Slashdot Mirror

Here's the original FBI memo: http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/fisa.html

I'm quite pleased that the Multnomah County library system has been fighting this - they offer filtering software, but it's optional, because they realize that while it blocks some legitimate material and fails to block some porn, it also does block a lot of stuff that people don't intend to be looking at.

(I don't live in Multnomah County, but do pass through it every day on my way from home in Clackamas County to work in Washington County. Yes, my commute sucks.)

More info here.

EU is preparing new legistaltion, which would make compulsory data retention possible forthe member states. The crusial vote on Directive on the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector is scheduled for 29 May. More detailed information about the directive and backgrounds can be found from here.

GILC members have launced also a lobbying campaing including an open letter, which can be signed here.

Here's also Marco Cappato's (the person in charge of the directive in European Parliament) press release about the situation:

PRIVACY/EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: CAPPATO (RADICALS) "PPE AND PSE TABLE IN THE EP THE COUNCIL PROPOSALS : IN THIS WAY EUROPE WOULD AUTHORISE DATA RETENTION OF EUROPEAN CITIZENS' INTERNET AND TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS"

Brussels, 23 may 2002

European PPE (conservatives) and PSE (socialists) have tabled yesterday common amendments to the Cappato report on privacy in electronic communications, that take over the Council positions on all main issues. Their content is in striking contradiction with the EP first reading position as confirmed by the EP Civil Liberties Committee during the second reading.
The discussion in the EP will take place on the 29th of May in Brussels, while the vote will follow on the next day.

Declaration by Marco Cappato, MEP of the Lista Bonino/Radical Party and EP draftsman
on the EU Commission proposal on the protection of privacy in electronic communications:

"With these amendments, PPE and PSE have abandoned the stance that the EP had taken in first reading and confirmed in second reading in the EP Civil Liberties committee, without getting any politically meaningful concession from the Council.
Ana Palacio Vallelersundi (PPE Spanish MEP), President of the Civil Liberties committee (and Spanish conservative Government representative in the Convention) has promoted the tabling in the EP of amendments that take over the (Spanish conservative) Presidency of the Council gaining the support of the Socialist group in the EP, with the only aim of avoiding the conciliation procedure between the Council and the EP and allowing the Spanish Presidency to close successfully the dossier.
PPE MEPs, that had supported until now the freedom for Member States to decide on the regime to adopt on unsolicited commercial communications, opt-out on directories and cookies, now obey to the Spanish Presidency indications and unite with the PSE in supporting a European opt-in system - although in a softened version - in all the abovementioned cases.
But the most controversial issue is that of the powers the Council wants to give to Member States to impose to Telecom and Internet service providers the retaining of data concerning citizens' communications, SMS, emails, Internet surfing. The PPE-PSE amendment (that goes beyond the legal basis of the directive, that is an internal market measure) inserts in the articles the possibility for Member States to provide for data retention, while guarantees for citizens' privacy are left to a reference to the general principles of community law and to the EU Treaty. The reference to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights is relegated in the PPE-PSE amendment in the recitals (while the EP had included it in the articles).
I appeal to MEPs to ask them to vote following their conscience and not on a party basis, and to follow my request to delete from the articles of the directive the reference to data retention of citizens' communications."

For more informations:
Marco Cappato offices: 0032 2 2847496
mcappato@europarl.eu.int www.radicalparty.org

IANAL, but heres the links to what I believe to be the relevant laws comcast may have violated (mainly for being a cable company) Cable TV Privacy Act of 1994Which in short provides provisions that limit:

(A) the nature of personally identifiable information collected or to be collected with respect to the subscriber and the nature of the use of such information;
(B) the nature, frequency, and purpose of any disclosure which may be made of such information, including an identification of the types of persons to whom the disclosure may be made;
(C) the period during which such information will be maintained by the cable operator;
(D) the times and place at which the subscriber may have access to such information in accordance with subsection (d) of this section; and
(E) the limitations provided by this section with respect to the collection and disclosure of information by a cable operator and the right of the subscriber under subsections (f) and (h) of this section to enforce such limitations.

As well if I'm not incorrect here,the ECPA
More fun privacy law here, Privacy Act of 1974

And of course if they customer has a kid under 13 who they gathered data on there was another law I just couldn't quite manage to find in regards to making this pretty illegal. And you can't make your customers opt out of federal law last I checked.

Anyway, it hasn't been my experience that lawyers take cases they have no chance of winning where the payout is based on them winning.

The folks at epic, electronic privacy information center have a link on their website to ovservingsurveillance.org, a web site that has a map of "big brother" camera installations in DC watching people.

is slashing their own throats.

It's an escalation of arms at this point. Total war. Never in our histroy have we been subjected to such comprehensive privacy invasion.

It doesn't matter that the data doesn't say Mr. Smith watched such and such. The thought that the entertainment industry will have access to this data implies that they will use it against the viewers. Incredible.

Maybe they should read what the court has said in the past about privacy and viewing habits.

Here is the link to Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984

Assholes.

I agree with you that the CBDTPA is terrible but I think that the nature of your question is the wrong one. The fundamental problem here is that we do not need any news laws. I realize, of course, that it isn't legislatively sexy, or politically gainful for a budding Senator to say that but it's the truth.

The proponents of the bill claim that the current anti-piracy measures are insufficient, and unless "something" is done the "Content Production Industry" will collapse. And, they claim that if this industry collapses nothing new will ever be created. As proof of the damage they cite the lack of Consumer Broadband and Digital Television, as well as declining CD Sales.

As Carnivore and magic-lantern demonstrate governments can track user behavior online. And, they are exploiting those abilities to the utmost. They have been focusing on terrorism lately, but they can always turn their eyes to copyright infringement if they wish. I believe that those tracking powers are too great and need to be reigned in not expanded, but that is a discussion for another time.

Therefore, despite what the "Content Production Industry" claims, the existing laws can be enforced. We do not need to change the underlying code in order to make it more difficult to trade files, nor do we need to make otherwise legal activities (such as fair use) illegal for fear of theft. Such bills only punish the vast majority in order to catch the few, and in so doing, go against the whole point of criminal justice; to defend the majority, not persecute them.

Digital Television and Broadband have been held up by competing standards, low demand, unfair competition, and the last-mile problem. Despite what the bill "finds" the lack of demand is the fault of a number of factors not potential piracy. Even if it was, that lack of demand is not a social problem requiring government efforts. The rpbolem is one for the marketing departments not public servants.

When you consider CD-Sales the same problem of proof exists. When Napster was at its zenith (at the height of the tech boom), CD Sales were up. Now, in the midst of a U.S. recession, they are down. Doubtless copying is part of this but, how much? And, does that impact justify increasing the prices on most consumer electronic products, and making life more difficult for consumers, electronics producers, and even copyright holders? Again the proponents of the bill have not offered any hard proof. The same goes for Movies, books and other cultural works.

Lastly and most importantly, the whole point of copyright law is to encourage the production of "science and useful arts..." It is not intended to create or sustain a publishing industry. Despite what Jack Valenti says they have not proven that the current state of affairs will reduce the number of authors, musicians and filmmakers out there. All that they have shown is that it may reduce the number of publishers out there.

The bottom line is; there is no proven compelling public need for this kind of legislation. If anything the need is to examine the charges of price-fixing and stifling competition that have been leveled at the industry and to examine the digital tracking of the Justice Department.

The clear avenue here is not to do nothing but to prevent harm from being caused.

... a law enforcement type of agency which monitors web traffic and fines individuals ...

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

The CDBTA(sp?) was his second chance. His first was the Communications Decency Act (see here), a bill so restrictive that it was struck down by the supreme court.
Trust me, this guy is never going to repent and see the error of his ways or other some romantic BS. He needs to leave, now.

Only fitting since Carnivore evoled out of Omnivore

From the District Court CDA decision

Perversely, commercial pornographers would remain relatively unaffected by the Act, since we learned that most of them already use credit card or adult verification anyway.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

I am concerned about the fractured effort. Lobbying Congress takes not only a lot of money, but also a lot of focus.

