Slashdot Mirror
Preserve Your Rights Online - Act Now
Let's start with one simple and rather sad truth: You are going to be less free next week than you were last week.
We are already seeing what several newspapers have called "the biggest criminal investigation in history." Sure, a lot of this investigation's energy is being focused on Islamic countries, but it is also going on in Europe and, more than anywhere else, the United States itself. Landlords who have rented to young men with Arab-sounding names are being interrogated. Topless-bar patrons are being asked about conversations they allegedly heard, boasting about upcoming mass destruction.
And then there's email and the World Wide Web. Imagine a technically unhip Senator or Member of Congress who has read about Osama bin Laden allegedly using encrypted email and secret messages hidden in online porn to communicate with his followers and allies. Put the words "Osama bin Laden" in the same sentence as "pornography" and "the Internet," and you had better get out of the way of the avalanche of anti-online privacy laws coming your way -- or get crushed by them, even if people like bin Laden can switch to other means of communication at the drop of a hat.
Worse, disagreeing with the U.S. government right now may almost be viewed as treason in some quarters. "My Country, Right or Wrong" was a popular bumper sticker among the gunrack-and-confederate-flag pickup truck crowd in the late 60s, and this attitude, if not yet the bumper sticker itself, has been making a major comeback
But Dissent We Must
The problem with the "My Country, Right or Wrong" attitude is that it allows our government to go terribly wrong in many ways that may not be made right again for a long time, if ever. As Rep. Rivers pointed out Saturday, once laws are made that are supposed to help law enforcement in some way, they are almost never repealed because Members of Congress don't want to be seen as "soft on terrorism, soft on crime, soft on drugs."
Carry this a little farther. What about treason charges? At what point does it become illegal to speak out against a planned US government action that, on its face, is being taken to fight against the Terrorist Enemy, whoever he or she may be, even though that action may have very bad, long-term consequences for ordinary American citizens who want nothing more that to live their own lives quietly without being afraid of their own government?
Rep. Rivers said half the people in her district's gut reaction to the idea of legislation allowing government to read their email without getting a warrant first was along the lines of, "So what? I don't break any laws, so I have nothing to hide."
Long-time EPIC activist Kathleen Ellis told Rep. Rivers she believed questions about privacy should not be asked in the context of email. "Ask people if they should have the right to keep a secret and almost all of them will answer 'Of course,'" she said. Ellis also mentioned that cryptography is the email equivalent of an envelope on a letter sent by postal mail. "Unencrypted email is like a postcard," she said, "open for anyone to read. Ask people if they want all mail to be as open as a postcard and they're going to say no."
From that point on, the meeting focused on tactics. The question in the room wasn't, "Are privacy and freedom of speech good?" but "What can we do to protect our privacy and freedom of speech?"
Background on the Meeting Itself
The forum in which all this discussion took place was decidedly unofficial. It was an informal meeting thrown together hastily by local Linux user and ham radio afficianado Rob Carlson. Carlson sent a meeting notice to several email lists and posted it at cluebot.com. 13 people showed up at Saturday's gathering, most of whom were Baltimore and Washington D.C. area privacy advocates and/or Linux users. I was there myself for that reason. Wired News reporter Declan McCullagh is another "local" who hangs in the same circles, which explained his presence.
Rep. Rivers was there because her husband, William Simpson, is a computer consultant involved with the Internet Engineering Task Force [IETF] who spotted Carlson's notice on one of the cryptography-oriented email lists he's on. He had driven Rivers' chief of staff, who needed to get back to Washington but was marooned in Michigan by the airlines shutdown, to D.C., and was taking his Congresswoman wife back to her district for a little rest and some scheduled meetings (Congress had adjourned until Friday, Sept. 21), and they noticed that UMBC was on their way. So there they were, not dressed in "mover and shaker" clothing but looking like anyone else taking a 1000+ mile car trip.
One doesn't usually think of a Member of Congress fitting in with a group of downdressed geeks, but this one sure did. We only knew what she did for a living because Carlson asked everyone in the little circle to identify themselves by name and job, and when it was her turn Rep. Rivers gave her name as "Lynn," then added "Rivers," and softly, sort of as an aside, mentioned that she was "in Congress." Her husband had already mentioned that they were "from Michigan," which was curious enough in itself for a meeting with a decidedly local orientation. But Linux folks are friendly, and Rep. Rivers was as welcome as anyone else even though she was from out of town -- and freely admitted she used Mac OS, not Linux, both at home and in her office.
When he organized the meeting, Carlson said, "I didn't know whether no one or 100 people would show up." 13 did. And revolutions have started with as few as 13 people, so why shouldn't a strong pro-Constitution lobbying movement? The next step is to get 13 more, and another 13, and so on. This means calling and emailing friends until there are 13X13X13X13.... people talking to their elected representatives about privacy issues in terms they can understand, that will help them change their minds.
How You Can Lobby Against Anti-Privacy Laws
Start with this line Rep. Rivers laid on us, which is not new but needs to be said over and over: "Democracy is not a spectator sport."
Those Americans who don't vote, no matter how they excuse this failure, have no right to criticize their government. And those who don't bother to tell their elected representatives what they want and don't want their government to do should not act shocked when the government passes laws they don't like. It gets sickening, going to hearing after hearing about proposed laws like UCITA, DMCA, and SSSCA and always seeing a whole bunch of industry lobbyists wearing expensive suits, but hardly ever anyone who could be classified as an "ordinary citizen."
You need to make some noise instead of letting "them" talk while you sit around and let "them" get their way. Pump up the volume. Take some of the time you spend posting on Slashdot and register to vote. Write email and snail mail letters, send faxes, and make phone calls to Congresspeople and Senators and other representatives, and tell other people (13X13X13X13.... voices, remember) to do the same. This, not just complaining, is what this whole representative government thing is all about.
Rep. Rivers says phone calls "...have a sense of personal contact to them," and this makes them the most effective grassroots lobbying tool. "Stick to one issue," she advises. "Don't come up with a laundry list."
Also send email and write letters, even though they probably won't have as much impact as calls. And don't forget the fax machine; reps who are too technically unhip to read email read faxes. The ACLU and NRA have both famously used fax as a means of rapid communication with legislators for many years.
Now comes the matter of what to say. A letter, call or email that starts with something like, "I has nevir voted for you I am not registered to vote but you got to lisen to me," will go nowhere, says Rivers, pointing out that many pro-Napster messages she got were along those lines -- and got ignored. Better, she says, is something that tells your representative you are a computer professional (or manager or student or business owner or whatever) whose business, occupation or future will be hurt by whatever legislation you are working against. In this case (this week), privacy and online crypto are under attack. Next week, who knows?
So you're not a business owner? Know any? Know anyone who depends on privacy to transact their business? How about your doctor? Doesn't he or she want to keep patient records confidential? Ditto any lawyer you know. If a lawyer is serious about maintaining client trust, he or she certainly doesn't want the government snooping on email through Carnivore or a similar system with a less aggressive name. Other businesses have client information they want to private, along with trade secrets and other information they would rather not share with competitors. These are all points to bring up rationally, in an orderly debate format, when communicating with an elected rep, and they are ones you should ask others to bring up, too.
Stay calm, in other words. Assume your representative is sane and really wants to do what's right and what most people want, based on the input he or she gets. Your trick is to become part of that input, and right now the input you need to give must be strong and focused because Congress is caught up in post-attack hysteria and, like the rest of us, is saying, "We need to do something to help those poor victims and their families and make sure nothing this awful ever happens again."
The only problem here is that what Congress does is make laws, not post on Slashdot, and a law made in the same emotional heat as a flame post on Slashdot can't be moderated down to -1 after it is passed. Once that law is on the books, if you break it you can be arrested, tried, and fined or sent to jail. You've heard the saying, "If [guns/crypto/brains] are outlawed, only outlaws will have [guns/crypto/brains]." It's true, you know.
Right now, legitimate Americans are in danger of having many of their Constitutional freedoms revoked by a government that is doing its best, possibly in a misguided way, to protect its citizens. This is not about Disney's copyrights or the freedom to play DVDs on computers running Linux. The current debate is about much more basic issues than those, issues I will not repeat here because they have been written about so extensively elsewhere.
An Aside: How Congress Works
Rep. Rivers said it this way: "The House [of Representatives] is ruled by brute force."
Since she was talking to geeks who follow such things, she used the DMCA as an example. She told us that the "unanimous" vote that got DMCA through the House was not really unanimous at all; that the bill got through a committee dominated by a powerful chairman (which is how bills generally get to the floor for a vote) and that the Speaker called for a voice vote. "Most yelled 'Aye,'" Rivers said, and some yelled 'Nay.'"
The voices yelling "Aye" were the loudest, so DMCA passed by acclamation. Brute Force. People yelling at the top of their lungs. If 50 loud voices had yelled "Nay" instead of "Aye," perhaps we wouldn't have the DMCA as law today, and the EFF wouldn't be begging for money to get it overturned in the courts.
Now think about a Member of Congress who is hearing, right now, from all the "Kill-the-Arab-bastards-and-stamp-out-Internet-porn" crowd loudly and repeatedly by phone, fax, mail and email, but isn't hearing from you. Who is shouting the loudest? Which wheel is so squeaky that it is going to get the grease? So far, it's not the voices of reason and Constitutionality. They are getting drowned out. Heck, they are hardly there at all. At least Rep. Rivers isn't hearing them, and if she isn't hearing them -- with her ear attuned to Internet privacy matters and a totally Net-hip husband at her side -- you can bet the rest of Congress don't even know those voices (yours) exist.
Don't Delay! Do It Today!
Congress reconvenes Friday, September 21. The anti-privacy bills and anti-privacy amendments to various anti-terrorist bills are being written now, not someday. This means you must act immediately. If you put off those calls and emails to friends asking them to help support their right to communicate with each other in private, and to live without fear of police breaking down their doors or seizing their computer hard drives without warrants for even a few days, it is going to be too late. We are in the grip of national hysteria. A $40 billion appropriations bill to support the war on terrorism was passed a few days ago, with bipartisan support, almost without debate.
I'm going to admit that I am as ready to kick terrorist butt as anyone else, so I can't really blame Congress for being so gung-ho that it will pass all kinds of measures that will make America a less free country for decades to come in response to the current emergency. All I'm really asking Congress to do -- and asking you to join me in asking Congress to do, and to convince 13X13X13.... others to ask your Representative and your Senator to do -- is remember that the freedoms that make this country great must not be forgotten in our rush to avenge our fallen fellow Americans and our attempts to keep ourselves safe from future terrorist attacks.
Specifically (concentrate on one issue, remember), as a Net user I am concerned about watching our online privacy and freedoms evaporate if the government makes strong cryptography illegal or tries to have it controlled by agencies like the NSA, CIA, and FBI, or starts reading all of our private email without due cause and legitimate judicial warrants.
The deadline is Friday. That's when the legislative fur will start to fly. So let's get to work now!
Do a little research into the sacrifices that our grandparents and parents had to make during World War II to preserve your peace, freedom and liberty. Speech restrictions? How about food restrictions and travel restrictions. Note that after the war, civil liberties came back.
How many more jet liners have to smash into skyscrapers before people think that there other priorities right now? Will it take a nuke hitting a city? I thought Colin Powell made an interesting statement this morning: (paraphrase): "The terrorists don't care how many people they kill. The only thing holding them back is the technology they have available." After this week, does anyone doubt this reasoning?
To many people don't seem to be able to contemplate the fact that this is not an accident, it is not just an isolated incident, it is not just a single strike to "send a message". Unless we act, this WILL happen again, and next time it might be an even bigger scale.
WE ARE AT WAR. I think this story is to spit on the graves of everyone who died this week.
I wonder how long it would have taken Hitler to conquer the world if Slashdot editors were in charge.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The quotes above reminded me of:
On a more serious note, what makes people think a fundamentalist Islamic group would hide pictures in porn? Wouldn't that require them to go against most of their fundamental beliefs and actually look at nakedness and fornication?
The Wizard utters the word 'frobnoid!' and cackles gleefully
i'm a working person not a business. let's see how much i'm getting the shaft: i have my own home, i was educated, i (until some bastards blew up a few buidlings) the right and capacity to travel wherever i wanted whenever i wanted, i have a reasonable disposable income and can buy a whole assortment of goods and services unheard of in most other places in the world, i have free access to information (not just on the fucking web either), i have the right to worship as i please... i could go on. the point is that if this is getting the shaft, i'm not doing to bad considering the situation most humans on this planet are in.
This may sound callous, but the only reasons that this incident seems like that big a deal are 1. the way that media replay this incident over and over - funny how the million-odd who die of AIDS in Africa this year won't get 24/7 commercial-free coverage of their deaths, nor did the people who were bombed in Panama or Lebanon or anywhere else for that matter - consider that the subconscious doesn't really distinguish replays as being the same event; people's emotions get fortified to respond as if it were a new event, so that the death of 5000 people replayed 50 times has a far greater emotional impact than the statistic of 100,000 deaths (like in Rwanda's recent massacre) if the latter has no media coverage, and 2. the economic impact of the attack.
What's really dangerous about curtailing civil liberties in this situation is that, unlike World War 2, there is no specific enemy whose defeat would spell an end to the conflict. Bush has said that this will be an ongoing effort with no conclusion in the foreseeable future. That scares the hell out of me.
Voting is a good idea, but I'm not aware of any elections in the next few weeks that will have any effects on all these new legislation being proposed. To fight this, we need to be far more proactive than merely voting.
All in all, good article.
I am astounded at the number of people so far who seem perfectly willing to give up their free speech rights and to allow the government to read all their personal correspondence in the name of fighting terrorism.
A simple question: should it be ok for the government to open any letter in the US Mail without court order? My guess is that you wouldn't want that. So why should they be able to read our email? It's simple: they shouldn't.
One of the things that makes this country great is our freedom from government interference in our daily lives. One of the terrorists' primary goals is to make us less free. Giving up our free speech and privacy helps them attain that goal.
And no, this article isn't spitting on anyone's graves. How can telling folks to get involved in government and to call or write your representative and tell them what you think be a bad thing? If you're willing to give up your privacy, then contact your rep. and tell them! I'm not willing to give up any of my rights, no matter how terrible this tragedy is, and I do intend to contact my local rep.'s.
Also, someone above said that the people who died don't care about personal privacy. I strongly disagree. I'm sure if there were some way to contact them and ask, "Should we give up our rights to fight terrorism?", very few would say yes.
Look, with a court order, the government can read mail, tap phone lines and confiscate computer equipment. We don't need any more laws giving the government more power over our daily lives.
Don't let the horror of this tragedy blind you. We must maintain our freedoms. Is this article a bit paranoid and perhaps over-reacting a bit to these possibilities? Maybe, but there is nothing wrong with being vigilant against the intrusions of an over-zealous government, and there is certainly nothing wrong with getting involved, deciding what you really want from government, and telling them.
Yes, the Supreme Court will protect us! Just like when the Supreme Court overturned the internment of American citizens in World War 2. Oops, they upheld it. You must be thinking it's like when the Supreme Court overturned the guilt by association laws during the McCarthy era. Oops, they upheld those as well.
I'm disappointed as well. These are rights not privileges. We are going to sacrifice very real freedom for very unreal security.
I heard that as "70% of Americans are willing to let terrorists tell us how to run our country". It's all well and good to talk about how the government is doing what's best for us, and that giving up some "minor" freedoms (clue: there is no such thing) is worth it to prevent this sort of thing; I'm sure it makes the people who say it feel better. It's also hopelessly naive.
Few, if any, of the airport restrictions put in place in the last week would have had any effect on this attack. None of them would have prevented it. There is already a movement afoot in Congress to outlaw crypto which doesn't have a back door installed for government use. Are you really so naive as to believe that backdoor won't be used improperly, or be compromised by people outside the government? And if you are that naive, you can't possibly be so naive as to believe that the people who carried out Tuesday's attacks are somehow incapable of writing (or having written) their own crypto software which contains no such back doors.
The fact is that there are people all over America who are unscrupulously using these events to further their own agendas, whether it be gas station owners hiking prices through the roof or Falwell and Robertson spouting their hatred. Some of these people are in Congress, and they will take advantage of your complacency and ignorance. It's always been true, but especially so now; be very, very careful what you ask for, because you will get it.
that's a pretty apathetic view of life. So maybe our colonial ancestors shoulda settled for british dominance, after all, we had lives better than say the slaves down south!
We should always strive to improve our government, because when it isn't going forward, it's going backwards
Photos.
What people with this view don't seem to understand is that these restrictions will not prevent terrorism. And when you give an organization like the FBI or the NSA official approval to do something, it's very difficult to take away.
There has already been lots of discussion of deficiencies in the current intelligence and security systems within existing rules. This is similar to the conservative argument regarding gun laws -- instead of always trying to make new laws, why not really crack down on enforcement of existing ones? We can already beef up airport security, we can already do a much better job of collecting foreign intelligence, we can already give law enforcement permission to do whatever data gathering and wiretaps they need when evidence warrants... there is no excuse for infringing on the sacrosanct rights of the people until all alternatives have been exhausted.
Bull, my right to free speech is not regulated by whether or not I voted. Now or ever.
The right not to have to do something is just as important as the right to do it.
Having said that, I can't believe the number of people I've seen that are willing to GIVE their rights away, for the LIE that they will be safer by doing so.
Two or three days ago I sent a letter and en email to both senators and my congressman asking them to tell Americans the TRUTH. And that is that nothing short of 24th century Star Trek type technology can save us from this sort of thing.
They passed an "anti-terrorism" bill after Oklahoma City and THAT didn't stop it, what makes you think a few more draconian words written on paper will stop it now?
We live in (perhaps) the country with the most freedom in the world, and we have thousands of miles of water and land border. There simply aren't enough cops, or military to police every inch of them to keep the bad guys out.
Our war on drugs has failed miserably, and this attempt will too, BECAUSE we are free.
Perhaps all of you are willing to give your rights away, but I'm going down kicking and screaming.
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
The Constitution does not cover freedom of easy communication.
The Constitution doesn't have anything to say about how "hard" something has to be before it is protected. Sheesh. Try reading it. Start with the 4th Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particu larly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Did you see that bit about "papers?" They could not have conceived of a computer, but I bet the Founding Fathers would consider your computer files and communications to be your "papers" if they could be asked about it today. A machine for writing, and sending written messages to people with the same kind of machine... not a hard concept. Not something so alien that the Constitution should't apply to it.
If we sacrifice our freedoms, they are not coming back. Everyone just assumes that bad laws will evaporate, which is stupid wishful thinking. Don't let them turn us into a police state. We can win the coming conflict without doing that.
Someone is over-reacting here alright, but it is Congress.
I don't argue for a second that we need to improve our security, but lets figure out the best way to do that. Maybe there are better ways than trampling the Constitution and racial profiling.
Point one -- our airport security has been greatly degraded by deregulation. Security guards get minimum wage and minimal training. Now that keeps airfares down sure enough, but it is not without a price, is it?
Point two -- Customs stopped racial profiling recently and their "hit rate" in fact went up. In conjunction with probable cause racial background is just another piece of information. Without probable cause it is a red herring.
Point three -- Jets at Andrews were not on ready status even though the Mossad and NSA both had strong indications of a major attack coming. Are Washington and NY not considered targets anymore? Let's rethink our air defense, even though the next attack will likely be different.
Point four -- banning strong encryption will not stop secure terrorist communications, but it will certainly and definitely weaken our personal, banking, and e-commerce security. This aids the terrorists, we shouldn't do it.
Point five -- the adminstration isn't even telling Congress what is happening. Giving all of us real information might allow us to participate meaningfully instead of just randomly lashing out at any Arab-looking Americans. An Indian was shot to death today because someone thought him an Arab.
Point six -- don't for a minute think that any loss of liberty will be temporary. When the "War on Terrorism" is done (if it ever is) the focus will simply shift to the "War on Drugs" and if we abandon that too, there is the "War on Crime" that will certainly never be over. (We gave $40M to the Taleban this year for "anti-drug" efforts, so there is obviously some priortization to work on here, as well.)
Since there are ways to combat terrorism without giving up our rights I really think we should consider carefully rather than rushing to adopt hasty measures, some of which may actually be counterproductive to our cause.
I feel I have to point out that a very large number of people in this country have been living without any real security for years. If you suddenly feel threatened now, consider what that says about abandoned duties to our own citizens. Is security a right for everyone? Civil liberties are.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Anyone notice that we are expected more and more to conform to popular viewpoints? Usually, disagreement is permissable, but now, if you disagree, you're called a terrorist.
Look for internment camps. Like during WW2, they'll say, "We're doing this to protect them from our society."
Think the Constitution & the Courts are going to save us? Tell that to the sons and daughters of Japanese-Americans that were interned. The 14th Amendment was blatently ignored.
Think your rights are going to come right back? Yah right! When our rights did come back, it was only through the intense efforts of the 60's, and even then they didn't all come back. The 50's parents had a stick up their ass because they had just given up their rights and bent them selves into conformity during WW2. Did you know it's illegal to be a communist in Washington state? It's considered subversion, and still forbidden by law..!
Why do we have to go to war? To save ourselves from Terrorists?!?
What, after World War 3, the world will be safe from terroritsts forever? Nobody will ever think of being a Terrorist? What a crock of Shit!
You can't stop people from being Terrorists. There's nothing you can do about it. The world is an unsafe people.
So 5,000 people died and you want to do something about it. Want to do something about it? Drive safely! 40,000 people die every year through traffic accidents.
Want to save lives? Look where you're going. 10,000 people die every year because they fell down.
This country's nuts. I'm going to be called a "terrorist sympathiser" because I think the USA is full of Shit right now. I'm not going to fight for your war against terrorists (oops, there went hundreds of thousands of innocent people's lives- well, it's a "necessary" tradeoff to keep the world "safe").
"The United States government has so far shown a great deal of restraint..."
I don't agree with this. There have been many, many calls for action. Bomb someone! I think the U.S. government would have bombed already, but no one knows who to bomb.
I think for most people in the U.S., bombing other countries is like an adult video game. They don't have any feeling for the pain that bombing causes.
Citizens of Saudi Arabia want to be able to try to change the political structure of their country. They want to do this without U.S. interference. This is not an unreasonable request. Certainly if the Saudi government tried to involve itself in a political dispute in the U.S., the U.S. would put forward whatever resistance was necessary to stop the interference.
For years there have been Arabs who have said that if the U.S. continued interfering, there would be attempts to bring the conflict to the U.S. After years of warning, that's what happened.
It seems self-destructive that there is never any serious consideration of their complaints. People in the U.S. expect to have self-determination. Should the U.S. deny that to other countries?
See http://www.hevanet.com/peace/ for more on this subject.
Bush's education improvements were
Once they're gone, they're a little tough to get back. This "war", if you can even call it that, will never be over. You can't "defeat" terrorism, like you defeat a world government -- it will always exist. People keep citing WWII as a time when we lost rights and got them back. Real wars have a definite beginning and end. At this point our "war" is as ephemeral as the "War on Drugs". Don't expect this new "war" to be any shorter or more successful than the latter.
"We obviously need a new moderation category: (-1, Woo-fucking-hoo)" --Mr. AC
The United States hasn't jumped the gun, and we should be careful not to either. So far all I've seen on sites like Slashdot is rambling about how the tyrannical U.S. government is trying to strip us of our rights. It's good that we're being vigilant (that's one of the requirements of a good citizenry), but we must take care not to make quick judgements based on preconceived notions.
Did you even read the article?
Rather than inaction and restraint, I think vigorous action is a much more responsible way to deal with this situation. Something needs to be done RIGHT NOW, or else more planes may fly into tall buildings, or nerve gas may be released in a stadium. We have to hit back quickly, because we're fighting a war unlike any other war we've ever fought. The United States is not fighting against an organized nation. Instead, the target is terrorism - something that is BY ITS VERY NATURE sneaky and underhanded. Terrorism will remain sneaky and underhanded no matter what laws we pass, and I think it would do many people in this country a lot of good to realize that.
Making laws that give investigators carte blanche to Carnivore our email won't stop Osama bin Laden. (A law that would give any investigator access to email records for three days without any sort of warrant other than the investigator's desire to have the information is being written into the appropriations bill that the Senate is pushing so hard to pass.) If we make it illegal to encrypt things that the government can't decode, then terrorists will simply be breaking one more law when they plan and execute their next attack...and I don't think they'll worry too much about it.
These laws cause ME a lot of worry, though - part of being in America is being able to walk around and talk without the fear that someone is listening and my words could come back in an entirely different context to haunt me. It's not that I'm against security... I just feel that the police should have to get a subpoena BEFORE they collect information about a person, no matter what medium the information is transmitted by. It's not an outlandish request, but it's one that the Senate has already decided is not important or not relevant... because they're not hearing the voices of we /.ers, the people who care about things like that.
I understand that the government needs to take action now to protect us. I also understand that I need to take action now to protect me. So, if you'll excuse me, I have to fax my Congressmen. dust
You allow our liberties to be removed, even for a short peroid of time, and the terrorists have won. They are attacking America, and everything it stands for. Our freedoms are what the US stands for, supposadely. We need to keep our freedoms UNCHANGED. We need to show them that they have NOT frightened us, that we will stand strong and continue as normal.
These were terrible acts, and we need to respond to them. We need to look at our priorities, militarily and intelligence wise especially. Fund those seaching for terrorists, but do NOT remove those things that make our country great. Tear down the missle defence program and use some of the $80+ billion to fund a program to protect us from real threats like terrorism.
I will not relax when the government sends messages to me that say that they do not trust us. I will not relax when every one is being treated as though they are terrorists. Our country is supposed to assume that we our innoccent until proven guilty and yet they are doing the opposite.
5,000+ people died becaue we weren't careful. Not because we have too many rights and freedoms. I refuse to reliquish them for I am not a terrorist and do not wish to be treated as such.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Well, Ok, then, the government will just regularly read your email, your snail mail and put video cameras in every room of your house just to make sure that you're not doing anything illegal.
You're a law-abiding citizen so I'm sure you'd have no problem with any of that, right?
Don't say I'm being ridiculous, they already read email, they'd love to be able to read snail mail without court order and they already put cameras all over some public places with the result being the harassment of innocent people who happen to look the same as others who are criminals.
We do NOT have to give up privacy to protect freedom. We may have to give up convenience (longer lines at airports and the like) but that's not the same thing.
Don't let the terrorists run your life. They want us to give up some freedoms, that's one of their major goals.
Skylarov's software had a legitimate use in Russia, where Adobe's crippling the product is illegal. In America, however, it is OK for Adobe to put restrictions on their product (the DMCA is encouragement for this kind of behavior) and it's Skylarov's software that is illegal. I don't think it's ethically right, but what's a legitimate use in Russia is not a legitimate use in the US.
I do believe that there is a lot of room for reform. I think that we should allow the CIA to use "dirty" operatives when conducting espionage. There is talk of rescinding LBJ's executive order banning the assassination of known criminal leaders, which should also be considered. The entire airline security industry needs to be reformed and perhaps socialized; it's clear that the lowest-bidder system being used now is a total and complete joke.
But along with those reforms I see the old specter of "key escrow" encryption being raised again. I see lots of talk about a curtailment of our first amendment rights on the "internet chatrooms" (whatever those are) that have become so villified by politicians. These "reforms" are counterproductive to the ostensible goal of fighting terrorists in the first place, which is to preserve our freedom. As such, that shouldn't even be considered.
As an aside, your faith in the Supreme Court is just completely naive. Where have you been living for the past ten years? Would you also expect the Supreme Court to act fairly and judiciously mildly important matters such as determining the true and fair winner in a presidential election? If you think that the Supreme Court is at all a friend of the common man's rights, I advise you run over the ACLU web site and look at the "In the Courts" section. You might be surprised.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
As a voter, you get the opportunity to speak your mind once every two years regarding federal matters. Sure, if you don't vote, you have the constitutional right to complain about it. However, if you do not vote, you have forfeited your most important voice. You see, we don't have time to be lobbiests and we don't have time to review every piece of legislation. That's why we take the time every 2 years to elect a member of the House of Representatives, every 4 years for a president and every 6 years for a Senator. By voting, you are saying that you either stand behind your representative or you are saying you really have issues with the job he's doing.
I don't condemn people who don't vote, but if you are eligible and don't take the time to let your voice be heard when it counts, I have no sympathy for you. If you care enough to gripe, you should care enough to vote. Please note that I fully understand there are times it's impossible to vote and I sympathize with that. It's when you simply don't care enough to vote and then turn around and whine that I have little tolerance for.
----------
Something cleverTo paraphrase the original article:
;) we're going to have a difficult time making a persuasive argument for protecting a level of encryption that requires the entire computing resources of the planet over the expected lifetime of the universe to circumvent. The other examples, such as patient record privacy or business secrets seem less compelling if the argument is that only certain government agencies would have access to the mandatory keys (and perhaps further protection along the lines of such intercepted/decrypted information could only be used if authorized by a warrant, etc.). Before I started writing this post, I took a (very) quick survey around some of the privacy rights web sites--I didn't feel like I found compelling arguments or examples as why "privacy is good". There's much more along the lines of current proposed legislation, surveys about how people feel about privacy, guidelines for e-commerce related privacy policies, etc. As I was trying to say earlier, taking "privacy as good" to be self-evident isn't as helpful in an argument that pits it against other equally "self-evident" principles (e.g. "protecting the lives of innocent people is good", "exposing criminal behavior that endangers others is good", etc.). The most "compelling" arguments I found on the various privacy related web sites were historical quotes, e.g.:
The question isn't, "Is privacy good?" but "What can we do to protect our privacy?"
The problem I found when I started to think about presenting an intelligent argument to friends, let alone to elected representatives, was that in order to make a strong argument in favor of protecting our privacy, especially wrt strong encryption, was that I couldn't simply take as given, "privacy is good" when the opposing arguments may in fact agree with that position, yet simply add the ostensibly reasonable condition that we need to balance the need for a "reasonable" assurance of privacy against the need for ______ (e.g. public safety, etc.).
The case for (and gaining public support for) protecting our privacy would be much simpler if the other side of the argument was pushing for an all-out Orwellian state with Thought Police and the like. That's not the case. The arguments in favor of limiting strong encryption and expanding government monitoring of communications are made in the context of protecting innocent people, by limiting the ability of criminal activity to escape detection. A sympathetic listener might foreseeably see the reasonableness of the argument.
I believe we need to have realistic examples that people can relate to to understand why we need to protect our privacy. For example, I don't find Ellis' analogy of encrypted email to enclosing letters in an envelope compelling. If we're settling for PEEP (Paper Envelope Equivalent Privacy)
"The right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people."
- Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. U.S. (1928)
"Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
-Benjamin Franklin
Great for 10-second spots, a little lacking otherwise.
The other tack may be to demonstrate that the proposed curtailings of our civil liberties doesn't in fact curtail the resources available to (mildly) sophisticated criminals. (Incidentally, I think such arguments need to address the objection that while limiting the general public's legal access to strong encryption may not hinder a criminal's access to such encryption, it would raise a red flag when strong encryption is detected in passing traffic).
I understand that one point of the original editorial could be taken as a call to simply be loud and try to match the other, not terribly well-reasoned side of the debate--basically, just get your viewpoint heard. But we ought to be able to back it up with rational argument if the need arises. So, maybe we could get a list/discussion here going about sound arguments for why privacy is good, even against other, "self-evident goods".
Voting is a good idea, but I'm not aware of any elections in the next few weeks that will have any effects on all these new legislation being proposed.
Never mind supporting, say, the Shah or Iran, or arming Saddam Hussein, or training bin Laden, or giving money and arms to the Taliban.
This wasn't an attack on our civil liberties, or the American way of life. This was a assault on government agencies throwing our weight around in foreign countries, without accountability, in the names of our "national interests."
And if we, the citizens, are going to get killed for these actions, we should have a voice in these actions. Most Americans would likely support our efforts in Israel, but I'm not sure about the sanctions in Iraq (which allow Hussein to horrendously abuse his people in our name) and I'm sure they wouldn't support sending millions to the Taliban, even for the "war on drugs"
In the afterhaze of the tragic terrorist attacks, it would take an almost unimaginable lobbying effort on the part of privacy advocates to prevent online privacy being seriously eroded.
/. post. But one reason I can think of is OIL GREED, and the average voter's refusal to accept any accountability for any deeper consequences of their lifestyle choices.
But I feel suppressing privacy is a most blatantly superficial solution, that does nothing to address the underlying causes of the attack.
From these attacks has come knowledge of two new weapons - (1) Aircraft, and (2) Anonymity.
Yes - anonymity as a weapon!
Americans would be reluctant to give up cheap convenient air travel/freight, as these are part of America's superlative economic infrastructure, but more and more, privacy/anonymity is being seen as a dangerous luxury.
Terrorists are showing alarming ingenuity at using the most commonplace entities as weapons, and no doubt will adapt to being able to function effectively under any set of rules, and find ways to use any new rule as an actual weapon.
Sadly, no law can suppress anyone's will to attack the USA - in fact, such rules can only increase anti-US sentiment, both within and without.
It refreshes me, though, to see the media giving some airing to opinions critical of US foreign policy and calling for the USA to see Sep 11 as a reality check. Sadly though, the bombings seem very unlikely to trigger any substantial revision of such policy, or any real investigation of the underlying causes of the Sep 11 tragedy.
Ban encryption/anonymity? Terrorists will simply resort to steganography. Any white noise such as image/audio data, even plain text, can be used as a carrier for hidden content. (Imagine lots of high-powered NSA mathematicians looking for hidden messages embedded in people's family photos - just like the religious fundamentals looking for 'secret brainwashing messages' in heavy metal rock albums!)
The only thing that can possibly prevent any future attacks on America is serious and deep reflection on WHY the USA has made itself unpopular in certain parts of the world.
Too many inter-related complex reasons to fathom in one mere
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Here's a hypothetical question: You're walking down the street one day, minding your own business, when a complete stranger approaches you and punches you in the face. He doesn't try to mug you or take your money, he doesn't insult you, he doesn't accuse you of sleeping with his girlfriend. Just socks you squarely on the jaw and goes about his business, offering no explanation. Many people's first reaction would be to call the police maybe, or to chase him down so you could return the favor. Maybe you don't do anything. Whatever. The first reaction isn't important, it would vary from person to person. At some point, though, most normal people would have to get over their first reaction and wonder why they were singled out, out of all the people in the city that day, for a bloody nose. This isn't the best example obviously, because there are enough loonies wandering around in large cities today to make this story not so strange. You'd probably chalk it up to being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong crazy person and resume your life as usual. Let's put another spin on it, though: you're one country out of many in the world, instead of one person out of many on the street, and instead of socking you in the face, this stranger decides to hijack a plane and topple two of the largest buildings in your largest city, along with a government building in another city. At what point do you stop and wonder why America was singled out? Why not Canada? Why not Mexico, or France, or Estonia? Or don't you care? If your only thought on the matter is to Get The Bastards, then no, you probably don't care. I do. And I'm gonna tell you why we were singled out. We have been waltzing around the world, dictating to other countries how they should run their government and day to day lives. If someone disagrees with us, we simply impose trade sanctions against them, and leave them to starve until they see the light. Worse, we have taken sides in the Holy War in the middle east. We supply weapons and intelligence to Israel. We, the holiest of nations, have decided who gets to live in the "holy land" and who doesn't. You don't know what that whole holy war thing is all about? Don't care? Well you better start paying attention, because your government has taken part, and this is what we, as citizens, get. We have been instigating this. Inviting it. We live in such a bubble that that outside world is like a TV show, and we're surprised when it turns out to be real. I could list foreign policy all day, but that doesn't really matter if all you want is to Get The Bastards. It doesn't matter what we have been doing, because we are The Country That Was Never Wrong. So open up the emails. Outlaw the encryption. Install Carnivore wherever we can. As long as we get the bastards, right?
Last time I checked flying commercial airliners into buildings wasn't very legal. That didn't seem to worry the terrorists too much really...
Jedidiah
--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts