Slashdot Mirror

After I read the article, despite it not being about the Patriot Act, it reminded me that I need to get on the bandwagon about writing to my rent-a-legislators (state/federal) about opposing any attempts to extend the USA PATRIOT Act Provisions That Expire on December 31, 2005. I'll definately be boning up at EPIC's The USA PATRIOT Act page.

Another good reference source that came my way via the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy"Secrecy News Newsletter" was their archive of Congressional Research Service reports on Secrecy and Security.

The one I will reference in my correspondences will be the report:

USA Patriot Act Sunset:Provisions That Expire on December 31, 2005 (PDF - 107 Kb - 22 pages)
January 2, 2004
Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist
American Law Division

Here's the summary with section listed:
Summary

Several sections of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act (the Act) relating to enhanced foreign intelligence and law enforcement surveillance authority expire on December 31, 2005. Thereafter, the authority remains in effect only as it relates to foreign intelligence investigations begun before sunset or to offenses or potential offense begun or occurring before that date. There may be some disagreement of whether a "potential offense" is a suspected crime, an incomplete crime, or both.

The consequences of sunset are not the same for every expiring section. In some instances the temporary provision has been replaced with a permanent one; in some, other provisions have been made temporarybyattached to an expiring section; in still others, the apparent impact of termination has been mitigated by related provisions either in the Act or elsewhere.

The temporary provisions are: sections 201 (wiretapping in terrorism cases), 202 (wiretapping in computer fraud and abuse felony cases), 203(b) (sharing wiretap information), 203(d) (sharing foreign intelligence information), 204 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pen register/trap & trace exceptions), 206 (roving FISA wiretaps), 207 (duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power), 209 (seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants), 212 (emergency disclosure of electronic surveillance), 214 (FISApen register/ trap and trace authority), 215 (FISAaccess to tangible items), 217 (interception of computer trespasser communications), 218 (purpose for FISA orders), 220 (nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence), 223 (civil liability and discipline for privacy violations), and 225 (provider immunity for FISA wiretap assistance).

The unimpaired provisions of Title II are: section

After I read the article, despite it not being about the Patriot Act, it reminded me that I need to get on the bandwagon about writing to my rent-a-legislators (state/federal) about opposing any attempts to extend the USA PATRIOT Act Provisions That Expire on December 31, 2005. I'll definately be boning up at EPIC's The USA PATRIOT Act page.

Another good reference source that came my way via the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy"Secrecy News Newsletter" was their archive of Congressional Research Service reports on Secrecy and Security.

The one I will reference in my correspondences will be the report:

USA Patriot Act Sunset:Provisions That Expire on December 31, 2005 (PDF - 107 Kb - 22 pages)
January 2, 2004
Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist
American Law Division

Here's the summary with section listed:
Summary

Several sections of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act (the Act) relating to enhanced foreign intelligence and law enforcement surveillance authority expire on December 31, 2005. Thereafter, the authority remains in effect only as it relates to foreign intelligence investigations begun before sunset or to offenses or potential offense begun or occurring before that date. There may be some disagreement of whether a "potential offense" is a suspected crime, an incomplete crime, or both.

The consequences of sunset are not the same for every expiring section. In some instances the temporary provision has been replaced with a permanent one; in some, other provisions have been made temporarybyattached to an expiring section; in still others, the apparent impact of termination has been mitigated by related provisions either in the Act or elsewhere.

The temporary provisions are: sections 201 (wiretapping in terrorism cases), 202 (wiretapping in computer fraud and abuse felony cases), 203(b) (sharing wiretap information), 203(d) (sharing foreign intelligence information), 204 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pen register/trap & trace exceptions), 206 (roving FISA wiretaps), 207 (duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power), 209 (seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants), 212 (emergency disclosure of electronic surveillance), 214 (FISApen register/ trap and trace authority), 215 (FISAaccess to tangible items), 217 (interception of computer trespasser communications), 218 (purpose for FISA orders), 220 (nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence), 223 (civil liability and discipline for privacy violations), and 225 (provider immunity for FISA wiretap assistance).

The unimpaired provisions of Title II are: section

hey can find his major. They can find what classes he's taken.

Usual IANAL disclaimer, but doesn't the Buckley Amendment at least force them to get a subpoena which ought to require probable cause. Filing a FOA shouldn't be probable cause.

Amusing that he would have to file an FOA with the FBI in order to find out if they violated Federal education privacy laws while investing his tunnel FOA.

First of all, there is no such distinction between "normal laws" and "Patriot Act laws". The Patriot Act IS the law, modifies existing laws, or expands existing jurisdiction.

Second of all, the Patriot Act demonstrably does not give the FBI the power to detain people without charge, without admitting they are holding them, and without warrant. That is pure, ignorant FUD. What the Patriot Act does do, is expand the Immigration and Naturalization Act to allow the FBI to detain a suspected terrorist ALIEN PERSON until they can be deported, or criminal charges brought against them. The term of that detention is LIMITED, and must be DISCLOSED to Congress.

The relevant text is below, from the Patriot Act.

SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS-
`(1) CUSTODY- The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).
`(2) RELEASE- Except as provided in paragraphs
(5) and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien until the alien is removed from the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.
`(3) CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--
`(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
`(B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.
`(4) NONDELEGATION- The Attorney General may delegate the authority provided under paragraph
(3) only to the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General may not delegate such authority.
`(5) COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS- The Attorney General shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien.
`(6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETENTION- An alien detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.
`(7) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General shall review the certification made under paragraph (3) every 6 months. If the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General's discretion, that the certification should be revoked, the alien may be released on such conditions as the Attorney General deems appropriate, unless such release is otherwise prohibited by law. The alien may request each 6 months in writing that the Attorney General reconsider the certification and may submit documents or other evidence in support of that request.
`(b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.
`(2) APPLICATION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, inc

Mom? Bro? MacOS thank you. OSX means I can fix mom's machine from 3000 miles away.

So yeah, my boxes that serve and relay mail (80% spam) can just block SMTP connections with Windows fingerprints. Perhaps just bump it up to port 26 and a listener with much more rigourous anti-spam.

Nah, just segregate the dangerous windows folks off. Like to AOL or CompuServe. I'll never get back the happy days when you had to be tall enough to be on the Internet.

And yeah, 2 people on IPv6. Heard about the same thing in 1990 about the Internet. Just a couple geeks. Nobody over here. You guys just stay on your boxes and keep your CompuServe accounts and stay on IPv4.

RE: terrorism
When important services are brought down by DDOS and viruses (east coast blackouts anyone?), it's terrorism. The U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act notwithstanding, being able to buy and run hundreds of thousands of compromised Windows machines (and cable/DSL providers and MS stand by with no action) means that we ain't seen the least of it.

If the grand parent was referring to the FISA court, then yes, in fact, no request has been denied in over 23 years.

Let's also be clear--browsing records are still largely anonymous--at least at all the public libraries I've used computers at--maybe you have a different experience?

In the King County library system in Seattle, you have to enter your library card number to log onto a library's internet terminals. I don't know what kind of logs the servers store, but there is no anonymity if you have to enter an personally identifying number.

The difference is PUBLIC and PRIVATE. A library funded by the government is PUBLIC. A cybercafe is PRIVATE.

Now, the reason I think you're confused is, that while a cybercafe is open to the public, it is a private institution--this can be a tricky concept, but I think if you reason it through it'll make sense. Now, having understood the issue, would you like to restate your position?

Actually, no. I don't understand why you think it's okay to restrict public internet use as long as you don't restrict private use. By doing so, you only subject those who can't afford computers and connnections to surviellance. Now, the cost of an old computer and a dial-up connection (or even a few hours at an internet cafe) may be cheap for most, the whole point of the library system is to ensure that everyone has access to information, regardless of financial status. Restricting internet use in the one place where absolutely anyone can have access is worse than restricting it in places where only people who can afford it have access.

Believe me, if the government were requiring PRIVATE cafes or ISPs to keep records, etc, I would be up in arms, but that simply isn't the case.

While libraries are the most obvious example of the PATRIOT act's egregious invasion of privacy, private ISP's are not immune from it's requirements. According the the EPIC website, the law expanded the use of pen register and trap and trace devices. While these used to be limited to keeping records of phone numbers dialed, the PATRIOT act expanded their use to any form of electronic communication including web surfing and email. While the law is designed to restrict data collection to URL's, email headers, and other forms of "addressing information," and it specifically prohibits the collection of "content," it is vaguely worded and open to broad interpretation. Does this URL contain "content" or merely "addressing information": http://www.dogbone.com/form.pl?Name=Bob&Lastname=S mith&Password=momsmaidenname&Submission=My+Secret+ words ?

Beyond which, we can of course get into a discussion of intent. The intent of the PATRIOT act is to stop terrorist--which we can all agree is a good thing

China's stated intent is to protect children from pornography and the dangers of online video games, and I'm sure we can mostly agree that at least the first one is a good thing. But just as the practice in China also curbs any anti-government discussion, so the PATRIOT act in the US leads to a host of other unintended restrictions. This Slashdot discussion is about how the Department of Justice is giving seminars to law enforcement on how to use the PATRIOT act's provision against people suspected of crimes completely unrelated to terrorism.

I stand by my position that, while we certainly don't live in a totalitarian state like China, the PATRIOT act is subjecting people in the US to some pretty scary chilling effects.

"According to the Supreme Court..."

It would help if you cited. I don't believe you for a simple reason, you can't speak in public without the distinct possibility that one of the listeners recognizes you. Wallah, not anonomys.

Far be it from me to suggest you might consider exerting a negligible amount of effort to get the facts for yourself rather than just say "I don't believe you," but about fifteen seconds on Google resulted in these:

• Talley v. California (1960)
• McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission (1995)

BTW, it's 'voila', not 'wallah'.

When systems like this are intentionally exposed to public scrutiny, there will always be a mollifying language included in it. Their goal is to make the average person feel not certain enough that they're threatened to get off their couch and take action.

Once the spooks have gotten the consent they need from politicians, the political reality is that they can throw out the promises they made and they can even stretch their goals beyond considerably beyond what was agreed to.

The current fight over surveillance in public areas is huge. It is at least as big as DRM. They will retain the data forever. The first few times these systems are used, it will be to convict a dangerous criminal--maybe they'll mine the data to disprove a serial killer's alibi.

A few years later, they'll have real-time tracking of every car. This will be used to find unusual patterns such as the vehicles of multiple "persons of interest" (muslims, anti-globalization activists, etc), heading toward a particular site for a meeting. Then others who went to the same area will be flagged too. Pretty soon we may as well be living in North Korea.

Instead of having to put up with stupid requirements,

lazy co-workers

and (my least favourite) meetings

I'll take having to clock 8 hours a day in a chat room

Now where do I apply for a job like that?

Although the story is an exaggeration of the actual program, which does not use RFID, there is a real program called Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) being developed by the Department of Housing and Development. From my cursory glance, it seems as though it's a program to collect data on homeless in the name of cutting down crime and assisting them, rather than full-on movement tracking (think of the infrastructure costs!). Anyhow, EPIC discusses it here

Although the story is an exaggeration of the actual program, which does not use RFID, there is a real program called Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) being developed by the Department of Housing and Development. From my cursory glance, it seems as though it's a program to collect data on homeless in the name of cutting down crime and assisting them, rather than full-on movement tracking (think of the infrastructure costs!). Anyhow, EPIC discusses it here

I fail to understand why so many people believe that these guys give a crap about their country's shrinking level of freedom, when they have clearly demonstrated that they have no intention of stopping it, but rather, ensuring that it continues to shrink.

Try section 216 MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO USE OF PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES.

I think that is the relevant section, but of course, IANAL.

• (h) Disclosure of information to governmental entity pursuant to court order

  A governmental entity may obtain personally identifiable information concerning a cable subscriber pursuant to a court order only if, in the court proceeding relevant to such court order -

  (1) such entity offers clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the information is reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal activity and that the information sought would be material evidence in the case; and

  (2) the subject of the information is afforded the opportunity to appear and contest such entity's claim.

This is stronger than the laws on wiretapping. This applies to both cable TV and "other services" provided by a cable TV operator.

If the cable operator owns its own ISP, then that ISP may also be subject to these restrictions.

What most people (even tech-nerds!) seem to forget is that the Net is not a static system. The reason why the Net has been so difficult to regulate in the past is because of the way it is built.

Therefore, as was put by Lawrence Lessig in his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace because the Net is a completely artificial environment, the only thing you have to do is to change the environment. Then, hey presto, you can regulate that which was previously impossible to regulate (Palladium, anyone?

For example, IPv6 with geographical pin-pointing built into it could easily make us subject only to national laws again. (Or at least the people who don't know about anonymous proxies.)

Now, the US still has a lot of power over the Net and perhaps it would be possible for the US to enforce its wishes on other nations by using it's power over the Net's architecture, but it may become more difficult, the wider the Net spreads out. It may also fracture the apparent unity of the Net, and result in many "small" Nets run by different countries or groups of countries. All with their own architecture, and therefore, all with different ways of regulating it.

As for me, I don't think it would be a good idea, but my yes, it is unfortunately possible to regulate the Net. 1984, here we come...

If you look at the US Code as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, you'll see exactly what he's being charged with:

Whoever intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and by [such] conduct [causes] a threat to public health or safety ... shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

And it seems to me the punishment prescribed in section (c) for the crime above is reasonable and fitting:

The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is ... except as provided in subparagraph (B), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5)(A)(iii), or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph

In other words, the guy broke a bunch of computers in such a way that he endangered the public safety. If convicted, he gets a fine or up to a year in prison (or both). I fail to see what the problem with this is.

"None of the retail tests of RFID tags invaded the privacy of shoppers in the Wal-Mart stores, Roberti [editor of RFID Journal] said. He also said that RFID chips in building security passes and toll-booth tags have never been used to invade a citizen's privacy."

New Yorkers were conned into installing EZPass toll ID systems around our entire infrastructure by a lying Mayor Giuliani who promised that the logs would be tightly protected, available only by court order and subpoena after due process, evidence discovery, legal confidentiality, all the rights by which we protect ourselves from our governments. Once up and running, it turned out that $50 through any low-rent lawyer could buy the logs from the cops, at first used in divorce cases, and now surely used for whatever pretext is convenient to invade our privacy.

Now the industry continues the lies to propagate their bugs throughout our consumer society. The deployment of the tech is inevitable, their lies as well. But our privacy rights can win, if we maintain zero tolerance for these invasions, and the liars who would have us pay for our own illegal surveillance. Join or promote the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), or the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The freedom you save will be your own.

What I would like to see is a specific breakdown. here's what patriot act ACTUALLY SAYS and here's what the constitution says, and show me differences. then I can make an opinion. Here's why X is bad, here's why Y is bad.

I wish I had time to do it for you myself, but here's a pretty good analysis of the USA PATRIOT act and why it's bad:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot

Physical violence against citizens in the most blatant way, murder, is preventable.

Wrong. The only way that would be possible would be for each and every person in the US to have an armed guard in their company 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Life is dangerous, that's a fact of life. I've said it before, and I'll say it again.. live long enough, you die. Every time, no exceptions.


Each one of those twenty hijackers made a conscious effort. America did not deserve it. not one person who died deserved it.


No argument there. I'm a firefighter, so 343 of my brothers died on 9/11 as a result. I definitely feel the pain of what happened. But if we start sacrificing our civil liberties in the name of psuedo-safety in the aftermath of 9/11, then those brave men and women died in vain, and there memories are tarnished forevermore.


And it could have been prevented had a decent enough intelligence effort been put forth.

That's debatable. The intelligence we DID have wasn't acted on appropriately. Would more intelligence have really helped?


If the government did NOT put forth efforts to protect us, it would be abdicating its duty.

No, no, no. Nobody has any obligation to protect me (or you) but myself (or yourself). It's a simple concept called personal responsibility, and it used to be considered a basic principle in this country. The government is not a full-time nanny who can watch over each and every one of us around the clock.

The thing is, no matter how careful you are, bad things can still happen. That sucks, but it's life. How many of you really thought you were going to live forever, anyway? But while you are living, you should be able to live with Freedom and Liberty, as a free man, according to the principles defined in the Constitution.

The Republicans have never been about keeping government out of your life. Whether the subject is obscenity, abortion, "family values", or smoking pot, the Republicans have been there to offer legislation to regulate the minutia of your behavior. They do claim to be all about reducing government, and they do talk about reducing taxes, but it has been the Republicans that have obscenely increased government spending since Nixon, and it has been the Republicans who have proposed new powers for federal, state, and local law enforcement that infringe upon our first and fourth amendment rights, and it has been the Republicans who have bypassed US laws (proposed by Republicans) to support foreign terrorists and dictators (Including Osama Bin-Laden, Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinoche, Francios and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Manuel Noriega, Anastasio Samoza, Alfredo Cristiani, Mobuto Sese Seko, Samuel Doe, P.W. Botha, etc, etc, etc,) and murdered democratically elected leaders of other countries (Patrice Lumumba) incited coups against Democratic governments (Chile in 1973, Congo in 1964, Liberia in 1980, and a failed coup attempt in Venezuela this past April).

Many Americans choose to be ignorant this historical record because of the Republicans talk of lowering taxes, in spite of the obvious connection between increased government spending and a need for increased revenues.

Many Americans are aware of the historical record, are aware of the continuing illegal activities of our intelligence agencies (both abroad and at home), yet they choose to act as if blind to these things, will argue in favor of these actions, and will contrive to make life difficult of anyone who dare speak of them (if you do not produce documentation you are "crazy", if you do produce documentation then you are "dangerous").

TIA and ARDA are little more than our intelligence agencies and the current Republican administration conspiring to behave a bit more like the dictators they have traditionally backed. The intelligence agencies and the industries that are supported by them would like to see a return to the more lucrative days of the Cold War. They feel they are under threat as more and more people are scrutinizing their history using collections of documents released by the Freedom of Information Act, like those at the National Security Archive, EPIC.org, the Federation of American Scientists, the EFF, and probably more that I am unaware of.

Read this stuff, it is an amazing way to gain insight into the hidden workings of our government. Read about "the Church Commission to learn how the CIA breaks the law, hires the mob, and manipulates the media while harassing and murdering US citizens that they beleive hold "un-American beleifs". Read about the Iran-Contra affair to learn how little respect for the law our current Administration's Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Poindexter (among others) really have, and read about the cocaine importing that they participated in to fund their pet terrorists.

The current mood seems to support giving our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence agencies increased freedoms to invade our privacy while reducing oversight of their actions in hopes that this will increase national security and make our lives a little safer. The problem is that when you look at the record of their history, it appears that the opposite is much more likely to result, and that allowing the FBI and CIA increased freedom and power, might just end the

Thanks for the informative link.

The thing that I do when I see a math paper like this is first head to the conclusion, and if you RTFP (Read The Fine Paper) it does not rule out all types of obfuscation.

It only rules out one type of obfuscation (virtual black box type)

One type of obfuscation in particular that it does not rule out by the proof is the indistinguishability or "differing inputs" obfuscator.

There does seem to be similarities between this and what Cringely was talking about.

I could not find any patent-pending application by this company as Cringely described. Maybe because it has already been discussed in math papers. I will let other more apt searchers correct me on this.

While the paper does not rule out the "differing inputs" obfuscator, remember that it might fall into the "impossibile obfuscation" category.

I would read what Cringely had to say about this with a jaundiced eye. I think that obfuscating code falls under "making water not wet" conjecture. Which means crackers will have to throw away their hex disassemblers and learn how to program new tools to divine code operation.

Which leads to the gaping omission in Cringely's rave.

Rather than buy a company, it's much easier to save money and use the bought politician you already have to get legislation passed. This is a much more likely outcome than somebody buying the company (preemptive) and would instantly make them irrelevant and worthless.

What Cringely blindingly forgets is that Microsoft already has a way to deal with reverse engineering anyway. This in one word is "palladium".

Microsoft already knows that software obfuscation is impossible . Besides, they would rather go to the logical conclusion anyway. It's better than chancing some intermediate software solution that might be cracked and spread accross the internet faster than NT/2000 source was.

So they are putting the hardware solution palladium in place.

A hardware solution like palladium will make software cracking an impossibility. I do not know how it will work, but reverse-engineering won't be a part of the "trusted computing" enviroment. Crackers could learn how to use a soldering iron. The only problem is that you won't be able to mod your friends computer in the next state over to run the code that you have ahem-"modified"

But expect the DMCA to be enhanced to prevent this legally anyway. Expect it to be given a spin name like "secure computing" for a "safe homeland". Expect computers that don't have it to be outlawed.

If you do find a hardware entry point, you won't be able to tell your friends about it, a la 2600. If you are an academic, you will be sued into silence, a la Felton.

But the law is only part of it. Expect only "trusted" computers to open an office document.

Check and Mate.

I fear the day will come that it will be easier to buy a gun than obtain a drm free computer.

I will probably craft my own computer, like the days of altair. I won't be able to tell anybody about it, and I won't be able to sell plans for it on ebay.

Which future do you think is more likely, mine or Cringely's?

Unless I missed something (and I did RTFA and WTFM-Watched the fine movie) they didn't know who he was. And they never asked.

Actually I admit I did not RTFA--at least not the one linked. It was slashdotted by the time I got to it. However, I did find another link in the comments which I scanned over. The link was http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html.

Of particular note to me,

A Humboldt Country sheriff's deputy responded to a concerned bystander's phone call reporting that a man had struck a female passenger inside a truck. The officer arrived on the scene and was directed by the citizen to Hiibel standing next to a parked truck with his daughter inside. The officer observed skid marks which led him to believe that the truck had been pulled over "in a sudden and aggressive manner." After speaking to Hiibel and observing his behavior, the officer became suspicious that Hiibel might have been driving while intoxicated. Hiibel refused eleven times to provide identification and was subsequently arrested under Nevada Revised Statute 171.123(3), which allows an officer to detain a person to ascertain his identity when there are circumstances reasonably indicating that person has committed a crime.

(Emphasis is mine.)

Maybe our only hang up here is what was meant by "had an idea who he was." I did not mean to imply that they knew his name, but rather that they knew he was the suspect in the crime that had been reported.

They didn't ask his name, they were going to verify name by identification. I think what the Supreme Court is going to clarify is where reasonable suspicion has been met. The Nevada law permits an officer with such suspicion to "ascertain [the suspect's] identity." To me, ascertain says ID check if it is available. I think the ruling will come down on whether or not somebody being pointed out as a potential participant in a crime is reasonable suspicion.

duncanatlk wrote: I can't believe he was lucky enough to dodge a DUI . . .

No luck involved. His daughter had been driving the truck.

As for why it's on Slashdot, I've noticed that the folks here have a fondness for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Here's the amicus brief the EFF filed in support of Mr. Hiibel.

EFF filed a brief because they believe in privacy and anonymity.

(Also, working with me has educated them on some issues around ubiquitous ID demands. Turns out that most of these ID demands are backed by big databases; the ID is used as a key to search them. E.g., a cop radios in your license number and they tell him things about you from the NCIC database. Or the cop uses the multi-state MATRIX web access from the laptop in the police car. Or the TSA's CAPPS-2 looks up your credit records to suspect you if you don't have any credit -- and cross-checks them against your ID when you show up at the airport.)

Cato Institute's amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada. They point out that even if the cops have a warrant, they not only can't make you answer questions, but they are required to warn you that you have a right to remain silent. You are free to be silent at every other stage of an investigation or prosecution, from casual conversation with cops all the way through sentencing.

Cato also discovered that more than 20 states have laws like this on the books (it's in the appendix of their brief).

You can read any or all of the briefs in the case (including my own, which goes into airport ID issues) at the EPIC web page on Hiibel.

Cato Institute's amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada. They point out that even if the cops have a warrant, they not only can't make you answer questions, but they are required to warn you that you have a right to remain silent. You are free to be silent at every other stage of an investigation or prosecution, from casual conversation with cops all the way through sentencing.

Cato also discovered that more than 20 states have laws like this on the books (it's in the appendix of their brief).

You can read any or all of the briefs in the case (including my own, which goes into airport ID issues) at the EPIC web page on Hiibel.

Cato Institute's amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada. They point out that even if the cops have a warrant, they not only can't make you answer questions, but they are required to warn you that you have a right to remain silent. You are free to be silent at every other stage of an investigation or prosecution, from casual conversation with cops all the way through sentencing.

Cato also discovered that more than 20 states have laws like this on the books (it's in the appendix of their brief).

You can read any or all of the briefs in the case (including my own, which goes into airport ID issues) at the EPIC web page on Hiibel.

and then decide... the original link is a fairly slanted version of what happened (if it wasn't already dead you could check it... feel free to verify it when their site comes back up). I tried another link and found this site to be much more complete.

In short, the police officer got a call for a potential domestic violence or assault, attempted to question the man at the location who fit the description of the individual reportedly involved, and was met with a totally uncooperative attitude.

Let me tell you how a cop views this: virtually all of the people who hate cops have had prior run-ins with them... ie. they are some kind of scofflaw, or associate with such folks. When a cop gets a "f*ck you pig" attitude, his guard instantly goes up, and so do his antennae... you've stupidly just made yourself his adversary. The police officer in this case had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed... and when confronted with a possible suspect who was potentially violent, possibly intoxicated, and wouldn't even give his name, that officer had to act, so he detained the man.

What should he have done? Ignored the possible reported crime and just let him go? "Awww shucks, citizen... if you're not going to tell me your name then I guess I can't arrest you." Nobody gives their real name when arrested... we find out later who they are via fingerprints and witnesses.

Maybe it's my prior law enforcement background talking, but I really don't see the problem here. The law doesn't exist to hassle regular citizens... the officer needs to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and if he does, then he can detain to ascertain identity. An officer can ask you for your identity just walking down the street... but if you've done nothing wrong, you can say "no thank you" and keep walking. If he then physically pounces on you, that's being detained or arrested, and he'd better have grounds. If he doesn't, feel free to own him in court... I would.

Sheesh... as long as he's polite and just doing his job, what's wrong with telling a proactive police officer your name? There's something called common courtesy, and police officers should be eligible to receive it. Why is a cop ineligible? Because he works for "the man" instead of McDonalds? If you're innocent and a cop asks you your name, you could be an ass about it, insult the cop, smirk, and saunter away... but what would that prove? That you can be a smart-ass? Great... I'm sure your mother would be proud.

According to EPIC :

"A Humboldt Country sheriff's deputy responded to a concerned bystander's phone call reporting that a man had struck a female passenger inside a truck. The officer arrived on the scene and was directed by the citizen to Hiibel standing next to a parked truck with his daughter inside. The officer observed skid marks which led him to believe that the truck had been pulled over "in a sudden and aggressive manner." After speaking to Hiibel and observing his behavior, the officer became suspicious that Hiibel might have been driving while intoxicated. Hiibel refused eleven times to provide identification and was subsequently arrested under Nevada Revised Statute 171.123(3), which allows an officer to detain a person to ascertain his identity when there are circumstances reasonably indicating that person has committed a crime."

Sounds like a real jerk, not someone I'd want to be defending.

Just because spamming is not illegal (and it is, under an increasing number of laws) under some conditions does not make it morally or ethically "right." It is still theft by conversion and trespass to chattel. The court system decided that a lonnnng time back in the original case of Cyber Promotions vs. AOL.

Muggers, shoplifters, and other thieves are not going to go away as long as they think they have even the ghost of a chance of making a quick $$.

Spamming is not going to go away as long as spammers think they can make an equally quick $$.

Spamming would stop practically overnight if the entire Internet-using population simply failed to respond to ANY of the offers contained in spam, no matter if they came from a supposedly "legitimate" company (and, in my eyes, no company that sends any form of spam can be considered "legitimate") or some huckster in a double-wide in a trailer park.

The answer, to my eyes, is two-fold, and is simple enough.

(1) Extend the existing anti-junk FAX laws to cover E-mail. In other words, ban spamming outright. Period.

(2) Teach people early and well, especially the earlier generation: NEVER RESPOND to spam, other than to block or filter it.

I fail to see the Humor in this.

Living in the country that tried to introduce CAPPS and CAPPS II and did pass PATRIOT but thankfully not TIA or PATRIOT II, or am I just the only one that could see the government trying to do this?

One of the things that I always find most telling in an article is the last word. What source gets quoted last, what side gets to put the final, lasting emphasis on the issue. All too often the last word is chosen to be the most direct and "hard hitting" piece.

I was bothered by the fact the last word here was from the pro cctv side who directly lkinked their case to terrorism but without any actual context. It feels too much like the bad arguments here in the U.S. Person A asserts that they oppose attacking Iraq Person B then screas about Terrorism or 9/11 to shut them up.

Mind you I'm not saying that I hated the artuicle as a whole, I'm glad that they did it although I'm supprised that they didn't cite some of the material availible at EPIC on the topic. It just felt like the balance was trhown off by that conclusion. That the author intended to leave a lasting pro-cctv impression.

Palladium/DRM from a Democrat?

Is that surprising? Don't forget about Clinton's Clipper Chip.

Are Democrats more interested in personal freedom than Republicans, or does it just seem that way since the media harps endlessly on the Republicans and gives the Democrats a free ride?

I guess you haven't tried to get any credit (cards or otherwise) since you went cellular only. A friend just went through this problem. The "great" USA Patriot Act has made it illegal for companies issuing credit to do so for anyone who does not have a landline telephone number.

That said - I cannot find it explicitly in the act , after a quick review. (EPIC.org). But it may be that I missed it, or that the details are in some resulting regulation, or that that is the interpretation of the credit issuer.

My buddy was trying to buy furniture, and got turned down even tho he has an excellent credit record. After doing the digging the credit issuer told him that they could not issue because he gave them only a mobile phone number.

I'd love to hear about your experience should you apply for new credit.

Censorship is almost an impossibility now, especially in well-developed countries, thanks to the internet.

Thanks to new tracking techniques, once your government of choice tracks you down all they need to do is toss you in jail and have said tossing broadcast on every channel from coast to coast.

I did read the entire sentence.

Here is a link to the Patriot Act: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes., but what is not clear is whether that is a preliminary version or the final version.

In any event, I don't see anything in it mandating that ISPs keep any kind of records of their customer's activity. Section 212 does discuss the disclosure of customer records, but I don't see anything there that mandates that records be kept.

On a quick reading, the sections referred to don't seem to require any records be kept.

At TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 - STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS, you can find the sections referring to the records.

For example, from Section 2709,

Sec. 2709. - Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records

(a) Duty to Provide. -

A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.

So, if you are asked for records, you must provide those records in your custody or possession. I don't see anything there mandating that you keep any such records.

The other sections are pretty interesting, but they seem to be more interested in keeping ISPs from providing confidential records without proper authorization.

The real question is, "Just what records must be kept?"

My guess is that you don't have to keep any records unless ordered to keep such records by a court of law.

In summary, it is very clear that if you have such records, you may be required to provide them under some circumstances. But I don't see anything mandating that you keep such records at all. I suspect that a judge could order the ISP to keep particular records, but what if there is no such order?

Why would they need to get a new warrant? The original warrant already gives them the right to look through the _entire_ disk. If the police finds kiddy porn on som guy's computer, but aren't allowed to arrest him at once, you guys (i'm not an american) really need to take a good look at your laws. Or, on second throught, please take a look at your laws anyway.

Remember the Clipper Chip? Practically nobody wanted to use something like that so it simply disappeared. AFAIK several other countries (eg. France) have laws severely restricting cryptography.

(No it's not working and secure cyptography cannot be stopped.)

The article is extremely misleading. It quotes "conversations" but the important statistic is the number of authorized State and Federal wiretaps...only 1358. The average number of conversations per wiretap exceeds 2000!

EPIC's VoIP letter to the FCC

Just connect into the TIA (Defense Department Total Information Awareness system) and search on your name. You will find all record of anything you ever spent anywhere contained therein.

Yes, the P2P program installs a virus called DRM onto your computer, which wrests away control from you, and allows a third party total control over your system. Any "pirated materials"[1] will be deleted from your hard drive.

Either that, or since Kazaa isn't made by M$ ( ooh they are very jealous of any competitors) and Palladium hasn't been released yet (not that Microsoft would allow Kazaa to run on a pure Palladium system anyway), the p2p program probably just does something stupid. Probably downloads the file to a "secret" location on your hard drive, lauches the player, waits until you close your video player program, then deletes the file.

[1] Pirated materials are files containing any material critical of our great overlord.

How about donations to "geek" charities such as the EFF or EPIC? I'm sure other worthwhile OpenSource projects such as GNOME can also use a gift. Donations are environmentally friendly, don't require batteries, never break, and won't clutter your apartment or add more confusion to your life.

Okay, to be more accurate, it was Congress that decided some of those rights weren't important anymore, in the weeks following 9/11. But Ashcroft was invovled in a lot of the pressure put upon the House and the Senate to pass the USA PATRIOT act as quickly as possible, with little debate or ammendment. USA PATRIOT act

The constitutionality of some sections of the USA PATRIOT act has yet to be challenged, probably because most of those its new (or expanded) powers have been used against are either not citizens, but resident aliens; or are unaware of the survelliance. For instance, a "multi-point roving wiretap" warrant can be issued against a person, allowing law enforcement agents to tap computers, phone lines, or cell phone lines.

Upon the suspicion that an intelligence target might use such a facility, the FBI can now monitor all communications transmitted at the facility.

In other words, if a "intelligence target" lives a quarter of a mile from your home, the FBI could monitor any activity at any public phone, cybercafe or library with an internet connection within a "reasonable distance."

And that's just one section of this act.

(And, yes, the caps in the title are intentional. USA PATRIOT is an acronymn. And probably the single stupidiest, most "you're obviously a commie, you voted against being a PATRIOT" name ever. And the sad thing is, it worked. In all, one senator, and about a dozen Reps. voted against it.)

hahhhah *cough* PATRIOT ACT *cough* ahahaha

It's not the "patriot act" but the "USA PATRIOT Act". What's the difference? Oh just about everything the word patriot might stand for. It just doesn't sound quite as good when you spell it out, does it: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"?

Full text of the Act here Nugget

Since my cable modem lines are the property of AOL-TimeWarner, do they have the right to do with as they please?

Sigh. Let's try this again.

"Since computers, networks, etc at work at taken to be the property of the company--it's theirs to do with as they please."

If you work at your ISP, then yes, what you do at work and with their equipment is theirs. They can read your email, they can ruffle through your desk drawers, and they can monitor your IMs.

Yes, there are wiretap laws. They also don't apply to the situation I described. I searched Google for the phrase, "do wiretap laws apply to employers?". One of the results says, quote, "With the federal and state wiretapping statutes permitting employers' monitoring e-mail communications, and with courts holding that common law intrusion into seclusion privacy claims don't apply since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when e-mail is sent over an employer's system, employees should understand that employers may monitor electronic communications even without reserving the right to do so in their e-mail policies." The emphasis is mine.

For another matter, courts have ruled that employers may monitor phone calls in an effort to determine if the content is business or personal. There is usually a time limit they can listen. Another quote, related to both matters, from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, reads: "Workers of the world are exposed to many types of privacy-invasive monitoring while earning a living. These include [. . .] Internet monitoring and filtering, E-mail monitoring, instant message monitoring, phone monitoring [. . .] and keystroke logging." You'll note that while the article lists all sorts of reasons employers might not want to monitor such communications, it makes no mention that they can't. It does go on to mention restrictions on how and when they can, according to legislation, but has a massive piece dedicated to all the loopholes and instances where employers can still do it.

In short, one last quote, from this page, which just about sums it up: "The second exemption is that the ECPA [the legislation that provides what few restrictions there are] exempts from liability the person or entity providing the communication service. Where this service is provided by the employer, the ECPA has been interpreted as permitting the employers broad discretion to read and disclose the contents of e-mail communications, without the employee's consent."

It sucks. I will be the first to admit it. But it's a legal reality.

Happy now, or can I expect a snooty response?

If anybody is interested in an unbiased (thought incomplete) overview of this area, here is congressional report on the topic

http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting/crsreport.pdf

Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat Wisconsin

"He was the lone senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act last fall, has been its most vocal critic, warning that the act infringes on constitutional freedoms. He also introduced legislation that would put on hold the government's "Total Information Awareness Program"."

Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill From The Senate Floor

epic.org mentions Feingold

Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat Wisconsin

"He was the lone senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act last fall, has been its most vocal critic, warning that the act infringes on constitutional freedoms. He also introduced legislation that would put on hold the government's "Total Information Awareness Program"."

Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill From The Senate Floor

epic.org mentions Feingold

How about this: the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act has nothing to do with patriotism; the word patriot is merely dropped into that silly name (a heavy-handed acronym, like some kind of killer robot) because it's a strong word. Keep this in mind and you might have an easier time of understanding where the Act is coming from.

Of course, we already have lots of people (including, ahem, Slashdot editors) who call it The Patriot Act, forgetting that klugey, bias-encumbering acronym. Also of course, the strongest word is still the word free.

But, of course, that's all merely my opinion.