Slashdot Mirror
Carnivore To Die?
Mr_CFG writes "Rep. Dick Armey is looking to tighten FBI funding in order to starve Carnivore, and is asking AG Ashcroft to review the Constitutional questions surrounding
the program" Rep Armey raises a good point, citing the recent Supreme Court decision regarding high tech survellaince, strongly limiting the government's ability to monitor things inside the home.
There is no constitutional right to privacy. Some think there is because Supreme Court Justices made one up years ago. However, a constitutional right built on imagination can just as easily be taken away by the Court that created it. Perhaps we need an amendment to "make it so"; something to codify our right to privacy.
Privacy and Free Speech are very similar principles. They are not morals of course, as they can be used for ill as well as good. They are simply fundemental human rights. We limit free speech and we limit privacy, all in an attempt to create a society of limited self-governance. However, to claim that we have never had privacy is equally as absurd as claiming that we never had free speech. The claim that privacy's sole purpose is to enable social evil is equally absurd. Essentially, the author is either making an unusual jest, or is a complete baboon. Sorry, I take back the baboon part. That would be offensive to the other baboons.
I am not willing to sacrifice privacy for security, just as most americans are not willing to.
You seem to think that *if* the fbi knows, you are somehow protected, LOL
The fact of the matter is, somebody new that there was going to be a bomb at oklahoma city, as there was a bomb squad hovering around the fbi office before the cow pies exploded; if they won't protect their own, what makes you think they will protect you?
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=2, Troll=4, Insightful=6, Interesting=2, Overrated=1, Total=15.
Regardless, you can return your refund for precisely that:
Me, I've got better things to spend my refund on, like brewing equipment. :-)
I think is why this country really needs a middle ground party. You could see it during the elections how people were very content with the state of the union. Many didn't want the progressiveness of one party or the conservatism of the other, yet what choice did they have. The population as a whole was sitting right at the center, and from a statistic point of view it made perfect sense that this translated to a dead 50-50 split. However we live in a country where political viewpoints are binary, so a slight bit of noise tossed us full throttle into republican mode. That in control theory is called an unstable bang-bang system. We lack shades of gray, and unfortunately this election only forces both sides to take up their ideals even more fanatically. I'm not talking about a libertian party, or a green party. I'm talking about a "we're content" party that doesn't pass major laws (unless the situation warrants it), just keeps the day-to-day government running.
-- Making computers see, hear, and think... http://www.componica.com/
This is called the "King George Test" and is one of the ways, including reading the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, of knowing what the people who wrote the Constitution meant. In other words, you do not have to get on any slippery slopes just to deal with new technology.
I wrote parts of this stuff
The Constitution is addressed to the government, and specifies what the government may not do. The government does not have the same rights as the people, by design. Everything the government is not allowed to regulate is allowed. (Hahaha! Which shows how far we have strayed.)
I wrote parts of this stuff
Yesterday Bush called Africa a nation. On Tuesday he mispronounced the name of the leader of Spain. I'm not too surprised if he mispronounced nuclear. Maybe it's one of his pet names for a pet project. Now he wants to give Spain access to Echelon so it can spy on its own people. We know why Aznar was smiling.
Bwwwwaaaaa ha ha ha ha he he ha ha ha
(my cisco class laughs out loud)
He he snarf lol ha ha ha
Mod this guy up! this is great stuff. Bye bye republicans
he he he he...
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
This is the sort of thing I would hope we can avoid. I don't see the orginal post as ALL REPUBLICANS ARE GREAT, and ALL DEMOCRATS ARE EVIL. Just support what is right, just, support your beliefs, and values... but damn let's get beyond supporting Political Party's to the bitter end.
Whether they're Democrat or Republican, if they champion something that is good (such as attempting to get rid of Carnv.) Then who cares what party they belong to!
Hell we could sit here all day drawing up a list of what Fienstien or Lott, did and said. Or we could write in email to support killing Carnavore, if you in fact support killing it.
I could go on, but I have an email to write.
peaCe
Awesome!
that the Constitutional restrictions apply until the courts decide otherwise.
Meaning, when a new communication medium is introduced, the First Ammendment statement that Congress will make no law abridging freedom of speech or press on that meidum automatically applies.
And when a new surveilance method is introduced, then the fourth ammendment restriction against search and seizure automatically applies until a court decides that the search method is reasonable. I imply here that someone not related to the FBI should have the chance to make their case that the search is unreasonable, if they so believe.
The first ammendment already works that way, essentially. The net was free, until people started trying to censor it.
But if this applied to search methods, it would a) give us the public a chance to hear about these new methods and b) make the default be to protect our privacy, rather than to allow our privacy be invaded and perhaps later having some recourse if it was decided the search was unreasonable.
I especially like part b. If you get nailed by some new surveilance method, by the time you get your day in court to contest the findings, you're already screwed.
The enemies of Democracy are
Hey numbbot - the FBI works in this country on domestic and counterterrorism and the last terrorist wasn't some goat humping raghead. He was ummm...yeah a white american male. Does anyone see a correlation between Ashcroft and some relaxation on the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus, etc. in an attempt to restart the Christian Identity movement?