If you read the independent report on Carnivore written by IITRI, you would know that Carnivore ran on a Windows NT box. Net Detector may do the same or similar functions, but it is not Carnivore. I was part of that team that evaluated Carnivore, but I have no idea if the DCS-1000 is the same product, or if they have changed to something different. I also do not know if they incorporated the many suggestions we made. The Justice Department never asked us to look at any follow-on products. For various reasons (none involving Carnivore that I know of), just about all of the evaluation team has left IITRI.

As for limited resources and interest, I don't believe either is true. The wide variety of resources listed at EPIC's site, and the variety of anti-spy products, seem to contradict that idea.

We need look no further than our good friend the Clipper chip for a good example of government created prior art that is covered by this patent.

There is an enormous profiling business that grabs up all of your data and sells it to whomever! Those "trusted partners" are anyone under the sun who is willing to pay a fee for a list of personal information. Check out EPIC on this: Profiling. You'd be shocked to see what aspects of your life can be cataloged and marketed. They have databases on medical conditions, including bladder control problems!

Many of the DRM systems I've seen require me to identify myself. ME NO WANT TO DO THAT. Check out EPIC on this: Privacy and DRM.

It's Executive Order 12958 that deals with the classification, and eventual declassification of material. Section 3.4 "Automatic Declassification", states that "all classified information contained in records that (1) are more than 25 years old, and (2) have been determined to have permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code, shall be automatically declassified whether or not the records have been reviewed."

I was suprised not to see any comments from either The Electronic Frontier Foundation or The Electronic Privacy Information Center with comments on the debate. Why didn't these normally active groups submit an opinion?

While IANAL, I work in the digital television middleware industry and have been involved in making sure that we do not inadvertantly let our customers run afoul of that precise law. It's not just the law, it's a good idea.

Of course, you're conveniently forgetting (or possibly not even aware) that Bruce Schneier is on EPIC's Advisory Board.

The databases are immense, and go far beyond what music groups you like. Companies such as Experian trade information on your illnesses! They even have an incontinence database! This information is sold for as little as $65 per million names.

This information is available to government as well. In some cases, businesses just hand over the data. In others, businesses sell the information (Check out EPIC's web page on public records profilers: http://www.epic.org/privacy/publicrecords/). Government can also just subpoena the records.

Companies that care about privacy will not engage in personalization. They will provide services where possible without collecting information unnecessarily. They will also allow "Customization," the practice of letting the customer decide what features will be provided. Personalization does the opposite--it's the practice of saying "I know what the customer wants." Let the customer decide!

Copy Protection and Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems will likely not only dilute user control but also user privacy.
EPIC DRM and Privacy Web Page.

Granted, in a computer not all keystrokes are going to be transfered over the network, but how can you, the observing FBI agent, know which are which until you look at all of them? I can't see how you could possibly avoid looking at information (like a typed email) that should be require a wiretap order.

The FBI's tool took very careful steps to not record anything when the user was on-line. It checked whether the modem was in use, Internet Explorer was running, and a few other details. (That information comes from the EPIC web site, sorry I don't have a better link.)

I agree that you could argue that the user was typing an e-mail in Notepad that was going to become a communication, but the typing in Notepad is not, in an of itself, a communication. The actual e-mail leaving the system is a communication only.

Expect these DRM systems to be vigorous in demanding your identification.
Expect these DRM systems to tie content to your identity.
Expect MS to have enormous profiling ability of your tastes, habits, etc as a result.
EPIC DRM Webpage.

-Bob

The only difference between now, movable press, and a room full of monks is the cost involved. Lower costs made comercial publishing for entertainment possible. Now it's making it a difficult proposition again.

Oh well. Lately, it's the publishers that have enjoyed the proffits at the expense of the artist. Once upon a time someone like Poe could open up a magazine of his own and almost make a living at it. Hemingway, Thompson and others managed to get by. These days, forget it. Warner Brothers vrs. the author of Harry Potter, who's got the profits? When then the comercial rewards have become so poor, why not just give your work away? I've always enjoyed the works of love better anyhow. Hesiod, Homer, Virgil, Dante, RMS.

The danger comes from those who would keep you from sharing to protect their interests. This has happened before, but never on such a wide scale as popular culture. In the west, the church has fought specific puclications on natural philosophy and governments have fought political tracts. Today, however, many people can only hum tunes sold to them by five music publishers, have images placed into their heads by four different media giants, and so their very hopes and dreams forged by a small number of corporate interests. As these attack all forms of knowledge trasmision, including Public Libraries, private devices even private thoughts, and we might do best to avoid helping those who would tax us. Why not preferentially use free works?

Perhaps that is a good solution for people who are concerned about their loss of privacy. The news media has recently been pushing the idea that we are fighting in Afghanistan so that their women can dress like Britney Spears (complete with speeches from President Bush's wife, and the UK Prime Minister's wife). If average people in the US and the UK start wearing outfits similar to what the Afghan women were wearing (burkhas?) it would defeat the facial recognition cameras they have been installing.

Maybe. But EPIC does do this and the EFF does do this.

I won't comment on the EFF, but a year or more ago I had thought that it would be the EPIC in the more prominent position that EFF is today. I really don't know much about the EFF's history, while I know that EPIC is responsible for Privacy.org, and has worked closely with the ACLU. Actually, I think a lot more could be accomplished if the EFF and EPIC were to become one. Or at least, work together alongside the ACLU. They seem to have the same priorities.

Copyright © 2001 Michael D. Crawford. Permission is granted to reproduce this document provided it is copied verbatim, in its entirety and that this copyright statement is preserved.

I just feel the need to write right now. Something has gone terribly wrong with the country I was raised to love. The good things that America stands for are being trampled into the dirt by those charged with the burden of protecting them.

I was raised to be a patriotic American. I grew up a military brat - my father was a proud officer of the United States Navy, who served in the Vietnam War. When I was young, I was always told that my father was fighting to preserve the freedoms that were guaranteed us by the United States Constitution.

In the first grade, I attended a school run by the U.S. Navy in Gaeta, Italy, where my father was stationed aboard the U.S.S. Springfield. Each day when we started school we sang patriotic songs and said the Pledge of Allegiance. We were told that America stood for freedom and democracy and justice.

I loved America for what it stood for.

I was told that things like political persecution, detainment without trial, and beating of prisoners were things that happened in other countries, that they would never happen in America. I was told that we fought the American Revolution and wrote the Constitution specifically to ensure such things would never again happen in America.

But today I see the ugly face of repression rising in America. And it is brought to you by the United States Government.

I am not proud to be an American today. I understand well why people in many other countries hate America. I love America, but I despise what it is rapidly becoming.

Something must be done about this.

There are many things that move me to write this, but what moved to me write this right now is that a member of a registered political party was singled out for harassment, first by American Airlines and then by the United States National Guard because of the opinions she holds.

Nancy Oden, one of the U.S. Green Party's top officials, was traveling to a Green Party national meeting from her hometown airport in Bangor, Maine. She had published a statement that calls for Universal Health Care, limitations on free trade, and a stop to the bombing of Afghanistan.

When she got to the American Airlines ticket counter she was told that there was a record in AA's computer indicating that she should be searched anytime she tried to fly.

During the search, she tried to help the security agent with a stuck zipper. The agent grabbed her arm and she pulled it away. The National Guard instructed the airline not to let her fly. The airline told all the other airlines not to let her fly. She was unable to attend the Green Party meeting.

So an official of a registered political party in the supposedly democratic United States was prevented from participating in the political process because her name had been recorded in a computer as someone who should be treated with suspicion.

I fear what America has become.

Also upsetting to me is the recent decision of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to allow eavesdropping on attorney-client conversations as well as opening of their mail. Read the ACLU press release opposing this.

From the Washington Post article U.S. Will Monitor Calls to Lawyers:

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft approved the eavesdropping rule on an emergency basis last week, without the usual waiting period for public comment. It went into effect immediately, permitting the government to monitor conversations and intercept mail between people in custody and their attorneys for up to a year at a time.

The right to a vigorous legal defense is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. It is one of the bulwarks that comes between official repression and those who are repressed, underprivileged, despised, outcast, or working for legitimate political change. You can read about the guarantee of legal representation in our Constitution:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

I don't have a URL to link you to ( mail me one), but I read that among the hundreds of "suspects" and "material witnesses" rounded up in the days after September 11, many were held without charge and some were beaten by their jailers. Also some were held without being given access to attorneys or their families. I thought that could not happen here...

The recently signed USA PATRIOT act is an assault on our civil liberties the likes of which have not been seen in decades.

Read the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Analysis of USA PATRIOT Act, which largely discusses the law's impact on online activities - did you know that the government can now spy on the key words you search for at search engines like Google and AltaVista? Because computer cracking is now considered terrorism, searching for exploitz can result in your lengthy imprisonment.

The truth is the first victim of war.

Shortly after the September 11th attacks, President Bush said something to the effect that the reason the U.S. was attacked was because the terrorists hated our freedom, and that we must fight the terrorists in order to preserve it.

But Osama bin Laden does not care either way about our freedom. He has made it very clear why he hates the U.S., and none of this has been acknowledged by any official statements that I have heard. What bin Laden objects to are the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the land of the holy city of Mecca, U.S. support for Israel's repression of the Palestinians, and the continued U.S. bombing of Iraq. More than anything, he feels that the presence of U.S. troops in the Islamic Holy Land is a sacrilege.

Whatever your position is on bin Laden's objections to the U.S., you must agree that it is wrong for our President to lie to us. Get informed, and work to understand the complexities behind the enmity between the Islamic and Western world. It's not as simple as our government would have us believe.

You might be interested to know what the Pentagon is doing to improve the United States' image in the Islamic world. Well, I'll tell you. It has taken out a $400,000 contract with Madison Avenue public relations firm The Rendon Group in an effort to help it "orient to the challenge of communication to a wide range of groups around the world". In addition, former advertising executive Charlotte Beers has been apointed to the post of Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, a position she qualifies for because of her previous work promoting such products as Head & Shoulders shampoo.

Read about it in Propaganda Wars.

Well, its comforting to know that we'll be winning friends in Central Asia by showing professionally produced TV commercials depicting friendly Americans in between the news reports of mutilated and starving Afghani children.

If you, like myself, feel that something is wrong with America these days, or with whatever country you find yourself in, speak out about it.

In this troubled times, speaking openly to inform others of injustice or to protest may result in a backlash against you from government officials or others. Please read this speech on the importance of speaking your mind. Have courage - it is only by having the courage to speak and to work against injustice that we can prevent it from getting a lot worse.

Among the ways you can speak out

• Participate in online communities
• Send email to people you know
• Write web pages like this one and post the URL around
• Write letters to the editors of your local newspapers
• Staple leaflets to bulletin boards in your community
• Pass out leaflets in public places
• Call in to talk radio shows

Secondly, participate in what we have left of the democratic process. Our government has at least the appearance of having been elected, and the easiest way to make a change is to vote out the ones who have brought this upon us.

• Volunteer for political candidates you believe in
• Get a bunch of voter registration cards and stand in a public place to register voters
• Donate money to political candidates and parties who respect civil liberties
• Vote
• Write letters to your elected representatives. While you can send email, Congress gets so much spam that they pretty much ignore email these days. Instead, you can find your Congressperson's postal address at www.congress.org - write them a paper letter.

Use encryption to protect your privacy. Please read my page Why You Should Use Encryption as well as my letter Protect Your Rights with Encryption.

You can get encryption software for free - you can use either Pretty Good Privacy or The GNU Privacy Guard. Both offer excellent, military strength protection of your data, and the source code to each is freely available so that programmers are able to inspect it for security defects and back doors.

Teach the people you correspond with to use encryption.

Teach people who work for political change to use encryption. If you don't think political candidates and their staff need to use encryption, you're too young to remember Nixon's Plumbers getting caught breaking into the Watergate Hotel to wiretap the Democratic National Committe.

Join organizations that work to protect civil liberties. Among these are:

• The American Civil Liberties Union - Join Here
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation - Join Here - the EFF works to protect our civil liberties in the online world, including working to ensure that the work of computer programmers is protected as free speech under the First Amendment, thereby ensuring you access to software that guards your security and privacy.
• The Center for Democracy and Technology - Get Involved - working "to promote democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age"
• The Electronic Privacy Information Center - Donate Here - "established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values.

One might think, and one certainly hopes, that the ultimate safeguard against these threats to our civil liberties lies with the Supreme Court of the United States. But I am not so certain myself. The Supreme Court has ruled against the dictates of law and the Constitution during other troubled periods in our nation's history.

And we should remember that the current President received a minority of the popular vote and was only declared to have a majority of the Electoral Vote after an obviously politically motivated ruling by the Supreme Court, a decision that has few pretenses of being based on the rule of law. Even had all the ballots been counted, enough Black Florida citizens were prevented from going to the polls that the election would clearly have gone for Gore had they been allowed to exercise their right to vote.

As said in the dissenting opinion by Justices Stevens, Ginsberg and Breyer in Bush v. Gore (note - this is an Adobe Acrobat document):

What must underlie petitioners' (nb. - George W. Bush') entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

We must work together to restore the rule of law in our country - or we shall surely suffer for it. If you do not agree that Fascism can arise in the United States, take heed of the fact that Adolf Hitler was elected as the leader of his country too.

November 12, 2001

Copyright © 2001 Michael D. Crawford. Permission is granted to reproduce this document provided it is copied verbatim, in its entirety and that this copyright statement is preserved.

I just feel the need to write right now. Something has gone terribly wrong with the country I was raised to love. The good things that America stands for are being trampled into the dirt by those charged with the burden of protecting them.

I was raised to be a patriotic American. I grew up a military brat - my father was a proud officer of the United States Navy, who served in the Vietnam War. When I was young, I was always told that my father was fighting to preserve the freedoms that were guaranteed us by the United States Constitution.

In the first grade, I attended a school run by the U.S. Navy in Gaeta, Italy, where my father was stationed aboard the U.S.S. Springfield. Each day when we started school we sang patriotic songs and said the Pledge of Allegiance. We were told that America stood for freedom and democracy and justice.

I loved America for what it stood for.

I was told that things like political persecution, detainment without trial, and beating of prisoners were things that happened in other countries, that they would never happen in America. I was told that we fought the American Revolution and wrote the Constitution specifically to ensure such things would never again happen in America.

But today I see the ugly face of repression rising in America. And it is brought to you by the United States Government.

I am not proud to be an American today. I understand well why people in many other countries hate America. I love America, but I despise what it is rapidly becoming.

Something must be done about this.

There are many things that move me to write this, but what moved to me write this right now is that a member of a registered political party was singled out for harassment, first by American Airlines and then by the United States National Guard because of the opinions she holds.

Nancy Oden, one of the U.S. Green Party's top officials, was traveling to a Green Party national meeting from her hometown airport in Bangor, Maine. She had published a statement that calls for Universal Health Care, limitations on free trade, and a stop to the bombing of Afghanistan.

When she got to the American Airlines ticket counter she was told that there was a record in AA's computer indicating that she should be searched anytime she tried to fly.

During the search, she tried to help the security agent with a stuck zipper. The agent grabbed her arm and she pulled it away. The National Guard instructed the airline not to let her fly. The airline told all the other airlines not to let her fly. She was unable to attend the Green Party meeting.

So an official of a registered political party in the supposedly democratic United States was prevented from participating in the political process because her name had been recorded in a computer as someone who should be treated with suspicion.

I fear what America has become.

Also upsetting to me is the recent decision of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to allow eavesdropping on attorney-client conversations as well as opening of their mail. Read the ACLU press release opposing this.

From the Washington Post article U.S. Will Monitor Calls to Lawyers:

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft approved the eavesdropping rule on an emergency basis last week, without the usual waiting period for public comment. It went into effect immediately, permitting the government to monitor conversations and intercept mail between people in custody and their attorneys for up to a year at a time.

The right to a vigorous legal defense is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. It is one of the bulwarks that comes between official repression and those who are repressed, underprivileged, despised, outcast, or working for legitimate political change. You can read about the guarantee of legal representation in our Constitution:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

I don't have a URL to link you to ( mail me one), but I read that among the hundreds of "suspects" and "material witnesses" rounded up in the days after September 11, many were held without charge and some were beaten by their jailers. Also some were held without being given access to attorneys or their families. I thought that could not happen here...

The recently signed USA PATRIOT act is an assault on our civil liberties the likes of which have not been seen in decades.

Read the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Analysis of USA PATRIOT Act, which largely discusses the law's impact on online activities - did you know that the government can now spy on the key words you search for at search engines like Google and AltaVista? Because computer cracking is now considered terrorism, searching for exploitz can result in your lengthy imprisonment.

The truth is the first victim of war.

Shortly after the September 11th attacks, President Bush said something to the effect that the reason the U.S. was attacked was because the terrorists hated our freedom, and that we must fight the terrorists in order to preserve it.

But Osama bin Laden does not care either way about our freedom. He has made it very clear why he hates the U.S., and none of this has been acknowledged by any official statements that I have heard. What bin Laden objects to are the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the land of the holy city of Mecca, U.S. support for Israel's repression of the Palestinians, and the continued U.S. bombing of Iraq. More than anything, he feels that the presence of U.S. troops in the Islamic Holy Land is a sacrilege.

Whatever your position is on bin Laden's objections to the U.S., you must agree that it is wrong for our President to lie to us. Get informed, and work to understand the complexities behind the enmity between the Islamic and Western world. It's not as simple as our government would have us believe.

You might be interested to know what the Pentagon is doing to improve the United States' image in the Islamic world. Well, I'll tell you. It has taken out a $400,000 contract with Madison Avenue public relations firm The Rendon Group in an effort to help it "orient to the challenge of communication to a wide range of groups around the world". In addition, former advertising executive Charlotte Beers has been apointed to the post of Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, a position she qualifies for because of her previous work promoting such products as Head & Shoulders shampoo.

Read about it in Propaganda Wars.

Well, its comforting to know that we'll be winning friends in Central Asia by showing professionally produced TV commercials depicting friendly Americans in between the news reports of mutilated and starving Afghani children.

If you, like myself, feel that something is wrong with America these days, or with whatever country you find yourself in, speak out about it.

In this troubled times, speaking openly to inform others of injustice or to protest may result in a backlash against you from government officials or others. Please read this speech on the importance of speaking your mind. Have courage - it is only by having the courage to speak and to work against injustice that we can prevent it from getting a lot worse.

Among the ways you can speak out

• Participate in online communities
• Send email to people you know
• Write web pages like this one and post the URL around
• Write letters to the editors of your local newspapers
• Staple leaflets to bulletin boards in your community
• Pass out leaflets in public places
• Call in to talk radio shows

Secondly, participate in what we have left of the democratic process. Our government has at least the appearance of having been elected, and the easiest way to make a change is to vote out the ones who have brought this upon us.

• Volunteer for political candidates you believe in
• Get a bunch of voter registration cards and stand in a public place to register voters
• Donate money to political candidates and parties who respect civil liberties
• Vote
• Write letters to your elected representatives. While you can send email, Congress gets so much spam that they pretty much ignore email these days. Instead, you can find your Congressperson's postal address at www.congress.org - write them a paper letter.

Use encryption to protect your privacy. Please read my page Why You Should Use Encryption as well as my letter Protect Your Rights with Encryption.

You can get encryption software for free - you can use either Pretty Good Privacy or The GNU Privacy Guard. Both offer excellent, military strength protection of your data, and the source code to each is freely available so that programmers are able to inspect it for security defects and back doors.

Teach the people you correspond with to use encryption.

Teach people who work for political change to use encryption. If you don't think political candidates and their staff need to use encryption, you're too young to remember Nixon's Plumbers getting caught breaking into the Watergate Hotel to wiretap the Democratic National Committe.

Join organizations that work to protect civil liberties. Among these are:

• The American Civil Liberties Union - Join Here
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation - Join Here - the EFF works to protect our civil liberties in the online world, including working to ensure that the work of computer programmers is protected as free speech under the First Amendment, thereby ensuring you access to software that guards your security and privacy.
• The Center for Democracy and Technology - Get Involved - working "to promote democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age"
• The Electronic Privacy Information Center - Donate Here - "established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values.

One might think, and one certainly hopes, that the ultimate safeguard against these threats to our civil liberties lies with the Supreme Court of the United States. But I am not so certain myself. The Supreme Court has ruled against the dictates of law and the Constitution during other troubled periods in our nation's history.

And we should remember that the current President received a minority of the popular vote and was only declared to have a majority of the Electoral Vote after an obviously politically motivated ruling by the Supreme Court, a decision that has few pretenses of being based on the rule of law. Even had all the ballots been counted, enough Black Florida citizens were prevented from going to the polls that the election would clearly have gone for Gore had they been allowed to exercise their right to vote.

As said in the dissenting opinion by Justices Stevens, Ginsberg and Breyer in Bush v. Gore (note - this is an Adobe Acrobat document):

What must underlie petitioners' (nb. - George W. Bush') entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

We must work together to restore the rule of law in our country - or we shall surely suffer for it. If you do not agree that Fascism can arise in the United States, take heed of the fact that Adolf Hitler was elected as the leader of his country too.

November 12, 2001

Political News from Wired News - Cybercrime Treaty Finally Ready. After four years of haggling over the language, several countries including the United States will sign a cybercrime treaty.

WildernessCoast.org - Cybercrime Treaty Bibliography -- By Date. A wide collection of links that talk about the Cybercrime Treaty Same info sorted by title.

Council of Europe - Convention on Cybercrime.

The Convention on Cybercrime has been adopted by the Committee of Ministers during its 109th Session, on 8 November 2001 and will be opened for signature, in Budapest, on 23 November 2001.

The Convention will be the first international treaty on crimes committed via the Internet and other computer networks, dealing particularly with infringements of copyright, computer-related fraud, child pornography and violations of network security. It also contains a series of powers and procedures such as the search of computer networks and interception.

Its main objective, set out in the preamble, is to pursue a common criminal policy aimed at the protection of society against cybercrime, especially by adopting appropriate legislation and fostering international co-operation.

The Convention is the product of four years of work by Council of Europe experts, but also by the United States, Canada, Japan and other countries which are not members of the organisation.

It will be supplemented by an additional protocol making any publication of racist and xenophobic propaganda via computer networks a criminal offence.

[ ... ]

But Fred Eisner, a consultant for the Dutch government and private companies, said the draft made unfair demands on Internet service providers by asking them to track Web users' online movements.

"This draft convention lacks balance," Eisner told the assembly. "The convention explicitly gives much more power to law enforcement agencies and it has no system of checks and balances."

Bruce McConnell, president of McConnell International, a Washington-based consulting firm, said the treaty should be more forceful in protecting the privacy of Web users who are already worried about being spied on.

"There is concern that the powers of surveillance ... are not balanced by comparable protections for individuals' privacy," he said.

Maybe you trust the law-enforcement chiefs in D.C. to do the right thing. But here's the catch. The same new powers given to the United States will also handed over to Bulgaria, Romania, Azerbaijan, and other Council of Europe nations that-although officially democratic now-don't have a strong traditions of checks and balances on police power.

Do you want investigators rummaging around your clients' computer systems on warrants issued by former Soviet bloc nations?

That's the prospect that has pushed AT&T Corporation and other high-technology companies into feverishly trying to stop or at least soften the treaty. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Information Technology Association of America also oppose it.

Stewart Baker is one of the chief lobbyists for the treaty opponents. As a former general counsel of the National Security Agency and recipient of the Department of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, he's got street cred on these issues in corporate America.

What worries Baker and his colleagues? Consider the following hypothetical: A Los Angeles screenwriter corresponds by e-mail with a neo-Nazi in Germany while researching a script. Shortly after, he finds federal agents examining the files on his home computer. The agents also visit America Online Inc. to retrieve records of the screenwriter's AOL usage.

The agents are fulfilling a warrant issued by German authorities allowing them to search for Nazi propaganda. Such material is unlawful in Germany but not in the U.S. They framed their warrant in terms of "suspected terrorist activity."

LAW.com (requires cookies) - International Treaty on Cybercrime Poses Burden on High-Tech Companies.

Maybe you're a civil libertarian, and maybe you're not. Maybe you worry about how the United States exercises its vast investigative and prosecutorial powers, and maybe you don't.

But if you counsel U.S. corporations on computer-related issues, you should be concerned about a new proposed treaty known as the "Convention on Cybercrime." The Council of Europe, a 43-nation public body created to promote democracy and the rule of law, is nominally drafting the treaty. Curiously, however, the primary architect is the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation are using a foreign forum to create an international law-enforcement regime that favors the interests of the feds over those of ordinary citizens and businesses. Their goal is to make it easier to get evidence from abroad and to extradite and prosecute foreign nationals for certain kinds of crimes.

Maybe you trust the law-enforcement chiefs in D.C. to do the right thing. But here's the catch. The same new powers given to the United States will also be handed over to Bulgaria, Romania, Azerbaijan, and other Council of Europe nations that -- although officially democratic now -- don't have a strong tradition of checks and balances on police power.

[ ... ]

Stewart Baker, a partner at Washington, D.C.'s Steptoe & Johnson, is one of the chief lobbyists for the treaty's opponents. As a former general counsel of the National Security Agency and recipient of the U.S. Department of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, he's got street credentials on these issues in corporate America.

Slashdot | Implications Of The International Cybercrime Treaty.

SiliconValley.com part of San Jose Mercury News - Pioneer cybercrime pact tightens privacy rules.

MS-NBC - Pioneer cybercrime pact tightens privacy rules. PARIS, May 25 -- Stiff criticism from the EU and pressure groups has prompted drafters of the world's first treaty against cybercrime to tighten provisions protecting privacy online, the final text showed Friday.

[ ... ]

Against EU objections, it also limits the right of a country to reject a request from abroad to store and hand over data in potential crime cases if the requesting country thinks it could be misused.

The text says states should make sure that systems operators or other people who know how to use a certain system can be ordered to cooperate in any such a cyberprobe.

PARIS (Reuters) - Stiff criticism from the EU and pressure groups has prompted drafters of the world's first treaty against cybercrime to tighten provisions protecting privacy online, the final text showed on Friday.

The Council of Europe, a 43-state human rights watchdog, has amended the text to ensure police respect privacy rights when they follow digital trails to fight online crimes such as hacking, spreading viruses, using stolen credit card numbers or defrauding banks.

''The guarantees in the treaty have been reinforced,'' Peter Csonka, deputy head of the economic crime division at the Council's headquarters in Strasbourg, told Reuters after the Council posted the final text -- version 27 -- on its Web site.

But the treaty, which has aroused heated debate in cyberspace since its draft text became public last year, ignored calls by Internet service providers (ISPs) for fewer costly requirements on preserving data that could be linked to a crime.

It still accorded police wide powers to chase suspected cybercriminals -- powers some critics say go beyond what is legal in some Council member states or in observer countries like the United States, Canada and Japan due to sign the treaty.

ZDNet - Internet founder worried over EU cybercrime plans.

BRUSSELS --Vint Cerf, a founding father of today's Internet, said on Thursday that European Union plans for new rules to fight crime on the Web risked clashing with existing EU privacy regulations.

Cerf, who helped develop the Internet in the early 70s shortly after graduating from Stanford University and now works for WorldCom, said more secure network systems were an immediate priority for the successful development of the ubiquitous Web.

He told Reuters in an interview that Internet traffic should be retained only for billing purposes and was too cumbersome to be stored for police investigations.

Changes to a controversial treaty on cybercrime have done nothing to improve it, say civil liberty campaigners.

Next week, the Council of Europe will vote on the treaty, which has been redrafted 26 times before reaching its final version late in May.

The most recent changes were made to take into account the fears of civil liberty and privacy campaigners. But cyber-rights groups say the latest changes are purely cosmetic and have not diluted what they describe as its most pernicious sections.

The groups say that, if adopted in its current form, the treaty could lead to changes in legislation that would stifle rights to privacy and do little to curb the activities of law enforcement agencies.

[ ... ]

In December 2000, 23 organisations, banding together under the banner of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC), signed a letter condemning the 25th draft of the treaty as "appalling", and warned that it handed law enforcement agencies sweeping powers to snoop and could seriously erode online privacy.

Now, three civil liberty groups, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International, have sent another letter to the Council of Europe outlining their "continuing concerns" over the wording of the treaty and saying that their fears have not been laid to rest.

The letter chastises the Council of Europe for refusing to open up the redrafting debates to non-governmental organisations and for, it says, ignoring the human rights and privacy concerns of organisations such as the GILC.

It goes on to say that the original criticisms still stand, and that the treaty does not pay enough attention to existing laws which safeguard human rights. It says the treaty's recommendations on protecting privacy are vague and do not go far enough.

IT industry gurus have branded the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime 'foolish, unworkable and a legal con trick'.

The controversial treaty provides a blanket legislation to deal with all forms of internet crime from hacking to online pornography.

Caspar Bowden, director of internet think-tank FIPR, said: "The Convention is essentially a legal con trick, drafted in secret by a handful of nameless bureaucrats. It equates the internet - a network of private networks - with 'cyberspace', a metaphor from science fiction.

"By this sleight of hand, the internet is defined as a public space over which law enforcement should be granted unfettered powers of surveillance and extradition," he added.

International policy-makers this week ended a round of talks aimed at setting common rules affecting online trade and commerce, but they made little progress in bridging divisions that threaten to delay the pact.

In the works for nearly a decade, the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments is still almost unknown outside international policy circles. Nevertheless, it could have broad implications for consumers and businesses by setting new rules for online copyrights, free speech and e-commerce--if it is approved.

Opposition to the treaty heated up Wednesday, when a two-week drafting session wrapped up with few concessions to critics, primarily from the United States, who say the pact threatens free speech and could force Internet service providers to become global content police.

"In a nutshell, it will strangle the Internet with a suffocating blanket of overlapping jurisdictional claims, expose every Web page publisher to liabilities for libel, defamation and other speech offenses from virtually any country, (and) effectively strip Internet service providers of protections from litigation over the content they carry," Jamie Love, director of Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), wrote in a report after the meeting.

The treaty is one of several efforts by the global community to grapple with a complicated legal issues on a borderless Web.

Four years ago, nations including the United States signed onto a World Intellectual Property Organization pact to protect copyright in the digital age. And several countries, including the United States, are hammering out the world's first cybercrime treaty, which would provide a standard for fighting online crime.

The Hague treaty differs from those efforts because it would not outline specific laws participants must follow. It's much broader, requiring participants to agree to enforce each others' laws on a variety of topics. As it stands, the treaty would require courts to enforce the commercial laws of the convention's 52 member nations, even if they prohibit actions that are legal under local laws.

BRUSSELS - The blueprint for a global code on Cyber-crime was agreed on in Strasbourg, France, Friday, paving the way for international rules governing online copyright infringement, online fraud, child pornography and hacking.

The 41 members of the Council of Europe (CoE), plus the U.S., Canada and Japan, signed on to a draft convention on cybercrime that is set to be rubber-stamped at ministerial level in September.

"Once adopted, the Convention will be the first international treaty on criminal offenses committed through the use of Internet and other computer networks," the Council of Europe said in a statement.

In September, the Council of Europe approved the Convention on cybercrime, a historic treatise that lays the foundation for legislation allowing for a greater sharing of information between countries to combat the rise of cybercrime.

The treatise isn't binding, but instead would have to be adopted into law by its 43 European member states and five outside countries including the United States, Canada and Japan.

The treaty is broad, covering crimes committed on the Internet such as fraud, child pornography and violations of computer network security. It also sets up global policing procedures for conducting computer searches, interception of e-mails, and extradition of criminal suspects.

More details on the CyberCrime Treaty can be found in the Privacy Digest archives dated September 26,2000, September 27,2000, October 09,2000, October 16,2000, October 18,2000, October 19,2000, October 25,2000, November 14,2000, November 20,2000, November 22,2000 and March 24,2001. This is not all the information at Privacy Digest and other sites so if you want to know more try a search

They need a warrant (last I checked) to search someone's house. They need a warrant to use wiretaps.

The very recently enacted PATRIOT Act probably gives USA Federal law enforcement the mechanism to get around this objection. The PATRIOT Act probably allows searching without notification, and it certainly loosens-up the criteria under which law enforcement can obtain a wiretap.

Before the PATRIOT Act, it apparently wasn't really too tough to get a wiretap warrant anyway. I don't think that 1 in 500 requests was denied. The feds have some captive "secret court" that just rubberstamps any wiretap request anyway.

They need a warrant (last I checked) to search someone's house. They need a warrant to use wiretaps.

The very recently enacted PATRIOT Act probably gives USA Federal law enforcement the mechanism to get around this objection. The PATRIOT Act probably allows searching without notification, and it certainly loosens-up the criteria under which law enforcement can obtain a wiretap.

Before the PATRIOT Act, it apparently wasn't really too tough to get a wiretap warrant anyway. I don't think that 1 in 500 requests was denied. The feds have some captive "secret court" that just rubberstamps any wiretap request anyway.

Now's the time for epic.org to write up another fabulous document outlining MS 'deceptive trade' practices and, as somebody metioned below, offer solutions to the settlement proposal.

I guess it was far more important to discuss MSN, MP3s, ATI and the like rather than THE LOSS OF CIVIL LIBERTIES AND UNIVERSAL MONITORING OF NETWORK TRAFFIC. Good Job Slashdot! Toys are much more important than life, right?

Patriot ACT, USA ACT, ATA:

I know everyone has read and knows something about these bills, but here is a break down of what they mean in terms of things like computer crime and vandalism...

(a) Our Constitution gaurantees "due process" to all PERSONS, not all CITIZENS, meaning that immigrants may also enjoy these rights. However, under these acts, immigrants can be held on suspiscion of potential crime (ridiculous!). The Senate Bill allows for indefinite jail time without due process...

(b) These new laws broaden the definition of Terrorism to include things that include vandilism, computer crime, and (un)civil disobedience. There already exist laws that broadly define terrorism, and flying planes into buildings filled with thousands of innocent people meets those requirements. Marching in a demonstration is not terrorism, throwing a brick through a starbucks window is vandalism and property damage not terrorism, and hacking a website is not terrorism, (it is vandalism!). Also, under terrorism laws, people who harbor terrorists, or give terrorists advice can also be tried as terrorists! If you stay on my couch and then throw a brick at starbucks the next day, I am a terrorist. If I post a security weakness in Microsoft web servers on my website to warn people, and some kid uses the info to hack into someone's site, I am a terrorist!

(c) The laws give the FBI new powers to wiretap and read emails without a warrant. They can also read e-mails and URLS. If I want to read news about Bombs and Terrorists on google, and I type in "Bombs" and "Terrorists" into the field, that is all the FBI needs to suspect me of crime and set up a phone tap or a Carnivore search on me. The FBI is supposed to only be able to know where an email comes from and where it is going. They are supposed to only read the "To:" and "From:" fields of the e-mails, but how can you look at the header of an e-mail and not happen to glance at the "Subject:" line? Basically, that is what is happening in these laws and with Carnivore. ISP's have to install it on their servers. It is like a black box, no one can monitor what the FBI is doing or reading!

THESE LAWS ARE UNECESSARY FOR COMBATING TERRORISM! CURRENT LAWS ARE SUFFICIENT! WHY IS THE FBI, CIA, AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DOING THIS?

Resources:

• The entire Senate bill (the USA act) is here somewhere...
• The ACLU has an online chart that compares the three bills with current law.
• The EFF has great resources about these laws.
  
• EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) also has good info...

Actually, I withdraw my comments. I had heard that an earlier draft of the bill defined computer intrusion as a terrorist act, when it was done for financial gain (and thus applied the bill's "life without parole" clause for terrorist acts). After having read the most recent form of the bill I see no such reference.

This is a Good Thing(tm), as it indicates that someone with a shred of a clue was listened to by the lawmakers who came up with the compromise legislation. Sorry for spreading old info.

Speaking of "if you are important enough" and "all is takes is application of resources", I was recently reading through some of the briefs in the US v. Scarfo case. It sounded to me like the FBI got frustrated with his use of PGP and went with the keylogger approach. I was under the impression that the government had the resources to actually break some of the encryption schemes that are lawfully available in the US. It takes them time and a lot of computer horsepower, but I thought they could do it. It seems that the FBI didn't want to have to use all these resources in the Scarfo case and take the time to do it that way, so they used a logger. The material I was reading came from www.epic.org. It was interesting.

...the FBI doesn't need to prove probable cause. Just say "it should advance our investigation" and you're golden.
And when it comes to the impact on personal privacy, EPIC says it better than I can. Increased powers of wiretapping - judicial oversight != a good thing in my book.

In EPIC Volume 8.17 September 17, 2001 Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. there are many relevant quotes from our leaders...

"[On September 11, 2001,] our fellow citizens, our way of
life, our very freedom, came under attack in a series of
deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. . . . America has
stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.
None of us will ever forget this day. Yet, we go forward to
defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world."

--President George W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/ 20 010911-16.html

"[A]s we respond here at home to what we learn from these
attacks, is that this is a country that understands that
people have fundamental God-given rights and liberties and
our government is constituted to protect those rights. We
cannot -- in our efforts to bring justice -- diminish those
liberties. Clearly this is not a simple, normal criminal
case. This is an act of war, and those rules of warfare may
apply. But here at home and domestically, we need to make
sure that we're not tempted to abrogate any civil rights
such as habeas corpus, protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures, the freedom of expression and
peaceable assembly, or freedom of religion. And just
because somebody may come from an ethnic background, that
means nothing in the exercise of their rights as citizens.
They are American citizens. And so let's make sure that in
our anger and in our efforts to bring justice, we remember
our basic foundational civil liberties and not abrogate
them."

--Senator George Allen (R-VA)
http://allen.senate.gov/PressOffice/FloorStateme nt OnTerroristAttacks.htm

"Some have said yesterday and today that all has changed,
all has changed for America. I know what they mean by that,
and I respect their view, but I pray that is not true. I
pray that is not true. I pray my junior colleague from
Virginia is correct when he says the one thing we cannot
allow to change is the values upon which this country is
built, for if that were to occur, then they would be able to
declare victory, genuine victory."

--Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE)
http://biden.senate.gov/%7Ebiden/press/release/0 1/ 09/2001912907.html

"Attacking this country is not enough to defeat it. It
never has been. That's something our enemies have
discovered again and again. America's history is the story
of a nation, of a people, that has repeatedly overcome what
seemed like insurmountable challenges -- fueled by our
individual liberty, our respect for the rule of law, and our
belief in the value of every human life. America began as a
nation by overcoming tyranny. We will continue by
overcoming terrorism. And we will do it without sacrificing
who we are as Americans. We will do it by upholding the
principles of 'liberty and justice for all.'"

--Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) http://cantwell.senate.gov/

"A time of crisis is one of the greatest tests of a
democracy. Our nation is rooted in the fundamental
principles of freedom and justice. It is during these times
of conflict, and fear, that we need to protect those
principles the most. These principles must guide our
actions in the days, weeks, and months to come. . . . We
must never allow terrorists to gain any victory over us by
diminishing our country's respect for individual liberty and
freedom. . . . Let us remember that the Constitution was
written in 1789 by men who had won the Revolutionary War.
They did not live in comfortable and easy times of
hypothetical enemies. They wrote a Constitution to protect
individual liberties in times of war as well as in times of
peace."

--Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI)
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/01 /0 9/2001912C11.html

"Our values, our resolve, our commitment, our sense of
community will serve us well. I am confident that, as a
nation, we will seek and serve justice. Our Nation, my
neighbors and friends in Vermont demand no less, but we must
not let the terrorists win. If we abandon our democracy to
battle them, they win. If we forget our role as the world's
leader to defeat them, they win. And we will win. We will
maintain our democracy, and with justice, we will use our
strength. We will not lose our commitment to the rule of
law, no matter how much the provocation, because that rule
of law has protected us throughout the centuries. It has
created our democracy. It has made us what we are in
history."

--Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
http://www.senate.gov/~leahy/press/200109/091201 .h tml

"In truth, the people of this country are big in heart and
strong in character. We will maintain our open society and
fight terrorism around the globe with freedom loving peoples
everywhere. And we will prevail."

--Congressman Tom Allen (D-ME)
http://tomallen.house.gov/showart.asp?contentID= 42 5

"There will be ... inconvenience. But we will not violate
people's basic rights as we make this nation more secure.
We can do that in democracies. It can't be done in
tyrannies, because tyrannies do not enjoy the general good
will and support of the people who are willing to suffer
inconvenience and good nature with a confidence that the
nation will protect their rights."

--Congressman Dick Armey (R-TX) http://www.freedom.org/

"What we must avoid, however, is the knee-jerk reaction to
pass more laws restricting the civil liberties of American
citizens. The tragedies of this attack will only be
compounded by giving the government more power at the
expense of our civil liberties. If we cannot stop this sort
of attack with all of the power our government agencies
already have, then we are in very serious trouble."

--Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) http://www.house.gov/barr/

"In responding to this heinous attack, we must reaffirm our
commitment to uphold our Constitution, including the rights
guaranteed to every American in the Bill of Rights. These
precious rights have been secured by the blood and
sacrifices of Americans for more than 225 years. I am
confident in the ability of today's generation of Americans
to honor those sacrifices and the memories of those killed
in the attacks on September 11, 2001. We have an obligation
to overcome this latest challenge to freedom while honoring
our Constitution and preserving the rights it guarantees for
ourselves, our children, and our children's children."

--Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
http://www.house.gov/bartlett/pr010912.htm

"The challenge ahead will require strengthening U.S.
defenses and intelligence at home in ways consistent with
American values. Embassies and military bases must be
better defended along with domestic airports and other
civilian targets. But this does not mean that we can allow
terrorists to alter the fundamental openness of U.S. society
or the government's respect for civil liberties. If we do
so, they will have won."

--Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
http://www.senate.gov/~baucus/maxstatements.html

"[I]n the coming days, there may be some calls to assess
blame and to limit the individual liberties and freedoms we
enjoy as Americans. I urge my colleagues to resist these
efforts, no matter how well intended. The founding
principle of our nation is the right to pursue life, liberty
and happiness, and we must recognize the risks that we
assume with our freedom. The lives of each American [were]
changed forever by the awful acts carried out yesterday.
But we must not sacrifice our freedoms, and our way of life
in the name of fear to those who seek a weakened,
disconnected America. To use fear as a means to limit our
freedom will only serve the goals of those who undertook
these heinous attacks against America. Today is the day to
recognize the abiding strength of our nation and tell the
world, in particular those who seek to cause our nation
harm, that the Americans who perished on September 11, 2001
did not do so in vain.

--Congressman Ken Bentsen (D-TX)
http://www.house.gov/bentsen/prterror2.htm

"As the dust settles, we find ourselves confronting an enemy
that is both evil and elusive. But the world must know
that, today, America stands stronger than ever -- a nation
sworn to defend freedom, tolerance, diversity and democracy.
Those terrorists who attempt to extinguish our spirit must
know that these are ideals we Americans will never
surrender. I come from Michigan, home to hundreds of
thousands of Arab Americans and American Muslims. Already,
leaders in the community there -- patriotic Americans who
every day give so much to this country, who have condemned
these attacks, and who are as sickened by the carnage as
everyone else -- have been getting death threats. Such
hateful prejudice offends us all. Even as we struggle to
clear away the rubble and charred wreckage, heal our wounds,
mourn our dead and seek ultimate justice, Americans must
also stand together against this bigotry."

--Congressman David Bonior (D-MI)
http://davidbonior.house.gov/Speeches/091201_ter ro rist_attack.htm

"We are a nation of law, and while our response must be
decisive, it also must be focused. The civil liberties of
all within our borders are paramount, regardless of who is
responsible for these acts of terror. If we undermine
individual rights in reaction to today's events, we may win
a battle, but hand a victory to the enemies of freedom
everywhere."

--Congressman Chris Cannon (R-UT)
http://www.house.gov/cannon/press2001/sept11.htm

"We must take the necessary precautions to safeguard our
lives and American interests, but we must not relinquish our
cherished freedoms."

--Congresswoman Eva Clayton (D-NC)
http://www.house.gov/clayton/

"Just as this horrendous act can destroy us from without, it
can also destroy us from within. Pearl Harbor led to
internment camps of Japanese-Americans, and today there is a
very real danger that this tragedy could result in
prejudice, discrimination, and crimes of hate against
Arab-Americans and others. The lesson Oklahoma City taught
us was the perpetrators of these acts of terror can be evil
men of every race, nationality and religion as are the
victims. We must ensure that these acts of terror do not
slowly and subversively destroy the foundation of our
democracy: a commitment to equal rights and equal
protection."

--Congressman John Conyers (D-MI)
http://www.house.gov/conyers/pr091201.htm

"Frisking everyone on the planet to find the one person with
the weapon is a high-cost, low-yield way to go. That's a
fair analogy to searching through everyone's e-mail. Not
only do such schemes threaten civil liberties, they are such
scattershot approaches that they're bound to fail. ... The
notion that we can reorganize every aspect of civil society
to protect against terrorism is fool's gold."

--Congressman Christopher Cox (R-CA)
http://www.house.gov/cox/

"In striking at us, the terrorists sought to exploit the
openness of our society, and to shake the foundations of the
civilized order which America sustains. They will fail.
Our challenge now -- and the test of our democracy -- is to
harness our own raw anger and passion. To respond in a
manner that is firm, clear and just; that befits a great
nation; and that honors our own ideals."

--Congressman William Delahunt (D-MA)
http://www.house.gov/delahunt/terroristattack.ht m

"We must not direct our anger against innocent citizens of
Middle Eastern or South Asian heritage. Our nation is a
beacon of justice in the world and the freedom of our
peoples must not be degraded by any heinous acts of
violence. As a nation of a free and proud people, we must
not allow any terrorist attacks to justify violence or
persecution of our fellow citizens, whatever their heritage
may be."

--Congressman Benjamin Gilman (R-NY)
http://www.gop.gov/item-news.asp?N=2001091315094 8

"We must be bipartisan, balanced, and calm. Panic and
partisanship are our enemies. And as one colleague said
this morning, the Constitution of the United States must not
be our next casualty. We must ... respect the civil
liberties and intelligence of Americans. We are a generous,
courageous and resilient Nation. Given information,
resources and leadership, the American people will rise to
any challenge and fight down any assault to take from us our
way of life."

--Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA)
http://www.house.gov/harman/

Even at this painful time, we must remember that
international terrorism cannot be combated by turning our
free society into an armed fortress.

--Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) http://www.house.gov/rholt/

"As we move forward in the days to come, we must carefully
use words such as 'safety' and 'order,' and we must be
cautious when calling for actions that 'need to be taken for
the good of the people.' I encourage my colleagues to be
wary of any suggested government action that would infringe
on our freedoms. Any encroachment of our civil liberties is
a victory for the perpetrators of yesterday's heinous
crimes. We must continually bear in mind the words of
Benjamin Franklin when he had stated that 'those who would
sacrifice their essential liberty to seek a small portion of
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'
Freedom is not our greatest liability, it is our greatest
asset."

--Congressman Timothy Johnson (R-IL)
http://www.house.gov/johnson/

"We take enormous pride in the freedoms we enjoy. Societies
without freedom find it easier to ward off attacks.
Yesterday we paid a great price for our freedom. We can and
will act to reduce the chances of these attacks in the
future, but we will never give up our freedoms."

--Congressman John J. LaFalce (D-NY)
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny29_lafalc e/ pr010913terrorattack.html

"We will show our resolve to our enemies. America and its
citizens will not abdicate the values and freedoms that have
made this nation great. We unequivocally declare that today
America remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring that
terrorism will not dim the beacon of liberty and freedom."

--Congressman John Linder (R-GA)
http://www.house.gov/linder/editorial_terrorism. ht m

"The terrorist forces against us would see us brought to our
knees and see us shaking in terror. They would have us back
away from the freedoms we hold dear. But they must be made
to understand that those freedoms are the result of 200
years of struggle. Nothing within the terrorists' power can
daunt this great democracy and its resolve."

--Congressman Ken Lucas (D-KY)
http://www.house.gov/kenlucas/PressRelease.2.htm

"The leaders of our country will now focus on ensuring that
justice is served. We should be rational about our
strategy, we will focus on protecting our future and promise
to uphold your freedom and your every liberty."

--Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT)
http://matheson.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=733&ty pe =News

"We must not act in haste -- rush to act out our vengeance
against fellow Americans -- because America is the world's
greatest melting pot, and in today's society, we simply
cannot guess at an individual's country of natural origin by
their appearance. We have to make sure that we make war on
terrorism -- not on Arabs! We must make a further
distinction between the war on terrorism and the war on
Americans of Near or South Asian descent. There have been
many references to a second Pearl Harbor, and while the
shock and anger certainly are similar and warranted, that
anger should not be directed towards our neighbors in ethnic
communities across the country. We do not need the
attitudes that will lead to a second wave of internment
camps."

--Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA)
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/Terrorist-FS.htm

"America must also stand firm, though, in its commitment to
civil liberties for all of our people. In the coming months
and years, all of us will have to make accommodations to
heightened security at our airports, Federal buildings, and
other large landmarks. We can and must make those
accommodations and in a manner that is wholly consistent
with the U.S. Constitution."

--Congressman James Moran (D-VA)
http://www.house.gov/moran/20010912b.htm

"[A]ll New Yorkers understand and feel empathy for those who
lost loved ones on hijacked flights. New Yorkers, and
indeed all Americans, will remember those victims at the
Pentagon, for putting their lives at risk and paying the
ultimate price, so that we can live our lives in freedom.
In the end, that is what this comes down to -- our freedom.
To the majority of the world, our nation stands as a beacon
of hope. To those who want to crush freedom, to have people
live in fear, our nation stands as a rebuke as well as a
threat. However, what those enemies of freedom fail to
understand is that no amount of physical damage can kill the
ideals for which this nation stands. Just as Pearl Harbor
roused the sleeping giant to crush those who attacked it,
this nation must crush those who have declared war on us
now. [...] Today, we stand united, to mourn our losses, but
determined to show the resolve upon which nation has always
prided itself, as we rebuild. We will show the strength
that can only be found in a free people. In the words of
Lincoln, today, "we here highly resolve that these dead
shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God
shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of
the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish
from the earth."

--Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
http://www.house.gov/nadler/hijackrelease.htm

"Demanding domestic security in times of war invites
carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of
privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for
their freedoms to be sacrificed on the altar of
authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and
secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we
willingly gave up some of our cherished liberties while
defending ourselves from their threat."

--Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr0912 01 .htm

"[W]e must not let these attacks on our country weaken our
resolve to maintain a free and open society that all
countries can emulate. We must now show the world that our
country will continue to stand strong in the face of
tragedy. We must show the cowards responsible that they
will not win."

--Congressman David Phelps (D-IL)
http://www.house.gov/phelps/

"It has been said that America will never be the same again
-- that we have crossed a threshold of innocence. That may
be so, but in our zeal to provide a new level of security,
we must guard against going so far that we trade away the
rights and privileges of a free society. In reacting to
this incident, we must not allow the hate of our attackers
to destroy our own decency and commitment to justice."

--Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel /w tcpr.html

"Additionally, as we consider legislation to address this
crisis, each proposal must be passed before the great lens
of the Constitution, the cornerstone of our Republic and our
freedoms."

-Congresswoman Lynn Rivers (D-MI)
http://www.house.gov/rivers/news_terroriststatem en t.shtml

"As we console the families of the victims, as we remind
ourselves about the core American values of freedom and
democracy, and as we make plans to deal with the terrorists,
we must remember who we are as a people. We are the
participants of a great democratic undertaking, a national
project which stands as an example for the rest of the
world. We have a duty to perfect and protect our Nation,
and we must never be swayed from the road towards freedom
and democracy for ourselves and as a beacon for the planet."

--Congressman Ron Underwood (D-Guam)
http://www.house.gov/underwood/

"Finally, in the process of combating international
terrorism, we must neither abandon American civil liberties
nor express our fears and anger by indiscriminately striking
out against those with different names, skin color or
religion."

-Congressman David Wu (D-OR) http://www.house.gov/wu/

Firstly, I totally give out my heart to everyone affected by this. I've sat watching the TV all day in horror.

One question (not trolling) I wonder what knowledge the US powers had on a possible strike this week? Granted, they wouldn't be able to do much about someone on a plane with a death wish, but I heard an interview with someone at Janes who suspected a hit this week.... maybe its just hearsay?

Carnivore isn't anything to get worried about, in fact i've heard its pretty useless. Try getting hold of the summer copy of 2600 magazine (http://www.2600.com) because there is a good article on the system there, showing it would be next to useless to try to gain intelligence on terrorist acts. For example, unless a court order is granted they can only snoop To: and From: info. You might want to check out http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/foia_documen ts.html.

Aside, as my comments probably got buried in the other stories, I totally agree with people trying to calm down the reactionist (although understandable) mood around here. Attacking all known terrorist locations will kill many more innocent people, prehaps for nothing. Then you are no better than the terrorists, only with a false badge of legitimacy pinned to your chests.

As I said before though, I completely understand the feelings here. Its purely awful and evil. Just don't become hypocrites. And the people that are going around saying "bash the dot headers" etc make me SICK.

Thanks for your time. I hope you don't consider me trolling.

There is a difference between speaking your mind and making trouble for others you stupid mother fucking piece of shit.

Not according to the U.S. Bill of Rights. I believe you'll find it in Amendment 1, you totalitarianist fuckwit.

Basically, that link (http://www.epic.org/free_speech/cohen.html) demonstrates that in the USA, "freedom of the press" and more generally "freedom of speech" is all but absolute.

There is a difference between speaking your mind and making trouble for others you stupid mother fucking piece of shit.

Not according to the U.S. Bill of Rights. I believe you'll find it in Amendment 1, you totalitarianist fuckwit.

Basically, that link (http://www.epic.org/free_speech/cohen.html) demonstrates that in the USA, "freedom of the press" and more generally "freedom of speech" is all but absolute.

It's a moot point for me to boycott XP, since it's never going to run on my Mac anyway. What I plan to concentrate on is a boycott of Passport, and any services that require registering with it.

MS knows that the big money is selling services through Windows. Therefore, it doesn't matter how many copies of XP go out as warez or how few home users install it at first, because MS will make its money back through .NET, through media tie-ins with WMP, or through other goods and services bought by means of my name and vital statistics sold through Passport. It's even conceivable that I won't have the option of "Don't want it? Don't buy it!" -- if my employer, for example, were to require use of Messenger, and Messenger requires a Passport account, I become an unwilling MS customer, and my name goes onto Passport's ultra-secure (?) database.

What I hope to see is for MS to get out of the services business, and to stop their leveraging their OS monopoly to get me to require MS products I don't need. The Electronic Privacy Information Center [epic.org] has a detailed list of complaints about Passport (note: the official complaints are in .pdf format).

However, there is evidence to support the fact that both filtered and unfiltered traffic are archived and later sorted.

It seems that whatever it is and however it works its basically like a wire tap or a planted microphone in terms of legal issues. And since the Court Order just says that they can get any information from the office including all information residing ont he computer's hard drive or removable media, but says nothing about leaving recording devices or wiretaps...It seems like this is a pretty straight forward violation of the law. Maybe I'm missing something.

This means that the Judge wants to see for himself exactly how the FBI device thing works. (The original government description was "gobbledegook".) From the rest of the order, however, it sounds to me like that the Judge does not believe a communications intercept has occured unless the FBI overheard Scarfo talking via a modem or other Internet connection.

In other words, IMHO it appears that the Judge is actually leaning against Scarfo, but doesn't quite understand the technology enough to make a decision. Remember, the law very narrowly defines a "communication" when talking about wiretapping...

The problem in this specific case is that the FBI had a search warrant, not a wiretap authorization. There's a distinct difference: the suspect knows that his home or office has been searched when a search warrant is acted upon. In the case of a wiretap, the suspect necessarily knows nothing.

Wiretap or no wiretap, the indeed Feds had permission to enter surreptitiously in this case.

-