired of Esther Dyson's self-righteous elitist cronies telling the rest of us how the Internet should be.

I was skeptical but had hopes when the At Large initiative started. I've now come to see it as it is: a sham that gives the illusion of openness and the air of democratic legitimacy to those who willingly turn a blind eye to the autocratic, business-as-usual attitude of the ICANN Board. By the way, here's the text of a relevant rejected post I sent in:

Studies: Public Participation in Internet Policy (Your Rights Online, Internet)

The New York Times informs us that two new reports from ICANN and the Center for Democracy and Technology both say that more public participation is required in policy-making. DUH! The ICANN report says only domain name holders should have rights, while the CDT report says the process should be open to all interested parties. We'll see what happens on Nov. 14 when the reports are tabled at the next ICANN meeting.

"The uniquely global nature of the Internet makes the hazard of inconsistent laws and regulations particularly threatening to American individuals, organizations and companies," the brief says.

Yahoo! said it was impossible to do. The court named experts to decide if it could be done or not. A few months later, the experts proposed techniques that permitted Yahoo! to block French citizens from accessing the Nazi stuff. The court ruled that Yahoo! then had to do it.

The report shown to the court was written only by the French expert, and neither of the other two agreed with it. The disagreement was more legal than technical - the French witness thought that a ruling ordering Yahoo! to do all it reasonably could would be enough to enforce the law, but the other two felt that it was pointless to require Yahoo! to spend such effort on measures which can be bypassed in a few seconds (say, through www.safeweb.com).

Having read the optimistic report from the dissenting expert, Judge Gomez decided to repeat his original ruling. This required Yahoo! to block any Nazi memorabilia advertisments from absolutely everyone in France, and all French citzens overseas. Not to take the measures the report proposed, but to set up the magic filter which everyone agreed was impossible.

The second judgement of 20th November 2000 is translated at the Center For Democracy & Technology. It orders Yahoo! to comply with the original order (p20):

We reject the plea of incompetence reiterated by YAHOO Inc.;
We order YAHOO Inc. to comply within 3 months ... with the injunctions contained in our order of 22nd May 2000...

Orders the pursuit of this proceeding at the hearing of Monday July 24, 200 at 14:00 (Chambers of Deputy Chief Justice Gomez), during to which Yahoo! Inc. shall submit to the measures that they shall take to put an end to the damage and the nuisance suffered by the plaintiffs and to prevent any new incidences of nuisance.

Try this. I hardly get any junk mail or solicitations anymore. Now, if there were only a way to stop getting junk mail for the previous 10 years of tennants in my apartment...

To answer your question about ICRA, I don't think it's clear. Do the ICRA ratings match up with the law? If you blocked all unrated sites, maybe, maybe not. But that blocks a lot of sites. (Is /. rated? How can a user-content driven site rate accurately from day to day?)

Liza

Yahoo's Complaint for Declaratory Relief, (.pdf, 3.2MB), December 21, 2000

English Translation of French ruling (.pdf), November 20, 2000

French Court Imposes Speech Restrictions Beyond Its Borders, November 20, 2000

Yahoo's Complaint for Declaratory Relief, (.pdf, 3.2MB), December 21, 2000

English Translation of French ruling (.pdf), November 20, 2000

French Court Imposes Speech Restrictions Beyond Its Borders, November 20, 2000

Yahoo's Complaint for Declaratory Relief, (.pdf, 3.2MB), December 21, 2000

English Translation of French ruling (.pdf), November 20, 2000

French Court Imposes Speech Restrictions Beyond Its Borders, November 20, 2000

Yahoo's Complaint for Declaratory Relief, (.pdf, 3.2MB), December 21, 2000

English Translation of French ruling (.pdf), November 20, 2000

French Court Imposes Speech Restrictions Beyond Its Borders, November 20, 2000

Liza

However, my day job involves tracking this issue in detail.

The school monitoring provision I described is part of the staff-level draft of HR 4577, the Labor HHS appropriations bill.

A copy of that draft was provided by Rep. Istook's office to the Center for Democracy & Technology, whose staff transcribed the fax and posted it. HR 4577 is one of those "must pass" bills that pay for running the federal government, and the description I provided is the real deal. (What I wouldn't give to be wrong!) At this level of negotiations, every draft doesn't get posted to Thomas. If you call Rep. Istook's office, I would hope they'd be willing to fax you a copy (if they were willing to give it to CDT, I can't imagine they won't share it with you).

Liza

The current proposal actually goes much further in violation of the First Amendment. It requires the blocking of already illegal (meaning not constititutionally protected) material, namely child pornography & obscenity, AND "harmful to minors material," which as far as the Internet is concerned, is in a legal grey area since the COPA decision in the 3rd Circuit. This proposal ALSO explicitly allows local schools and libraries to filter and block anything ELSE they consider inappropriate for minors. Everything else, no matter how offensive you or I might find it, is protected by the US Constitution, so filtering anything else will run into legal problems for the libraries and schools in question.

The current proposal also opens schools up for privacy litigation as it requires "either technological or supervisory" monitoring of students using the Internet. Maybe that works for in class use, probably a teacher should be around. But I think a lot of schools are going to feel pressure to use monitoring software...and then what happens to the records of where a minor surfed for 12 years? Who gets to see those? What if that kid is nominated to the Supreme Court 40 years later? Or goes through a messy divorce in his or her 20s? If there's a personally identifiable record kept, litigators are going to track it down and try to use it.

Liza

Congress is still on the verge of mandating filters in schools and libraries. To help STOP them , please get involved.

The Children's Internet Protection Act, added to H.R. 4577 by Senators McCain and Santorum, and Representatives Istook and Pickering, would require that all public libraries and schools that receive federal funds for Internet access to install blocking software to restrict access to "inappropriate" material.

Filtering is not exclusive to pornographic content; it can also be used to target First Amendment protected speech. This was highlighted in the past when CyberPatrol, the largest filtering software manufacturer, ruled that the American Family Association's web site would be subject to filtering by their software program because of their long-standing opposition to homosexual activism.

There is growing concern within the conservative community regarding the use of filtering systems by schools and libraries that deliberately filter out web sites and information that promote conservative values. There have been many reported incidents of schoolteachers and administrators targeting pro-environment groups that differ with the global warming hypothesis, as well as pro-life organizations with filtering software to prevent students from hearing alternative approaches to those issues.

These precedents send a frightening message to political and social organizations that promote causes contrary to the positions held by the "politically correct" American Library Association and National Education Association. For conservative organizations to be subject to filtering for the content of their speech violates the most fundamental understanding of the First Amendment. The Children's Internet Protection Act would not only justify, but would mandate the use of these inappropriately restrictive devices.

We are also opposed to the practice of Congress mandating regulations by tying them to the use of federal money for state projects. This practice of taking money from the states, generously redistributing portions of it to other states, and then returning what is left with provisional strings attached is immoral and an abuse of power. Regardless of the good intentions this bill was drafted to achieve, this approach to federal funding is destructive to the most basic notions of federalism and must not become a normal practice.

Nothing is more effective than efforts to educate parents and children about Internet safety and how to properly use online resources. Moreover, Internet filters are an imperfect solution to this important problem. With millions and millions of web sites already online, and more added every day, children will always be able to access content we might wish they couldn't.

Education programs can help them to deal with the very real danger certain kinds of content could pose; Internet filters offer a false sense of security on this issue.

Additionally, Congress' own Commission on Online Child Protection is due to submit its own report on Internet safety for children in mid-October. That report will embody several months' extended effort on the part of the commission's nineteen members, and will provide Congress with important recommendations for future decisions regarding children's online safety. Congress should not legislate on this topic before that report has been received, lest it undermine the importance of the COPA Commission's work or make avoidable legislative mistakes.

The amendment's provision for "monitoring the online activities of minors either through supervisory or technological means" is also problematic. This language is inappropriately vague, and could be even open the door to unprecedented law enforcement access to people's online habits. Issues of technological monitoring must be dealt with far more care than is evident in the proposed legislation.

For these reasons, we encourage you to oppose the Children's Internet Protection Act, and any other efforts to dilute the potential of this powerful medium. We hope that you agree that an educational approach that empowers parents, instead of blunt, ineffective mandates, is the best way to address the issue of protecting children during their online experiences. We appreciate your concern and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Paul M. Weyrich

National Chairman

Coalitions for America

Lisa S. Dean

Vice President for Technology Policy

Free Congress Foundation

Grover Norquist

President

Americans for Tax Reform

Helen Blackwell

President

Virginia Eagle Forum

Karen Kerrigan

Chairman

Small Business Survival Committee

Paul Clark

Director

Coalition for Local Sovereignty

Tom DeWeese

President

American Policy Center

Rick Humphreys

State Director

Tennessee Christian Coalition

Jim Hill

American Family Association of Oregon

William Bracken

Republican Executive Committee

Lee County Florida

Cathie Adams

President

Texas Eagle Forum

Dwight Baker

Chairman

Libertarian Party of Mississippi

Dottie Feder

Vice President

Wisconsin Eagle Forum

Janine Hansen

Nevada Eagle Forum

Bettina Dobbs

President

Guardians of Education for Maine

CDT has this posted at their site as well: http://www.cdt.org/speech/filt eri ng/001011fcf.shtml

First I'd like to suggest that some big motorola customers get together and visit an attorney and have them write up a contract. This contract will state that, in return for purchasing products from a Motorola dealer, the dealer agrees to hold the customer's demographic information confidential, and forbid it to be shared with any third party - specifically name Motorola, but also say any third party.

If the dealer won't sign, ask them if they carry any of Motorola's competitors' products, and buy those instead. Alternatively, shop around for Motorola dealers willing to sign.

Rememeber, your information is your information, and while there may be no law to protect you, if the dealer signs such a contract, then you have civil law to protect you.

When such a contract has been drafted, put it on a web page and distribute the URL widely so that all Motorola customers may benefit.

Secondly, keep in mind that Motorola is a huge company. They have interests around the globe. Interested in buying a Mac? Print out the ZDNet article and bring it with you to the Apple dealer. Tell them you want to look inside the case of the Mac you're considering purchasing. Tell them you'd be happy to make the purchase if the PowerPC chip was manufactured by IBM, but you won't consider purchasing a Mac containing a Motorola brand PowerPC - the chip was jointly designed by Apple, IBM and Motorola and is actually manufactured by IBM and Motorola (multiply sourced). Second sourcing means you as a consumer have a choice.

Also look around you and think about what products you use that are made by Motorola. Do you do MacOS, BeOS, or QNX development? How about embedded or game consoles? Perhaps then you use Metrowerks Codewarrior for your development system (compiles for Windows too - I vastly prefer it to Visual C++ or Borland). Metrowerks is now a Motorola subsidiary. If so, drop a line to any contacts you may have at Metrowerks, give the URL to the ZDNet article, and ask them to let the folks they know at Motorola that this practice is unacceptible.

Do you actually design embedded hardware? Consider alternatives to Motorola products - again, IBM has some altnernatives - and let your rep at Motorola know that you're not going to be needing his services anymore - and tell him why.

Some links for you:

• The Electronic Privacy Information Center
• The Center for Democracy and Technology
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation
• JunkBusters

Opt-Out.Brought to you by the Center for Democracy and Technology. For all your privacy needs

"cannot you and Rob make your own decisions on who's banner ad service your system runs?"

We Slashdot authors have total editorial freedom.

Note the penultimate word in the previous sentence.

That means we can (and do) publish articles exposing DoubleClick or anyone else we feel needs to be looked at. But "editorial freedom" doesn't extend to sales and marketing decisions. We write the content, and VA/Andover sells it however they want. Welcome to capitalism, this is how it works. In fact, this is one of the best examples of capitalism's intersection with speech that you will ever see, and I say that as someone whose job largely includes criticizing the intersection of capitalism and speech. Rob and Jeff were lucky (and smart) to guarantee all us writers this much latitude.

Most people consider this "Chinese firewall" between content and advertising to be a good thing. And it's the way I like it. The folks who sell ads have never contacted me to complain that my anti-DoubleClick editorializing makes their job harder (though I imagine it might well have). I don't even know those folks' names.

I recognize that some slashdotters, for whatever reason, are going to nag us as long as DC ads appear on some Slashdot pages. I don't know what else to tell them. I'm not in a position to do anything about it -- and that doesn't bother me, because if things change so that I can influence advertising, things might also change so that advertising could influence me. Better to just have a total disconnect there, as far as I'm concerned. While I'm not ecstatic about the DC ads, I am thrilled with the current system.

If I ever bump into one of the ad-sellers at a company meeting (assuming they're wearing a descriptive nametag so I recognize them as such :) I'll probably mention my concerns. That's about the most I can do.

But basically, this is as good as it gets. Oh, and don't forget to opt out. In fact, go to CDT's opt-out page and opt out of every damn thing. And nobody can stop me from telling you that! Woohoo!

Jamie McCarthy

On the off chance that anyone's interested, here is the link to the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Michael. I appreciate your cynicism. Industry has done little to gain the public trust as a caretaker of personal information or defender of privacy. Without critical perspectives, you are liable to wind up with self-serving, public relations-oriented efforts like the Personalization Consortium. However, I do not believe that the evolution of privacy protection in the digital age is served by perpetuating fear. Doubleclick is responding to market pressure. While I like knowing the composition of the council, I'm not apt to immediately consider the effort suspect. Doubleclick has a business goal. I don't begrudge them that. But I also think the first line of defense is the responsibility of the individual.

Cookies? I want 'em. The Web works a lot better with them. Your opinion may vary, but we all would probably like more control and visibility over them. For the Slashdot audience, setting cookie defenses is a trivial exercise. But for the "unclean masses", cookies are a mystery. If all they hear are the dangers to privacy that cookies represent, then they will base their opinions on FUD.

I support the advocacy efforts of the CDT, EPIC, and EFF. But I also fear the clumsy hammer of regulation. The pressure (driven by public relations, market demand and the fear of government regulation) on Doubleclick is a good thing, but let's educate and not spread hysteria.

Posted, wondering if there's life in these old threads once they drop off the main page.

--

--

Unless someone offers a critic of existing organizations, with changes to be made - I'd argue we may have to many organizations and creating another would continue to fragment what influence there is to be had.

Or in other words, what "we" don't need is to defuse our resources by building up a new organization, but use those resources to strengthen or affect change within existing organizations.

There are a lot out there. I started with three:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility

The Center for Democracy and Technology

From there I was able to also dig up links to:

The Internet Education Foundation

The Media Access Project (non-profit telecomm lawyers, interesting..)

The Global Internet Liberty Campaign

Digital Future Coalition

Let alone those that aren't "purely" technical - such as the ACLU or People for the American Way, that touch on things like 1st Amendment (yep, American biased I am) rights. I could keep going and going, but if I didn't bore you ten lines ago, you would be now.

The likelihood of having THE "geek organization" are slim. Finding issues we can individually devote our resources to and building coalitions where interests overlap is a more realistic goal.

No name; no one to blame. This is how the Bill of Rights intended.

There will be no mandatory Internet user tracking. The reason is each thing you do with an Internet client is a REQUEST for information. Working this proposal would require practical violation of the First Amendment on two grounds, and possibly the Third Amendment on a third ground.

<rant>Bill Clinton should be ashamed that his middle name is Jefferson, and he will be recorded in history of attempting to sell out the rights American Citizen for short term political gain.</rant>

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Requiring people to use a specific protocol which identifies them, abridges their right to make requests for information with impunity. It would also abridge (have a chilling effect) on an individual's likelihood of using such a request to establish an unpopular idea on a public bulletin board. It would also require agents of those services to enforce the protocol on the individual users, which constitutes abridging the freedom of the press.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IMnsHO, while the world considers the term cyber-warfare we should be prepared to establish the constitutional interperetation of quartering of cyber-soldiers in our homes. President Clinton's statement is preparatory for yet another key-escrow proposal. We need to get the idea out that escrowed keys are agents of the government, and are essentially cyber-soldiers which the President, and (thus far) potential Presidential Candidates Gore and McCain would like to install in our cyber-homes.

Yes, they seem a lovely pack of jackals and demagogues. Lot's of people are voting for one or the other. In fact, my sister was trying to convince me to become a Republican just the other day <Shudder> "Come on, George W. Bush needs your vote," she said to me, seriously!! <Shudder>. Bleah! And I thought I was convincing her to vote Libertarian... -_-

But there is a solution, and it doesn't involve sitting home on election day! That solution is Harry Browne, Libertarian, a man who is looking out for everyone's rights.

Remember, voting for a candidate who doesn't win may be depressing, but helping to elect a loser is far, far worse!

Vote Browne and send a message to the establishment!

(Incidentally, I've read articles in Forbes magazine that seemed OK, but not only is he out of the race, he was courting the Christian Coalition vote when he was in the race... I think that means, ultimately, filters and censorship under his administration, too.)

I decided not to mod this comment down, but rather post this comment . . . . otherwise, nobody would understand.

This is propaganda. There is no basis, no links, no hard evidience. Punch the CDA and McCain through your favorite search engine and see what it finds.

In FACT, McCain was reported to say any new measure that resembled the Communications Decency Act probably would not survive his committee, which oversees telecommunications. Furthermore, he's quoted as saying:

"I'm the father of small children, they all are far more computer literate than I am, and I've seen some of the stuff that they see and it disturbs me terribly. But I didn't know how you would implement that [law]. I didn't know who would decide what's decent."

McCain did endorse a bill that required schools and libraries with federally funded internet access, which I won't debate here. A bit more info on that bill is located here

In reality, the original sponsor behind the 1996 CDA was Senator Pressler. More information on authors of specific portions of the CDA are here.
McCain did add a lot of amendments to the bill, but so did everyone in the Senate. How else did the thing pass?? I'm not sure exactly what his changes entailed, but you can find out here.

Somebody mod the parent comment down into the flamebait category. It's nothing more than a sweeping piece political propaganda without backing at all.

...that's full agreement with all points above. For Linux users, deploying Junkbuster is as easy as downloading the RPM or DEB file and installing it. For Windows users, either NT or Win9x, you can also use the proxy.

Both the banner and cookie action are way cool. The following blockfile eliminates pretty darned near all the banner ads (and the sites associated with them if a full site or domain is listed). Note that I've allowed banners at a number of Linux-friendly sites, on principle, though you could change this if you wanted.

/*.*/ad/
/*.*/ads/
/*.*/advert/
/*.*/adverts/
a32.g.a.yimg.com/
ad.*.*
adforce.imgis.com/
adremote.*.*
ads*.*.*
doubleclick.net
image.pathfinder.com/sponsors*
preferences.com
sfgate.com/place-ads

Those few lines block virtually all the ad traffic I see.

For cookies, I block all, then selectively allow a limited number of sites with which I do business. Mostly message boards.

There was a really good program Online Profiling on NPR's Talk of the Nation a couple of months back. Other useful resources are Center for Democracy and Technology, and for a look at the other side, NetworkAdvertising.Org and Direct Marketing Association

If setting up a proxy is too much for you, the following tricks will prevent a permanent cookie file from being generated:

• Linux, Netscape: ln -sf /dev/null ~/.netscape/cookies
• Windows, Netscape: set read-only permissions to your cookies file, or replace it with a directory.

I'm not sure what the corresponding IE trix are. For Linux, lynx and other browsers can use the link to /dev/null trick.

What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

SUMMARY: This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to allow the export and reexport of any encryption commodity or software to individuals, commercial firms, and other non-government end-users in all destinations. It also allows exports and reexports of retail encryption commodities and software to all end-users in all destinations. Post-export reporting requirements are streamlined, and changes are made to reflect amendments to the Wassenaar Arrangement. This rule implements the encryption policy announced by the White House on September 16 and will simplify U.S. encryption export rules. Restrictions on terrorist supporting states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan or Syria), their nationals and other sanctioned entities are not changed by this rule.

Note that there are still restrictions. Curious that you cannot export to a government user.

Enjoy.

The holdings of the combined companies will be, (assuming that nothing is sold off):
Time-Warner + AOL

What I find to be the more worrying is that Dr. Thomas Middelhoff, chairman of Bertelsmann AG (the company who wants to bring you a self "self-regulating" internet), sits on the board of AOL. Further, Bertelsmann is a major minority owner of AOL. This means that they will have a significant say in the direction of AOL-Time-Warner. So although they may not hold all the keys to all the media outlets in the US, the combined Bertelsmann-AOL-Time-Warner will hold enough of the outlets in in Hungary and elsewhere that they have the potential to set policy. Further, Bertelsmann will have more of a platform to launch its net censorship policies from ( wait for Time magazine to write "How the evil internet is poisining our youth and what we can do about").

Some people might disagree with me, but campaign finance reform as it relates to the internet (re: what has to be reported) is one issue currently up for discussion. There are some polititians who thing that the current FEC rulings on mass media such as television and radio should apply to the 'net.

If you have somthing to say about the issue, the FEC apparently got a lot of flack from it's first version of the law which was pretty restrictive. It's currently taking suggestions at the

center for democracy and technology.

Some people might disagree with me, but campaign finance reform as it relates to the internet (re: what has to be reported) is one issue currently up for discussion. There are some polititians who thing that the current FEC rulings on mass media such as television and radio should apply to the 'net. If you have somthing to say about the issue, the FEC apparently got a lot of flack from it's first version of the law which was pretty restrictive. It's currently taking suggestions at this url

He's got some skeletons (IMHO as far as internet privacy and censorship are concerned) in his legislative closet

• S. 909
• Childrens' Internet Protection Act

On the other hand, he apparently does have a good privacy policy on his campaign site:

Presidential Candidates Privacy Policies

If only we could read their minds before deciding who to vote for...

He's got some skeletons (IMHO as far as internet privacy and censorship are concerned) in his legislative closet

• S. 909
• Childrens' Internet Protection Act

On the other hand, he apparently does have a good privacy policy on his campaign site:

Presidential Candidates Privacy Policies

If only we could read their minds before deciding who to vote for...

For information about SAFE (HR 850), as well as information about contacting members of Congress, check out the
Center for Democracy & Technology. If you put in your zip code, it will return information about your Rep. and how
to contact him/ her. Hope this helps!

For information about SAFE (HR 850), as well as information about contacting members of Congress, check out the
Center for Democracy & Technology. If you put in your zip code, it will return information about your Rep. and how
to contact him/ her. Hope this helps!

Sure, Clinton may veto it, but it would be nice if it got support in congress.

Folks in the US: Call your congresscritter. Write a letter. You can also send a free telegram by going to this site. It's easy and it's FREE. This service is provided by the Center for Democracy & Technology. If you have any interest in these kinds of issues, sign up for their e-mail announcements.

Sure, Clinton may veto it, but it would be nice if it got support in congress.

Folks in the US: Call your congresscritter. Write a letter. You can also send a free telegram by going to this site. It's easy and it's FREE. This service is provided by the Center for Democracy & Technology. If you have any interest in these kinds of issues, sign up for their e-mail announcements.

If so, that record remains intact. People have posted plenty of facts, though in some cases it requires the onerous effort of clicking on a link to access them, such as this one from my earlier posting on the thread, citing specific language of the amendment permitting the Feds to wiretap people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing, based on a "reasonably proximate" standard (i.e. if the Feds are investigating one of your acquaintances, they can tap your phone).

Like most of you, I have no statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if wiretaps aided in a significant number of prosecutions that would have been impossible without them.

Your "distress" at unsubstantiated assertions seems to be just a tad selective.

I am also extremely displeased by the high degree of bias in these "Your Rights Online" pieces.

I expect privacy-rights organizations to be biased in favor of privacy, for the same reason I expect my attorney to be biased in favor of my interests. If they weren't biased, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

Certainly, the government is biased in favor of expanding its own power, and some countervailing bias (feeble as it is in comparison) is needed.

Don't hinder law enforcement's abilities to conduct investigations in a LAWFUL and DISCRETE manner just because there exists the POSSIBILITY that these abilities will be misused.

The whole point of the objections is to insist that law enforcement does in fact behave in a lawful manner. If you agree with this objective, I don't understand your complaint.

Also, I note that the philosophy behind the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (that being the relevant standard for an American legal issue) is that, yes, certain powers should be outright denied to the government, and others firmly restricted in their scope, because the potential for abuse is simply too great.

Do you folks think that people in charges of these law enforcement organizations and the people appointed to act as judge are all complete IDIOTS?

No -- as I said above, I think they're biased in favor of expanding their own power, and therefore not entirely trustworthy.
/.

That's not really an issue for the FBI, which does not wish to be bothered with quaint notions of only surveilling a small number of specific individuals after legitimate cause has been established for each (as evidenced by their lobbying for "roving wiretap" powers).
/.

All above are excellent orgs with good records..I'll throw one of my favorites into the mix too--don't forget the The Center for Democracy and Technology.

If you as an american citizen value your freedom and privacy, contact your federal, state and local government representatives and let them know. Ask them to make it illegal to create national databases of biometric information. Make the federal government go to the states and beg for information. If the fed has to go to the state, that it a good thing, because you will have more control over your state politicians. Go to the Center for Democract and Technology and similar organizations and find out what you can do to stop the federal government's grab for power. Only YOU can change the tide of the governments attempt to control you, and YOU had better START NOW.

Putting all of your valuable information in one place makes a more tempting target for crackers than spreading it all around. This is a basic principle of information security -- big centralized servers with terabytes of data are more interesting targets than hundreds or even dozens of smaller servers.

Security hackers know this very well. It is one of the chief arguments that Abelson et al. have used to rebut the notion of key escrow. See The Risks of Key Recovery, Key Escrow and Trusted Third-Party Encryption.

It is clear to me that the author of this article was addressing this general problem with centralization and how it affects huge centralized mail services like Hotmail and the push toward "servlets". It is troublesome that many readers are so quick to dismiss the inherent problems of overcentralization.

However, I do maintain that, if a warrant is served, under the law and the Constitution, the police do have the right to the specific material they are seeking. I believe the courts are the proper (and smarter) place to fight police abuses, overall.

Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from

Sounds good, but if you really want to make your voice heard, I recomend you call, fax, or write your congressanal rep instead.

I don't recomend email because, many times, the reps refuse to corrispond by email, or the email is ignored, or "lost" in the system. Considering the US government's current ignorance and position on the internet, this is not likly to change soon.

If you don't know who your Rep is, one way you can find out is to go to the Center For Democracy & Technology's site, and enter your zip code. The site will display a page with your rep's name and office phone number.

Here's a link to an analysis by the Center for Democracy & Technology. It's actually a bit more informative than the House of Representatives page.
--

True, I must. If he did. But he doesn't.

"Exporters of 56-bit DES or equivalent encryption products would make commitments to develop and sell products that support the key recovery system that I announced in July. That vision presumes that a trusted party (in some cases internal to the user's organization) would recover the user's confidentiality key for the user or for law enforcement officials acting under proper authority. Access to keys would be provided in accordance with destination country policies and bilateral understandings. No key length limits or algorithm restrictions will apply to exported key recovery products.
from Gore's 10/1/96 press statement, emphasis mine.

This is one example. I located it in about two minutes. If you'd like, I can produce much more documentation of Gore's support for impractical and unconstitutional government control of communications, hidden behind a warm fuzzy "do it for the children!" attitude. Simply put, yes, he knows the Internet exists. But he's probably one of the worst things that ever happened to it.

> Despite his strange wife's agenda Al Gore is good for the technological world

I'm sorry, but in light of his stance and actions regarding privacy and his tendency to think that he's got to "make the Internet safe for kids" (as though he had more control over children than their own parents), I cannot believe the last statement. He is simply an opportunist politician who latches onto an idealistic view of something he really does not understand.

________________________________________________ ___