Slashdot Mirror
HR 46: Wiretapping, Forfeiture, Crypto Penalties
Thank you, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.). You've taken the inoffensive "Public Safety Medal of Valor" bill and quietly tacked on an amendment that does oh-so-much more. Wiretapping to record email and phone conversations of people suspected of computer crime (who needs that
Fourth Amendment
anyway?). Forfeiture (before you are convicted or even charged) of "devices used in ... intellectual property theft." And extra penalties for using crypto, nice way to stigmatize an entire industry there.
Dave Kopel's analysis
is at Cryptome, along with the bill text, etc.
As a former resident, alumnus of the UofU, and "Pie" cook (a lowly life form around there)
I remember how we used to delimit the population...
Utahn- a resident who agrees to see that there is life beyond the "Zion Curtain", and can hold even the merest discussion without slamming people for religion.
Utard- Those that think that there is nothing more to life than their own "piece" of the state Be that it be Delta,Moab,Happy Valley,Cottonwood Canyon, Park City (even though that is Colorado:) ), or the exiled Utah city of Pocatello
BTW this hold true for anyone in anystate... Just Utah was one of the easiest examples of this. But I now see it very prevelant in Upstate NY as well As Other places I've lived
*waiting for the flames*
-- Life: Hate the Game... Love the cereal
This is the kind of $100,000,000 boondoggle that gives politicians the reputation they so richly deserve.
Take a bill about "A." Tack on things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with "A." (Which IMHO should be illegal.)
Bury a provision which will have every wage earning American paying $3 for the privilege of having somebody trample over their feet. And "voila," political contributors from the security equipemnt community will be amply rewarded for something that is unmonitored (and isn't going to happen since that costs money and the idea here is PROFIT!)
Why not start with a bill called the "Widows and Orphans" protection bill and tack on legalization for recreational pharmacopea, enforced under-age sex and very high-stakes gambling (televised Russian Roulette ["a la" Deer Hunter.]) Then lambaste anyone who dares vote against protection of widows and orphans.
The only thing that stops me from going out into the streets right now is that I'm secure in the knowledge that the collection mechanisms are already in place, the analysis equipment is already in place but the software lags way behind in capability and that I'm a Canadian and I can laugh at the Americans for screwing themselves with this utter stupidity.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Don't fool yourself, NONE of the candidates understand encryption. Nader perhaps came close, though.
Finkployd
But as it is, the legislative branch has too much power.
"Let's make EVERY law unconstitutional. At least some will get through" Yes, it's an exaggeration , but how far is that from the truth?
I mean, guns are (mostly) legal, but lots of states have laws that add penalties to offenses commited with a gun. I don't see why treating crypto the same way is a big deal.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
However, a different version was passed in the Senate, which would mean that it has to get sent back (House & Senate must pass identical versions of the bill) to the House
It seems to me that Congress could use some version control. CVS anyone?
While we're at it, we should require certain types of laws, ie ones that stomp on our constitution, to garner a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate instead of just a majority.
That implies that they should have the right to attempt to pass laws that stop on the constitution. I say that is treason punishable by death (or at least a good noogie)
Finkployd
Of course there are PACs that simply represent the interests of an industry, which have an agenda of their own - but they have no votes to offer, just money. Grassroots activism counts for a lot more than money.
-- Jeff Paulsen
don't take this the wrong way please but are you freaking insane. You've just proven something that I have serious issue with on a majority of slashdot users.
To quote: "Makes you wanna Ralph, more than ever!"
You list a paragraph about how much you don't trust government authorities and yet you say that this should make us want someone who wants the government to have MORE power, almost to the point of socialism. How can you reconsile this in any rational thought process?
This bothers me more and more is that people wanted Ralph Nader for his consumer support background (which I am ALL in favor) and yet never bothered to read the Socialist manifesto that was the Green Party platform.
We don't need a bigger government we need a constitutional government that doesn't step over it's bounds. The government should protect us from the things that we cannot do ourselves (fight big business, foreign powers) and set laws that are within thier power as defined by the constituion. Everything else should pass to the states. And yet you people still call for the Green party and Nader under a platform that would pass EVERYTHING to the government to decide.
It just blows my mind!
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
I dunno about (1, Funny), I'd have given him (1, Insightful).
This is steganography. Who could oppose the Public Safety Medal of Honor bill? ("No pr0n here, officer, I just have 6 gigabytes of uncompressed .BMPs of clouds! I like clouds! So big fluffy and random!")
And unlike what they propose to do with our stego, their stego is legal.
RIAA did it with the "work for hire" provisions, now it's the FBI's turn to do it.
If you propose a law or amendment that is later deemed unconstitutional, it is an impeachable offense, and bars you from holding public office again.
Problem is who handles the impeachment. It's not as if impeaching President Clinton actually ment anything too.
Anyway simply being barred from public office is a mild punishment for high treason.
Too bad they killed Presidential Line Item Veto, although I seriously doubt that Clinton would've done a thing on this one...
Say goodbye to your rights, kids. It's gonna be a new Dark Ages for those of us here in the States....
sig not found
Icebox
The problem with the Constituitional Convention is that the Framers did not foresee the rise of National Political Parties. Basically, Republicrats and Democans control the Federal and State Legislatures. Do you think that either party would allow a Call for a Constitutional Convention to pass a plurality/majority/super-majority of State Legislatures?
I'll go on a limb and say that the next Amendment won't pass for another 200 years.
Cheers,
Slak
*sleighbells* HO HO HO, Merry Xmas... What with these jokers? I think its about time we start the beatings. How many more rights do I need taken away? Let's wiretap jackos house there and broadcast it on the net :) I'm sure he would like that as much as I would.
