Slashdot Mirror

EPIC has a website about this, too. Not much can be done about it on the consumer end, except setting a password that's not your mother's maiden name or any of the other standard identifying info available to marketers.

-Esme

There is an important issue being glossed over here: is the release of this information illegal or not?

The top article implies that it is illegal for the phone companies to share this data. They point to unscrupulous insiders, and acts of fraud on the part of private investigators and data miners.

But the information from EPIC and the FCC suggests a very different situation. According to these sites it is perfectly legal to share this data if the company adopts an "opt-out" policy and if the consumer has not exercised his right to opt-out. Well, of course most people have never heard of this and so they have not opted-out. Therefore it is completely legal for the companies to share your phone call lists!

I'm annoyed and frustrated that the press reports are getting this so wrong (as usual). By implying that the problem is a few illegal acts, necessarily commited furtively and relatively rarely, they hide the fact that this is a perfectly legal, above-board business which is presumably going along at a brisk rate selling everyone's call info!

Unfortunately, this issue is nothing new.

Lots of good info on this problem can be found here, courtesy of the good folks at EPIC.

And finally, you can choose to opt-out of the releasing of your phone data here (at least you can try...opt-out information isn't listed for many of the companies). Also, many of these data brokers employ less-than-legal means to obtain the phone data anyway.

Unfortunately, this issue is nothing new.

Lots of good info on this problem can be found here, courtesy of the good folks at EPIC.

And finally, you can choose to opt-out of the releasing of your phone data here (at least you can try...opt-out information isn't listed for many of the companies). Also, many of these data brokers employ less-than-legal means to obtain the phone data anyway.

1. Legislators will continue to expand the legal powers of the police until they can keep a record of everyone's movement at all times (to the extent technology allows). Even though the police are fastidious to never break the law, there is a chilling effect on liberty.
   
2. Someone corrupt could come to power and abuse the authority of law enforcement (e.g., J. Edgar Hoover). When giving the government power, we must consider not what the best man could do with it, but how the worst could misuse it.
   

Reno v. ACLU

"In sum, the District Court found:
"Even if credit card verification or adult password verification were implemented, the Government presented no testimony as to how such systems could ensure that the user of the password or credit card is in fact over 18. The burdens imposed by credit card verification and adult password verification systems make them effectively unavailable to a substantial number of Internet content providers." Ibid. (finding 107)."

Now...this finding would also have ramifications on selling games online. How do you verify age? You can't.

99.979%

Not quite the five 9's, but either they had good evidence for 18,738 different wiretaps, or the secret court rubber stamped all those requests.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_sta ts.html
18,742 requests
18,738 approvals
4 rejections

We well remember the circumstances under which a law called "the PATRIOT Act" got passed to begin with. Yes. You might do better for your side of the ideological divide not to remind anyone of that process. This discussion is already about the abuse of power, you don't need to score points for the other side.

does NOT introduce one new power not already available to the government or a DA in some form to Drug Dealers.

You need to maybe edit this sentence so we have the slightest idea what you're saying. I think I can make a guess, but your point is badly garbled.

do the research and actually read through the entire legislation before making a judgement

Had you noticed that the debate about this law's renewal has had two sides:

• the Republican leadership, arguing that it must be renewed in its entirety, with no changes, or we're screwed; and
• the Democrats, who want to revise specific provisions of the bill?

Which of those sides seems to be staking out an adult position? Which reflects a thorough understanding of the bill? I ask you.

The objections to this legislation reflect specific concerns about it, they aren't an incoherent rant on the level of your post. I guess we'll just have to cut you some slack, though, as you're busy reading the 342-page text of the act, I feel certain.

Fortunately, this doesn't guarantee it will pass. One of the provisions I agree with is the one that eliminates barriers to intelligence agents and prosecutors sharing information. This act has already infringed on many peoples freedom, but has also opened up the government to be more scrutinous in the case of certain suspicious entities. Has it overall had a positive or negative effect? Since we as the general public cannot easily gauge what information they have collected entirely as a result, who can say for sure.

For those interested in the provisions the House passed, this site explains most of them in plain english LA Times Provisions

This site has the latest in how the patriot act currently stands.

Between this and data retention they are going to know about everyone we contact and everywhere we go. It would be different if this was only to be used for finding stolen cars or tracking known criminals but they plan on monitoring everyone.

It seems like we are getting closer and closer to that futuristic dystopia and it scares the hell out of me.

Section 209 of the USA Patriot (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html ) redefines "wire communication" in Title 18 of the United States Code (http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_ch apter119_.html) so that it strikes out the part saying "and such term includes any electronic storage of such communication" from the definition.

Sec. 2511 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cg i?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC2511) of the Title 18, United States Code states, "Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications is prohibited."

Because electronic storage of wire communication was stricken from that definition, the USA PATRIOT allowed electronic storage of intercepted wire communication. Thus, recorded wiretapping was made legal by the USA PATRIOT Act.

However, the changing of this definition, and thus the legality of recorded wiretapping, expires December 31, 2005. Now I'll examine the punishment for this once the USA PATRIOT Act expires.

Sec. 2511 of the Title 18, United States Code:

"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication

...

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5)."

In the intervening space, it mentions how using mechanical devices, ala wiretapping, to get this information is illegal.

Subsection 4 says "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Unless Bush stops the recorded wiretapping by the end of the year, he could be fined or go to jail, for procuring the recorded wiretapping.

Now, paragraph B makes an exception to that punishment for first-time offenders who are not wiretapping or procuring wiretapping for illegal purposes or commercial gain. Bush is not a firsttime offender because he has authorized the NSA to wiretap 30 times since September 11, 2001.

I'm guessing, if the NSA is found to keep wiretapping past 2005, the result will be Bush getting fined. I'm examining subsection 5 now. Paragraph A states that an unscrambled, unencypted, private satellite video communication being tapped will result in the wiretapper or the person that procures that wiretapper being subject to suit.

Paragraph B of subsection 5 states that if Bush has procured wiretapping unscrambled and unencrypted American radio communications within frequencies allocated by the Federal Communications Commission, he's also subject to lawsuit. When the USA Patriot Act expires, of course.

The section of the FCC's rules they refer to in Paragraph B of Subsection 5, subpart D of part 74, is listed here, with subpart D being numbers 74.401 to 74.482:

http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2006/74/

In conclusion, in addition to being fined or sent to jail, if the NSA keeps wiretapping past 2005, George W. Bush is subject to lawsuit by the Federal Government.

I think that George Bush could avoid it, however, by argueing against the interpretation of the word "procure." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=procure)

If George Bush has procured another person to wiretap, meaning "to

But you didn't see any violations of privacy under Clinton.

Were you living under a rock while Clinton was president? WTF do you think this was?

Here's some info on the Patriot Act, in case someone wants to actually read it (or at least the general gist of it) before they offer opinions.

Now that I have a little more time, let me expand on my other comment.

Recall yourself back to the fall of 2001. We had the terrible shock of 9/11 of that year. By October 26th, the USA Patriot Act (hereafter referred to as the UPA) was signed by the President. Forty-five days may sound like it was plenty of time for Congress to properly consider a bill of such potential sensitivity. Indeed, it might have been.

But Congress did not have 45 days.

This bill was introduced in the House on October 23, a fact which you may verify here. The bill itself is three hundred and forty-two pages, when presented in PDF format. (You can read it here.) Now, we may have varying opinions on the intelligence of various members of Congress, but it seems like a safe bet that any particular member would have had a difficult time reading a 342 page bill in three days, let alone understanding the full implications of such a broad bill on such a sensitive subject.

Yet it was even worse than it appears. If you'll be so kind as to look here, you'll see that it was introduced in the House on the 23rd, and passed without amendment on the 24th at 11:03 AM after approximately 100 minutes of debate. It was received in the Senate the same day, passed that chamber without amendment on the 25th and was given to the President. He signed it the next day.

As if the time to consider the matter wasn't compressed enough already, also recall that the Senate was rather distracted at that moment by the anthrax attacks.

I ask you, do you think Congress fulfilled its responsibilities in this matter? Did Congress give this matter the serious consideration which the defense of our Liberty demands?

If your answer is no, then I fail to see how you can object to the proposal to extend the sunsetted provisions by a few months while the matter is considered further. Yet the administration and Congressional leadership are demanding that it be permanently extended as-is, with no more discussion. Does that not seem a bit... odd? What harm can come from further discussions while the law remains wholly in force?

Dismiss the opposition to the UPA as ACLU propaganda if you like. But there's a much broader opposition to the UPA than you might think. Read what William Safire has to say on the subject, or visit the website of the grassroots Bill of Rights Defense Committee. Heck, read the bill.

Then tell me it's all ACLU propaganda.

In fact, I was wrong. They have refused to sign off on a warrant, please see the article I linked to previously says they did turn one down in 2002, 24 years after the court was created.

It is widely known they they almost never turn down warrants. This link doesn't corroborate exactly (4 turned down in 2003, not 2002), but it still gets my point across, that the FISC isn't much of an independent judiciary.

With freedom of speech (At least the American ideal) you should be able to state your views without getting arrested for it. But it doesn't state that you can say it without anyone knowing that you said it.

The Supreme Court ruled today that an ordinance requiring door-to-door petitioners to obtain a permit and identify themselves upon demand violates the right of anonymity inherent in the First Amendment freedom of speech. [link]

The First Amendment, said the court, protects the anonymity of Internet speech. It called anonymous speech a "great tradition that is woven into the fabric of this nation's history," and added that "the ability to speak one's mind on the Internet without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one's identity can foster open communication and robust debate." [link]

Google said Wednesday it has fixed a problem in its widely used email program that allowed hackers to break into peoples Gmail accounts to read messages and pose as legitimate email users.

Once again, only Google can violate the privacy of Gmail users.

If you are a European citizen you can sign a petition against the directive here.

According to a joint newspaper article by Swedish MEPs Charlotte Cederschiöld (conservative) and Jonas Sjöstedt (socialist) that was published some months ago, the only thing that can stop the directive is feedback to the politicians from the general public on the same scale as the software patents directive generated. I don't know if they are right in their assessment, but signing the petition against the directive is at least a first step.

Personally, I would also like to see the European ISPs becoming more active and start spending some real money on lobbying.

As long as it's only the old dinosaurs with pre-Internet business models that are spending lobbying money in Brussels/Washington/Ottawa/Canberra, we will continue to see bad pieces of legislation getting passed everywhere. It's time for a new generation of businesses to realize that politics don't take care of themselves, and that if you let the bad guys' lobbyists rein unopposed, there is a bill to be paid for it later.

Oh Canada!
My online spying land!
Telco intercept at CSIS's command

With packet sniff and account info
The True North now South and "free"

From net and mobe,
Oh Canada, we foil(*) our heads for thee.

ISAKMP our tunnels to the free(**)
Oh Canada, we foil our heads for thee

Oh Canada, we foil our heads for thee!

----
*
a) Tin Foil - Aluminum Foil has been shown not to work.

**
a) Patch to avoid DOS
b) Avoid tunneling to the US or China both have stronger anti-communication laws


Canadian Government Information Site

Really? I thought the US was founded with the ideals of liberty and democracy.

Yea but that's America's history, most of which americans don't even know or understand.

Excusing evil and corruption by claiming others are *really* the cause is a bit... silly. It's like ripping off your neighbor because there are no cops around, and other people robbed your neighbor last year anyway, so if you didn't do it, somebody *else* would.

There has never been any corruption in the formation of Microsoft, they pioneered a business in which legalities were grey even to the best lawyers, litigation is unavoidable when you're a market leader in technology. If you think Bill Gates and Microsoft are evil then you simply are clueless...

Try comparing Bill and Microsoft's tactics to the likes of the Carlyle Group, profiteering off death, or pharmaceutical companies which market and research addictions not cures.

My point is there are alot of people who are generating wealth using tactics far more evil than Bill has ever employed. I really don't think they are all that bad and their overall impact on society has been extremely positive. Do you really think if it were up to Apple and IBM that these systems would be as affordable and available as they are today ? The answer of course is no and Microsoft's existance is proof of it.

"Those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it," George Santayana

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) regulates the FBI's collection of "foreign intelligence" information for intelligence purposes. Under the Fourth Amendment, a Title III warrant to intercept a communication must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. This is not the general rule under FISA: surveillance under FISA is permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, irrespective of whether the target is suspected of engaging in criminal activity. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded law enforcement authority to conduct searches and obtain communications under Title III, and also rolled back the already lax restrictions on the FBI's ability to gather information about individuals under FISA.

[...] the PATRIOT Act specifically lowers the threshold for obtaining a full collection warrant for Internet traffic. Instead of needing probable cause as required by Title III, the FBI now only needs to show that the information to be gathered is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." That is a much lower standard than showing probable cause that a crime has been committed.

If Orwell were alive, he'd be rolling in his grave.

For anyone intrested, here is the PDF file obtained by the EPIC by the FBI.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/f oia/iob.pdf

I agree with you. And I can only find the figure with 1710 wiretaps too. However, according to this page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/wiretap_ stats.html
the GP was right about that there have been no wiretaps that have been denied in 2004, and the same for 2003. In those years that there have been wiretaps that have been denied, there are ar most 3 (!) that have been denied, last time in 1975. Since then there have been at most 2 denied wiretaps every year, and quite often none.

Also, if one looks at the figure of how the number of wiretaps have risen in number, the percentage of wiretaps having been denied, is *small*. So, in effect, even though I think the GP had the wrong number, I think his post has a point.

Also, have a look at the "View Graphs"-link, it shows quite clearly how the number of wiretaps have rirsen during the last ~40 years, while the denied ones have constantly been so few, you almost do not see them.

Nobody's freedom of speech is being abridged, it's just their anonymity in doing it.

And anonymity is part of free speech. As early as the early 1800s the USSC, US Supreme Court, has ruled that part of free speech is anonymity. A more recent case is from 2002 when Supremes OK Anonymous Free Speech. Here's EPIC's webpage on Anonymity. I found this page from MIT also on USSC upholding anonymity in political speech. And this is EFF's page. Fact is is that the "Federalist Papers" written under the pseudonym "Publius" was written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John James, all Founding Fathers of the USA. They knew how important anonymous political speech was. You enjoy your freedom because they fought for those rights. If you live in the USA that is, but I don't know this. Thomas Jefferson, who did write the DOI, Declaration of Independence, also write pseudonymously

Here's a search of Findlaw on court ruling on privacy anonymous "free speech" "supreme court". Fact is is there's a long history of anonymous political speech in the USA with some of the Founding Fathers exercising it.

A big database, you say? Nah. I'm sure it's a myth.

Maybe 99% of the world doesn't give a shit about anything you do. You're obviously not important.

The CDA was overturned.

> ...will get you in trouble whether political or personal.

It makes a big difference, whether it is political or personal.

From the Electronic Privacy Information Center Archive (see http://www.epic.org/free_speech/default.html#anony mity for more info)

"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society."

In three cases, spanning from 1960 to 1999, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that sacrificing anonymity "might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance."

Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation.

Disclosure laws have been upheld only where there is a compelling government interest at stake, such as assuring the integrity of the election process by requiring campaign contribution disclosures.

According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."

So much for triumph over the Communications Decency Act. Sigh... http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001'. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Construction; severability.
TITLE I--ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM...

The MBTA in Bostonhas instituted a search policy on the commuter rail and subway. They say the station I come into in the morning (North Station) has about 25000 people come in during rush hours in the AM, making it impracticel tosearch everyone. Ithink "random" searches are never random -- people gettargetted.

The ACLU has a detailed page describing how to deal with a search request. One of the primary differences in the US and UK is clearly illustrated -- I don't mean this as a slam on the UK, merely pointing out a difference. In the US every ctizen is supposed to be immune from unreasonable search. Of course the definition of reasonable is opem to debate. But it's only by people pushing against crazy things like these train searches that we are able to defend indivual freedoms.

With the recent supreme court ruling in the Hiibel case it's more important than ever that citzens defend the right that are given to them. I hope other Bostonians will print out a copy of the ACLU's advice page ann keep it with them when they travel on the T. If you are an American and live in a place that has unreasonable searches, contact your local ACLU and see what they advise.

Regretting that you can't do something in the war on terror? Here's your opportunity. Defend civil liberties at home.

Can you take apart and modify your own electronic equipment ? in the US you can't

Can you get a fair trial in front of your peers ? in the US you can't

Can you read books in your library without fear of being persecuted ? in the US you can't

Can you report stories as a journalist without fear of revealing your sources and being jailed ? in the US you can't

freedom is a good idea but its not working out very well in USA

They sure as hell moved fast when it was time to attack Iraq. Or when it was time to push the Patriot Act through. Or many other things that directly help whatever agenda they have.

Really? How many days did those things take?

The Senate passed legislation in response to 9/11 two days after the attack.

The USA-PATRIOT act was submitted to congress less than a week after the World Trace Center attack. The President signed it on October 26, 2001.

Major fighting in Iraq lasted 43 days. The attack began on March 20, 2003. Bush announced that major combat had ended in iraq on May 2, 2003.

My vote is for Crawford, Texas

And if nobody ever hears from hivebrain again... we all know why.

Amendment IX,

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

coupled with IV,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V,

No person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

and XIV,

... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

add up to a Right To Privacy. Between them, what the Framers were saying was that if the state wants to invade your personal space, they had better be able to show a pretty compelling reason.

Oh, and when the Feds institute that system of internal passports that some folks are worried about in connection with the new driver's license law, remember that the Constitution guarantees no explicit Right To Travel either.

In June 2002, Microsoft released information regarding its new "Palladium" initiative. Palladium is a system that combines software and hardware controls to create a "trusted" computing platform. In doing so, it would establish an unprecedented level of control over users and their computers.

Palladium could place Microsoft as the gatekeeper of identification and authentication. Additionally, systems embedded in both software and hardware would control access to content, thereby creating ubiquitous Digital Rights Management schemes that can track users and control use of media. Microsoft expects to have elements of the system in place by 2004.

Professor Ross Anderson has written an extensive FAQ on the Palladium system. Seth Schoen of EFF has published a detailed summary of a meeting about Palladium.

Known Elements of the Palladium System

• The system purports to stop viruses by preventing the running of malicious programs.
• The system will store personal data within an encrypted folder.
• The system will depend on hardware that has either a digital signature or a tracking number.
• The system will filter spam.
• The system has a personal information sharing agent called "My Man."
• The system will incorporate Digital Rights Management technologies for media files of all types (music, documents, e-mail communications). Additionally, the system purports to transmit data within the computer via encrypted paths.

In June 2002, Microsoft released information regarding its new "Palladium" initiative. Palladium is a system that combines software and hardware controls to create a "trusted" computing platform. In doing so, it would establish an unprecedented level of control over users and their computers.

Palladium could place Microsoft as the gatekeeper of identification and authentication. Additionally, systems embedded in both software and hardware would control access to content, thereby creating ubiquitous Digital Rights Management schemes that can track users and control use of media. Microsoft expects to have elements of the system in place by 2004.

Professor Ross Anderson has written an extensive FAQ on the Palladium system. Seth Schoen of EFF has published a detailed summary of a meeting about Palladium.

Known Elements of the Palladium System

• The system purports to stop viruses by preventing the running of malicious programs.
• The system will store personal data within an encrypted folder.
• The system will depend on hardware that has either a digital signature or a tracking number.
• The system will filter spam.
• The system has a personal information sharing agent called "My Man."
• The system will incorporate Digital Rights Management technologies for media files of all types (music, documents, e-mail communications). Additionally, the system purports to transmit data within the computer via encrypted paths.

... Cnet is singling out Google for something that can be done on any search engine.

Not true.

The original CNet article was not solely about all the information you can search for. It was also about all of the information Google can collect about users of its services, and how to balance all of that information against privacy. Granted, you have to read past the first page to get the gist of article.

Not all the major search engines have the same reach here. Things like GMail, Froogle, and even AdWords makes it possible for Google to collect and correlate a huge amount of data about their users. Other big portals, like Yahoo!, were mentioned in the article. (Like many tech stories now, when Google does it, it's news, even if the competitors have been doing it for a while.) But the article points out distinctions between the Google's data resources and those of its competition.

GMail offered magnitudes more space than anyone else at the time it came out, and it made all those messages easy to search. This dramatically changed the usage pattern for many email users. Instead of having a few items in their inboxes, they would now keep everything indefinitely. Turns out this has a legal effect in the U.S., since data routinely kept less than 180 days have more privacy protections (under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act) than those kept longer. GMail also doesn't provide a well-defined delete feature, so the 180-day test is a little more vague.

I'll grant you that the CNet article was a bit sensationalistic, and it starts out with a different thrust than the rest of the piece, but it does raise some good points about privacy and data collection.

Sounds Vaguely familiar to this:

http://www.epic.org/crypto/clipper/

I'd love to blame this on the paranoid Republican control-freak administrations of the 80's, but the clipper lasted into the Clinton years.

Is this new FCC initiative similar?

Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have

played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted

groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able

to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not

at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also

enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that

exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would

lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The

old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which

government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that

were obnoxious to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried

and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence

to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books

in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were

sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing,

printing or publishing books. n6 Before the Revolutionary War

colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or

distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on

them prosecutions by English-controlled courts.
Talley v California,
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/talley_v_californi a.html

The Communications Decency of 1996 act is extremly obvious - it banned a lot of stuff nadwhen it was struck down there was much rejoicing (more info http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/here).

The famous crypto ban, which prohibited the export of strong crypto. Again, code is speech (crypto software is what the Bernstein cort aftually ruled was protected speech. http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_export/Bernstein _case/.

Thirdly, software patents. Software is code, is instructions, is speech. See the Bernstein courts' ruling if you don't believe me.

Finally, the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) is obscene. It bans some software - which is speech. the case of Dmitry Sklyarov (http://www.freesklyarov.org/ URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov> )is an example of this.

The Communications Decency of 1996 act is extremly obvious - it banned a lot of stuff nadwhen it was styruck down there was much rejoicing (more info http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/here).

The famous crypto ban, which prohibited the export of strong crypto. Again, code is speech (crypto software is what the Bernstein cort aftually ruled was protected speech. http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_export/Bernstein _case/.

Thirdly, software patents. Software is code, is instructions, is speech. See the Bernstein courts' ruling if you don't believe me.

Finally, the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) is obscene. It bans some software - which is speech. the case of Dmitry Sklyarov (http://www.freesklyarov.org/ URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov> )is an example of this. CDS DMCA

If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.

Huge personal info databases? We created the technology and wrote the code to make it possible. We gave the information when asked, because we didn't want the hassle that would occur when we said "no, that's none of your business."

We accepted the notion of Social Security and believed the government when they told us that SS#s would *never* be used for identification except by the SSA.

We elected officials based on the performance of the economy ... which encouraged them to stay out of the way of businesses as they tracked, junk-mailed, and spammed us.

We accepted the transition from cash to credit cards because we liked the convenience ... never blanching at the fact that we were leaving a paper trail for ourselves every month.

We accepted the notion that the First Amendment was all about the right to any kind of free speech whatsoever, even commercial junk mail by corporations, who are persons only as a legal convenience.

We were so scared of sexual predators in our schools that we willingly asked the government to take fingerprints of every school employee to match against their databases.

And above all, we clamored for greater security in our own country -- we accepted the 9/11 commission report -- because losing all of our rights seemed more palatable and *less likely* than our becoming the next Twin Towers victims.

Has government and business taken away our privacy? Yes -- but only because we wanted them to.

You don't get out much, do you?

The CDA and COPA were their last efforts to do something about it. Luckily neither of them stuck.

You don't get out much, do you?

The CDA and COPA were their last efforts to do something about it. Luckily neither of them stuck.

Of course, once your personal medical records are brought on-line, they are available to Choicepoint,
http://www.epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/
Experian and other data brokers -- and we know how secure THEY are, right?

I prefer paper.

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

Extremely fluffy. It's also a guarantee that if a law is long there is trouble. This law seems to be well over 250 pages long.

EPIC has a page on "Flash Cookies" online at http://epic.org/privacy/cookies/flash.html

It argues that the direct marketing company is overstating the capabilities of the Flash Cookie.

Being fair and balanced and all, I thought I'd remind everyone of a few similar things that have been brought to you by the US government recently.

"The requirement is one placed by the airlines to gain access to their airplanes. If you want to set up an airline that doesn't require photo access to board, I'm sure that you are welcome to do so (and suffer the customer concern and insurance issues that will follow)."

It may be a requirement, set there by private industry, but every time I've been asked about my ID, I've been told its a Federal Law... and I've asked to see it, and they refused. If its a "Federal Law", it should be on the books. They can't show me, because it doesn't exist.

If they said "Its a requirement set by the airline industry, which is a private industry..", then I'd probably have no problem with it. Its the deception and fear-mongering that I have a problem with.

This exact issue actually sits in the Supreme Court right now, undecided. I can't find the exact case right now, but someone took the airline to the Supreme Court about the issue, and its at a standstill.

I did find this case and an even scarier one regarding National DNA ID cards...

We're heading down a slippery slope, and at the bottom is George Orwell's 1984 as their rulebook.

The future looks doubleplus ungood.