Big Brother Won't Watch Judges

The good guys win! You may remember Tuesday's story about whether internet surveillance should extend to judges and their staff. Good news. As James Tyre writes in a detailed summary over on our website at censorware.net, "How can we be at the end when today is September 7, but the Judicial Conference does not meet until September 11? Because the AO [the Administrative Office of the Courts] blinked, caved, gave up, threw in the towel, that's how."

Comments

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

How can we be sure that the judges are impartial if they aren't being watched?

Re:Great

[Kong the Medium]

@moderators

This is redundant since the famous roman saying:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Somewhat related gobbledygook

[Ridge]

Judges, surveillance, mobsters, and national security, oh my!

This judge appears to have some common sense, hurrah!

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010907/tc/crim e_ scarfo_spying_dc_1.html

web censorware

[faldore]

I've never seen censorware that works right. Just give up and teach the children some morals.

Re:web censorware

[Anonymous Coward]

If liberalism is socialism, then why not vote for liberalism?

I bet you've been taught already as a child that socialism is evil. Well, it isn't. Grow up.

As it should be!

[YIAAL]

Nice to see that the good guys won. Now the big test: will these guys be as vigilant about protecting our privacy as they've been at protecting their own? At least they're aware of the issue.

Interestingly, on my InstaPundit.Com site, once I mentioned this issue I started getting a lot of traffic from the Administrative Office's domain. I wonder if they realized that I was watching them too?

Re:As it should be!

[suppo]

Dont' get your hopes up. The judge leading the fight on this was on a talking head show the other day. His main argument was that the judicial employees are higher caliber than us run of the mill employees and therefore should have special rights. The other heads on the show were so wrapped up in getting their prepared soundbites stated that they didn't pick up on the hypocracy.

Re:As it should be!

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say that at all. I saw Judge Kozinski on Greenfield at Large, and he mainly stated that he could only speak for his office. He didn't want to speak for other courts or the private sector. He did, however, speak out against monitoring everywhere by stating that employees who have the right to monitor have the obligation to monitor, because if they could have monitored, an employee could use something offensive they didn't catch against them. However, if nobody had the automatic right to monitor covertly, nobody could sue them for failing to monitor.

Also note that nobody made a legal issue out of this, simply an ethical and practical issue. While the judges still have to decide the legality of it, in their case they simply did not want monitoring of their courts. This makes an excellent precedent, however, as the Judges will take much more care in deciding cases that have hit so close to home.

Okay everyone...

[under_score]

Time to build on this. Judges are special, but not that special! This sort of thing needs to be leveraged!

Bad Link... Correction Below

[camusflage]

I noticed that there was a bad link to James Tyre's article. The proper link is here.

Not right.

[notext]

As long as my employer is allowed to watch everything I do on my connect at work, these judges should be watched as well.

Does them holding their bench make them a better person, who doesn't need to be watched, than me? I bet most of these judges turn around and would rule in favor of my employer.

Re:Not right.

[uucp]

Damn straight! I'd go one further, though. Since my employer is allowed to watch me, and they are in "public service", then the public should be allowed to watch everything they do on-line. That would seem fair.

Of course, getting rid of the spy crap altogether would probably be a better solution.

Re:Not right.

[camusflage]

As long as my employer is allowed to watch everything I do on my connect at work, these judges should be watched as well.

There's a big difference between you and me, and federal judges. Judges interpret laws in a binding fashion. You and I don't. If it's put to a judge to determine whether or not DeCSS infringes DMCA rights, I want them to be able to get out on the net without fear that some administrative pinhead (like you or me) is going to be watching what they're doing. This becomes even more vital in areas of more questionable nature, but of more far-reaching legal importance, such as computer generated porn, for example.

That being said, if they abuse the privilege, downloading MP3's, surfing for pr0n, or anything else outside their job, then by all means, stick it to them.

In all, this is a Good Thing. The issue of workplace privacy has been raised in a very personal way to them. Realize that it wasn't the monitoring that raised their hackles. It was that they were being monitored without being explicitly told it was being done.

Re:Not right.

[davonds]

the problem is there is a big difference between you and a judge. you are an employee, the computer and network you use is provided by your company to do your job, the company is therefore responsible for anything you do on that computer, and therefore has a legal obligation to it's share holders (or owners as the case may be) to monitor your activity. the judge on the other hand is for all intents and purposes an independent contractor, the computer and network are provided him for his own discretionary use, only the judge is responsible for what he does with that computer. on top of that, there is no expectation of privacy in the work place. if you are sent mail (snail mail) at your place of work, that mail is essentially property of the company, the company has a right and as stated before, an obligation to know what is in that mail. much of what a judge deals with is extremely confidential, and to monitor that material would be a major breech of security, and the confidentiality of the litigants that appear in his court.

Re:Not right.

[dlaur]

Privacy is probably the most important new (well, technology continually makes it new) social issue that we will be dealing with over the next several decades. I don't think that this result is a positive one at all! The Judicial Conference has basically had the issue temporarily deflated by a single bureaucrat (supposedly) caving at the last minute. The result is that we will not have a thorough debate and there will be no precedent set. A ground-breaking decision from the Judical Conference could have gone a long way toward influencing the Judiciary's position on other privacy issues (facial recognition, etc) in the future, but instead we see a slight blip and we are right back to the status quo.

Re:Not right.

[jcr]

>As long as my employer is allowed to watch everything I do on my connect at work, these judges should be watched as well.

Sorry, but the fact that your employer is heavy-handed in this way does not create a moral obligation for ANYONE else to put up with what you have to suffer. If you don't like it, leave, complain to your union, file a lawsuit, whatever, but the premise that because wrong is done to you that anyone else must share your burden is absurd.

-jcr

WebSENSE

[mlknowle]

The software in question, WebSENSE, is used at my school. Basically, how it works is that the admin chooses which catagories to block (sex, violence, etc). There is one catacory called "tastless" which blocks everything related to anime, for some reason.

In any case, there are certinly sites that are blocked that shouoldn't be. The school has the option of selectivly un-blocking sites, but its policy is to do so only if there is a valid academic intrest in the site - not if the site is simply used for recreation. This is done, suposidly, to save the IT staff's time.

What is particularly distressing is that this is a boarding school (9-12th grades), and the school blocks phone accsess to all ISPs, so the only way to go online is with their network. Thus there are a large number of sites which few parents would object to that are blocked simply because they have no academic value. One example is ESPN, which is blocked in the "chat" catagory because of its message boards. The yahoo stocks site is blocked for similar reasons. Can't have those studentes exchanging views!

Re:WebSENSE

[Steeltoe]

Interesting. What happens if you go through an anonymizer? Maybe they don't block all anonymizers on the web.

- Steeltoe

Re:WebSENSE

[Nurlman]

One of the categories that WebSENSE enables blocking of is "proxy avoidance systems." All of the anonymous surfing tools like Safeweb that I am aware of are blocked, as are many web page translators like Babelfish (and even the Dialectizer).

The Google cache is about the only bypass system that can be used reliably, and that's on a page-by-page basis. Sure, I suppose you could write up your own proxy and stick it on some inconspicuous website, but WebSENSE has filtered out most of the well-known ones.

Re:WebSENSE

[nevis]

The AO stopped using WebSENSE over a year ago. That was a blocking issue. Now they are using RealSecure IDS to monitor but not block traffic.

corrected Summary links

[Alien54]

The Detailde summary goes an inspection of the Web Sense software that was being used by the court. The results were typical:

our tax dollars are being spent to protect judges, and library users, against Liza Minnelli, Jewish teens, a grocer, a speakers' bureau, a mortgage company--and some free speech advocates. All of these sites are blocked by WebSENSE under the Sex1, Sex2 or Adult Entertainment categories, the settings used in the federal courts and in libraries.

The actual article is here

The letter is which AO Director Mecham Blinked is here.

Nice article, btw.

- - -
Radio Free Nation
an alternate news site using Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"

So what?

[fireweaver]

This is all well, fine and dandy for the judges. My question is simply this: If the judges no longer have to suffer under internet censorship and surveillance, what about the rest of us ordinary folk? Does this decision apply strictly to the judiciary or will it's effects trickle down to the likes of us who are routinely spied on by our employers while at work? I personally couldn't care less if my employer looks over my shoulder or not, his concern (in my case anyway) is that my internet usage (mostly checking up on /. ) might get in the way of my productivity as an employee.

Not a win

[jyoull]

I don't see how this is a "win" any more than it's a "win" when Congress exempts itself from some bad law that nonetheless binds the rest of us. If they don't feel some of the pain, they can't respond with compassion and comprehension of the effects of things on "ordinary" people.

Oh, SURE!

[Greyfox]

They rule time and again that employers have the right to monitor every aspect of their employees existance while at work, but they get their judicial panties in a bunch the moment someone suggests that the same standard should apply to them. Do you think this will change anything for the average Joe? Quite frankly, I don't see this as a victory at all. I think every federal employee, from the lowliest secretary to the President should be subjected to the same standard the rest of us have to follow. Moreover, since those employees are essentially my employees, I want full access to their web logs and archived E-Mail.

Re:Oh, SURE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, since those employees are essentially my employees, I want full access to their web logs and archived E-Mail.

To quote the police chief in Blade Runner: "You're one of the little people now".

I've worked bloody hard to get to the position I currently have in the company and I sure as hell won't give up my privileges. The people I manage can complain all they want but there's only one thing to say to them: "Work harder and you might get where I am now. Until then, don't waste your breath."

Re:Oh, SURE!

[RWarrior(fobw)]

The last time Slashdot ran this story, with a link to a WSJ editorial (that, regrettably, I can no longer find), I wrote an email to the author of the WSJ editorial, Judge Kozinski, at the address provided at the bottom of the editorial, which I will not reproduce here. My letter, in its entirety, said:

Judge Kozinski --

I read your WSJ editorial online after it was posted to Slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org, "News for nerds. Stuff that matters."), and while I must say that I agree with your sentiments about workplace monitoring, your ire is perhaps indicative of why mere mortals see all government employees, and ones in dark robes especially, as disconnected from the citizenry they serve.

While your points about how inappropriate workplace monitoring is in the federal judiciary are well taken, and while I agree with them in principle, I can only shake my head and say, welcome to the real world, Your Honor.

Workplace monitoring of the sort you decry in your editorial is a fact of life for most Americans, and has been for many years. Some private-sector employers are more fanatical about it than others, but it remains extremely common that an employee checks his rights at the door. Random drug screens (even for employees who do not perform hazardous jobs like driving or operating heavy machinery), keystroke monitoring (how many keys per hour do you punch), email scanning, phone monitoring, and even log-in log-out to track your bathroom usage are common.

Frequently, signing away any rights you might have to protest such treatment is a condition of employment. Especially in light of today's slowing economy (the Dallas Morning News [ed: which requires nasty registration to see anything off the front page] last Sunday reported on a well-qualified computer professional who has taken to holding a sign at the street corner to ask for work), employees typically sign such monsterous documents simply to get a paycheck rolling in.

In addition, courts typically uphold the rights of employers to perform these kinds of searches, especially in states where employee rights are weak, such as Texas, where you can be fired for sneezing too much. (In Texas, employers can even require you to sign away your right to sue over Workman's Compensation claims, as a condition of employment. Many do, and courts uphold these waivers when employees get hurt and employers then do not pony up the money.)

Just as public school students and prisoners check their rights at the door (despite courts' protestations to the contrary in a littany of cases I could cite), employees do as well. It's been a fact of life for many years, and will continue to be so. That it's been so slow in coming to the federal judiciary is not surprising to me, if only because of the public perception that the judicial process is slow, unwieldy, and expensively out of reach of your average citizen.

[Signature omitted. Use Slashdot to contact me.]

His response is reprinted below in its entirety.

Dear Mr. [censored]:

I agree with your entirely. In fact, one of my major concerns in this matter is that if we adopt the most intrusive policy for our employees, we're more likely to approve it for others as well, when the issue arises in cases before us. Check out the attached article, as well as

http://www.tnr.com/091001/rosen091001.html

If you wish to help in this struggle, please check out

http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010831_eff_judicial_mo nitoring_alert.html [hotlink omitted because Slashdot wouldn't unscrew it.]

Sending a letter as suggested there, and copying in relevant members of congress, would be a big help.

Once again, many thanx.

Ciao. AK

WebSENSE

[Anonymous Coward]

WebSENSE is also used at my school, but it did not do to much good, because all one had to do was visit WebSENSE's site and they showed you, with screen shot directions, how to disable their filtering. Our netadmin was not very happy.

goose

Re:FIX THE GODDAMN COLORS!!!!!!!

[Darth Paul]

Someone's been eating beetroot 'n' corn again eh? :)

It's not over yet.

[ClarkEvans]

From the article
Mecham (the bad guy) wrote:

While the committee's report is indisputably strong and viable, I believe you may wish to respond to those privacy concerns which are legitimate, such as protecting the confidentiality of official chambers communications. I believe that making the minor changes suggested above will respond to those privacy concerns and help forge consensus on the committee's recommendations.

Thus, they didn't blink. He said that the Judge has a few minor concerns, strictly limited to chamber communication. This is far from over.

Re:It's not over yet.

[innocent_white_lamb]

respond to those privacy concerns which are legitimate, such as protecting the confidentiality of official chambers communication ---> Since when and WHY are "official communication" confidential?

These guys are deciding on important stuff that affects my life and yours. I should have an absolute RIGHT to see how and why they are making the decisions that they are. "Because it's good for you" or "Because we said so" isn't good enough.

Who is it that said "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done." If a public official wants to do sneaky stuff in a back room (or even non-sneaky stuff in a back room) he is abusing his power. "Public business" and "confidential" are an oxymoron, in my opinion.

Animal Farm

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference between you and me, and federal judges.

"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."
Animal Farm, George Orwell, 1946.

Animal Farm has not yet been censored off the web and is still freely available. A copy is at http://www.ddc.net/ygg/etext/animal.htm

If your access to that URL has been blocked, or if your connection is being monitored, perhaps a judge will lend you a hardcopy.

Also look for Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. Be certain to get the UNCENSORED version. See http://www.luc.edu/libraries/banned/451copyright.h tml for more details.

Re:Animal Farm

[camusflage]

Charming. Ever hear of this thing called "reductio ad absurdem"? Just because I can't surf for porn at work doesn't mean I can't at home.

The difference here is that it is part of a judge's job to look at things that may not be socially acceptable. As an example, my employer blocks access to many hacking sites. It is not deemed part of my job function to visit hacking sites. Yes, there is information that is very useful to me as a team lead developer and architect, but such information can usually be found elsewhere, in places I am allowed to access, and I'm always free to browse them in my off time, on my own equipment. OTOH, our data security folks, whose core job function it is to protect against such things have unfettered access to them.

This doesn't even approach the issue of non-judicial personnel having access to the thought processes going into making judicial decisions. If I was a judge, you're damned right I wouldn't want someone looking over my shoulder while doing it. If I found a cogent nugget, I'd cite it in my ruling. Defense attorneys don't have the right to go sifting through the books used in forming a ruling that aren't cited. Why should they have access to web logs for the same?

Re:Animal Farm

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of testing the boundary conditions?

I'd hate to have to run your code.

Re:Animal Farm

[camusflage]

Ever hear of testing the boundary conditions?

I'm assuming you're speaking to my employer blocking access to hacking sites with this comment.

Yes, I have, which is why I rigorously check everything before sending it on its way. Maybe that has something to do with the fact nothing I've written has been hacked in the 5+ years I've been doing web development. Maybe that also has something to do with why my employer's security crew has been trying to recruit me almost since the day I walked in the door.

.net?

[keesh]

Since when was censorware a .net? I always thought it was censorware.org (as it should be, since they're an organisation and not an ISP...).

Re:.net?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Michael got his knickers in a twist and ripped down the censorware.org site. He owned the domain, so he took his ball (not balls, he has none) and went home. So, censorware.net sprung up, without him and his toys.

The Watchmen

[Helmholtz]

Seems like I remember a short lived comic book series from long ago whose mantra was ...

Re:The Watchmen

[Helmholtz]

Who watches the Watchmen?

(sorry for the double post ... killed by the tab button)

Re:The Watchmen

[Kong the Medium]

An old Roman saying:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

@moderators

yeah i know im redundant :-)

Here's why this sucks

[geophile]

Yes, the good guys won. But I'm not happy about it because the
solution is not scalable. How many of us can get immoral and probably
unconstitutional policies or laws changed by just throwing a tantrum
or carrying out some minor civil disobedience? If we have to rely on a
judge's or legislator's personal discomfort to get bad laws changed
then we're screwed.

How fast they cave!

[redelm]

I'm always amazed at how quickly and completely bad guys cave-in. Past a certain level of opposition, those who know they are doing wrong totally give up. A clear sign their motivation was opportunism and not principle.
Unfortunately, I don't believe anyone at MS understands they have done wrong.

Confusion

[nevis]

Some of you seem to be confused about all the facts surronding this issue. The article about WebSENSE was old. The AO stopped using WebSENSE over a year ago. They dropped the blocking in favor of monitoring. They now use RealSecure IDS.

Mecham's memo in not an all out win, it's simply a recommendation. As of today the 3 national AO gateways are still monitoring. Also Mecham goes on to say that is largely a local court issue. That means each Chief Judge in all 92 districts gets to make the choice to either monitor or not monitor their employees.

It's very likely that the Judicial Confrence will still vote on this issue. It's a little late in the game for Judge Nelson and his commitee to pull their recommendation.

Brave new world

[zoftie]

Some may think that we've won, but probably not.
It all depend who big brother is, becasue there
are judges should be watched closely and stripped
of their status, and thrown out of the court room.
There are some that unquestinably support
religions and decisions that religious leaders make
and do anything to commit justice as for profit of
the religion.
There always alot more to things like that that
is not reported.
p.

Another protected class of citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Be carefull how hard you cheer for this. All this does is exempt judges from being spied on NOT US!

Judges have enough power to screw people on a whim. Now they have another protection put in place to exempt them from the rules that the rest of us have to live by.

"I don't like the sound of this, Vir...no I do not like the sound of this at all!"-Londo Mollari

This is not good

[rossz]

We wanted this case to go to trial. We wanted a precedence that says you can't be spied on. In the next case, judges won't have a vested interest, so they won't necessarily care enough to give privacy more importance the government/employer power.

This is not good

[volkris]

I think people in power, such as these judges, SHOULD be monitored, and the public should have access to the records.

Anything that will increase accountability is a good thing, and all of the negatives of watching them are already prevented by other legislation.

Just goes to show you

[mikethegeek]

That more bad things should happen to judges. That way, they'd be more in touch and would make better decisions....

If only a judge would have the DMCA affect him...

All people are created equal...

[somero]

...except for judges.