Slashdot Mirror

The issuance of a single, unique number to Americans raises the risk that the SSN will become a de jure or de facto national identifier. This risk is not new; it was voiced at the creation of the SSN and has since been raised repeatedly. The SSN was created in 1936 for the sole purpose of accurately recording individual worker's contributions to the social security fund. The public and legislators were immediately suspicious and distrustful of this tracking system fearing that the SSN would quickly become a system containing vast amounts of personal information, such as race, religion and family history, that could be used by the government to track down and control the action of citizens. Public concern over the potential for abuse inherent in the SSN tracking system was so high, that in an effort to dispel public concern the first regulation issued by the Social Security Board declared that the SSN was for the exclusive use of the Social Security system.

Social Security numbers have been perverted from there original use. I see the same thing happening with voter ID cards. That, and I just have a problem with the government forcing something on me.

I've pointed out time after time that Democrats are just as bad if not worse... DMCA was signed by Clinton, after all.

Grrr... that argument is really old. The Democrats differ from the Republicans on any number of issues -- education, foreign policy, preemptive war, abortion rights, prayer in schools, civil rights, tax policy, health care, social security reform, etc etc etc. I'm really tired of hearing about how evil both parties are when it's clear that there are major policy differences between the two parties for anybody that bothers to look past the propaganda of Ralph Nader.

That said the DCMA was written by lobbyists and passed through a lazy Congress that (by and large) didn't even bother to read the bill. I'm sure banning third-party garage-door openers and generic ink cartridges wasn't what anybody (even the Republicans) had in mind. Two other issues that will doubtless be brought up can similarly be explained -- the CDA was one of those "Look -- I'm protecting the children! Re-elect me!" issues that had a lot of public support and the Patriot Act was rammed through a stunned Congress after 9/11. Should the Democrats have had the balls to vote against it? Yes. Are they the same as Republicans? No.

To claim that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is to do a huge disservice to both parties. I suspect that most Republicans would agree with me.

The so-called Patriot Act is bad, but it isn't a secret. Here's a link to the complete text. Here's another. The ACLU didn't sue to see the complete Act. We (I'm not directly involved, but I'm proud to be a card-carrying member) sued to oppose certain actions under the act. The Act makes it illegal to disclose that some actions have been taken, e.g. that a search has taken place. That's why even mentioning the actions at issue was arguably illegal and a risk for the ACLU. Here's the ACLU press release.

The ACLU also took action, initially in the form of a Freedom of Information Act request, to find out how the government has been using the Act. Here's a link to the ACLU's press releases on the initial FOIA request and subsequent activity. The ACLU has all sorts of information about the "Patriot Act" here.

If you truly believe that, you're a fool. Have a look at the EFF's summary of the effects that can be felt by the PATRIOT Act.

Don't like the EFF? Okay, what about EPIC's ongoing play by play of the same act? Including events relating directly to it.

Maybe secret's the wrong term, but it's illegal for you to disclose that you've been served by such a warrant. See http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html , section 215, revision to 501 (d):

"`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."

So a warrant exists, and no one is allowed to mention it. They must keep it a "secret". Thus you could call it a secret warrant, though a "classified" warrant might be more accurate.

So that is the section of the patriot act which gives the government the authority to obtain a "secret" warrant.

A company could be held liable in the form of a lawsuit. There was a recent case where a company sold information that was used to track down and murder an unsuspecting individual. The company was held liable by the family of the murder victim.

With respect to outsourcing sensitive information, it is important to be aware of who is handling the information (including any levels of subcontracting.) That applies wherever the information is processed. Also, information should be processed only in countries where privacy protections exist.

One problem was that the "not-for-ID" policy was not required by law and the Social Security Administration was not able to prevent additional uses of SSNs.

Interestingly, this page says that SSNs appeared around 1936. The uses of SSNs were extended very soon afterwards. In 1937, the Social Security Board said that states should use the SSN to identify individuals covered under unemployment insurance programs. In addition, the "Not For Identification" message on cards was to warn that a Social Security card was not to be relied on as ID by itself(!) In 1943, Executive Order 9397 required Federal agencies to use the SSN as an ID number for individuals.

Then we had a jam echelon day shortly after 9/11. Of course only few participated because everybody felt ashamed about it.

At HAL2001 lists with words that would trigger echelon were published and they included words like "steak-knife" (the codename of a double agent) or "sex". But I can't say that those were not published by TLA agents.

But mostly we were concerned with the european cybercrime convention act.

Ahh, those were the times...

The SSN is great as a unique identifier

Fourth, from a technical viewpoint, the SSN is not a good identifier. It is not unique, there are multiple users of a single SSN, and the absence of certain technical features makes it difficult to determine whether a random nine-digit number is in fact an SSN. The use of the current SSN as a patient identifier will likely lead to record misidentifications that could otherwise be avoided.

Marc Rotenberg, Director, CPSR Washington office
Professor Eric Roberts, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University; President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
Janlori Goldman, Director, ACLU Privacy and Technology Project
Evan Hendricks, Chair, US Privacy Council
Sheri Alpert, author, "Medical Records, Privacy and Health Care Reform"
Michael S. Baum, Chair, EDI and Information Technology Division, Section of Science and Technology, American Bar Association
Professor Mary J. Culnan, School of Business Administration, Georgetown University
Simon Davies, Director General, Privacy International
Jack Esbin, Secretary, Association of Computing Machinery
Professor Oscar Gandy, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania
Marc Greidinger, plaintiff in Greidinger v. Davis
Chris Hibbert, Chair, CPSR Palo Alto Civil Liberties Working Group
Professor Lance Hoffman, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, George Washington University
Jim Horning, Systems Research Center, Palo Alto, Digital Equipment Corporation
Larry Hunter, Chair, CPSR/DC
Professor Gary Marx, Director, Center for the Social Study of Information Technology, University of Colorado
Peter G. Neumann, Principal Scientist, Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International
Amy Pearl, Member of Technical Staff, Sun Microsystems
Professor Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Villanova University School of Law
Professor Priscilla M. Regan, Department of Public and International Affairs, George Mason University
Virginia Rezmierski, Information Technology Division, University of Michigan
Professor Ron Rivest, Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT
Professor Rohan Samarajiva, National Regulatory Research Institute, Ohio State University
Barbara Simons, Chair, ACM Public Policy Committee
Robert Ellis Smith, Publisher, Privacy Journal
Professor George Trubow, John Marshall School of Law
A. Joe Turner
Fred W. Weingarten, Executive Director, Computing Research Associates
Paul Wolfson, staff attorney, Public Citizen Litigation Group

... Many people assume that Social Security Numbers are unique. They were intended by the Social Security Administration to be unique, but the SSA didn't take sufficient precautions to ensure that it would be so. ...

The problem is not limited to SSNs - other identifiers that people think are unique are often duplicated.

I've resisted wearing my tinfoil hat, now I'm wearing one, and putting one around all my personal information as well.

...it's coming.

I'm glad you asked.

Here's a summary of the revisions they made to the code.

Note this one right here (about halfway down):

(3) Retail encryption commodities and software. You may export and reexport to any end-user encryption commodities, software and components which have been reviewed and classified as retail under ECCNs 5A002 and 5D002.

any encryption technology which is made available to the public is "reviewed" by the NSA, and if they don't have a way to snoop on it effectively it is classified as "Military Weaponry" and it never sees the light of day. If some such algorhythm were to come out of F/OSS, its creators would be threatened and intimidated until it went away.

shoot, now I have to adjust my tinfoil hat again.

For those of us not as unlucky as the original poster, there is a lot of information available at EPIC

My reply to "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." is this:

If the government isn't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. With footnotes to Filegate, Yasser Hamdi, and Brandon Mayfield to name three off the top of my head.

Hey novice lockpickers, be VERY careful! Although the U.S. Patriot Act and Zero Tolerance are not directly connected, the type of thinking is...

In New Jersey, four children received school suspensions for "shooting" at each other (bang! bang!) with extended index fingers. The kids had violated their school's zero-tolerance policy against "weapons".

Commonwealth v. Milo A 12-year-old student drew pictures that depicted his teacher being shot.

In Irvington, N.J., two eight-year-olds have been charged with "making terrorist threats." The boys were "playing cops and robbers with a paper gun,"

It started with FAA security directives, SD's. The first was in 1990. There were 3 SD's in effect on 9/11 with a short list of names of people who were banned from flying because they were presumed terrorists. It wasn't actively enforced until after 9/11 though/

Here is a TSA memo describing the justification for the no fly and selectee lists. This was acquired by EPIC though FOIA requests. They weren'f very successful since you see most of the memo is censored. In particular they wanted to know who was putting names on the list and could take them off, and they wanted a copy of the list to see if the people on it are terrorists or if it includes political opponents of the Bush administration and anti war activists as anecdotal evidence suggests.

After 9/11 there was a slew of FAA directives that expanded the lists and then the TSA came on the scene, took over the lists and it ran amuck.

I'm not positive these are the basis of the ID requirement though I think they are. Since there is a list of people who are not allowed to fly and people allowed to fly only with extra scrutiny(selectees) it follows you have to submit an ID so your name can be checked against the list. It is needless to say insane to identify potentially dangerous travelers based on a simple name but the U.S. government, especially since 9/11, has gone completely insane.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

George W. Bush, December 2000

I'm not sure there is proof there is a law/regulation requiring an ID but it is a proven fact that there is a no fly and selectee list. If your name is on the no fly list you dont fly and they call security at the counter. If you are on the selectee list you fly but with additional scrutiny. EPIC submitted a FOIA and got some stuff on it from the TSA, airlines etc. Unfortunately most of the interesting memos were censored to the point they are useless.

It kind of follows if there is a no fly list you are going to need to show an ID so they can see if your name is on the list. If he flew out of SFO without an ID check I imagine the person at SFO who let him violated the regulations and probably could have been fired over it.

It goes without saying its insane to use a simple list of names to identify travellers. Many of the names on the no fly list are known aliases of terrorists which means pretty much any name they felt like using, including Edward or Ted Kennedy. If you are so unfortunate to happen to have the same name as some alias on the list you are going to be screwed in the airport. In the EPIC docs are complaints from senior citizens who have never had so much as a traffic ticket and are massively hasselled when they fly.

In the EPIC docs are indications of the near impossibility of getting your name off the list. There are letters to congressman from constituents desperate to get off. People are routinely bounced between the airlines, the TSA, the FBI and Homeland security and get no where since it is secret exactly who puts the names on the lists and who takes them off. It would be extremely easy for the Bush administration to put names of political opponents and dissidents on the list and they can't prove it or do anything about. There is anecdotal evidence it is being done but you can't prove it thanks to the classified nature of the list.

It should be pointed out the no fly list dates from 1990 and George's dad. Back then the FBI administered it and it was pretty small. After 9/11 it was turned over to the TSA and turned in to a Kafkaesque nightmare.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

George W. Bush, December 2000

"You got your wish George. You have two wishes left"

Demachina, September 2004

You trolling, kidding or do you not follow the news?

You might have heard Senator Edward Kennedy's name or something close to it was added to the no-fly list recently and he was prevented on several occasions from flying between Washington and Boston, something he's been doing for decades. It was in fact a violation of the Constitution which forbids obstructing travel of a Congressman. Maybe it was just an accident and there really is a terrorist named Edward Kennedy or Teddy Kennedy or maybe some sick fuck in the Bush administration though it would be funny to throw his name on it to punish him for his outspoken and often harsh criticism of the Bush administration. How names get put on the list is opaque to most American's and its impossible to get yours off it at present. Kennedy only managed by called Tom Ridge the head of Homeland Security and it still took a while.

Here is a link on the ACLU case against the no fly list since some people are trashing the ACLU in this article. They really are a priceless organization if you value your civil liberties.

Some more on Freedom of Information Act inquiries by EPIC trying to find out if activists really have been black listed from flying based on their political views.

Should I go on.....undocumented.......Nothing about the Patriot act excesses I cited is undocumented its in the law.

Let's change the wording a bit shall we: ... Do as I say, not as I do.


right, but changing the words as you have done changes the whole point. It's not the powerful government that is doing the tracking, it's powerless individuals who are tracking agents of the government to ensure that they don't abuse the power they ALREADY have, by virtue of their government affiliation. Shoe's on the other foot, isn't it? It is entirely appropriate for individuals to engage in behavior that the government is prohibited from pursuing, because of the differential in the balance of power.

Last I checked, I don't need a permit to follow you around my candy store and keep an eye on you. Especially if I've already caught you with one hand in the cookie jar.

now, s/candy store/country and s/cookie jar/treasury and there we have the current situation. Are you saying it's not legal to watch people as they go about in public? This society seems to spend an awful lot of time watching people for the sole reason that they are unusually attractive or wealthy. Do you think it should be illegal for this cult of celebrity to continue chasing movie stars around just to take "candid" pictures? If this kind of celebrity worship is legal, why isn't it legal to make available information about other, less famous people?

If you think tracking people who haven't been convicted of any crimes should be illegal, I think John Ashcroft would choose to differ with you. I'm sure that retired Admiral John Poindexter would disagree, were he to be given the opportunity. try my first paragraph again, and this time s/cookie jar/koran and I'm pretty sure that you have criteria that the justice department would suggest is probable cause to keep an eye (and maybe a wiretap) on you. Do you think that the FBI isn't spying on American Citizens right now, making a list and checking it twice, without telling anyone who is on that list?

Think again, my friend, think again. At least Indymedia has published the list of delegates, and the delegates themselves can look to see if they are listed on it. You would think these delegates would be PROUD of their chosen roles in the democratic process, and be willing to submit themselves to stand up and be counted, rather than so ashamed of the policies they represent that they have to call in the FBI to make some bogus claims to protect them from the public eye.

The phone book for your town is not likely printed in your town. The people publishing your phone book probably live in a different town where their number may or may not be listed.

I was responding to the assertion that in order to publish information about a public campaign official the publisher must make the same information available.

Actually this is a free speech issue. Does free speech cover the right to anonymity? That's still being hashed out in the courts through many test cases. Groups like EPIC and the ACLU have supported the concept of anonymous free speech. From EPIC's site:

Appeals Court Upholds Anonymous Online Speech. In the first appellate decision to address the issue, a New Jersey appeals court has established stringent procedural and evidentiary standards that must be met before the identity of an anonymous online poster can be disclosed through litigation. Those protections have long been urged by EPIC and other public interest groups. The court recognized the constitutional right to communicate anonymously and refused to order the identification of a "John Doe" speaker who had posted comments on a Yahoo! message board.

Arguments against Indymedia printing this information without revealing the author are arguments against anonymous free speech.

Hey, you aren't too far off. ;-)

The way computers work prohibits _any DRM method_ from ever working.

Cool! Now Google can sell ads based on the contents of my files! :-(

Is it just me, or is the GMail cheerleading by normally-privacy-concerned /.ers highly strange? Where are the rants about GMail's privacy issues -- especially when there are other free services which offer as much or more disk space and which don't have any privacy issues?!

Cool! Now Google can sell ads based on the contents of my files! :-(

Is it just me, or is the GMail cheerleading by normally-privacy-concerned /.ers highly strange? Where are the rants about GMail's privacy issues -- especially when there are other free services which offer as much or more disk space and which don't have any privacy issues?!

I think this is the bomb we need to be worrying about.

I believe the point of contention is what the government can do and what others can do.

For example, if you want to live off the grid, you can't expect to get credit. The companies that grant credit want information (credit history) that other companies collect. You don't have to buy into that system if you don't want the benefit.

On the other hand, it's not as simple as walking or biking to avoid having to ID yourself. There was a recent case where a man was arrested for refusing to show ID and he was a passenger in a car:

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

Contrary to what the government repeatedly asserts, identification does not equal accountability. If they want to pass a law requiring more stringent tracking of citizens, any event can be spun into support for the cause. After the Oklahoma City bombing, there were people calling out for stricter gun control laws. Politicians will take advantage of any opportunity to support their causes. ID requirements are someone's cause, and many people miss that most of the "solutions" proposed have nothing to do with the problem.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center has information about providing bogus information for the purprose of protecting privacy. This means providing information of a legitimate form but which will not conflict with any existing personal information i.e. an address used by someone else. For Social Security numbers, they recommend 078-05-1120, which was used on sample Social Security cards in the past. The government knows this number is bogus. There are also Social Security numbers in the range 987-65-4320 to 987-65-4329. For phone numbers, it is recommended to use the number (202) 224-3121 which is for the Congressional switchboard. For addresses, they recommend using the address of a local park or something like that. If any location will do, they suggest the address 3500 S. Wacker, Chicago IL 60616 which is for a park in Chicago.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center has information about providing bogus information for the purprose of protecting privacy. This means providing information of a legitimate form but which will not conflict with any existing personal information i.e. an address used by someone else. For Social Security numbers, they recommend 078-05-1120, which was used on sample Social Security cards in the past. The government knows this number is bogus. There are also Social Security numbers in the range 987-65-4320 to 987-65-4329. For phone numbers, it is recommended to use the number (202) 224-3121 which is for the Congressional switchboard. For addresses, they recommend using the address of a local park or something like that. If any location will do, they suggest the address 3500 S. Wacker, Chicago IL 60616 which is for a park in Chicago.

Also, ISPs are increasingly willing to supply data without a subpoena or warrant.

Very interesting. Can you tell me where you find proof or numbers to back this up?

Well, numbers are rather hard to come by as these unofficial requests happen quite unofficially. There is more mention of companies turning over records in the new reports (which I don't keep pasted to my door), but if you put me on the spot I'd be hard pressed to quantify it.

On the other hand, ISPs refusing the police's polite requests to turn over information without a warrant is usually an argument politicians use to want to introduce PATRIOT-ACT style no-warrant secret third-party searches..

To my knowledge there is only one ISP in the Netherlands that is unwilling to turn over information without a warrant (xs4all). Some have stated in public they will do their unquestioning best to comply with police requests (e.g. wanadoo/euronet, KPN/planet/hetnet, tiscali).

The EU is considering making it mandatory for ALL communications (of ALL citizens/companies, no due cause) to be stored for seven years, "just in case".

Same here. Haven't heard a word of this.

Just google for it.

The UK already keeps 7 years worth of actual recordings (not just traffic information) of all international voice calls, which is how the 7 year term came into the proposal - it's now being weakened down to 2 years, mostly over concerns of costs, rather than privacy.

Let's consider that filtering software you were talking about. It would have to be capable of realtime filtering.
Not really, they just store all packets headed to/from a particular customer in a giant-ass log and figure it out later, just like you would using ethereal.

There are real-time, hardware based filtering solutions, but those are mostly used by spooks, and hardly likely to be effective, given how much words like "bomb" and "terrorist" crop up in conversations these days.

The focus is on retaining data so you can later sift through it to confirm suspicions that hadn't formed at the time. From there you can reconstruct suspect's networks etc.

I think I saw some of that hardware referenced on cryptome.org years back, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Even if what you say is true, this will just be a huge waste of money
Indeed. If you're into programming network sniffers, some of that money might be headed your way.

Some interesting resources are "privacy international, echelon watch, epic, etc.

This sorry instance is yet another example of how "technology" can be used by the forces of power to clamp down on the rights of the individual. To wit: RfID tags are used by merchants to infringe on the rights of individuals: tracking the movements of customers, keeping track of their purchasing history, and so forth.

I for one am fed up with this sort of piecemeal erosion of our most sacred freedoms. What I strongly feel is needed is a "technological bill of rights" to curb this sort of abuse.

Strange as it may sound, I do not think that amending the constitution is too absurd a step to take. I think a simply worded amendment similar to the first or second amendments would be the way to go. Something like: "Congress shall make no law using technology to infringe on basic liberty of citizens." Something like that.

Of course, amending the constitution would not stop private merchants from abusing technology such as RFiD tags, but at least it would put a damper on the federal government's actions, as well as send a strong signal as to where we stand, similar to how that amendment that abolished slavery helped pave the way for civil rights. This page has some helpful information as well.

SEC. 202. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE OFFENSES.

Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `and section 1341 (relating to mail fraud),' and inserting `section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), a felony violation of section 1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse),'.

Waving that flag around is just a misunderstanding of the Act.

I don't see how this applies to your email. The google cache is caching public data, whereas your email is private. Naturally Google has the technical ability to cache your private email (since it's on their servers) but I'm not sure they'd be on solid legal ground.

Well of course, your email is private (although that's debatable), and Google isn't supposed to index any of it. But all the same, I don't like the concentration of easily cross-referenceable data into the hands of one company, as good as it appears to be, for various good reasons.

The only way to be *sure* of anything on the web is to monitor all packets at all times using behavioral profiling programs.

We could call the system TIA, for Timely Ignorance Abatement ....

-kgj

You've left out an important part of the 4th amendment. Here's the amendment in its entirety:

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.

Now, if you look at the actual text of the PATRIOT Act, and go down to:

SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS

It states that access to certain business records (which is what, eg, library records are) must be applied by a high ranking FBI official, and be approved by a judge. This appears to be due process to me. Also, Section 502 calls for semi-annual congressional reviews. So you've got both other branches providing oversight of the executive branch.

I'm at least as interested in civil liberties as anyone else around here, but inflamatory arguments about things like the PATRIOT Act that disregard what the act actually says don't do any good for anyone.

Okay, I'll bite.

You're right in saying that, "Not every type of information gathering tecnology translates into an Orwellian plot."

Technology is not the method, just a means to an end. Generally things start out for good reasons and people are okay with these. However, there are ALWAYS someone who wants to step over the privacy line, cross the civil rights boundries and may even try to persuade the public over years or decades (VERY "Orwellian" to me if you ask) to get what they want.

Believe it or not, in this day when people want instant gratification, instant this, instant news, instant results, it's hard to believe people would spend years dedicated to something like taking rights away from people for power gains (no matter how small, they always want more) and financial gains.

Hard to fathom in many cases, even to what end could they want to do it, isn't it? Well my friend it's not a conspiracy it's just a fact of life. People want power, people want money and they always want more. I really believe there are some people that are actively persuing this.

Just to make an illistration, how quickly was the PATRIOT ACT introduced to congress and passes? Do you really believe that a handful of people came up with that entire bible sized document in around a couple of months, in such detail and refined (not rushed like many people believe) order. Take a look at it and see for yourself. Click here to read it and The Analysis

It's just hard to believe that a group of people came up with that in such a short amount of time. I swear it was planned sometimes.

Okay, I'll bite.

You're right in saying that, "Not every type of information gathering tecnology translates into an Orwellian plot."

Technology is not the method, just a means to an end. Generally things start out for good reasons and people are okay with these. However, there are ALWAYS someone who wants to step over the privacy line, cross the civil rights boundries and may even try to persuade the public over years or decades (VERY "Orwellian" to me if you ask) to get what they want.

Believe it or not, in this day when people want instant gratification, instant this, instant news, instant results, it's hard to believe people would spend years dedicated to something like taking rights away from people for power gains (no matter how small, they always want more) and financial gains.

Hard to fathom in many cases, even to what end could they want to do it, isn't it? Well my friend it's not a conspiracy it's just a fact of life. People want power, people want money and they always want more. I really believe there are some people that are actively persuing this.

Just to make an illistration, how quickly was the PATRIOT ACT introduced to congress and passes? Do you really believe that a handful of people came up with that entire bible sized document in around a couple of months, in such detail and refined (not rushed like many people believe) order. Take a look at it and see for yourself. Click here to read it and The Analysis

It's just hard to believe that a group of people came up with that in such a short amount of time. I swear it was planned sometimes.

Seriously, this sort of thing might be great for our soldiers in the field, and in my little optimistic heart I'd really like to think that something like this could exist in our country without being abused by the "Total Law Enforcement" crowd. I mean, the US *should* be able to operate that way, what with having Constitutional protections and all that.

Given what's been going on recently, however, it seems like only a matter of time before somebody justifies using it on Americans on the grounds of terrorism prevention (after which, of course, everything will become terrorism of one kind or another). I mean, the USA is suddenly in the business of above-the-law prison camps, war without end and other awful little things like abusing the prisoner (in a non-masterbatory context), and all it took to get us to this point was the deaths of 3000 Americans.

Does anyone really doubt that looking through the walls of people's homes will be next?

Ever heard of FBI's Carnivore and its litigation. ??? This is been happening from a long long time. In todays modern and small planet you cannot expect privacy even inside your toilet. Somebody is already out there.

Now let's see the US government follow in Germany's footsteps and directly sponsor the development of some critical piece of open-source software.

What, Total, er, now, Terrorism Information Awareness, CAPPS II, and Echelon aren't enough for you?

Following in Germany's footsteps indeed.

Although I think Reichminister Ashcroft isn't so much following the footsteps of the current Bundesrepublik Deutschland as those of Das Dritte Reich -- that is Himmmler's and Heydrich's footsteps.

From epic.org

"California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has acknowledged a letter sent by EPIC, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and World Privacy Forum that argued that Google's Gmail service violates the State's strict wiretapping laws. Lockyer wrote (pdf): "The potential exposure of Gmail users to liability for violation of Penal Code section 631 is of particular concern, as are the rights of those who are not subscribers to Gmail but who send e-mail to those who are." Lockyer advised that his office will continue to analyze Gmail and that "I understand your position and share many of your concerns."

(excerpt from the letter)

"IV. It Is Imperative That Google Suspend Gmail Because Users of the Service Could be Civilly and Criminally Liable Under Cal. Pen. Code 631(a)

Section 631(a) specifies that any person who "cause[s] to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison." Accordingly, if Google's Gmail violates 631, its users could also be held liable. Private individuals harmed by Gmail users could bring suit under 637.2, which contains a liquidated damages provision of $5,000 per violation."

(and yes I posted something similar under the same heading, but I'm posting it again because there's almost 800 messages and none of them even mention this issue!!)

From epic.org

"California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has acknowledged a letter sent by EPIC, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and World Privacy Forum that argued that Google's Gmail service violates the State's strict wiretapping laws. Lockyer wrote (pdf): "The potential exposure of Gmail users to liability for violation of Penal Code section 631 is of particular concern, as are the rights of those who are not subscribers to Gmail but who send e-mail to those who are." Lockyer advised that his office will continue to analyze Gmail and that "I understand your position and share many of your concerns."

(excerpt from the letter)

"IV. It Is Imperative That Google Suspend Gmail Because Users of the Service Could be Civilly and Criminally Liable Under Cal. Pen. Code 631(a)

Section 631(a) specifies that any person who "cause[s] to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison." Accordingly, if Google's Gmail violates 631, its users could also be held liable. Private individuals harmed by Gmail users could bring suit under 637.2, which contains a liquidated damages provision of $5,000 per violation."

(and yes I posted something similar under the same heading, but I'm posting it again because there's almost 800 messages and none of them even mention this issue!!)

From epic.org

"California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has acknowledged a letter sent by EPIC, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and World Privacy Forum that argued that Google's Gmail service violates the State's strict wiretapping laws. Lockyer wrote (pdf): "The potential exposure of Gmail users to liability for violation of Penal Code section 631 is of particular concern, as are the rights of those who are not subscribers to Gmail but who send e-mail to those who are." Lockyer advised that his office will continue to analyze Gmail and that "I understand your position and share many of your concerns."

(excerpt from the letter)

"IV. It Is Imperative That Google Suspend Gmail Because Users of the Service Could be Civilly and Criminally Liable Under Cal. Pen. Code 631(a)

Section 631(a) specifies that any person who "cause[s] to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison." Accordingly, if Google's Gmail violates 631, its users could also be held liable. Private individuals harmed by Gmail users could bring suit under 637.2, which contains a liquidated damages provision of $5,000 per violation."

(and yes I posted something similar under the same heading, but I'm posting it again because there's almost 800 messages and none of them even mention this issue!!)

Methinks ISPs are using "Privacy Concerns" as a way of keeping customers from leaving their quickly aging service. "Hey look, bearded technology pundits with nothing better to do are upset about ads in a radical new free email service. They're waving the privacy flag. We can wave the same flag and lock people in to viewing our contextually inaccurate ads a little bit longer!"

Hi. If it is determined the Google is in violation of 631 of the California Penal Code, users of GMail could be liable for a fine of up to $2,500 or one year in prison. Additionally, private individuals could bring a civil suit of up to $5,000 . In other words, if I send you a "g-mail", believing it to be private, and Google reads that mail, I could sue you for $5,000 and you could go to jail.

How's that for privacy concerns?! These laws are on the books, it is just a matter of determining if GMail violates these laws. www.epic.org

That's right, GMail reads your incoming mail and decides what sort of advertising you would like.

From epic.org

"California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has acknowledged a letter sent by EPIC, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and World Privacy Forum that argued that Google's Gmail service violates the State's strict wiretapping laws. Lockyer wrote (pdf): "The potential exposure of Gmail users to liability for violation of Penal Code section 631 is of particular concern, as are the rights of those who are not subscribers to Gmail but who send e-mail to those who are." Lockyer advised that his office will continue to analyze Gmail and that "I understand your position and share many of your concerns."

(excerpt from the letter)

"IV. It Is Imperative That Google Suspend Gmail Because Users of the Service Could be Civilly and Criminally Liable Under Cal. Pen. Code 631(a)

Section 631(a) specifies that any person who "cause[s] to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison." Accordingly, if Google's Gmail violates 631, its users could also be held liable. Private individuals harmed by Gmail users could bring suit under 637.2, which contains a liquidated damages provision of $5,000 per violation."

That's right, GMail reads your incoming mail and decides what sort of advertising you would like.

From epic.org

"California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has acknowledged a letter sent by EPIC, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and World Privacy Forum that argued that Google's Gmail service violates the State's strict wiretapping laws. Lockyer wrote (pdf): "The potential exposure of Gmail users to liability for violation of Penal Code section 631 is of particular concern, as are the rights of those who are not subscribers to Gmail but who send e-mail to those who are." Lockyer advised that his office will continue to analyze Gmail and that "I understand your position and share many of your concerns."

(excerpt from the letter)

"IV. It Is Imperative That Google Suspend Gmail Because Users of the Service Could be Civilly and Criminally Liable Under Cal. Pen. Code 631(a)

Section 631(a) specifies that any person who "cause[s] to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison." Accordingly, if Google's Gmail violates 631, its users could also be held liable. Private individuals harmed by Gmail users could bring suit under 637.2, which contains a liquidated damages provision of $5,000 per violation."

That's right, GMail reads your incoming mail and decides what sort of advertising you would like.

From epic.org

"California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has acknowledged a letter sent by EPIC, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and World Privacy Forum that argued that Google's Gmail service violates the State's strict wiretapping laws. Lockyer wrote (pdf): "The potential exposure of Gmail users to liability for violation of Penal Code section 631 is of particular concern, as are the rights of those who are not subscribers to Gmail but who send e-mail to those who are." Lockyer advised that his office will continue to analyze Gmail and that "I understand your position and share many of your concerns."

(excerpt from the letter)

"IV. It Is Imperative That Google Suspend Gmail Because Users of the Service Could be Civilly and Criminally Liable Under Cal. Pen. Code 631(a)

Section 631(a) specifies that any person who "cause[s] to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison." Accordingly, if Google's Gmail violates 631, its users could also be held liable. Private individuals harmed by Gmail users could bring suit under 637.2, which contains a liquidated damages provision of $5,000 per violation."

If you read the bill instead of the lies and the propaganda, you'd know this.

For anyone who doesn't understand what an obnoxious and stupid comment this is, here's the text of the PATRIOT act.

"Twirlip of the Mist" hasn't read it, either.

The company I work for is making privacy a big part of its marketing appeal. "Take back your data." "Your information is yours." The Powers That Be want people to be sure that we won't misuse their information. What would a good model privacy policy be for a company that wants its customers to feel warm and fuzzy about their data privacy?

I already talked to EPIC and EFF. For fire-breathing privacy advocates they weren't terribly helpful. They said, more or less, "Nobody has ever asked us this. We're more interested in government policy than what corporations are doing."

Well, like calling President Bush an idiot, for example. You're allowed to do that.

Well, it depends. If you're an American citizen, then you can probably say that, but otherwise (even if you have a valid visa), this could be grounds for Johnny Ashcroft to invoke the Patriot Act and put you into prison without a lawyer while they investigate your possible terrorist connections. I mean, you've gotta be a (pick one) {terrorist, communist, hippie, traitor} to even think about critisizing the current administration, whose only goal is to bring the great freedoms we enjoy as americans to the entire world.

-1 Overly Sarcastic