Well I do - so before you go all "it's muthfukin' Clinton's fault" remember who the Justice Department represents...
Now now George. Be nice on Slashdot, otherwise you can't have any ice cream!
It will have no more funding, so it will just disappear into thin air. Oh good, and I was getting worried that we were all being watched.
;-)
This announcement is as good as the fact that americans don't build chem/bio/nuclear weapons anymore.
-Vic
Here's the letter (Dick Armey (R-Texas) sent to John Ashcroft.
Here's an actual ARTICLE about it. I submitted this story over 24 hours before the posting, but it was rejected because i mentioned that Dick Armey was a texas republican.
Yet Reno gleefully made this system possible, was on watch during Waco, Ruby Ridge, refused to investigate top Democratic fundraisers for illegalities, sent federal agents to Miami gestapo style to get Elian Gonzalez among other things.
As much as I despised Janet Reno, the incident at Ruby Ridge occured before her watch began. It's just the investigatoin of that event that can be blamed on her.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The majority of American voters did not get who they wanted for president and with a nearly perfectly devided house/senate you could be sure that people would scrutinize Ashcroft.
We will never know who the majority voted for, in states like California, New York, Texas the like there were more than enough uncounted absentee ballots to change the popular vote tally in Bush's favor or enough to cememnt a clear Gore lead. But in the states where they made no difference they were not counted.
With a less than 500,000 vote difference, there is no way to tell who won the popular vote.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This is not true. Under Federal law, all absentee ballots must be counted and certified with the offical election results for each state.
Under which federal law? None. Outside of the US Constitution, the federal government has no authority to dictate to a state how they certify their election results.
States do not have to submit their popular vote totals when they certify their election results.
Remember, under the system that we have (and are likely to have for the forseeable future) the popular vote means dick in a presidential election. Maybe it should be different, maybe it shouldn't be different, but it isn't.
As it stands, we'll never know who really won the popular vote.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This is the whole basis of Libertarian arguments, the whole reason for limited government, the whole argument against any centralized government.
Most of the people in government (usually) are out to help the people. They are doing their jobs, keeping the peace and prosecuting wrongdoers.
The problem is the 0.01 percent (I'm overstating here) who are a bunch of psychopathic powermongers. Since they desire power, you find much greater densities of them in positions of political power. It's these people that we have to protect ourselves from.
Carnivore is an amazing tool. As far as I can tell, it is something that could be done privately. Is there a market for it? Probably not. Why not? Well, would you pay $10k/yr to have somebody put a black box on your network to capture data that can be used as forensic evidence?
No, but *I* PAY FOR IT! I pay TAXES, while you get it for FREE!
Good admins do it on their own; extra box + packet sniffer + no running services + lots of disk space == Carnivore-that-I-pay-for-in-my-monthly-ISP-payment . So there. As long as it *isn't* taxes, I'm happy!
Think about it.
-lf
While for a long time I've agreed with John Q. Slashdotuser that Carnivore is an invasion of privacy and the like, I've recently changed my view.
I work for a medium-sized ISP. Not too long ago, we had a server that was broken into and used for launching DDOS attacks, despite being well-maintained with security patches and intrusion detection systems. While rummaging through the system after the break-in was detected, the logs pointed to a couple other ISPs, as would be expected.
When I went to contact the other providers, one of them responded *much* quicker than usual for a major hosting company. We exchanged six emails in the course of an hour regarding the specifics of the system compromise, and shortly thereafter I received a call from our boys in the bureau.
It turns out that there had been a carnivore system at the other provider watching specifically for the perpetrator of the attack on our server. The traffic that was captured there helped diagnose the breakins (along with many others).
In talking with the agent, I *quickly* realized that this isn't used for "black helicopter" surveillance. They don't give a flip about the data they accidentally collect that has your credit card number paying for that adult website and they don't care about that email you sent to your friend about the meeting. If anything, the stuff that is accidentally captured is taking up disk space where REAL forensic data could be.
Most of the FBI people who deal with carnivore aren't out to find anyone who's committing a crime. They're not out to invade the privacy of internet users. They're people with computer and networking backgrounds like you or me and they dig through the electronic clues to provide reports to higher-ups that are clueless about the technology.
It's a good thing. Let's try to look at both sides.
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
Most of the attacks on Bush seem to focus for some reason on words he sometimes makes up or odd phrases he uses... you know what people that argue someone is stupid on that basis remind me of? Old school Usenet Grammar Nazis. The arguments were just as weak then as they are now.
Personally, I like people that make up words as it shows a sign of creativity. I'd rather have someone in office who mixes up words sometimes and is somewhat creative, than yet another bland politician type.
One last thought - an AC who wants to support Carnivore is just too ironic!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
However, I dont really think that it is reasonable to expect privacy when browsing on the Internet
Let's see... what else is not private? How about calling your doctor? The phone network is a "public place", by your reasoning. Sure, let's just have the phone company record your conversations and publish the statistics to interested parties.... Do ISPs do this now? Yes, but I expect that to last until the first law suit that cripples an ISP because they sold what ammounts to medical information to the wrong party. Americans are very sensitive to their tenuous right to privacy, and the trigger is usually violence against women or medical information.
My stepfather has worked with Carnivore(he is a high ranking federal law enforcement agent) and when we talked about the Carnivore system he said that it is much harder to get a warrent for it or for taking a computer than it is to get warrents for searching more traditional things.
Of course, it's harder now; they're working out the ground-rules. However, if attitudes like yours prevailed, I would expect it to be much easier within the next few years. Thankfully, many judges take the long view, and such invasions will likely be curtailed over the next few years.
--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)
to actually write down everything, within the constitution, that could and could not be considered as protected or not protected by the numerous clauses. that's why you're right.. we have to apply the meaning. Think of how ridiculous it would be to sit down and spell out everything that is valid as free speech, rights to assemble, etc. I'd consider myself a strict constructionist (to borrow your term), and I agree with you (so I guess this post is mostly a "good job, amen, patting-you-on-the-back" post).
But back to the original article, I agree that they should get rid of Carnivore, and that they ought to take away the use of thermal imaging without a search warrant, blah blah... I certainly don't want anyone poking around where I live without a warrant because that's simply invading my privacy.
while(Constitution)
{
discuss(our_rights);
}
Insert mind here.
"...then you agree with Hitler. Surprized?"
Actually, I'm kind of surprised you invoked Hitler - according to Usenet rules this conversation is now at an end and you lost.
Nevertheless....
I don't think the armed forces or police should have guns either; I am of a general mind that guns and violence are a pretty stupid way to resolve any kind of conflict. Yes, Iraq, Osama Bin-Laden, evil criminals, blah blah, etc., etc., but just because they are out there and thus you need guns, doesn't make the guns right, moral, or smart - just necessary. And still stupid.
And if Dick Armey was just a two-bit representative from a backwater district making a fool of himself, his views on religion, artistic expression, and sexuality wouldn't matter. The fact that he and his cronies drive the agenda ratchets the importance of his beliefs up a notch, though - don't you think?
If the moderates on either side prevailed in these debates things might make a little more sense and real work might get done. The fact that they are in the hands of extremists just makes it harder for the sensible voices to be heard, and places every argument in an "us against them, holy war" context.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Funny that in the same post, you were both open-minded and closed-minded on the subject of religion. While you want Mr. Armey to accept all religions as valid religions, you don't want him to have his own religious beliefs on the subject of homosexuals. In the quote "that homosexuality is a sin, treatable in the same way as alcoholism or sex addiction. Lott was supported by Armey, who told reporters "The Bible is very clear on this," citing I Corinthians 6:9, ll, 18, and 20. In the King James version of the Bible, I Corinthians 6:9 says that "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" shall inherit the kingdom of God. ", I don't see any suggestion that Mr. Armey believes anything but that he beleives that homosexuals are involved in a behavior that *he* believes to be a sin. He isn't proposing that we discriminate in any way against them.
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
"For example, radio and television were unknown at the time the First Amendment was drafted. But that amendment clearly means that Congress shall not muck about with free speech on radio or television, just as they shall not in newspapers..."
I agree with you here. However, I'm not sure it illustrates your point. The fact that the First Amendment prohibits restrictions on free speech and that that logically applies to all media doesn't mean that another prohibition should be dropped when new methods arise. (I realize you didn't say that; I'm just making the point that both are restrictions on government authority and that there should be no extension of that autority by default.)
I think your argument supports the principle of 'general reasonableness', by which I mean reasonable to a substantial majority of the people. I would argue that modern, high-tech surveillance methods are not both understood and expected by most people, thereby making them unreasonable by the intent of the Fourth Amendment.
The real intent of my post was to make the point that if such searches can be quietly implemented before their widespread public consideration, then they will seem much more 'reasonable' after they become common. Perhaps if we quickly implemented new punishment methods, they would no longer be 'unusual punishments' by the time the public considered them an issue. Neat trick, if you can get away with it. Unfortunately, I was sloppy in making that point in my original post.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
If we incrementally allow more and more intrusive searches, eventually they will come to seem more 'reasonable'.
None of these high-tech methods of spying on citizens were available at the time the Bill of Rights were written. That, alone, should be enough to disqualify them as unreasonable since they were certainly not considered 'reasonable' -- or even considered at all -- in the language of the document.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Given the FBI's record (*cough*COINTELPRO*cough*), that is the prudent assumption.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Where is the "-1, Kook" option? "Troll" doesn't really cover this one....
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I think the expectectation and reasonableness rise in proportion to the amount of government probing into our lives. If the government and companies weren't so intent on gathering so much info on us, and monitoring all of our activity, and even checking our thoughts, we wouldn't be so obsessed with privacy.
--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
The one X'd Exon, he's an ass,
The two X'd Exxon, that's a gas,
But there's one thing you can bet your necks on,
You'll never see a three-XXX'd Exon.
(Ah, fond memories indeed.)
So, if the Feebs GPL Carnivore, or assert that packet sniffers are freely available (Linux on a laptop and a promiscuous card!) to the general public...
(Yeah, I think Carnivore, by virtue of its design requirement that it be hooked up to the ISP, doesn't fall into "generally-available", falls under the recent Supreme Court ruling, and should therefore require a warrant before use. But I'm playing Devil's Advocate here...)
Huh?
It's a packet sniffer. But you have to have physical access to the ISP's datacenter to use it.
The real question (arguably unanswered) is whether or not the part of your TCP/IP connection between your home and the first router away from your ISP constitutes part of your home.
The argument can be made that it does - they could just wiretap you. But they don't, choosing to use the ISP's outbound pipe to wiretap everyone and (so they tell us :) then throw away the data from everyone but you. They do this for the sake of convenience (It's arguably harder to wiretap a cablemodem. Or optical fiber to the home. Or line-of-sight laser to the home...).
That is, Carnivore is just an easy way (using means not available to the general public, like sitting down in an ISP's datacenter) of getting access to your data stream (which is information they would not otherwise be able to gain without having to) wiretap you (which would typically require physical access to your property or the wires/cables/lasers/EM-fields connecting thereto or emanating therefrom).
I don't know how far that'd fly in court, but it sounds like a non-frivolous argument using the recent SCOTUS ruling as precedent. I don't know how they'd rule, but I'd think the Justices would have to think about it for a while before ruling either way.
"The Founding Fathers couldn't have predicted the UZI, which lets you shoot 30 rounds!"
s/UZI/Internet s/shoot 30 rounds/put your dangerous crackpot opinions in front of 1 billion people
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
Exactly one country has ratified Kyoto, Romania. If it's so vital to the future of the planet, why are you waiting around for the U.S.? Just because the Senate unanimously rejected it doesn't mean other countries can't approve it.
The ABM treaty was made with the Soviet Union. Consulting a current map, I see no such entity. I actually don't support Bush's missile defense program, because it will almost certainly turn into pork barrel programs with little or no results, but the ABM treaty is a non-issue.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
It's sad that the obvious needs to be stated, but governments are responsible for at least 1000 times more crimes than all terrorists and kidnappers put together.
The FBI has a long history of using it's information for blackmail, and of killing political opponent and other inconvenient people.
Not to mention the unilateral cancellation of the Kyoto and ABM treaties, showing off that typical American arrogance towards the rest of the world.
Sorry if I insulted any of you by that statement, but that's the image you get by doing all those things.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
If you think he is such an idiot, I guess then you will be returning your tax refund check back to the government when you get it because you feel guilty for having received money that your poor uncle could have used for countless more government programs.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
According to the article 'critics have charged' this.
This kind of automatically assumes malevolence and deceit on the side of the FBI. They have said it will not. They had independent reviewers look at it who said as much. Yeah, I know they weren't quite independent (blah blah blah).
The crux of the matter is that the FBI cannot use information in court garnered without a proper warrant. If they can't use it in court, why are they collecting it? To post on the internet? Because they give it to the CIA so that they'll kill us? To go in a secret government database? To determine who goes in 'Who's Who Among Email Senders'? Come on.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
However, I attribute this to government-bureaucracy (sp?) type stuff, not to purposeful FBI wrongdoing. Government contracts are a pain, and you can't just jump in if you don't know what you're doing. Likewise, it's likely that the reviewing team chosen would have people that worked with the government in their team. It's not malevolence ... just domain knowledge.
Living near D.C., and knowing many people that work for the government, I *do* trust them.
Except for that old hanlon's razor thing ;)
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
The supreme court decision did not say thermal imaging could not be used ... it only said a warrant would be required.
Protections against misuse of carnivore would be good.
Eliminating carnivore would make the FBI less effective. Unless you would like more terrorists and kidnappers running around.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
The Supreme Court decision actually has very little to do with Carnivore. I'm surprised to see such technological illiteracy on /. but I have learned to lower my expectations over the last couple of years.
The Supreme Court decision concerns surveillance of an intrusive nature that gives police access to information they would not otherwise have been able to gain without physical access. Carnivore has absolutely nothing to do with such kinds of surveillance. Carnivore is nothing more than a glorified packet sniffer.
As such, it picks up (pursuant to lawfully obtained search warrants) information that is sent OUTSIDE any area that could be reasonably considered private. When you send e-mail or browse the Web, you are submitting information on a public network, and as such, police are perfectly entitled to perform surveillance there, provided they have the appropriate judicial permission (in the form of a warrant).
That notion, quite frankly, scares the living hell out of me. The fact that Americans won't even discuss incidents in which their own government acted like tyrannical thugs shows how easy it would be for them to do it again.
We must not hesitate to discuss these matters. We shouldn't sweep Ruby Ridge, Elian, or any of those under the rug any more than we should ignorethe bad actions of Phillip Morris or Microsoft. Only by exposing and working against injustice can we get anywhere.
This was probably flamebait, but I'll bite, 'causeit pissed me off.
Did Daddy not hug you as a child? Just because you can't trust YOURSELF around women doesn't mean other men can't. Or perhaps you are a woman who's been mistreated by men, in which case you have my pity.
Back, however, to privacy. If you honestly don't understand the need for personal privacy and security in one's own property, there would seem to be something wrong with you. It's a basic human urge. Privacy is what allows us our human dignity.
No one ever had any actual privacy; merely artificially imposed curtains that conceal malicious actions by some against others.
Back to the whole concept of "projection" -- perhaps you should pick up an Abnormal Psychology book and look into it. First of all, "artifically imposed curtains" are "real" privacy. That's like saying "we never had shelter, only artificially imposed homes." The response, of course, is "duh."
Unfortunately, I feel my arguments will fall upon deaf ears, and that a foray into psychology would stray too far off topic.
Suffice it to say, the desire for privacy is a basic, entirely natural human urge, and to deny it is like keeping a Laborador Retriever from digging holes, or keeping a cat from grooming itself. If you don't understand it, for your own sake, you should spend more time worrying about your own state of mind and less about others'.
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." --Voltaire
Word of warning to you and other non-liberals and non-democrats: Mention Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian, and other Carnivore-targetted words, and you get tuned out. Those words and phrases are like big red buttons in the minds of most Americans, and they either turn those minds on (in your case) or they turn them off (in the case of just about everyone in metro DC). You get dismissed as a "right-wing nutcase" instantly unless you're speaking to a sympathizer.
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." --Voltaire
http://www.animalvoice.com/carnivore_preservation_ trust.htm
ANd how do we know whether they have the "responsibility or authority to spy on citizens"? afterall, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the NSA charter classified?
Even if they "don't have the authority", should we honestly believe it would stop them?
Also, would you like to show som eevidence to back up your statements? How are we suposed to know that the NSA "has a hard enough time tracking foreign terrorists"?
And lastly... had they ever thought that maybe the world might be a better place if the terrorists going after the white house got through? Just a thought. "Just planting seeds".
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Since when are the democrats "Left wing?
Sheesh, you run a country with two right wing parties and all of a sudden people start calling the more centrist one "left wing".
Quite amazing. I will agree though - we could use more parties. Actually, I like an idea I heard recently from a friend.
Change the senate such that parties are elected, who then apoint members. Ie a party is elected to each seat and the party determines who fills it.
Then change the house such that members are not allowed to be members of political parties. NO parties in the house. No Majority leaders or whips. Just representatives of the people, pure and simple.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> So it is with some surprise that I find myself
> actually agreeing with Armey for once
And if you think only the armed forces (police, army, etc) should have guns, then you agree with Hitler. Surprized?
SO what? What Dick Armey believes about religions or about homosexuality has nothing to do with other issues. Its impossible to take one or two issues and say "I wont agree with this person on anything" or "This person can't have any good ideas".
It is annoying though. There are so many people (like my High School Senior year religon teacher, who prayed in class that Roe Vs Wade would be overturned) that I would love to consider complete wastes of flesh but... sometimes they do end up holding a few ideas that arn't too far off.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> Actually, I'm kind of surprised you invoked
> Hitler - according to Usenet rules this
> conversation is now at an end and you lost.
Hmmm well this isn't usenet. Besides the "loss" idea is not actually part of Godwins law, it simply states that the chances of a comparison to hitler or the nazis aproaches 1 as a conversation goes on. You will not that my point in doing so was opposite to that where most such comparisons are made. In fact, I made it specifically to show that such comparisons are meaningless.
I don't see how your post has anything to do with mine. The entire point to my post was, afterall, 'Just because a person believes one thing, doesn't mean they believe another'
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I would seem to me that the /. crew would finally get a clue that the Republican party isn't a party of illiterate inbred morons that they seem to think it is. The Democrats made Carnivore, the DMCA (bipartisn in Congress, but signed eagerly by left-leaning Democratic President) and other major civil rights violations possible.
I remember how most of the /. crew wanted desparately to see Gore win over "that idiot" Bush and how most /.ers in general were attacking Ashcroft when he was nominated for his position. Yet Reno gleefully made this system possible, was on watch during Waco, Ruby Ridge, refused to investigate top Democratic fundraisers for illegalities, sent federal agents to Miami gestapo style to get Elian Gonzalez among other things. At least we have an Attorney General now who because of his mostly hard-line conservative view (and don't give me that bullshit about him wanting to monitor "wackos" and non-christians) would probably heavily restrict its use anyway if not outright ban it while he's in charge.
I for one am sick of the bullshit on /. about "Your Rights Online" posts talking about how evil corporate "rights violations" are when the government is doing worse. The corporations can't bloody well wiretap you legally unless (well the telecoms might, but they have nothing to gain by screwing your privacy since their monopoly status in their regions is contingent on playing nice guy) their people want to be sent to prison. The CEO that does that better have a fast private jet ready to leave the country if he gets caught because a small army of state and federal law enforcement personnel will be after him for such an audacious act. And wouldn't that be something, Board has to explain to stockholders why its CEO had to suddenly leave the country and now the company's PR image has been ruined for blatantly illegal behavior. As I've said in previous posts, you can walk up to a corporate executive officer and tell him to kiss your buttocks, and he can't force you to do what he wants. You do that to a cop you will find yourself in jail. That is the world of difference. Corporations have no more legal right to use force against you under our system than you do against them. The government though can simply pass a law saying it can kill you without a trial and until someone challenges it and the Supreme Court nullifies it, it is in effect. The Congress with people like Diane Feinstein in it could pass a law saying that "as of now kiddywinks, the first and second amendments are nullified!" and you have to live with that until the Supreme Court slaps them down. Get rid of the power to do that, and I might be mildly willing to discuss corporate "rights violations"
I do not know why people is so concern about carnivore... forget about it! Just encrypt all your communications (emails) and leave worries behind. As many said before, carnivore is not going to work as intended.
As you cling to the arbitrary notion of privacy, you're doing little more than empowering men to rape and torture women.
Since you beleive this, you need to put up or shutup, put up webcams in your bathrooms and bedrooms, better yet every room in your house and stream it to a website, I will be waiting for you to post the URL here on Slashdot.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
the system which the FBI has renamed DCS-1000, a name spokesman Paul Bresson said did not signify anything in particular.
So, do they expect us to have more respect for it, just because they give it a technical name? Personally, I think they're doing this so that the court system and the general population won't fixate on its scary name, and instead see it as some new high-tech way of protecting themselves from the evil bad hacker people, as seen in the accurate movie "Hackers". (for those of you who don't realize it, the previous sentence was sarcastic in nature)
Just my $0.001
Eliminating carnivore would make the FBI less effective. Unless you would like more terrorists and kidnappers running around.
"Those who would trade their essential Liberty for a perceived temporary Security deserve neither Liberty nor Security." --Benjamin Franklin.
Cool, Dick Armey reads slashdot too!
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
With Carnivore, Echelon, and friends, I bet that the secret service is investigating your ass right now.
50% + 1? In that case, you have a pure democracy, with the risks that go with it. A bare majority can use the full force of government to destroy the rights of the minority.
Some elite group of people? Choose your poison: dictatorship, aristocracy, technocracy, plutocracy, or whatever other kind of "cracy" scheme suits you. In any case, the ones in power may destroy the rights of others at a whim.
How about a consensus, say 90% agreement? If you can get that, you can easily amend the Constitution to make it say whatever you want.
The US Founders were not superhumans, but they showed enough wisdom to set up a limited federal government, with checks and balances. They also built in an amendment process to allow the document to change over time, but made that process hard enough that changes would hopefully be carefully considered.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
No, I block that technology by wearing a suit made of aluminum foil! *grin*
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
For example, radio and television were unknown at the time the First Amendment was drafted. But that amendment clearly means that Congress shall not muck about with free speech on radio or television, just as they shall not in newspapers. (In practice, we have let them get by with fudging somewhat for broadcasters, on the theory that the airwaves are a public resource. Shame on us.)
Anyway, we can't automatically claim the Fourth Amendment protects against high-tech surveillance because the authors didn't know about it. Instead, we have to make our arguments based on the meaning of the amendment, as others have done on this thread and previous ones. If the situation has changes so much that we cannot apply the meaning of the amendment any more (or if the SCOTUS applies the meaning foolishly), then it is time to consider amending the Constitution again.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
They've already introduced the idea that it CAN be done, people will become numb to the idea. After a couple more outrageous incidents of invasion of privacy, the feds will then institute a 'reasonable' searching technique.
After the people are used to these extreme measures, the 'reasonable' ones will seem mild and unobtrusive in comparison. The only problem is they would bring immediate picketing and demonstrations 10 years ago, but today's society is so used to having no backing for the constitution that they're used to flat out ignoring it for the most part and accepting what is told them by the news that it may not even be looked at crosseyed.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
Excuse me? Does that imply that you don't surf to sites outside your own country? Or that you have no IRC-contacts overseas? It doesn't matter where it's employed, spying on people is not a thing any government should do.
Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier
I'm a Green myself, meaning that I'm pro-environment, pro-human rights, anti-corporate power. Pretty liberal in my views. But I'm starting to like Republicans more and more, because at least they have a point of view, compared to wishy washy bullshit Democrats, even if I don't always agree with those views.
You are absolutely right that it was Democrats who allowed the government to become so bloated that we would have things like Carnivore and the DMCA in the first place.
I still think the biggest threat to our freedom is the influence of powerful unaccountable corporations on our government. The answer, however, is not just more government to limit the power of these corporations. We must also limit the power of the government to implement these laws that are only beneficial to corporations and are harmful to the rights of citizens.
(end rant)All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Since most people come equipped with a nose as a standard option, police could use a nose to detect things.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
This just means that the project will get turned over to the NSA or the CIA and there won't be any accountibility anymore.
---
Hammer of Truth
I have not heard Bush The Younger make the same mispronounciation yet, though. Do you have a citation, or are you just another "gosh darn, that Bush feller shooore am stupid" hicks that we never seem to stop hearing from?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
While he was not technically correct, he is hardly the first to speak of all the Pan-African countries as if they were a nation.
On Tuesday he mispronounced the name of the leader of Spain.
Who the fuck cares? (Other than the handful of liberal whack-jobs that read The Guardian?)
The Spanish themselves understood it for what it was: an easy mistake for somebody who only speaks a little Spanish...
While I didn't vote for either President Bush, I find it absolutely delightful that people like you are having hissy fits over the fact that Bush the Younger is in charge. Have a nice day.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
... were initially won by arguing the privacy issue.
Rep. Dick Armey...
I bet that guy got made fun of alot in high school...
-----
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
So, Dick Armey will try to squeeze funding, huh? I wonder what the Vagina Airforce will have to say about that.
Doesn't everyone know that Stanley Jobson put a virus in the Carnivore program and it's going to take 2 years to get back on schedule?? We don't need to worry about for a long time now.
... he was the hacker in Swordfish played by Hugh Jackman ... just go watch the movie)
(for those who don't get out much
I am
that the Supreme Court ruling would not apply to the Carnivor. Their ruling said you could not use high tech equipment to see inside the home because it violates the expectation of privacy within the home that an American has.
However, I dont really think that it is reasonable to expect privacy when browsing on the Internet which to me is a public place. In fact most people give up their privacy on the Internet when they use cookies. Some ISP's even track where you go so that they can give you "better quality of service". Earthlink does this, they have an Opt out policy in their install program but you have to do the Expert install option to get to it(AFAIK).
To me expecting privacy when browsing on the Internet is kindof like expecting privacy in a public park. And besides that Carnivore is not peering into your home. I think you give up a certain amount of privacy expectations just by sending the packets outside of your home.
P.S.- My stepfather has worked with Carnivore(he is a high ranking federal law enforcement agent) and when we talked about the Carnivore system he said that it is much harder to get a warrent for it or for taking a computer than it is to get warrents for searching more traditional things.
Rich
Jerry Springer confronted the guilty party, Oprah selected the jury, and her honour, Judge Judy sentenced them.
It's all in your imagination.
All this means is just that they have made a better program to monitor the internet for plans to KILL THE PRESIDENT or maybe HOW TO PLANT A BOMB.
I don't think that anyone would believe that they are backing down as long as people are working on ATOMIC BOMB CONSTRUCTION and surfing after a TERRORIST HANDBOOK.
--------
George Senior was president, I don't remember who was AG, but I do know it wasn't Reno(who was appointed in 1993).
My other sig is extremely clever...
Heh, that's a good one. I'll need to run it past my wife next time she asks me for a few minutes of solitude in the bathroom...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
There has ALWAYS been a reasonable assurance of privacy in human affairs. This comes from the simple fact that people simply cannot know everything that is going on to everyone else. If you live in a world where it is fundamentally unlikely that other people know what is going on in your life, than you have a reasonable assurance of privacy. Call it ignorance if you like, but it has always existed, and people have grown ( I might go so far as to say evolved ) to depend upon it.
Communications is used by all social animals to counteract this inherent social ignorance. As communications technology increases our abilities to share information, it must naturally erode that reasonable sense of privacy.
At one point it was possible to simply travel a few dozen miles to another town and one could recreate oneself with a totally new identity and life. As communications and transportation technology has made it easier to travel and communicate, and effectively made the world "smaller", one must travel further and further to gain that kind of anonymity that was once very simple.
You also say that privacy is merely a social way of hiding the abuse of men upon women. This is a very simplistic view of the matter IMHO. But it is a more specific rephrasing of the general notion that privacy is only used to conceal criminal or improper deeds, that only those with something to hide need privacy.
This notion is false because it is based upon two false assumptions. Firstly it assumes that privacy is defense against the general public, which is not at all true - privacy is mainly a defense against small groups of individuals, whether they be neighbours or the police, or anyone else. Very few people worry about having their homes invaded by a camera crew from CNN for live broadcast, but it might be a very real worry that a neighbour, or the police, or that someone with a grudge might invade their homes.
Secondly it assumes that all private actions are going to be treated as fairly in the eyes of anyone who observes them. This is plainly false. For every opportunity to use privacy to hide criminal or improper behaviour there is also an opportunity to use a lack of privacy to falsely or improperly accuse someone of such an activity. What you might consider to be perfectly acceptable behaviour in private, another person could think of as being totally unacceptable, and vice-versa.
As the famous Franklin / Jefferson quote says:
"he who sacrifices freedom for security will neither have, nor deserver either" ( or something along those lines )
Stop and think for a moment about a society where everyone is comfortable in their sense of privacy and private security, compared to one in which everyone is in fear of constantly being watched. Which society is really the more secure? Naturally it is the first. Social fear, and fear for ones person, whether it be physical or not, is definitely one of the quickest routes to acts of violence. Totalitarian states are much more prone to social unrest and violent upheaval than are democratic ones.
Claiming that privacy is a morally bankrupt concept created by artifical means belies a huge misunderstanding on your part of human nature. Privacy is one of the most morally important institutions that we have - and it is related strongly to the respect for individuals which would IMHO be exactly what a society needs more of to prevent violence against women, not less. Removing the respect for privacy from public life does not give any more security, but rather simply replaces one insecurity with another, and adds to the mix increased tension and unease which can only lead to more problems, not less.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
Wait until you're the Enemy of the State and they want you dead. ;) I'm not a conspiracy theorist to that degree but sometimes I wonder. It does make me a little nervous that all of this info is gathered on me and then manipulated to ruin me simply because I stumble on one of their acts of idiocy and hypocrisy.
:)
Tell me I've seen one too many movies and I'll tell you that that's where Uncle Sam looks for ideas
I was going to moderate this, but I couldn't find a category for -1, Shill.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Canivore is only used with a court issued search warrant. The same procedure and protections as if the FBI was going to put a wire tap on your (voice) phone. It seems kinda dumb to say that they can listen to a (suspected) criminal's phone calls, but can't read his email.
Yesterday EU wants Europeans to encript Email due to US Survailance and very probably getting blown off by the NSA. (bad form NSA guys, you should have at least pretended to consider Europe's point of view and done a dog and pony show for them) Today Carnivore is dieing. DUH if EU encrypts thier Email then six pack joe has to decrypt them when he gets an Email from his Aunt in Italy, so he has to learn how to do it and Carnivore is cut out of the loop. NSA is the only ones that can decrypt the stuff, and they'll get sanctioned to do it eventualy taking over a big piece of the FBI's turf! NSA might even contract with Juno to do it on sixpack joes' computer in the background in exchange for free internet! keep the work units small enough and he wouldn't even be able to tell what he decrypyting.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
With all due respect, people do not desire a curtain so that they may only commit crimes. Not all men beat their wives. Not all men rape their wives. And additionally, not all people grown weed in their house.
I, for one, have a very strong desire for privacy--whether "artificial" as you call it or otherwise. No one needs to see me make love to my wife (no, it's not rape since she always consents). No one needs to see that I can't last five minutes. And no one needs to know I've got a hideous birthmark on my left cheek. There is just no reason for you, the government, or anyone else to see those things.
Similarly, there is absolutely no reason for anyone--government or not--to watch me doing legal things in my house. I have guns--but that doesn't give anyone the right to inspect them on demand (unless you want to merely ascertain the pain that occurs when one is shot). I also have DVDs and computers--but that also does not give anyone the right to inspect my computers to determine if I'm copying the DVDs to them (I'm not).
The entire fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is an artifical curtain. Not every government has such a constitutionally given right. This right was not given to early colonists, and was one of those issues that forced our revolution. We all need to respect this right; whether you feel that your life should be broadcast on television 24-hours-a-day or not.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
I do not believe that it will kill the project, but it will at least deny it legitimacy.
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
Not everyone that desires privacy is a rapist.
Often, the disire for privacy has nothing to do with sexual relations at all. In fact, the reason that I like my privacy is because many of the ideas and philosophies that I hold dear are counter to what the 'moral majority' and the government would like for me to believe. Non of these ideas condone rape, abuse, or violence against women or men (except perhaps some corrupt politicians).
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
It's interesting to see Dick taking the strategy of cutting FBI funding to kill off carnivore so soon after the FBI went to the hill claiming that the reason NIPC was not effective at preventing computer crime is that they need more money.
--
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Musashi
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
It's interesting to see Dick taking the strategy of cutting FBI funding to kill off carnivore so soon after the FBI went to the hill claiming that the reason NIPC was not effective at preventing computer crime is that they need more money.
--
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Musashi
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the world because there never was one to begin with. You can't lose something you never had.
We live in a web of interconnecting lives. Our actions have long-reaching effects on others, as theirs do on ours. The idea that a single man may live as a hermit in the midst of the civilized world is both absurd and problematic for being such a popular idea.
Privacy doctrine in this country has existed for one purpose: shielding domestic violence from public scrutiny. The whole private-sphere/public-sphere distinction arose so that some men could prevent other men from interfering in what they manage to pull off behind closed doors. Marital rape and worse violences have always been justified as located in the mystical private sphere.
As you cling to the arbitrary notion of privacy, you're doing little more than empowering men to rape and torture women.
It's time we got rid of the private/public distinction. No one ever had any actual privacy; merely artificially imposed curtains that conceal malicious actions by some against others. If Carnivore does anything to undermine public respect for such a morally bankrupt institution as privacy, then I'm all for it.
How Carnivore really works shows what can be intercepted!
The supreme court ruling on thermal imaging doesn't apply here because by the time Carnivore gets your email, it isn't in your house anymore. Combine that with the "email is like a postcard, a non-encrypted, non-sealed letter with no expectation of privacy" theory and you have a pretty compelling argument. A shame, too. It's so rare we see Armey doing something useful, or even trying to.
I'm the stranger...posting to
they just want you to think that it is going away... just like your phones are not tapped at all times!
That's nuculer, buddy. Remember who we have in the White House now.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush