Slashdot Mirror

Instead of reading a someone's interpretation of the Patriot Act, I tend to read the original source in its full context.

That very same section states:

"`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

So no, the government is not going to come knocking down your door just because you checked out a book. If you read the full section, it states that if you already under investigation for being a terrorist, they can ask a judge for permission to collect assets such as papers and books to continue that investigation, and people aren't supposed to divulge information pertaining to an ongoing investigation.

The highlighted section clearly protects people's interests of free speech. No one is going to label you a terrorist simply for expressing an opinion.

I know an individual who clearly posts on the interwebs on a regular basis statements in full support of terrorism, stating that all Americans should die, all Whites should die, all Jews should die, etc. From his IP address, he is posting from within the US. Nothing has happened to him.

Despite the fact that people post anti-government rants every day, that doesn't mean the government is doing anything to stop it. We still have the right to free speech (despite Jack Thompson's efforts in Florida).

I'm not defending the administration. I'm just stating facts, which gets me downmodded. Those that make paranoid statements that have no factual basis get modded "Interesting". Again, meta-moderate all you like, but the Slashdot crowd is very biased, so the moderation system is by proxy.

Since when has internet access even been part of the equation?

• One.
• Two.
• Three.
• Four.
• Five.
• Six.
• Seven.

I'm sure many people can think of many other reasons why some OSes are more equal than others wrt internet and common usages of them now and particularly in the future

An interesting idea. However, I think that Occam's Razor probably comes down on the side of blocking information as it's easier to do that than it is to create false information. However, you do have a good point because people who aren't able to think critically and don't really know how to do research (both things that our "education system" is very bad at) can certainly be misled by being encouraged to believe that information that comes from "your side" of an argument is always true, while that from the "other side" is always wrong. To a degree everyone does this as there is simply too much information readily available, as of now, to be able to review all of it. Add into the mix the "hey, look over here I'm right" folks such as Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart and it makes it easier (and more socially acceptable) to apply these pre-made filters than it is to engage one's critical thinking capability and derive one's own conclusions.

I think that the only way we'll ever be able to tell if this sort of clandestine filtering is being done in the U.S. is via indirect analysis of the information available. When the point is reached that those who oppose a given government policy are forced to rely on conjecture, as opposed to being able to supply facts to bolster their position, while the opposite side has all the information they need, then I think we'll be able to conclude that the flow of information is being deliberately manipulated. We haven't reached that point, nor are we close to it, but the government can apply the same strategy to the restriction of information flow that they've so successfully applied to the destruction of our civil liberties: the "death of a thousand cuts", by which information will slowly be reduced until only the government's point of view is heard. It's a lengthy process, but potentially very effective. I think that we may already be seeing the start of it as the government fails to abide by its own laws about things such as the DHS's report on privacy which is supposed to be filed on an annual basis and which hasn't been filed this year, though it is several months late http://www.epic.org/privacy/pdf/Letter_0926.pdf/. All that has to be done is for the government to make it painful enough (to get information) that most people won't go to the trouble of asking and they will have taken another step towards greater information control.

Just my $.02 (they do add up after a while),
Ron

Intelligence agencies SHOULD have a lot of leeway when investigating something legitimate. If that leeway is allowed to extend to activities intended to benefit the party in power or the people at the top, though, we're in banana boat dictator territory (or Hoover's FBI territory if you prefer).

The administration hasn't proposed an alternative check on wiretapping, they want to do away with oversight entirely. Insisting on freedom from any and all oversight doesn't pass the sniff test.

As for allegations of spying for profit being ridiculous, the EU has already accused the CIA of providing intercepts to Boeing that helped them beat out Airbus for contracts. Now we get to do it at home, too.

Add it up for yourself. To summarize, from 1979 to 1996, not a single application for a warrant was rejected, with requests per year rising steadily from ~200 to ~800 during that period. Then, in 1997, one application was rejected out of 749 submitted. 15 requests total have been rejected since, on a yearly volume of ~1000 to ~2000.

FISA was implemented in response to Nixon's abuses of our intelligence apparatus for political gain, culmninating in Watergate and his resignation. A history of the Nixon presidency, with a possible detour into the professional life of J. Edgar Hoover, is quite persuasive as to the wisdom of requiring warrants for domestic spying.

The AOL leaked database contains search records of 650,000 subscribers. There are 300M Americans. Statistically, one out of every 461 Americans is in the database.

At a minimum, there are several thousand present/past Congressmen/women, their spouses, and their immediate relatives. It's probable that the database contains the search records of at least one current Representative or Senator, and highly probable that their immediate families are included.

The only reason for the Video Privacy Protection Act is because a Supreme Court Justice Nominee's video records were leaked to the media during his confirmation hearings. In the words of the Swedish Chef, let's get someone Borked, Borked, Borked.

Or here...

But apparently there is money in writing columns discussing stuff that most people don't really care about.

Or maybe they don't care about it as much as they think.

While I'm personally a big fan of privacy, and my usual place to reference in a discussion like this would be to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), I found the following counterpoint quite insightful as to why there's been so little public outcry:

"Oh, please, Americans don't want privacy. They want attention. They'll put a camera in their shower and show it on the Internet! To get on television, they'll marry strangers and eat a cow's rectum, and ice dance with Todd Bridges. They're trying to get on a show called 'Big Brother'.

"We are a nation of exhibitionists 'me' to shining 'me.' And what we really fear isn't that someone's listening, it's that no one's listening. This whole country is one big desperate cry for somebody to listen. 'Listen to me. Photograph me. Google me. Read my blog!' 'Read my diary. Read my memoir. It's not interesting enough? I'll make shit up.' "

--Bill Maher, in the 17-Feb-2006 New Rules segment of his cable TV show, Real Time with Bill Maher

I've excerpted only a portion; see the site for a more complete transcript of the monologue. Or watch the show. It's very hit or miss, so some episodes are really dull and tedious--but others are very interesting. Bill or, just as often, one of his guests makes good points like this with just enough frequency that I'm willing to slog through the rest of it... Kinda like C-SPAN, but occasionally more funny.

Because the courts have been infiltrated by leftists, just like journalism has. Clinton appointed some of the worst, most obstructionist judges we've ever seen. (I bet Hillary had more to do with it, seeing as how they're mostly women (butt-ugly women that Bill wouldn't be interested in)). The secret court was being very obstructive during the Bush administration. In the cases the warrants were rejected (all of them during GW's presidency, BTW) they were all eventually granted on appeal, so these judges are just being nit picky. Why the fuck do judges get to decide national security issues?

The nit-picky, leftist, Clinton-appointed, obstructionist judges who rejected around one out of every five thousand warrant applications? Could you be more specific about the warrants that were "all" rejected during GW's presidency? Perhaps we're talking about a different FISA court, though I don't see how.

We elect the president, he doesn't want to get impeached and shit, that's why I trust him. I trust the NSA because it's run by ordinary people, like myself.

Your faith in the government is touching, really, but I don't think I should have to hand power without oversight to people and then trust them to do the right thing with it. (And what does "he doesn't want to get impeached and shit" have to do with anything?)

Judges don't have any concern or oversight, they can make a bad decision and nobody will know/care. Look at this latest attempt by some nut judge to block the NSA program. Fucking nut judges.

Yes, darn them, with their "constitution" and "the President has to follow the law" and "checks and balances".

So you either trust secret court judge, or you trust the president, obviously you trust secret court judge more. What you refer to as accountability, I refer to as bureaucracy.

No, the point is that we don't have to trust one person or group. This is why we have separation of powers. This is why we don't allow power to be centralized in one place.

And what makes the NSA "ordinary people", but the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "bureaucracy"?

You just want some perma Clinton appointee to be dictating national security issues. It's simple, really.

Speaking of Clinton, would you be kosher with Clinton wielding this sort of power? Would you be okay with the knowledge that Clinton could be wiretapping anyone, anywhere, and nobody outside his administration would ever know? Would you trust him not to be wiretapping RNC headquarters? If not, doesn't your faith in assigning these kingly powers (and make no mistake, this "unitary executive" nonsense where the president makes up his own laws is nothing if not kingly) to the office of the President mean that you simply trust the man? Are you comfortable with the next administration having the power to make up laws as they see fit? With the next Democratic administration doing so? And if not, why are you convinced that the government, once given this power, will politely put it away and never use it again?

How do you get off calling me a liar? I don't see why my personal integrity should come into question here. It's a cheap tactic, it's about all you leftists can hack up these days.

Well, your claim above that FISA warrants were being denied was trivially debunked. Were you lying and hoping that I wouldn't look it up? Had you seen the claim somewhere and were just parroting it back at me, being too lazy to look it up yourself?

And if calling you a liar is all I can "hack up these days", why didn't you respond to my initial questions about why the President, if he needed some powers he didn't have, didn't actually ask for them? That is how our system of government works, you know. The legislative branch makes the law, and the execu

This is really a terrible policy and I felt compelled to write a letter.

I wrote to the Superintendent Mr. Martes and CC'ed Mr. Welch.

Mr Martes,

I would like to focus your attention on http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/08/07 16201&startat=100&pid=0

This concerns a policy being implemented in your school district regarding searches of students' mobile phones. My opinion is that it will result in great costs to your school district due to legal expenses. Modern cell phones are computer systems, hence they will likely be covered under the unauthorized access to computer systems act in the event of forced search.

Typically, once news of a local event involving blatant violations of US residents' rights relating to the use of computer systems appears on the front page of Slashdot, which is a publication that has close to a million registered readers, other organizations whose sole mission is to protect the privacy rights may likely get involved.

I urge you to educate Mr. Welch on the long-term implications of this policy as well as review our discussion on why it will be ineffective and to consult an attorney familiar with the implications on unauthorized access of computer systems.

Please understand that we have encryption capabilities in the more advanced cell phone devices and we do have removable memory cards. We also have removable SIM cards. If a student swaps a SIM card, the phone's entire identity is stored on such a card. They may have one handset with an infinite number of identities.Cingular and T-mobile are two major carriers that use SIM cards in their GSM phones. There are also prepaid SIM-based cards that are virtually untraceable. As a matter of fact, there is an HBO show called "The Wire" where the only way they were able to get accurate data from such phones was to pre-tap the phones prior to selling them to drug dealers. Obviously, that is purely a fictional scenario. That, Mr. Martes, is how futile this policy is. It will further alienate the students from the school and contribute to the existing tension.

If I had something to hide, I'd store my data on an encrypted volume on a removable storage card with a 256bit key. It is impractical to break that kind of a key in less than a lifetime. Additionally, I'd use multiple SIM cards with an unlocked phone. An unlocked phone enables the use of SIM cards from other carriers. That means that a student with a T-mobile device may in fact also be able to use a Cingular SIM card. That situation is uncommon for most people, but can be easily achieved for those who need it done for just a few dollars or some minor online research. By the way, the above description is how I store my data today on a removable miniSD card because I can legally control all of my customers' networks directly from the device and I need a secure way to transfer data as necessary. I can't afford to have some of that data fall into wrong hands. The cost of software to achieve this is insignificant.

  I can also opt to store my data on remote web site that leaves no traces on my mobile network access device. They are not just phones anymore. Even many of the phones you wouldn't expect to be smart, such as the free Nokia phone model #6010 are capable of running Java applications, which can also enable encryption. You may find this list to be of interest http://www.epic.org/privacy/tools.html

In summary, Mr. Martes, the technological battle is already lost. Today's mobile network access devices are no longer just phones. They are sophisticated network-enabled computers that can be used as the students to greatly assist in their scholarly progress.

The bank doesn't care who it is, only that the PIN matches the card. Your son or daughter could be authorized, by you, to go retrieve money out of the ATM.
And if there was an unauthorized use, the bank will (probably) give you your money back.

An online system to verify who it is would be much harder, and far more intrusive. If a kid borrows mom's iNetID card for a few minutes, creates a MySpace account...mom would never know about it.

How do you verify that the person behind the keyboard is really the person on the card? You can't.
This is specifically why the Communications Decency Act was shot down in 1997. Trying to prove, online, that you were over 18 would be far too intrusive, and still not 100% sure. It is completely unenforceable.

Check out this link:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/cpni/

I think some of the confusion about this call record thing is that CPNI information is (used to be?) telco owned data. That means we (the customer) don't own the data. We only "own" the contents of the call. The page linked above talks about how telco's used to tell this data. You can't sell something you don't own. They did own it and they did sell it. There are newer laws that try to control the discloser of this information, but I'm not sure it's all been worked out yet. Maybe some one else around here has more information on this.

That's why CPNI data is treated differently than a phone tap. Even if the government gets this:

"call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

They have to go through further hoops to tap (listen in) a call. So far what has come out of the newspaper articles is that the NSA is tapping (getting contents) international calls. They've always had this capibility. They are also getting CNPI data from the phone companies. Two different things. Two different ways of handling the information.

I would like to make clear that this effort had nothing to do with national security. What is more it has only one obvious conclusion for its objective. That I will let the readers figure out as they read what is the truth about what is going on. Please understand, I have read the requests for proposals and looked at bidding on the contracts to provide the service that now serves the NSA and the CIA and several US DOD operations. I know exactly what I am talking about here. This is not a supposition.

The programs involved were not simply limited to acquiring the phone numbers dialed and times of calls etc like portrayed. The data was collected under the direction of Admiral Poindexter who was removed but the contracts and work continued. The program was to provide Total Information Awareness.

The level of information mined includes 100% of all commercial database data that could be obtained. This was not necessarily limited to the amount of data "Legally" obtainable. It included software engines to recognize speach, pictures and to even identify where a picture was taken, when and what angles etc. It was not limited to metadata either. The engines would generate contextual metadata on their own. The intent was to be able to listen electronically to 100% of all world wide phone, fax and internet traffic with full understanding and full cross reference of data. The computer networks and engines to do this are very big and do exist. The US Government under this routinely intercepts a large amount of data and has search engine skill applied to the output.

My company would not bid on the contracts even though we would do some things because some of us in the company were not invertebrates. We could see that this had no purpose regards the military GWAT (Global War On Terror). It was a level of spying and information gathering that clearly had no innocent purpose.We had other contracts which were also out of Admiral Poindexters office.

It is clear that Al Qaeda etc had nothing to fear from such a system. Their hand carried and simple word swap encryption (Private Codes) work well against such an engine. Bojinka for example would have had no meaning until an arrest was made.

The value of data to coerse a Congressman or a citizen or to produce "faked up" arrest data would be endless. The value to compromise the integrity of any democratic process and produce extortion is endless as well. (Please use your brain here: Ask why would a government want to do this? Ask what would they do this for?)

Rest assured that recording of your phone numbers and who you called is not even significant to this operation. The level of it is deeper and more complete information on every living person on the planet than has been collected by the secret police of any terroristic evil regieme in history. The level of data here is beyond the wildest dreams of the NAZI SS in their worst days. Do what you will with this information. You now know the level of the data collection. You know know a lot. What we are facing is a situation I described to my nephew one day regards girls. I told him to never do by the dark of night, that which he didn't expect to see on a webcam, because it probably is on a webcam! You have no privacy. The issue is what you do and how you react to it.

Remember that a dishonest political prosecutor or dishonest official might well take custody of this data some day. It will all be there just waiting for his use.

You must be kidding right? Here's a nice overview, also EDRI has quite some information...

1. malicious? Or merely supporting an open source system? Both would appear to be one in the same using these guys' techniques.
2. And don't forget Total INformation Awareness

That's exactly the point -- driver's licenses are insecure, inconsistent, and forgeable. That's why they don't work the best as a national ID card, because they are not a positive, secure ID. So I don't have as much to worry about these as a step on the national ID slippery slope, because they aren't very good for this purpose.

However, now the federal government wants them to be -- the REAL ID act requires state drivers' licenses or state IDs to meet certain criteria and contain certain information, or else the Dept of Homeland Security wouldn't consider them "valid" IDs for federal purposes. And that means no boarding airplanes (TSA is a federal agency), no entering federal courthouses, etc.

So yes -- even with driver's licenses we're sliding down the slippery slope.

Here is a recent case law from Nevada. Guess you loose. Yes they can force you to give them your drivers license. Further Drivers licences are often used for things that have nothing to do with driving. Bar and night clubs use them, Movie theaters, stores require them for other age restricted goods aka tobacco and pr0n.

Of course all countries wants companies to respect their own local laws:
- US forced european airline companies to disclose private informations about passengers like credit card number, address or choice of meal. But privacy is really a great concern in Europe and disclosure can only be done on a case by case basis (http://www.epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.h tml).
- Yahoo! was sued in France because it was possible to find nazi goods on their site (http://www.lapres.net/yahweb.html). France also have freedom of speech but has laws to regulate "hate speech". Google also filters content of its french site like it does in China (http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php /2165101).

In the same western governments creates a lot of business partnerships with emergent countries but don't speak a lot about human rights. "The end justifies the means."

The so-called lobbying reform bill that just passed the House won't fix anything. If anything, it will reduce the influence of those who don't support big business. It's a whitewash created by those who the system benefits the most. The Business Software Alliance spends tons of money wining and dining members of Congress, and they have much more influence than any individual voter.

Until more of us read a newspaper, educate ourselves, and show up to vote, the system isn't going to change. Those with money have more influence than voters. Of course, if more states deploy electronic voting, our votes won't count any more.

In the meantime, you can fight back by giving money to those that support ODF, like EFF and EPIC. (I have no affiliation with either except to give them a little money now and then.)

Geist:
there are many groups (EFF, CDT, Public Knowledge, ACLU, EPIC, IP Justice, etc) that work in the area.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Center for Democracy & Technology

Public Knowledge

American Civil Liberties Union

Electronic Privacy Information Center

IP Justice

etc

The subpoena asks for not only current e-mail but also deleted e-mail: "All documents concerning all Gmail accounts of Baker...for the period from Jan. 1, 2003, to present, including but not limited to all e-mails and messages stored in all mailboxes, folders, in-boxes, sent items and deleted items, and all links to related Web pages contained in such e-mail messages."

I think you seem to have forgotten history about the Clinton administration (I'll have to do a little guilt-by-association to her husband as she wasn't in office for parts, but I think it's reasonable). It's not a voter ploy, she actually believes this crap.

1) COPA http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/
2) Pushed the theater owners organization to be aggressive on people under 18 seeing "R" movies: http://www.libertarianrock.com/topics/censorship/t heater_owner_pr_id_check.html
3) Called for regulation of video games http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/14/news_61290 40.html
4) Today's stuff
5) Past history with Tipper Gore

I'm not sure how you construed my post as a half memory because I didn't say anything that cameras are always legal so long as a notice is posted but I appreciate the clarification for others who may view. I wasn't considering private areas such as bathrooms. My statement was that in the US, if an employer utilizes a CCTV system in the workplace, they must post notices and inform the employees.

I found that NLRB case here. Look at the AnheuserBusch case.

After a little more research, I discover this and this. Not the definitive sources on the matter but an interesting read. Going back to my previous post to the author, consult your union if you're allowed one.

Transactions of at least $5,000 that the institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect have no business or apparent lawful purpose or are not the sort in which the particular customer would normally be expected to engage and for which the institution knows of no reasonable explanation after due investigation.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/rfpa/
http://www.fincen.gov/sars/sars_by_numb_issue5.pdf

Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi, what are you thinking?! This law is unconstitutional! In fact, it is really blatantly unconstitutional. Other posters (orthogonal) have articulated well why this law is plainly unconstitutional. To put it simply anonymous speech is strongly protected by the 14th and 1st Amendments to the US Constitution. In 1960 is one Supreme Court case (Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)) that made it abundantly clear.

For those who are unfamiliar with the US Federal system, a state such as New Jersey cannot have laws that conflict with federal (US) laws or the US Constitution. (See Marbury v. Madison in 1803.) When a state does pass a law that conflicts with the US Constitution or Federal laws that law must first be challenged by a regular person in court and then a court may rule the law is unconstitutional. I am skipping a ton of details here, but that is the general idea. This law if passed would not survive.

P.S. I am not a lawyer.
P.P.S. I strongly doubt the governor of New Jersey would sign this bill in the unlikely event it makes it through the state legislature.

"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." Talley v. California, 362 U.S. at 64. Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 341-342 (1995).

Have you ever seen an anonymous letter stapled to a telephone pole, slandering someone? You'd like to be able to sue for defamation, but you can't. That's life, it sucks, deal with it. You can't just tack on the words "on the internet" and change things. Of course, that's what this bill is trying to do -- impose an affirmative duty to watch each and every telephone pole and identify the posters by legal name and address.

Now although it's not the main issue, economics should be addressed. Sure, the cost is spread out over all the website operators and not consolidated in the phone company, but the same cost is being imposed nonetheless. Every website operator will now have to 'hire guards' (databases, coding special HTML pages, access restrictions, etc). This makes hosting a public forum more expensive. You might even call it a 'tax' on free speech.

Both from a rights perspective and an economic perspective, this bill stinks.

Well for one, it won't work in the case of ITAR (http://www.epic.org/crypto/export_controls/itar.h tml) restricted documents. Once those go flying over the net, encrypted or not, and the government finds out about its, its jail or worse for you. ITAR covers pretty much anybody working in projects considered "weapons", which amusingly covers such things as scientific university run NASA satellites.

Let's see, the New York Times sat on the NSA wiretap story for over a year (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=5058710) and now they're complaining that the USG isn't responding to the NYT's FOIA request quickly enough, after only a 2 month delay?

This is a load of bull. Not only that, but it's another example of the NYT's new spineless paradigm of roller-coaster reporting. They'll do something undeniably bad -- like publish "reporting" from Jayson Blair or Judy Miller, or sit on a huge story for a year. Then they'll attempt to swerve back the other direction -- Judy Miller is a First Amendment heroine, not a tool of the President! -- don't think of us as burying a story that could've affected the 2004 election, think of us as rebels pushing for information through FOIA!

So the NYT is paying some lawyers to sue in one FOIA case. So what? Wake me up when NYT has some accurate, significant news to report.

Til then, save your privacy accolades for organizations that fight *tirelessly* for such things, like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (http://www.epic.org/). You might note that EPIC filed their FOIA request for NSA documents earlier than the NYT last December (more evidence that the NYT is pussy-footing around), and filed suit in January for the USG's noncompliance with FOIA. Before the NYT ever annnounced their PR stunt FOIA lawsuit, EPIC had already received favorable rulings in court -- http://www.epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/default.html, http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=electronic+priv acy+information+center%2C+rotenberg&sort=DREDATE%3 Anumberdecreasing&aggId=0&prgId=3&topicId=0&how_lo ng_ago=0

Let's see, the New York Times sat on the NSA wiretap story for over a year (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=5058710) and now they're complaining that the USG isn't responding to the NYT's FOIA request quickly enough, after only a 2 month delay?

This is a load of bull. Not only that, but it's another example of the NYT's new spineless paradigm of roller-coaster reporting. They'll do something undeniably bad -- like publish "reporting" from Jayson Blair or Judy Miller, or sit on a huge story for a year. Then they'll attempt to swerve back the other direction -- Judy Miller is a First Amendment heroine, not a tool of the President! -- don't think of us as burying a story that could've affected the 2004 election, think of us as rebels pushing for information through FOIA!

So the NYT is paying some lawyers to sue in one FOIA case. So what? Wake me up when NYT has some accurate, significant news to report.

Til then, save your privacy accolades for organizations that fight *tirelessly* for such things, like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (http://www.epic.org/). You might note that EPIC filed their FOIA request for NSA documents earlier than the NYT last December (more evidence that the NYT is pussy-footing around), and filed suit in January for the USG's noncompliance with FOIA. Before the NYT ever annnounced their PR stunt FOIA lawsuit, EPIC had already received favorable rulings in court -- http://www.epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/default.html, http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=electronic+priv acy+information+center%2C+rotenberg&sort=DREDATE%3 Anumberdecreasing&aggId=0&prgId=3&topicId=0&how_lo ng_ago=0

You are thinking about a different chip (V chip). The Clipper Chip was a backdoor into communications sponsored by the NSA and at least supported by Gore. I believe there was to be a law that required it for communications. It sure would have made those warrantless wiretaps easier.

I believe both parties have too much power.

You are thinking about a different chip (V chip). The Clipper Chip was a backdoor into communications sponsored by the NSA and at least supported by Gore. I believe there was to be a law that required it for communications. It sure would have made those warrantless wiretaps easier.

I believe both parties have too much power.

Pot. Kettle. Black. In essence, you have just pointed out that you believe the current "flat earth" economic theories that have been spouted for decades.

Capitalism does one thing really well. It allocates scarce resources efficiently. As oil diminishes prices will rise and demand will fall. The market will clear. This isn't good news for consumers and those of us raised on $15 a barrel oil. It isn't good news if you own a gas guzzeling SUV. It isn't good news for unemployment.

• Define your point of view when you say "Efficient". If you mean "Bread is scarce, people are starving (going without), I will have enough money to by a loaf of bread, but you will starve", then do you think I'll really be motivated by economics when I can just get a gun, kill you, take the bread, and feed myself (and my family)? Do you really think that anyone will care that "the market has cleared"?
• If the prior sentence shows an "externality" of economics, then what happens when you have millions of people that become "externalities"? Do they behave like rational economic consumers? Or do they fight in a civil war over scarce resources? Will they show restraint due to "ethics" or "morals", even though they are starving? In other parts of the planet, where people ARE starving, have they been peaceful? (Hint: see Africa)
• "It isn't good news for unemployment". Holy oblivious statement, Batman! If there is no employment, then how will people obtain the money they need to purchase goods and services? If there is no demand for goods and services, what will that do to the capitalists running the businesses that make them money? What will that do to the economy as a whole?

But it isn't the end of the world. We will end up living in a more energy efficient world. We will end up using other forms of power (solar, nuclear, coal, gas, etc.) Humankind will not be wiped out. Democracy will not die.

• It is the end of the world if you die of starvation. At least, from your own point-of-view.
• Yes, we will be in a very very very energy efficient world, I don't disagree. How that world looks might be something we do disagree on.
• All other forms of power combined would not be enough to replace the energy used from refined oil.
• Oil is used for more than just energy. Drastic changes would be required for the way we live in the US.
• There are strong indications (but nothing more than theory) that the earth's human population is 3 times larger than can be sustained; the theory more-or-less ties human population growth to the availability of cheap energy. Anyone care to prove or disprove this theory? Either way, what does it say about long-term prospects for the human race?
• Democracy IS dying. For shit's sake, our national government has all but removed the bill of rights, if not in name (on paper), then in spirit. Total Information Awareness? The ADVISE software project, just recently announced in slashdot to tie together internet communications (websites, blogs, IM chat)? Our President admitting that he's all for domestic spy programs? The push for a national ID card? This is Seriously Evil Shit.(tm) Any of this ring a bell? Papers, please.

You state that capitalism can't deal with this. I think this is the only thing c

The export controls were essentially dropped in 2000, except for exports to nations classed as "terrorist sponsors" -- Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan or Syria. It was a rule change, rather than a change in enforcement.

Worth pointing out that keyloggers are exactly the route that the FBI here in the US has taken:
http://www.epic.org/crypto/scarfo.html

That's US v. Scarfo; basically a mobster was using PGP to encrypt his communications and rather than breaking the encryption the hard way, the investigators got a warrant to install a keylogger. I'm not sure exactly how they did it, but I'm pretty certain that it was a hardware device implanted in the keyboard, rather than software. (The warrant they got was pretty much a blanket thing, approval for 'hardware, software, and firmware as necessary...') However they didn't divulge the exact methodology in the trial, because they successfully claimed an exemption under the Classified Information Procedures Act.

Jest to toss another acronym into the mix, SOX is going to be a problem too.

For those who don't know the alphabet soup we're talking about:

HIPAA - Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 belongs to the Dept of Health & Human Services

GLBA - Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aka the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 belongs to the Federal Trade Commission

SOX - Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 belongs to the Securities & Exchange Commission

Jest to toss another acronym into the mix, SOX is going to be a problem too.

For those who don't know the alphabet soup we're talking about:

HIPAA - Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 belongs to the Dept of Health & Human Services

GLBA - Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aka the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 belongs to the Federal Trade Commission

SOX - Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 belongs to the Securities & Exchange Commission

"Whether or not you believe the NSA can decrypt a 1024-bit key in any reasonable timescale"

Putting aside that government may already have quantum computing.... you assume they need to do brute force attacks.

Much software is likely embedded with back doors and/or reporting mechanisms. For example Say you run java or windows and it checks for updates... no question the government has access to that data. Alone it is useless but when you write agents that cross reference with other forms of data (emails, DNS requests, protocol traffic, etc...) you can quickly shape a profile of what CPU went online and where. Further cross referencing can probably give you a decent idea of who it actually is.

If all of a sudden they notice encrypted email coming from a particular box all they need then is software that automatically gets the keys from your box using one of probably many firmware/software back doors. Given that apparently AT&T has obviously been in bed with the government-- it seems to follos that Intel, Cisco, AMD, Google all are given "suggestions" as well. It seems very likely back doors and low key software daemons are created for "export only" given that it would arouse suspicion internally within a country.

One place I think where people miss the boat is because this they because this is incredibly logistically- that it's impossible. If you you have resources of tens of billions of dollars annually, thirty thousand dedicated employees to work with, and access to some of the best minds in the world--- all these things are definitely achievable. I imagine I'm only describing a fraction of their capabilities.

There is no law in place stopping government from doing this since FISA apparently is being bypassed. You even have a former NSA analyst whose come forward and said to NYT that he knows first hand that capacity is there.

So why isn't the NSA busting down doors everywhere?

The answer is simple. If your adversary knows you are doing it, they'll change the technology creating new barriers for you.. I highly recommend you go through declassified Enigma case files (at the actual NSA website). They plainly have used these tactics on adversaries in the past... successfully.

If you are the average computer user, the trouble the government has is not actually getting your data. it's filtering though massive stores of it to figure out who they need to worry about and when they should act on that information.(as it gives themselves away)

Further reading:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18028837-3819 8,00.html
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_ Surveillance_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware
http://www.eff.org/

0. See data.

You seem like an idealist... and there is nothing wrong with that. It's an admirable trait. Unfortunately even idealism needs to acknowledge the facts.

FISA clearly says a President can only go 15 days without warrant.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/u sc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

FISA is currently dead in the water.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178893,00.html

A multibillion dollar NSA exists.

http://nsa.gov/
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1520551/20060111/ index.jhtml?headlines=true

The Patriot Act exists which allows government to get information at will.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

The government CAN and DOES use this power.

The sooner Americans can wake up to this fact, the sooner they can make informed decisions if they wish to eliminate the forth

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.billofrights.html

in the effort to gain a little security.

http://www.wisdomquotes.com/000974.html

    ~ Please convince me I'm wrong. I truly wish I was just another foolish crackpot conspiracy theorist as opposed to the alternative

Starlight has already helped foil some terror plots, says Jim Thomas, one of its developers and director of the government's new National Visualization Analytics Center in Richland, Wash. He can't elaborate because the cases are classified, he adds. But "there's no question that the technology we've invented here at the lab has been used to protect our freedoms - and that's pretty cool."

Interestingly enough, I find that from the WSJ, the number of wiretaps last year is only at 1,710 in 2004. 1,710 wiretaps for the year vs a USA 2004 estimated population of 293,656,842 is 0.00058% of the population (assuming one tap per person). Hardly something to gawk at.

That made me want to find previous years, so I stumbled on a watchdog group, EPIC, which puts the 2000 wiretap count at 1,190 for a +43.6% ... Yet, 2000 was a local low, the lowest since 1997 (difference of 4 taps), so you could just as easily say "the number of wiretaps from 1997 to 2004 are up 43%". The 1999 wiretap count is at 1,350, which means only a 26% increase from 1999, since 2000-2001 (election year) involved a large decrease (-11%) from the previous year. I'll leave this to others to argue the exiting government's preparedness for 9/11/2001.

From their data, which goes back to 1968, and a few pokes with Excel, we can see that State Wiretaps outnumber Federal by a 3:2 ratio every year back to 1998 .... there's a 16% increase in federal wiretaps from 2002-2003, and another +26% increase from 2003-2004, to a current 730 Federal Wiretaps for the year 2004. Wiretaps are going up across the board, but looking back at history, 1993-1994 shows the greatest increase in federal wiretaps, single year up 32% compared to +26% in 2004-2005.

The top 3 years of increases in the last twenty are 2001 (25%) 2004 (18%), and 1994 (18%). The wiretaps in 2004 are roughly double the amount in 1991.

If we group by Presidental Office years (since each president tends to change policies and staff when they come into office, group by 4 years), the Bush Administration increase is +14.6% in the first term... impressive, but short of the Clinton Administration's increase of +17.7% in its first term. However, neither president matches the rates of increases in the 80's, with 35% increase by Reagan and 20% increase by Bush Senior.

Interestingly enough, I find that from the WSJ, the number of wiretaps last year is only at 1,710 in 2004. 1,710 wiretaps for the year vs a USA 2004 estimated population of 293,656,842 is 0.00058% of the population (assuming one tap per person). Hardly something to gawk at.

That made me want to find previous years, so I stumbled on a watchdog group, EPIC, which puts the 2000 wiretap count at 1,190 for a +43.6% ... Yet, 2000 was a local low, the lowest since 1997 (difference of 4 taps), so you could just as easily say "the number of wiretaps from 1997 to 2004 are up 43%". The 1999 wiretap count is at 1,350, which means only a 26% increase from 1999, since 2000-2001 (election year) involved a large decrease (-11%) from the previous year. I'll leave this to others to argue the exiting government's preparedness for 9/11/2001.

From their data, which goes back to 1968, and a few pokes with Excel, we can see that State Wiretaps outnumber Federal by a 3:2 ratio every year back to 1998 .... there's a 16% increase in federal wiretaps from 2002-2003, and another +26% increase from 2003-2004, to a current 730 Federal Wiretaps for the year 2004. Wiretaps are going up across the board, but looking back at history, 1993-1994 shows the greatest increase in federal wiretaps, single year up 32% compared to +26% in 2004-2005.

The top 3 years of increases in the last twenty are 2001 (25%) 2004 (18%), and 1994 (18%). The wiretaps in 2004 are roughly double the amount in 1991.

If we group by Presidental Office years (since each president tends to change policies and staff when they come into office, group by 4 years), the Bush Administration increase is +14.6% in the first term... impressive, but short of the Clinton Administration's increase of +17.7% in its first term. However, neither president matches the rates of increases in the 80's, with 35% increase by Reagan and 20% increase by Bush Senior.

Just goes to show how chicken little the left really is on this subject.

Let me get this straight, wiretaps have not EVEN DOUBLED since 911, despite the war, despite so called invastions of privacy, and you want to cry more about it?

Personally, sounds like they have not done enough wiretapping, I would have expected a doubling or tripling of wiretaps.

Instead I find they are very restrained in their requests.

FYI: here is the baseline for 1999 and why they were tapping. 890 were for narcotics, and only 45 landed in the "other" catagory that was not a criminal investigation.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/2000_rep ort/table300.pdf

in 2004, 1308 were for narcotics, so there is the growth of 44 percent. Other grew to 64, also an approximately 44% increase.

http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap04/Table3-04.pdf

64 people in a population of 250 million. THAT is restraint, not taking peoples liberty.

Yes I know that does not include the so called "illegal wiretaps" by the President. I am not too worried unless the taps were not on inbound international calls from known terrorists calling people here in the US. If that is what they are, then there is no crime in doing that.

Anything else and they have to explain it.

Yes: ITAR - International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Note that it covers far more than just arms--cryptography is included, for example.

Also, the Westinghouse nuclear division responsible for DoD work (nuclear submarines and carriers) was acquired by Bechtel, though due to the level of government control of these facilities, the only thing that changed was the signs on the laboratory.

1. They are spying on people unrelated to domestic security issues like political opponents and anti-war protesters.
   
2. They are going on automated fishing expeditions against "suspicious" people, the vast majority of which are probably innocent or who have so little evidence against them that even FISA wouldn't support it.
   

I think Google's good conduct is an essential component of their role within their industry. I think there was actually a surprisingly large untapped market for a "reputable" search service - one that wouldn't do payola results, sell your "video rental history" to the highest bidder, and be frightened into censoring you at the drop of a legal hat.

I think providing good results in a clean interface was absolutely key to Google's success, but I also think their technique is not earth-shattering and has already been copied by Microsoft and Amazon and others. One of the key things that will keep people with Google from here on out is their distinctive corporate ethics, which will make people feel safe and secure sticking with them, and distrustful of their competitors. You can make as mundane a comparison as the lucrative organic food market, where the internet is disproportionately full of picky eaters. But I think it's more basic than that, I think that reputation propagates down from trend setters and opinion makers, and many many people "get it." I think this is vital to Google's survival, and I think they know it.

Hey, you forgot the other part of the FISA law where the NSA has 72 hours to apply for a retroactive warrant from the FISA court, which the president has insisted since 2002 he has the power to permit them not to do.

Oh, and as for your notification of congress, you might want to read what one congressman felt about the administration's notification process.

Why don't you go back to your partyline and tell them that they should at least bother to read the laws they pass before writing up the talking points defending them.

This is what Clinton did back in his day.

Man, i bet it gives you warm fuzzies at night knowing that Clinton is the gold standard for what you expect from your president. You should join the air force, you already "Aim High"!

I do, actually, because of a letter released by Sen. Rockefeller after Bush admitted to the program. The letter was handwritten because he was not permitted to have a secretary transcribe it for him.

Here's a pointer: start by ditching that GMail account of yours.

Um.
  You're uhhh... you're like, kidding right?

    Check out CNN once and a while :)

      Hold on a sec.. I think I hear the NSA at my Door$%^&$%^[LOST CARRIER]