Next they're gonna prohibit me from wiping my own butt.
ps. Don't forget the milk n cookies.
Some people (including the Supreme Court) say the US constitution makes it illegal to ban abortions. Many (most?) constitutional scholars wouldn't agree with that interpretation.
Another example would be the recent liberal Violence Against Women Act which attempted to make rape a federal crime based on the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. I'm sure most people don't see rape (even though it's a terrible crime) as an issue that interferes with interstate commerce. The Supreme Court did not think so either.
What was strange about the Court's ruling was that the Supreme Court interpreted this interstate commerce clause totally differently than it had done since the New Deal. So those congressmen that proposed the Act had no way of knowing that the Supreme Court would strike it down.
Would you really want to bar those congressmen from holding public office just because of this misstep?
But guess who will be president when this bill will probably come across the desk looking for a signature? You guessed it...someone who probably doesn't understand much about encryption anyways.
This sounds awfully unconstitutional to me, or at least worthy of a contest in court.
Kopel's National Review article on the same subject.
The Independence Institute -- Kopel's organization. Note that the link on this page has the following quote regarding the bill:
Note: the bill's sponsors have recently agreed to remove all objectionable items, except for the encryption provision
The real DunkPonch is user 215121. Everyone else is Bruce Perens.
Congress says they tack things on to cut down on the amount of meetings they have to have about bills...so what.
Part of the task of a legislative assembly in a democracy is to ensure that laws passed are necessary and subject to critical examination. In the case of somwhere with a written constitution part of the latter should be comparativly easy.
I.e if there is any question about the consitutional standing of a bill or rider then throw it out, which would in itself cut down the amount of time wasted.
Sounds not dissimilar to the problems with the US patent office. Passing things as a default when the default should be to reject.
The staffer that I talked to was a very nice fellow, and he did say that it's possible that it might have been slipped into one of the big omnibus appropriations bills, but HR 46 did not go through on its own.
--
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
You said:
The real estate situation around DC can't be that bad, so I figure you ought to do nicely on $2,000 a month.
Yes, it's that bad. I think it reasonable to allow for a one-bedroom apartment in a non-deluxe building in the District of Columbia. Such an apartment will go for about $1200 to $2400 a month.
This from someone who just moved to Montgomery County MD because I couldn't afford to stay in the District even though I wanted to.
This page accidentally left blank
Well, first of all, I disagree about the so-called 'partisanship' of the US Supreme Court Justices who threw out the Florida Supreme Court's plan for a recount. That ruling was 7-2, crossing these imagined 'party lines'. -That- is partisanship. The ruling, in a nutshell, said that a recount without rules (which is what the David Boise said he wanted) would lead to 'unequal treatment' of the votes.
Still don't get what I'm saying? Let's say you and I are sitting down at the recount table. We haven't been told -how- to count all these 'undervotes'. My 'personal judgement' is gonna be different from yours. Even if we're the two wisest, most honest people on earth, there's no telling that we're gonna both come to the same conclusions from this dented piece of paper.
As for the Justice chairs Bush has to fill... well, all he's said is that he wants Justices who'll stick to what's in the Constitution and what's on the lawbooks. Fine by me. You want to rewrite the law, you go to Congress, not Court. That's the way it's supposed to be. The Judicial is supposed to be non-activist branch of government.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
Civil forfeiture is nothing new. It really came into it's own under the Reagan administration with the War on Drugs in the 80's. In the 90's under the Clinton administration the new ground was broken in the War on Guns.
Why is it that my fellow geeks only care about this type of thing when it's knocking at their own front door? This type of thing threatens all of our freedom. Whether or not you're a terrorist, mafioso, child pornographer, or any of the other assorted nasties that are thrown up to gain public acceptance this will not stop at just the "Bad Guys".
I don't use crypto very much. A little SSH for secure terminal sessions and SSL because I want to learn about it, I even have a PGP public key somewhere around here for emergencies, but I think that we should be able to use crypto with no fear of persecution for it. If I want to send my girlfriend a sweet sappy love letter, I don't think that it's unreasonable to not want an FBI, NSA or even ISP snoop reading over it to see if it's an acceptable communication.
For the "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear." crowd, how long before it's YOU on the list of people engaged in unpopular activities? When will your model rocket hobby get you looked at because you *could* secretly be making missiles to carry Ricin or Anthrax? When will your reading habits come into question? Were you reading that book about Wicca because you're interested in pagan religions, or because you're planning a child sacrifice?(I know wiccans don't do that sort of thing, but the general public can be whipped up into a frenzy about anything. http://wm3.org)
When will your chemistry hobby make you a potential mad bomber? Will playing a *little too much* minesweeper make you a fanatic about ordnance disposal?
Sound far fetched? 100 years ago who would have believed that the Russians and Chinese would have killed upwards of 40 million of their own people?
20 years ago who would have believed that a sitting president would have been caught, impeached and tried for perjury? 10 years ago who would have believed that the most famous ex-football player ever would have been on trial for double murder?
Take a stand. Take it now. Or don't bitch when they come after you.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Stupid me... I preview and preview, and still typo. D'oh.
-That- is partisanship -> That is -not- partisanship.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
The ruling, in a nutshell, said that a recount without rules (which is what the David Boise said he wanted) would lead to 'unequal treatment' of the votes.
Which is complete hogwash, of course. The votes are already treated unequally. They're cast and counted as each district decides to do. Some are hand-counted from the start. Some are impossible to recount due to the method of voting used. Why should recounts be any different? There were representatives from both parties present at each counting table. They only counted votes they could agree on, those where the intent was clear. Even the manufacturer of the vote-counting machines in a lot of the districts agreed that a recount was the best way to get a conclusive answer as to who the people elected. The margin of error of the machines was much greater than the lead that Bush had. We should have had a recount of all counties where a recount was possible. Excluding those that did hand counts from the start, those that used machines that don't allow for a recount, and possibly those that used optically read ballots with a very tiny margin of error, if that was agreeable to both sides. It should have been done this way from the start.
Even if we're the two wisest, most honest people on earth, there's no telling that we're gonna both come to the same conclusions from this dented piece of paper.
They managed to count many ballots by hand. Yes, they didn't agree on all of them, but quite often there was a clear intent discernable from looking at the ballot. Intent which even the opposing party would not deny. In the end, you end up with more votes counted and included than you get with machines.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Do away with elections. Conscript congress and the senate, for a single term only, by picking names out of the phone book. And a lot of this bull-{expletive deleted] disappears.
The power lusting don't have to raise hundreds of millions of dollars running for election because there are NO elections. Its a crap-shoot instead of a $100,000,000 a year game that comes out of YOUR pockets.
The greedy can't curry favors because, there's no way they can know who's going in and since they only last one term, there are no "relationships" that evolve with the usual tit-for-tat, quid-pro-quo, "you fill my coffers and I'll fill yours."
Imagine, the past month, and the year long run up to it, would never have occurred.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
it is important that people realize that there is a difference between a crime and the tools used in a crime. there are many rights granted by the constitution that are being taken away by legislation under the guise of protecting the people. fundamental rights like speech, right to bear arms, etc are being blamed for problems that already have applicable laws.
the readers should take note of this and see how it applies to them. sure you say:
"i dont need guns so make them illegal" or "i dont use computers in libraries, so the filter software doesn't bother me"....
what you dont understand is that if your rights are taken away slowly then you are less likely to notice. the next right to be taken may be speech-then it's too late to complain.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
This sort of thing is not new; I am, frankly, surprised that there isn't more of an outcry for federal single subject rules. I guess the people who work the system for a living don't want it to change.
You've hit the point right there, I think. I've been wondering out loud for some time now whether or not I have the answer for that last problem -- the fact that half of our biggest institutional problems will never be solved because it negatively affects those in power.
If memory serves, a constitutional amendment requires 2/3 majority of both houses, but does not require presidential signature. Then, it requires 3/4 of the states to approve it. So, by design, getting an amendment passed and ratified is very difficult, especially if it affects congress in any way. (quick trivia quiz -- what's the last amendment to be added to the US constitution? One restricting congressional pay-raises to take effect the following term. How'd that get passed? It was part of the original bill of rights, but took over 200 years to get ratified. Most modern amendments include "drop dead" language if not ratified in some short number of years).
However, there is still hope (and here's where my memory may be failing). A majority of states may vote for a Constitutional Convention, in which amendments may be proposed, voted on, and (immediately, I think) ratified.
I have yet to hear anyone of any authority or voice advocate such a move, so I may be way off on this one. But it seems to me that this would be a fantastic avenue for issues with broad public support but little chance of congressional action, for example, Campaign Finance, Line-Item Veto, Same-Subject Legislation, or Term Limits. Unfortunately, it could also be a fast track for less constitutionally-appropriate, but popular, "hot button" issues like Internet Porn or Flag Burning.
Maybe this warrants a /. discussion in and of itself? Maybe (in a broader sense) /. needs a "Politics" section (or a sister "PolDot" site)? I'm really curious to hear others' thoughts on this one...
david.
Search for medal of valor here.
It's the last link, as far as I can tell.
I don't see how section 308 is as bad as Dave Koppel feared? Am I misreading, or reading the wrong text?
It doesn't mention wiretapping, and where it does mention encryption:
(c) AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO USE OF ENCRYPTION- Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and, if appropriate, shall promulgate guidelines or policy statements or amend existing policy statements to ensure that the guidelines provide sufficiently stringent penalties to deter and punish persons who intentionally use encryption in connection with the commission or concealment of criminal acts sentenced under the guidelines.
It would seem that encryption used intentionally by criminals to hide the crime would have to face 'sufficiently stringent penalties'
Would this then only apply to those who have been accused *and* determined to be guilty of criminal acts 'sentanced under the guidelines'?
His fear of wiretapping comes from S2448RS, senate, not house...
Search for "wire, oral, and electronic communications", here.
It's section 8, under authority to...
However, there is no related section or subsection under HR46...
So the only problem I can tell is under HR46 section 304 clause (2)
(2) The criminal forfeiture of property under this subsection, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding relating thereto, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsection (d) of that section.'
Are there reasons to suspect this clause? It seems out of place, in a computer crime action...
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
It's not illegal if you can justify it and relate it to work. Just make sure all your lunches and dinners are "business lunches or dinners." Travel is paid for. Probably even the cost of an apartment in D.C. since it's job-related. Maybe stay in a hotel the whole time. Might get a good rate, and they have maid and laundry service.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Perhaps a more reasonable remedy would be to require representatives to reimburse taxpayers for any government money (wages, travel expenses, etc.) that is spent while writing and/or lobbying for a bill that is later deemed unconstitutional.
MSK
Well the world survied for millenia without obtrusive media telling everyone to act...and I highly doubt ugh the caveman, or even a colonial farmsteader, was on average smarter than the people of today (if anything at least better nutrition should count for something). Moreover, it is in no way clear that there would be less media in a libertarian society.
But you are right in that libertarianism is far to ideal. Human beings are complicated creatures created by the random process of evolution to survive well in a hunting gathering enviornment...it would be a conicedence of unimaginable proportions to find out that the ideal form of government for these creatures is simply defined as that government which maximizes individual rights.
The truth is that a libertarian society could never correctly deal with a great deal of public goods. For instance national defense. In only the most idealized view of human nature would everyone in the United States contribute fairly to the common defense. What would actually happen is that people would (perhaps believing in that self deulded way they were contributing their fair share) gradually give less and less to the common defense and many people would give nothing at all.
It is however impossible to support differential milatary protection for differnt houses. Imagine the government protecting Jim's house from the Soviets but because Bob is behind on his contributions letting the tanks take that house.
Similar arguments apply for police protection (it is primarily deterant based not response based) and welfare (I know I fell happier if ppl aren't dying in the streets but would be just as happy if someone else was paying for it).
In short libertarinism is a nice idea but the laws of physics and human nature are staked against it.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Another example would be the recent liberal Violence Against Women Act which attempted to make rape a federal crime based on the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.
A "Violence Against " law violates the 14th ammendment anyway. Not withstanding that the US has fought a war of independance and a civil war where state sponsered discrimination was part of the reason for the war.
Indeed the VAWA is a prime example of redundant legislation pushed by a special interest group in direct contravention of a written constitution. (Probably worstening an existing problem of sexist rape laws too.)
Do away with elections. Conscript congress and the senate, for a single term only, by picking names out of the phone book. And a lot of this bull-{expletive deleted] disappears.
I mentioned this when posting on another topic, but it seems appropriate again....
I remember hearing of a short story, I think it was by Clarke. It was about a future in which elections -had- been done with, and representatives were chosen by a big computer which would choose based purely on qualification.
Anyone actually -wanting- to be in political office would be immediately disqualified. And, once selected, the only way to get out of a position would be to do a good job of it.
So, you'd have a lot of really, really qualified folks doing great jobs as President or Congressman or whatever... just so they could get out of office and on with their lives.
Wouldn't it be nice....
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
You will also find that the related bill is S.39, and that the Senate has not yet taken up the amended bill.
The short summary is, don't bother calling you Representative, call your Senator instead. Don't bother calling the White House, since Bush isn't there yet (and the odds of his voting against this is approximately nil.)
Thalia
It wouldn't even have a "chilling effect" on discussion: you can talk about all the wrong-headed bills and provisions you want, but God help you if you are so stupid as to vote for one.
Especially one where the title alone makes it obvious that the attempt is to contravne the constitution (which definitly includes all so called "hate crime" issues or other ways of creating discriminatory legislation.)
FYI here is part of the statue on seizure in FL:
And saying that encryption is a sign of criminal activity is like arresting people who buy ski masks. Preposterous.
Try "envelopes" instead of ski masks. The fastest way to illustrate to people why *I* prefer encryption is to use the postcard/envelope analogy.
"Obviously you have something to hide, since you keep sending your paper mail in envelopes ('enhanced privacy' envelopes, no less!), than using postcards for everything. What criminal activities are you engaging in?"
I think now's a good time to set up my own anon remailer, and start regularly sending encrypted traffic through it and the rest of the remailer network. Synchronously. Of varying sizes. So there's no way to prove that a particular message happens to be real and not just cover traffic.
Or it could be too late.
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
The whole McCarthy/communism thing is kind of an interesting issue.
Joe McCarthy was pretty much run outta town after several years.
The investigation of underground Communists in the government continued.
Since the fall of Communism in Russia and the opening of the secret files from that era, it's been pretty conclusively shown that the people accused were Communists, they were engaged in Treason and Seditious acts....
It was a good thing that the Rosenbergs were executed. It was a good thing that Alger Hiss was taken down.
A lot of the people who squeal in dismay about McCarthyism don't have a clue what they're ranting about.
Hay thar.
Section 304 (Score:-4, Offtopic) Bill invalidated.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Actually to be honest I voted Harry Browne (Libertarian) this year so I thought I'd clarify that that a bit as I forgot to in the original post.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Is Mr. Hatch representing Utah residents? I mean honestly, there are a lot of conservative people who are afraid of the internet in Utah. But I think the important thing that we need to emphasize is that even the PEOPLE can have opinions which undermine our basic rights. That's why I love living in a republic. En mass, people are dumb, and make dumb decisions,... but with a republic, we get a lot more common sense thrown into the mix. Here is what I'm doing. I'm writing my congressman, and telling him what I think about Mr. Hatch's agenda. And that I would appreciate being represented on this issue.
That is the way erosion of rights starts. In California, recent legislation authorizes a police officer to assume probable cause if you, upon seeing an officer, turn and run. Turning and running from a cop was never a crime before, but now it allows a cop to search you bodily.
Likewise, encryption is a hair's breadth away from being the thing that designates you a criminal.
Between this and Carnivore, encryption may soon be determined to be an evasion of the long arm of the law.
This might mean that if you encrypt your email, the FBI can get authorization to tap your phone.
Now how could the FBI determine that you encrypted an email message? Wouldn't that be illegal? Soon it will become legal, trust me...
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Recently Mr. Hatch ran for re-election. It was clear to me how important it was to inform voters of the choice they were about to make. For those of you that don't know, Hatch was one of the primary sponsers of the CTEA, DMCA, and a bill to extend the life of the drug patent Claritin (as he used their corporate jet to fly around while running for president). He was planning on sneaking it through like this legislation till his ass got caught.
So, I went to the local Linux Users Group and stood up at the meeting (only a dozen people show up) and asked for help in organizing against Hatch. As I was talking it was apparent by the way they were looking at their shoes that there was complete disinterest in doing anything, and that they were going to vote for Hatch anyway.
The fact of the matter is that people vote for Hatch because "they are supposed to". One state representative went so far as to say that you "can't be a mormon and vote for a democrat at the same time," (exact words). Whether you are a mormon or not, Hatch is seen as "church endorsed" and the mormon church carries enough influence to affect any election they want to. There are many "heriditary republicans" that will vote republican on election day no matter what, without giving it a second thought. Also, there is a large segment that will vote for Hatch as he is pro-NRA, and everybody loves their guns here. Take all this together and you can see why he got re-elected by a landslide.
Utahns are being raped left and right by bad political representation on the local level as well. Our taxes and utilites are going up, as the legislature did away with the public commision that oversees utility rates (the bill was written by the local gas utility)
The only question is how hard do Utahns want to scream before they've had enough???
If you live in Salt Lake County, and want to organize, email me kphil@hotmail.com
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Rather than passing line-item veto, they should pass something that says any rider tacked on must be related to the main bill.
Congress says they tack things on to cut down on the amount of meetings they have to have about bills...so what.
They are getting paid a LOT of money and were elected cause they lied to say the wanted to make America a better place. Fine...get off your ass and out of meetings with special interest groups and do something.
Make the salary of a congressman equal to the average salary of the American worker, and then we'll get the right kind of people in there.
I'm from Utah. I'm from Utah Valley -- one of the most conservative places in Utah.
I see the dichotomy that you're talking about -- many people have strong constitutionalist sentiments and a beleif in protecting individual rights. And yet civil liberty issues often go ignored. I think it's largely because the press ignores the issue and people don't get informed. To many Utahns, civil liberties are still simply about guns and freedom to worship (which are included, yes, but not the end of the list).
It's not totally so: for example, in the last election, a proposition curtailing powers of forfeiture and seizure passed with something like 67% approval. I think this shows that when the issues are brought before them, Utahns would tend to favor personal liberties. They just need to be better informed.
Tweet, tweet.
Perhaps we need a similar constitutional amendment for Federal legislation?
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Provide special additional punishments for people who use encryptionProvide special additional punishments for people who use encryption
So what this is saying, if I ssh from my Sun box at work to my Linux box at home, then I fire up my Napster/Gnutella Client and download some music I don't own, I'm (for a lack of a better way of putting it) fucked?
Doh!
Among these offenses are making false statements on student-loan applications or passport applications. 18 U.S.C. sec. 2516(1).
Great. So I can get my house wire-tapped, computer(s) seized, and e-mail (and all other 'electronic' communication) read because someone suspects that I made a false statement on a student loan application? This does not bode well...
What can we do to get this thing killed?
--Just Another Pimp A$$ Perl Hacker
El riesgo vive siempre!
Actually, one of the biggest problems regarding a constitutional convention is that there is no limiting language.
The last time the USA held a constitutional convention, they were told to modify the current constitution (or "Articles of Confederation") and instead replaced the entire structure of government. All suggestions that a "limited" convention could be held that would discuss a single subject matter, or that the scope of such a convention could be contained has been suggested as faulty. All that would keep any new government that came from such a convention is if the existing government wouldn't acknowledge the legitimacy of the new one.
Essentially, it would be a mess, and cause some real confusion (as if the mess in Florida wasn't enough).
This bill doesn't hurt big business, so the lobbying groups aren't going to oppose it, the subject isn't even on the trade unions radar, and the ACLU is considered a bunch of nuts in most peoples' eyes, since they do weird liberal things such as support the bill of rights.
:) As for them taking away our computers, the US government has the wonderful ability to never be wrong, at least when it comes down to telling who a "hacker" is. (No, not cracker, that's a food. Haven't you watched the movies, hackers are evil.) Therefore, even without putting the PR spin that "this bill helps us eliminate the child porn trade and organized crime", this bill will pass easily.
This leaves the will of the American people. Unfortunately the American public doesn't give a damn. Unreasonable search and seizures are a pain, but only if the police show up during the football game, luckily, we can't even tell if they are wiretapping, therefore, its okay, since it doesn't bother us. As for encryption, 99% of the email users out there don't even know it exists, for them, email magically leaves one computer and arrives at a different computer, without occupying any of the points inbetween. Under this theory, email is one of the safest ways to communicate with another human being, since its common knowledge that you can't intercept messages as they travel through the ether.
Us humans are short-sighted bastards. If it doesn't affect us immediately in a way we can see, we usually don't care.
The first time this is used will also be the first time it is challenged, and even if congress(!progress) approves, and the president approves, you can be certian the supreme court will not approve. Yes, I'm aware that Bush will likely pick up to 3 new justices, but even conservative justices cannot look at this bill without seeing the glaring constitutional problems engendered by it.
;-)
Secondly, can we make it so only people who read the articles can post? Maybe have 2 or 3 changing multiple choice questions they have to answer correctly about it before they are allowed to post.
-Adam
"After playing with Netscape 6 for a while, I've come to the conclusions it doesn't even support IPv4..."
- noted on an IPV6 mailing list.
Actually I *DID* misread it as I've since gone back and looked at again. Many apologies to the original poster. the capitalization got me a bit railed up as I immediatly thought "Nader". I had just gotten out of a discussion with someone about this and my blood was already running hot.
I still stand by my original post about the hypocracy of voting for Nader when you say that you don't trust the government as far as you can throw them. I've been re-reading the federalist papers more and more lately and I've been miffed overall at the state of things. ESPECIALLY when I read articles like this.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Simple. They get to go back to their voters and say, "See? I voted to enhance your security and put the bad guys away. It's not MY fault it didn't make it into law." Happens all the time.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
We need everyone to lobby congress and the senate for a constitutional ammendment requiring bill titles to accurately describe all of their contents. The use of a 'Medal of Valor' bill to snuff out more personal freedoms is the most ludicrous thing I have seen come out of DC in quite a while.
While we're at it, we should require certain types of laws, ie ones that stomp on our constitution, to garner a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate instead of just a majority.
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
You're probably a troll, but come on...if federal investigators have reasonable cause to believe any particular person is violating the law, they have all kinds of resources to plant bugs, trackers, wire-tap, put under surveillance etc - most of these techniques will work whether the target is using encryption or not.
What they WANT is to the ability to do this to anyone, anytime, while using a bare minimum of physical resources. I don't believe making it this easy to violate civil liberties is in the best interests of our society.
Well yes I have a problem with that. That's why I asked in the first place.
So if they can convict you of something without accessing the encrypted files, they can also baselessly use those same encrypted files against you, under the umbrella that you refuse to decrypt them, and that encrypted files used in a crime are themselves criminal...
Is this like making a punishment worse for illegally owning a gun, even if the gun had nothing to do with the crime or the punishment?
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
Just my $.02
Take the time, write something meaningful and express how much you dislike this bill.
Thanks in advance
The price of freedom is eternal vigalence, and people these days have remarkably short attention spans.
And people are biased, and people are greedy, and people run the government. It always amazes me how some folks think that the govenment is somehow this "unbiased" organization that is out to protect our interests. Unfortunatly, its made up of those same dumb, biased, greedy folks that they claim they need protection from, except now those dumb, biased, greedy people have the ability to change laws to screw with us.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
Let me play devils advocate for a minute though. Kopel mentions wearing gloves, which I agree is a reasonable analogy, but isn't evading arrest via destruction of evidence similar and punished seperate from the crime being concealed in many instances?
Oh, and neener neener neener, we posted it on Poliglut first.
--
Hey, the Supreme Court already ruled on this
;)
stuff, right...? In Case #12, 1928 (Olmstead vs. United States).
Unfortunately, they ruled 5-4 in favor of
Olmstead's conviction, but I personally believe
that it is time for this to stop. This "Line
Item..." gives the Federal Government _way_ too
much power to punish people without them even
knowing what it's for. If this bill is passed,
then I really think that someone needs to
challenge the legality and Constitutionality of
it in the Supreme Court...
BTW, I can see it now:
"31337 H4X0RZ vs. United States"
Case #blah-blah-blah-blah...
Wouldn't that be great lol
>Grassroots activism counts for a lot more than money.
On what planet, exactly? Or, okay, in what country? There are probably still democracies in which this is the case, but I can't agree that ours is one of them. As an activist in areas ranging from drug policy to free speech to electronic freedom to consumer protection, I would submit that the power of money is paramount in the year 2000. Political realities demand it. If other politicians are exchanging influence for cash, yours probably will be too -- or else she won't be able to pay for the ads, and she probably won't get elected. There are brave exceptions, of course, but they're few and far between. Even when a political battle goes my way, it's usually because an organization like the ACLU or the EFF -- with the help of my financial contributions -- has been able to *pay* to fight the expensive legal or legislative fights that are, sadly, vital to overturning unconstitutional legislation.
And yes, I am a member of the Libertarian Party, and I regularly vote that way (though I also vote for Democrats and sometimes even Republicans, based on the candidates and my perception of the closeness of the race). As such, while I'll try to be succinct, I'd like to counter just a couple of the accusations which have been made against Libertarians in this thread.
First of all, not all Libertarians wish to abolish the income tax, eliminate foreign aid, and axe all government programs that aren't directly involved in protecting liberties. That's the perception of some, but it's far from reality. I happen to agree with those who have argued that pure libertarianism would never work. But, so what? I would argue that neither pure conservatism nor pure liberalism would work either; there are strengths and weaknesses to both, and the reason that there are so many passionate people on both sides probably has something to do with the fact that the "best" course lies somewhere in between. I am a Libertarian because I have seen, time and time again, that neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties are any longer truly committed to protecting civil liberties. The economic axis of the political map gets most of the attention, while with respect to the personal-freedom axis, both major parties are content to blame the other for our undeniable shift toward authoritarianism. And most of us buy it, though even a cursory perusal of the Congressional Record and voting logs makes it clear that attacking civil liberties has become a truly bipartisan sport. Following the money trails may help me understand why this is, but it doesn't make me want to be a part of it any more than I have to.
I would also take issue with the suggestion that Libertarians wish to take power out of the hands of the government and put it into the hands of the corporations. Far from it. Indeed, another of the primary reasons I became a Libertarian was to fight the undeniable influence of the latter on the former. Look at the Napster battle. Look at the DVD/DeCSS battle. Heck, look at the Drug War, and follow the money trails back from the most vociferous warriors in Congress to the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries, all of whom have major vested interests in keeping illicit substances illicit (even for medicinal purposes). All of this stuff tends to annoy Libertarians -- who, not coincidentally, tend to be among the strongest advocates of the kind of campaign finance reform to which *most* Republicrat politicians pay lip service and little else, since they just don't see it as being in their best interests.
Finally, there's the last major accusation which is regularly made against Libertarian/Green/Reform/Natural Law etc. voters, which is that we're "throwing our votes away." However you happen to come down on the Nader issue, I'd say that a glance at the Florida totals would demonstrate that this isn't the case. Enough Florida progressives simply couldn't vote for Gore with a clean conscience that he lost the election. It's that simple. Don't feel like playing that kind of roulette and taking a chance that you'll be helping the candidate you consider the greater of two evils? Hey, fine! Just *register* Libertarian; it'll still have an impact. Or give to the ACLU, the EFF, or other groups that fight for liberties. All I ask is that you don't judge my party until you're sure you know what we're about.
Ethan
> > Everything needs limits, even freedom.
> I agree, and I propose we start with yours.
Guys, while I have stopped reading Slashdot regularly a while ago and certainly don't give a hoot about Karma (after reaching 50 it looses its charms), flagging this post as Flaimbait is a joke. Did you actually read what the guy wrote: "Everything needs limits, even freedom." What kind of idiotic statement is that? So let's take the analogy further: everything needs limits, even breathing. Heck, it WAS everything after all, wasn't it?
Back to the non-sequitur. Just because some ideologues in Congress decide to call something a matter of interstate commerce, doesn't make it one. Let's take some items from the laundry list of things from the dissent as examples:
"Three out of four American women will be victims of violent crimes sometime during their life."
No evidence is presented that this has anything to do with people, goods or data crossing state lines. Nor does it mention what the lifetime violent-crime victimization rate is for men, which would render the Constitutionality of the law doubtful under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which issue was not before the Court).
The basic problem anything of the form "X% of people will experience Y in their lifetime" is that people who don't understand statistics completly misunderstand it. It can make something uncommon (or historical) appear common (and current). In the example even if you eliminated all violent crime against American women now any such figure wouldn't change for years if not decades. (Note also that the law in question only addresses a specific subset of violent crime in the first place. There is a "bait and switch" at work here too, at some point "violent crime against women" switches to "violent crime against women perpetrated by a (male) partner.)
"Between 2,000 and 4,000 women die every year from [domestic] abuse."
Across state lines? Are interstate partner-swapping rings engaging in murder instead of sex?
Note that these figures have no context, what is this as a percentage of women who die in the US anually?
"[E]stimates suggest that we spend $5 to $10 billion a year on health care, criminal justice, and other social costs of domestic violence."
Scary number, lousy logic.
Again lack of context, is this a big or a small amount?
"According to one study, close to half a million girls now in high school will be raped before they graduate."
Taking a girl across a state line for immoral purposes was a crime long ago. Where's the interstate-commerce angle in date rape?
You also need to consider exactly what definition of "rape" is used, some of the more liberal ones would also give numbers of 500,000-1,000,000 boys. If they were applied in a gender neutral manner, indeed the basic problem with interpreting "rape" figures is that the definitions and collection methods tend to be blatantly sexist in the first place.
"Less than 1 percent of all [rape] victims have collected damages." Folk wisdom says "you can't get blood from a stone." What does the fact that most rapists have no money (the term is "judgement-proof") have to do with interstate commerce?
How common are such damages in criminal cases anyway?
More to the point: if sponsorship of an un-Constitutional bill was an impeachable offense, the Supreme Court could also have rid us of the sloppy thinkers who gave us such junk and called it law. Done often enough this could improve the general caliber of legislators as well as making those remaining more careful about what and how they legislate
Maybe also make them a little more skeptical of being lead by the nose by advocacy groups (which at best tend to have a distorted view of reality.)
I'm not saying that this bill is a good thing, but I've seen many geek arguements (DeCSS, filtering, etc.) degenerate into ridiculous speculation and exaggeration, to the point that it becomess hard for the general public or the opposition to take the arguements seriously. If you're going to fight it, then fight it, not your own straw men. Why fight this line item's potential for over-use, when the whole thing is wrong?
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
Capt. Ron
crazy dynamite monkey
If such a bill were introduced it would cause a constitutional crisis, as there is no operational veto system. Technically, the head of state (i.e. the queen) can veto a bill, but as this tends to lead to having their heads cut off for going against the will of parliament, monarchs have been loathe to do this for a few hundred years....
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
Because it suits the purposes of the corporations who produce the ongoing performance of "Democracy" on the stage in Washington. I hear they're finally going to add musical numbers next year, to which bread and circuses will no doubt be attached as a rider.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The proposed bill does do one interesting thing. There is a 6 month mandatory minimum sentence for most federal computer crimes (including something as simple as defacing a web site if the victim can claim over $5,000 in damages, including time (and soon to include lost revenue)).
This would remove that. It bases this on the claim that some federal prosecutors are reluctant to bring charges because they don't have any room to bargain to get a plea. This is the second time I've seen a bill aimed at reducing that minimum. That's funny because they specifically passed that minimum in either 96 or 98.
I just called my congressman's office (Joe Barton, fwiw), and according to them, there is some good news.
The bill passed the House on the 15th, so don't bother calling. However, a different version was passed in the Senate, which would mean that it has to get sent back (House & Senate must pass identical versions of the bill) to the House, which has already recessed. So, in order for it to get passed it would have to get reintroduced next year. We'll have to look into this next year. But there's no need to call. (It passed on the 15th)
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Since some of the posters here are harping about the name of the bill, I thought I would paste this from the bill text on the cryptome page referenced by the article:
The bill (H.R. 46), as amended, was read the third time and passed. The title was amended so as to read: To provide a national medal for public safety officers who act with extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty, to enhance computer crime enforcement and Internet security, and for other purposes.
Please read the content before commenting
Granted, this stake seems dead-on aimed at its heart...
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Actually, in a couple of senses, yes.
If you rob a bank, and then evade the police, causing a chase, there is an additional charge.
Also,
If you turn yourself in you are likely to get a lighter sentence.
Cheers,
Tom
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
Makes you wanna Ralph, more than ever!
Oh, yeah, that's a firm barrier to abusive use of the law.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
It seems the "protect the people from themselves" mantra of big government and big business has finally started to complete its cycle of viciousnous.
I realize that sounds harsh, but I also realize that it is true. People have been programmed to believe that it is very, very important for the government (and the big businesses that are actually in charge of the government) to protect them from themselves and their neighbors. Personally that makes me sick. But there are so many people that actually believe in this sort of thinking that it is really difficult to get anyone to listen to you if you believe that freedom is more important than protection.
I realize that there is a fine line that must be balanced upon between freedom and protection in any well-run society, but lately it seems that the balance has swung completely over to the side of protection. No common sense is applied. No one cares about freedom. In fact, I've even seen arguments along the lines of, "What about my freedom to be sure that my child will never have to see a pornographic picture?" That isn't freedom you are asking for. You are asking for society to be in charge of raising your child.
I'm sorry if people see this as a fameish rant, but it is high time that people get interested in themselves again. You cannot expect to live a sheltered existence and still have freedom. You can have one or the other. And while the adults of this world were raised during the "enlightened child-rearing" age, when kids were taught that mommy and daddy would filter and sanitize all things for them, we must, at some point, convince those very adults that it is very important to make sure that you learn how to "filter" things for yourself.
As an example, I came from such a family. My parents believed (still believe, even at 27 years old with my own wife and family) that they could filter and sanitize the world as it came to me. I quickly learned that the world is not as safe a place as they wanted me to believe. And I managed, by fighting against the controlling instincts of my parents, to develop the ability to ignore things that were "bad" for me. I've never been drunk, I've never had the urge to smoke, I've never tried drugs, and the worst habit I have is playing guitar loudly. I managed to survive all the peer pressure, advertising campaigns and all the other garbage that goes on as a kid and not succumb to the "evils of the world". I developed my own mind, and learned to make my own decisions. But today that is considered bad. It is far more important to be told how to decide things by parents, teachers and eventually (once you outgrow those) the government and business where you work. It is a sad reality, and one that I hope reverses at some point.
This "tack a 'little' rule on a bill and hope it passes" garbage is something that isn't necissary. It was developed as a way to pass unsavory things by attaching them to more wanted things and has survived unchanged for a long time. Why we allow it is beyond me. I know the excuses that are given (it costs us less money and all that garbage), but shouldn't things be wieghed on their own merits? Why should we have to decided something purely on the basis of whether it is "attached" to something more important? This is what our government and the businesses that run our government want us to believe. Doesn't it seem ridiculous?
Imagine going to an interview and being told, "We can hire you, but only if you are willing to leave your wife, move out of your house, and live in a cardboard box". While this is an extreme example, you would have to decide between taking that job and losing everything else, or losing that job opportunity and keeping everything else. These are the sorts of ridiculous decisions that get made day in and day out by our congress. It just doesn't make sense. Line item veto you say? Line items shouldn't exists at all. It should be one item is one item, period. Otherwise it's just an excuse to pass more legislation that opresses the "idiot masses". The sad thing is, there are enough people that want to be oppressed now, in the name of protection, that we probably won't see it change. God, what a mess. I pray that someone finds a way to do something.
------------
Version: 5.5.3a
qTDKKD/773DLpla/98RTsUdd/3k5lsON39/66DAda
ieu93ERKSL34k/KoqcxCxKISS839DKd8Dk7LALd/K
kdla/a95alkDIkdKetUksMYdaclkaaeie93/3K2Kk
qTDKKD/773DLpla/98RTsASSi/4k5lllseETOON39
ieu93ERKSL34k/KoqcxCxMRKE839DKd8Dk7LALd/K
kdla/a95alkDIkdKetUksHATCHlkaaeie93/3K2Kk
qTDKKD/773DLpla/98RTs5lllseETOON39/66Da89
ieu93ERKSL34k/KoqcxCxCMKE839LALd/K3j93la3
kdla/a95alkDIkdKetUkslKdaclkaaeie93ladueq
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
Ok first as I understand it their is a difference between philosophical libertarinism (aka Ayn Rand type where no abridgement of personal property is ever allowed). I was responding to, and I thought the original poster was discussing this philosophical libertarinism.
In such a system of course no taxes can be allowed...they take the individuals money by threat of force. This of course necessitates a capatilistic approach to everything (all transactions must be volountary which eliminates the idea of governmental money) and incures the problems I mentioned before.
Secondly one could advocate a sort of consequentialist libertarnism where abrogating the rights of the individual is valid so long as the government serves to minimize the total rights abrogated (we may tax because this is a small violation versus the effect a military invasion) however in such a system taxes for the general welfare but not increasing individual rights would be abandoned...i.e. road work as above.
If I interpret the position you describe above it is a sort of general feeling that less governmental intervention would be benificial but with no conviction that it is nececsserily better (certain circumstances do need government involvement) personally, while it is a workable and perhaps benificial system, I do not consier that libertarinism because it doesn't appear to have any differnt philosophical goals than the democrats or replublicans (in fact it sounds like alot of republican platforms) it is just a differnt interprataion on how to actually accomplish these goals
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Section 310, the bit about encyption, needs some thinking about. If you encypt data as a matter of habit, then you are probably going to be suspect under this section. There have been numerous recent cases of hackers brought before courts for, umm...let's say, suspect reasons (see 2600.org). If goverments are going to attempt to prosecute on as little eveidence as some of these exapmles, 310 will be a massive boost to their ammunition. What this could possibly amount to is any data you encrypt being used against you as evidence. Or to put it another way, "you'd better decrypt that data for us sonny, or we're going to roast your butt in court." (why else would you want to encryt stuff but to do illigal things, hey?) Don't be so simple to think it won't happen.
lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
If you want to stop this bill, you have to write to your members of congress.
House members can be looked up here.
Senate members can be found here.
------------------------------------------
If God Dropped Acid, Would he see People???
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Say, any chance we could get a judge to agree that "hiding unrelated messages [laws] in the text of a bill" is a form of steganography, and therefore a form of encryption...and get our overpaid legislators flung in prison for violating their own bill?
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for Evil.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend