Slashdot Mirror
Browsing Privacy - Off With Your Headers!
andyo writes: "Incredible assertion in this Wired article that 'Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the identities of their e-mail correspondents, or the addresses of Web pages they visit.' Cites two senators who I'd thought to be more clueful (Orrin Hatch and Chuck Schumer)." Sure, the FBI should be able to check out every URL I visit without a warrant. They'll never abuse that power.
In normal times the opinion of these 2 avowed members of the ultra conservative christian right would be ridiculed, but at this moment in time they will get wide support in some areas.
the terrorist actions commited on the 11th are such that many many americans will give up what they see as small freedoms in order to fight the supposed evil around them.
Enough small freedoms and you are living in a police state - and the scary thing is how easily this could be done in the US.
But in a way they are sort of right - with many modern systems and tools you dont have a hell of a lot of privacy in these areas unless you set out to make sure you have it.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
its been a long time coming. although none of us like it at all, it seems that the people in washington have some deluded interpretation of the constitution that they go by that allows them to take away our privacy. pray, or do whatever you like to try and convince your senators and congressmen to protect your rights and the rights of those around you. or else....
I feel so powerless.
I realize that a lot of the things I read on this site are semi-biased sometimes, but the overall feeling I'm getting is not good.
We all realize that more monitoring is not necessarily a good thing or a solution to any problem, but how do we truly inform the people that don't understand, especially those who are making decisions for us in politics?
I've written some of my state reps but I'm just not sure that's doing the job. Is there a bigger organization that will stand up for us and privacy?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I used to want to go to the US and get in on some of the juicy IT money, but now I think I'll stay in Canada where I am blissfully ignorant of my lack of rights and privacy.
deAngelo
I totally agree with you. It's extremely scary, but how can we fix the problem?
From what I can tell, there aren't enough "educated" people that care enough to make a difference. For instance, out of everyone that reads this site and agrees that all this additional privacy invasion is bad, how many people would actually DO something to make a difference and end this nonsense?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
We've got to beat them at thier own game. I started a mailing list after reading the "Slashdot in Politics" thread. I'm wanting to get involved, to change the system. Anyone want to help? We've got to do it open source style. Each person works on a small chunk, ending up with a massive effort.
Follow the link in my sig to sign up for the newsletter. We can't just stand by and let this happen.
-- When a fool hears of the Tao, he will laugh out loud.
Privacy for the sake of privacy itself is stupid. I don't care if the government watches my every move; I don't do anything wrong. What I would mind, however, is if their observing affects me, e.g. forcing me to wear a tracker. Watch if you want, but don't interfere (unless I actually commit a crime).
Let me guess:
:)
If you don't want us to spy on you, just tell us what you're doing that you don't want us to see.
Anyone see the problem with that?
Observing a particular action of you is of course not protected. To build a database of this on the other hand is time consuming, and attracts the attention of the law, eventually. Likewise, pressing bootleg or pirate money, books or records.
Copying and tracking have become essentially free. The effect is that the laws of copyright and privacy struggle to deal with the ability to use computers to track and copy things.
At the moment, what is seriously lacking is some measure to deal with the correct use of copies, and who can legitimately copy things and for what.
To deal with "privacy" and "copyright" and "licensing" as separate issues is to miss the point.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
So, personally, i've been designing a webapp for use by myself and my friends lately, and this whole thing has inspired me to use POST vs GET whenever possible.
Unless they're actually wanting HTTP Headers instead of just URLs, which seems more clueful on their part.
Either way, this is a travesty. Not in and of itself, but because of the precedent that it sets. People can't take video and sound of you in a public place, but they can take an exact record of what you've been surfing to.. wonderful.
It would probably be possible to set up an anonymizing proxy that used a form of chaffing with HTTP headers to obscure the actual transactions from the random crap grabs.
You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, any more than you do about where you go when you leave your house or who you send letters to. That's just the nature of public actions... they're not private. People can see them, and they are free to tell others, including police. They can be asked with no warrant, and freely cooperate, or if they refuse to cooperate, and reasonable justification can be found, a warrant can be issued to require them to provide it if they have it.
The questions of mass-databasing this information and of requiring private parties to give constant, full reports on the data available to them, are entirely different.
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
*puts on asbestos*
Ok, seriously, I'm not trying to be difficult here, but where is the part in the constitution that says you have the right to be anonymous. I understand the right of free speech, and general "freedoms" granted, but the right to say what you want is not the same as the right to say things anonymously. People need to be responsible for their actions and their words. While sometimes anonymity is usefull and necessary (such as children reporting sexual abusers), most of the time all an anonymous service does is encourage people to behave poorly. When people are not responsible for their actions, they behave irresponsibly.
Take for example the SPAM I get through YIM (or Email). If one was REQUIRED to properly identify themselves in order to get a YIM account, and that identity included name, phone number, etc. How many "HOT SEXXX!!!" messages would you get? Very few, considering you could call them or get their address and harass them back if they annoyed you.
The same applies to the web, I see no reason why a company can't track you through a site. your are on THEIR servers, using THEIR service. They can do what they want as far as it extends to tracking your way around their system. AS for telling you about it. I think people need to realize that they have NO privacy unless they work to create it. Assume all companies are trying to get EVERYTHING from you they can (since they are) and assume that any information you give out unsecured on the web is public domain (since it is anyway).
I know this has been discussed before, but I do honestly believe that a "National ID system" may be useful. The question is making the system difficult to circumvent. The best solution I have at the moment is smartcard chips embedded under the skin (seriously, I think this is cool!) that could be used to track you, grant you access to things you should have access to, and keep you out of things your shouldn't. Just think of the criminal uses if anyone could be tracked. The whole determination of who was at the scene of a crime and who wasn't would be a simple database query. Yea, yea, I know, mark of the beast, but I don't subscribe to that religion.
Oh, no, I don't see National ID cards, tracking, or the FBI reading my E-mail as a loss of my privacy, I didn't think I had privacy in the first place. Besides, if the FBI is really interested in reading the love letters between me and my Fiancee, be my guest.
*takes asbestos off*
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
My RoadRunner DNS has been flaky as hell the last couple days. Is there anyway to FORCE a non-DHCPed DNS server?
I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
For anonymous email, one can use the following: ENCRYPTED WEB-BASED MAILSERVER HushMail LokMail ZixIt ManiacMail For ANONYMOUS WEB SURFING Anonymizer SubDimension HREF='http://www.safeweb.com/'>SafeWeb
It is not very surprising to hear a public official claim that email and web traffic is not private. For the most part ISPs will tell you as much in their disclaimers, and most schools and colleges will claim that email is the property of the school. Companies vary on policy, but most of them consider email and web traffic as part of their business and ultimately as their domain to moderate. What we should be doing is creating an online bill of rights to secure rights to privacy in electronic transactions and communications.
just my $.02
-b
You're right. I shouldn't be speaking for everyone.
Here's my simple explanation of why I think it's a bad idea...
1. Employers... I'm self employed but if I worked for a company, I wouldn't want my company knowing that I'm searching for another job or even researching bad information about my company during my lunch break.
2. The government doesn't need to know how I spend all my time on the web just so they can run my browsing habits through a script that decides if I'm a bad guy. For instance, what if I'm searching for crop duster information, they log it and show up at my door the next day wanting to know why I'm trying to find out info about crop dusters when I never have before.
3. In the U.S. Anonomousity is one of the many freedoms that we have earned. No one should take that away.
4. Too much risk of security holes. So they want to install a crypto backdoor in EVERY computer... Can you imagine the chaos as soon as it was cracked? yikes!
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
A ``reasonable expectation of privacy'' for the identities of people you correspond with via email? Guys, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in email period, encrypted email notwithstanding. One of my friends had the sysadmin at her company reading through her email recently, including a couple of emails from her fiancee, and this sonufabitch was actually reading her emails aloud to a (female) co-worker he was trying to impress.
Your emails are not private. If you think they are, you're stupid and living under a rock. We know this here on Slashdot; after all, we advocate using email encryption, we set up anonymous remailers, etc., exactly because we don't expect privacy otherwise.
So now a couple of senators are saying ``hey, Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the identities of their correspondents'', and what are we saying? Sounds like ``how dare they!''
Gee. Color us hypocritical.
Same argument applies to HTTP headers. Guys, you're sending traffic across an unencrypted, insecure wire. What expectation of privacy do you really have? We understand that HTTP is an insecure protocol and we even expect that HTTP headers will be abused by pretty much anyone who can make a buck off it. But when senators who hold political opinions most Slashdotters don't like say that ``Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their HTTP headers'', suddenly we're up in arms?
For the love of God, people. Figure out what you believe and take an unambiguous stand for it.
And while you're at it, grow up.
When government officials, cops or otherwise, follow your every move on the internet without a warrant it's considered acceptable. But if they follow you around and watch your every move offline without a warrant, it's considered harrassment.
You know, I'm the first to agree that it's assinine to make new laws to cover territory already covered by old laws simply because of a new information medium, but if we can't reverse the trend what about making new information-based laws to protect our rights there, as our parents originally did with old laws? If the RIAA can pass the DMCA, why can't we get stuff through like "digital harrassment laws" and the like? What, are we too few in numbers or something? We've all seen how sites linked here get slashdotted within minutes; why not slashdot the government similarly? We would seem to have the same basic concerns and motivations, with a few exceptions here and there. Talk about a special interest group waiting to happen.
Now don't get me wrong - I'm a total privacy advocate (ok, some would say nut), and I don't agree with these morons, but in a certain sense they are both correct and incorrect.
1) Correct: You don't have any expectation of privacy in the *ADDRESS* of the person you are corresponding with. You *DO* have an expectation of privacy with the contents of the envelope (let's not even go near postcards). In fact, the USPS has been known to photograph the outside of the envelopes for DECADES of people they want to learn more about, but don't have a warrant for just yet...
2) Incorrect: I do not concur that my surfing habits are 'public'. There's nothing public about the sites I choose to visit on the Net. This is my own damn business, and too many incorrect assumptions could be drawn from stalking me on the Net. If you have probable cause that I'm committing some crime (like I bought 5000 bags of fertilizer and 2000 gallons of diesel and 1000 pounds of aluminum powder and 500 pounds of pink dye plus a case of blasting caps) - then STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY LIFE.
Now, given that these two camels really want to get their noses underneath the tent so they can collapse the whole thing in the name of 'security', here's what we do:
1) Encrypt everything. Use anonymous chaining remailers. Base your email address upon a key which changes at least every day, if not every minute. Something along the lines of my dear departed anon.penet.fi
2) Use a different scheme to encrypt the contents of the message. Use digital signatures. At least 4096 bit encryption - more if you and your recipients can stand it.
3) Use encryption. Use a dual proxy scheme. Proxy 1 is behind your firewall. Whatever you key into your browser get's encrypted by the proxy and passed to an anonymous recipient proxy (one of many chosen at pseudo-random). Anonymous recipient proxy decrypts the info, hits the site, returns the data. There's some key management and exchange issues, differential traffic analysis issues to accomodate, and some other cryptographic goodies, but if enough people do this - it'll totally fuck up the tracking... Check out the AT&T research paper on "Crowds"...
I for one believe that what those terrorist bastards did was a heinous act beyond belief. However, it is not worthy of my blood-won freedoms. Rather the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Find every terrorist, expel them into space, and DON'T TREAD ON ME!
Here's where, exactly:
Amendment IX
The enumeration of the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to endy or disparage others retained by the people.
Ask most Americans if they "retain a right of privacy." I think you find they expect to, and therefore, it exists.
could you please explain why Slashdot/OSDN continues to use web-bugs to track users? Where's the concern for privacy of your own visitors?
A story about a domestic surveillance controversy, whose content included the HTTP response headersSet-Cookie: p_uniqid=7Ibyr09KSYQq4DKCcD; path=/; domain=.wired.com; expires=Thu, 31-Dec-2037 23:59:59 GMT Set-Cookie: test_cookie=CheckForPermission; path=/; domain=.doubleclick.net; expires=Thu, 27 Sep 2001 07:01:18 GMT Set-Cookie: lubid=010000508BD39B2105043BB2F5D5003669F100000000 ; expires=Mon, 18-Jan-2038 08:00:00 GMT; domain=.lycos.com; path=/Two permanent IDs (and I have no doubt doubleclick would have sent a third if my browser acknowledged them) created in attempt to record what I (a currently-anonymous person they have no relationship with) have been reading. Now that's irony.
That FBI hunk next door, may sure as hell check out the places I surf to!
Giulani used to be a prosecutor. And not just any prosecutor; he's the one who took down the New York Mafia, something people thought was impossible. That's exactly the kind of job stopping terrorism will be like - taking apart a big, secretive illegal organization. He's done it before. Ashcroft hasn't. Giulani is effective at being tough on crime, something very, very few politicians can show a track record on.
Giulani can manage tough organizations. Compared to running the NYC government, the Justice Department will be easy. He's a problem-solver. Ashcroft is an ideologue.
Giulani is popular with both voters and Congress. Ashcroft lost an election to a dead guy. The Senate was reluctant to confirm Ashcroft as AG, and with good reason. Nobody will miss Ashcroft. Bush will look good if he makes this change.
The AG serves at the pleasure of the President; Bush can replace Ashcroft any time he wants. So that's the real solution. Push on Bush to dump Ashcroft and put Giulani in.
Privacy, in of itself, is a lofty goal. It means that we all have to have the respect, trust, and good will to believe that others know what they are doing, and that they are, at least to some extent, 'good' people. That's alot of trust.
.8% to .3%?
Many seem to have the view that "Well I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't mind the government watching me." This view is not a good one to have, and anyone who disagrees hasn't read enough Orwell. To achieve the goal of a better society, we must go the road that is harder to travel. It is to easy to approve programs of National ID cards, National skin implants, or National Internet tracking. They all avoid the real problem, which is fear, doubt and uncertainty.
We all need to feel secure. We need to feel that we can do something to avert past terrorist disasters. Well the truth is, if we want to stay a free society, we can't. Maybe for a month, or a year security checks will improve with hieghtened attention. But like the Cole, and the WTC bombing before it, these things will pass into history and we will be open again. Anybody can drive a bomb into a building. This is the price we pay for not having security checks before we enter our cities, or crossing fellow state borders.
If we want to look at how our society will be after all these proposed new laws, we have many places we can check. In Singapore crime is kept low with harsh penalties, no one wants to litter if the penatly is a beating. In Isreal crime is kept low by placing police everywhere, nobody wants to hijact a plane if they have to deal with 3 cops with guns to do it. We have to ask ourselves as a people, is all that really worth it? Is it worth living in a police state, to reduce one's chances of dying in a terrorist attck from
I trust my paper to be delivered on time, my university to provide me with good professors, and the police to protect me. They have enough power now, as it is. Privacy is that measure of trust I bestow on others to go about their business without my interference. If we loose that trust, we will become less then we are. It will be a step in the wrong direction. Wars sometimes cannot be avoided, they should be fought over these princepals, they are what makes us the remarkable people we are today. Remember these next few words in your heart, and carry them with you, throughout your daily lives. They are worth fighting for.
Those who desire to give up Freedom, in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. -Thomas Jefferson
As for Ashcroft's ridiculous distinction of e-mail:
In his response, Ashcroft said he believed "To:" and "From:" lines of e-mail could be intercepted without a court order, but "Subject:" lines would require a judge's signature. "We're not asking that we get content or the subject," he replied. "We want information on who sent it and to whom it was sent."
That makes me think of what is quite possibly one of the most amusing messages I have every seen in an e-mail, which creates the expectation of privacy...:
This e-mail has been sent to you by GDS Publishing Ltd., registered in
Australia, England and Wales. Registered office: Tower House, Fairfax
Street, Bristol, BS1 3BN Registered Number 2877774.
This communication is intended for the addressee only, is private and
confidential, and is subject to all applicable terms and conditions.
Access to this email by any third party is unauthorised. This message
should not be read if delivered in error.
Heh. I bet that of course the FBI and other security organizations would honor such things. Oh yeah, and about that bridge you wanted me to sell you...^_^
Look at the big picture. The attacks on the core values of democracy are just symptoms of a larger sickness.
The U.S. is undergoing a social breakdown. The U.S. has the highest divorce rate in the world. The U.S. has the highest percentage of obese people. The U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of any country ever, in the history of the world.
There is evidence that the secret agencies of the U.S. government and the weapons manufacturers have too much control. Few Americans know how much the U.S. government has meddled in the government of Saudi Arabia, so few realize the extent to which Arab complaints are justified.
The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer. The U.S. government killed an estimated 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and an estimated 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed in any way directly threatened the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, wives and families and friends. The U.S. government has a history of valuing the lives of its citizens much more highly than the lives of people in poor countries. Although violence can never be condoned, it is not surprising that some people want to make an effective protest against this.
Some of this is discussed in the article: What should be the Response to Violence?Bush's education improvements were
Like the computer crime = terrorism bill being passed now.
Or the retro active death tax imposed by B.Clinton in 95(?) for 94 tax law.
How'm I supposed to run my Anonymous Zombie business if you've got a tracking chip in there!?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I was thinking about steganography and the detection thereof.
What if instead of consistent every pixel (or every other or whatnot) lvb manipulation you based which bits got flipped on the key fingerprint? It would seem a rather simple solution that would make detecton an order of magnitude more difficult.
It seems unlikely that @Home, Qwest, Above.net, Exodus, Sprint, or Verio is routing my traffic through sniff.sniff.bin_laden.org. I understand that most of the backbone providers have decided not to renew their peering agreements with him in light of recent events. Somebody looking for my packets is probably sitting either at my ISP or my recipient's. And I asked Max at the helpdesk to stop sniffing my packets when I saw that process running.
As far as your call for uniform encryption (which I'm not opposed to), you might want to consider how this will protect me (and you, and any "investigational focus") from overzealous Federal agents collecting header information without a warrant for 48 hours. As collecting header information was the subject of the article.
Wait... you mean you still haven't joined the ACLU?
- The FBI can snoop on my internet traffic
- The FBI can do this because there is no expectation of privacy on the internet.
- Similarly, if the FBI wanted to, they could read all my postcarded mail.
- This is also because there is no expectation of privacy.
- Any individual can read my postcarded mail as well, because of this lack of privacy.
- If an individual does not violate my rights to privacy in that instance, what keeps them from copying the FBI on the internet?
For clarity: If the FBI can snoop for the reasons offered, then Congress just allowed any individual in the world to legally monitor my internet traffic, and in turn cannot pass laws to punish people who do this. If they did they would be holding a double standard, that privacy rights are not a concern to the government (no troll posts on "oh well it's always been like that").If there are any lawyers in the audience, please, tell me this isn't true
PHP, it kicks ASP!
Since the days when man first gathered together in tribes and the biggest became Chief, he has been concerned with the Chief (or the neighbours) looking into his life. So he built walls and fences and claimed the space as his own, private space.
And while the sun shone, and the harvests were good and the children played in the street all was well.
But when the enemies gathered at the gate and fear gripped the citizens hearts, then a great fear arose that there could be enemies in their midst. And the Chief and his people, by dint of their power, would enter and search their people homes in order to safeguard the people, and for fear of losing their power.
So it was then, and so it is today. The space of 'privacy' is much greater and is no longer just fences and walls, but email and conversations, but the same principle applies. The 'enemies at the gate' may be real or percieved, the fear may intensified by the media, the Chiefs may be more concerned with their own well being than that of their citizens, but basically, the same ball game.
The US Constitution is supposed to guarantee its citizens the right to their privacy. One of the worlds great documents, but still just a document. It does not list the rights granted to people by nature, it is more the hopes and aspirations of those building a new society. And now they've gone and the society is becoming old and staid and the Constitution is just a document. And so those dreams fade away. Privacy being one of them....
And thats why I say the right to privacy is an illusion. Just an idea in a document. A great document to base a society on, when times are good and citizens have a song and a great hope in the hearts. But when their courage fails and fear strikes, then like all societies, it will close in on its self and its dreams be considered inappropriate for the great fight ahead.
From here in Europe, we can just hope that the dreams of your founders win out over the fears of your people.
----------------
.sig restricted on need to know basis.
----------------
.sig available on 'Need To Know' basis only!
"Oh, a sarcastic Star Trek fan. You must be a hit with the ladies."
I see this quote so often, but it's different every time, so perhaps "paraphrase" is more appropriate than "quote."
I don't suppose anyone has a link to the definitive quote in Jefferson's exact words, with a citation to the source?
Unless you use a browser like mozilla where source is available what warranties that you have that the typed URL's aren't be stored somewhere in the net? Unless you use a firewall/router that traces all packets that come and go!!!
Privacy = less info
info = money
privacy = less money
QED
"The U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of any country ever, in the history of the world."
For fuck's sake, you can't expect me to believe THAT with no back-up! As a matter of fact, I *don't* believe it. I believe the U.S.S.R. under Stalin has us beat. Ever read The Gulag Achipelago?
Provide proof or at least some minimum corroboration when you're going to try to use such fantastic points to base an argument on.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
'Nuff said.
Anyone can video your movements (well authorities or companies can, but they get upset if you try and video them - see Steve's wearcam thread from yesterday. Sorry can't find the link right now)
They do, however, have to give you a copy of all footage and info they have on you if you request it and pay for the privilege.
This is certainly true in the UK and I think it is in the US as well, but feel free to correct me.
Allowing government agencies to spy on people without warrent, is more than dangerous. Its giving up freedom (which is supposedly what Bush is fighting to protect?). The courts are there to protect people from unfair treatment and going round them in this area would be extremely dangerous, especially in the current climate. If this come in, I wouldn't like to be an American Muslim. Not being an American myself I'm less likely to be affected, and I don't know your laws that well, but wouldn't the supreme court get a say in this. Could it be see as unconstitutional?
Why when we are called to unify in this nation (or any nation for that matter) are we called to unify behind the most opportunistic and duplicitious
people in our country- politicians.
They do none of the grunt work in operating the nation but expect absolute control for the institutions they build to carry on their spirit of control.
Just wondering why anyone would trust them at all.
is beginning to sound suspiciously like Robert Heinlein's future history especially the part where Nehemiah Scudder (G.W. Bush Jr), a religious zealot, is elected President sometime after the year 2000 and turns America into a religious dictatorship.
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
Why wouldn't I have an expectation of privacy in my postal communications? The letters go into a locked mailbox, are picked up by employees who are required to keep postal secrets, and delivered into a private mailbox at the other end. I don't even need to give a recipient's name--an address or P.O. box is sufficient, and I don't have to put a "From" address on it either. Most countries (the US probably as well) have strong legal restrictions on what you can do with a misdelivered piece of mail, so even in the case of accidents, your privacy is supposed to be preserved.
Yet for E-mail, all of a sudden all of that is supposed to be "public"? On the same footing as a USENET posting? Even if I use an SSL connection to pick up and send my mail? Sorry, but I just don't get your logic.
They have to know such actions are undesirable to the public. This is not something they need to be informed of. But they proceed anyway, ignoring the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, AND the will of their constitients. They no longer even pretend to play the game of placating the little people.
All of this is opinion, it reflects nothing like policy, save your flames about that.
This is not a matter of the wolves being let out of the cage. This is a matter of the wolves wanting protected hunting grounds where they already feed.
The unofficial slogan for the Illinois State Police's intelligence division is, "In god we trust, all others we monitor". In most cases, the laws that would seem to newly empower law enforcement exist or are proposed only to validate prosecution after the fact.
The fact of the matter is that after meeting and being privy to the discussions of various members of the Chicago Police Intelligence Unit as well as the Illinois State Police's, that any expectation of privacy (once deeds warrant the attention of these organizations) is a façade.
When I hear the stories it all seems appropriate and sometimes heroic. But I am sure I have not heard all the stories. And I am sure that pretty damned un-American things happen, not just in my city, in my state, but in most if not all of yours.
Now don't get me wrong, these are good guys and the certainly one wouldn't think they would task the resources and manpower it takes for good surveillance on any random Joe. But if they have what they feel is solid intelligence that you are a "bad guy", you will be monitored. Court order or no, warrants or no, take the moral or ethical discourse out of the equation and these guys just want to put "bad people" away. Yeah, that scares me too.
We all know what power does; we all know that police powers tend to corrupt, but again. I find myself getting into a theoretical argument. And all I wanted to do was state that this goes on, has for sometime, whether we like it or not. And no one ever asked you or your mom and dad how he or she felt about it.
Sorry it's late. I'm very tired, and haven't the capacity for eloquence. I will leave you with something I saw on a Intelligence cop's tee-shirt about three years ago though; "There is nothing wrong with a Police State... as long as you are the Police."
I agree. You should believe nothing without good evidence.
The article referenced at the bottom of this post provides official U.S. government statistics. (Search on "prison".) An interesting link mentioned there gives another statistic: The murder rate in Washington, D.C. is 170 times the murder rate in Brussels, Belgium.
You can do a Google search for the prison rate in other countries. You will find that European countries have about 1/6 as many of their citizens in prison as the U.S.
"Ever read The Gulag Archipelago?"
Yes, I read that book. During that time in the Soviet Union, there was a far smaller percentage of people in prison than now in the U.S. Also, the Supermax prisons in the U.S. are less humane than Gulag prisons. There is a difference, though; the U.S. apparently has few or no political prisoners.
Check out one prisoner's story: Supermax Prison is Torture and Death. This is not obscure data. I learned about U.S. prisons from a PBS TV program. The two links in this and the previous paragraph are just the 2nd and 4th Google links from a search on "supermax prison".
We live in a time when a well-dressed, educated man or woman in a leadership position will look into your face or a camera, be very clear and logical-sounding, and speak complete nonsense. That's how things got to be such a mess. Tonight on a TV news program a U.S. government official was talking about the "Talley Bahn". He meant the Taliban. From years of experience with this kind of thing, I know it is a good guess that the speaker knows nothing of importance about Afghanistan.
We live in a time when total bullshitters are allowed attention equal to people who know what they are doing. That's how we got the dot-com dot-bombs.More about the social breakdown: What should be the Response to Violence? .
Bush's education improvements were
For the record, Schumer is a Jew. That would automatically disqualify him from being a member of the "Christian Right". But perhaps he is a member of the "Liberal Jewish Left".
All this kind of thing will do is give those who have made hidden archives of subversive materials into isolated pockets of power. It's like certain martial arts, the harder the oposing force pushes, the greater the force coming back at them. The target slips to the side at the last minute and the concrete wall takes the force of the fist breaking every finger in the bloody hand of these idiots.
If anybody can use a search engine to find their --fill in the blank subversive material these guys are looking for-- then everybody is a pro and nobody is a leader. But as soon as you start trying to pinpoint who's doing what, you scare people into looking for the "secret" way so they don't get caught. Bang, up step the wannabee disenfranchised pros with their encrypted magic decoder rings and assorted gang paraphanalia.
Now you've creating leaders and gangs and mafiettes where there were nothing but curious or perhaps malicious individuals. Okay, so the Senators say, Great! That's what we wanted, targets, an orgainzed conspiracy.
Alright, now who are the bad guys?
A boring little story, but I think it illustrates a point. BTW I'm in the UK.
About 20 years ago, my mum got involved with a "Peace Group" - sort of local CND (she was a child of the 60s after all). After hearing some strange noises on the phone, they all got together in the local pub and decided to organise a demonstration at the local USAF base over the phone. On the day of the demo, nobody turned up (of course) except for about 200 police with riot gear (a couple of them drove past to check it out).
I think there's a couple of points here:
- If the authorities are snooping, then you can mess them about. Try leaving the house and actually talking to people.
- Who they decide to monitor can be given a pretty broad definition. I wouldn't say that a crowd of middle-aged ex hippies waving signs saying "Excuse me, but would you mind taking your missiles away" is a serious threat to (inter)national security. Someone else thought different.
Jerry's final thought: It's 29 years since the Watergate break in occured. Has everyone forgotten that the machinery of government can, and will be, abused.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
What about the list of books I've checked out from the library? The list of movies I've rented? To the best of my knowledge both are protected; in the case of video rentals by the video rental privacy act which allegedly came about as a direct result of some reporters checking into their congressmen's video rental habits. Shouldn't web sites visited fall into the same general category? Maybe posting a list of websites visited by selected congressmen would have the same effect as it did with movie rentals. (-:
``Liberty may be blind, but she has some sophisticated listening devices.''
Sometimes I wonder if the people proposing these laws plan to emigrate when they retire...
Same folks will make encryption illegal as well.
Their agenda is to be able to participate as a third party in every form of communication possible by man.
What happened, when did all this start going wrong? There had to have been some seed, somewhere, some influence or person, or organization. Someone is going to benefit from all this. And that benefit will be cold hard cash. It wouldn't surprise me if money has already exchanged hands and the beneficiaries are standing ready....even before the laws are passed. Look at Elisson. Has he already signed contracts? Just waiting for the formality of the law to be gotten out of the way?
Don't think stuff like this is over the top. I get the strong feeling the deal is already done!
Saudi friends of mine have suggested to me that the U.S. government is far more involved in Saudi politics than is commonly known by U.S. citizens. My independent study of articles and books on Saudi Arabia causes me to agree with them.
No sensible person could be pro- bin Laden. I only think it is reasonable that a government should represent the will of its people. That is impossible with the present government in Saudi Arabia, I am told.
Bush's education improvements were
These are probably fake 'secure email' run by ISraely Intel which give info back to CIA.
NOTE : dont trust ICQ
So tell my why just because YOU don't care that the gov't can peek in on you at any moment that _I_ shouldn't.
Your argument is the typical "privacy nudist" argument that gets repeated ad nauseum by the lesser informed.
There's this nice little thing called "innocent until proven guilty". Random searches, facial recognition and all the little Big Brother-esque things that the war hawks are calling for are the equivalent of being put into a police lineup (electronically).
Why am I now expected to accept that I'm "guilty until proven innocent", as you seem to accept? Even if I've done "nothing wrong", as you put it, I still have to PROVE I've done "nothing wrong" by submitting to constant gov't surveillance.
Email Oriely at FOXNEWS.COM
all this info, he might air it.
At this point, I'm just waiting for someone to put 2 and 2 together and figure out that we have already declared 'war' against another amorphous, invisible, undefeatable enemy: drugs. Anyone remember that? How long will it be until some militant 'Drug Czar' figures out that they can also use the current frenzy of 'security at all costs' to eradicate any/all civil liberties in the name of fighting the evil drug empires. It's a very slippery slope we're heading down right now.
Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
FOXNEWS, that bastion of quality, unbiased "opinion" QED
In startrek everything is logged and all is fine there.
http://www.artbell.com/graphics18.html
btw
Many people have pointed out that it is my personal opinion that these gentlemen are ultra conservative right wing christians is incorrect so i have decided i will post a small correction.
The opinion expressed above is mine alone and thus it may be incorrect.
There.
Having said that i think that my point is a valid one - this country can easily slip away from the free one it is if we dont watch out - there are forces out there (yes even democratic party ones) who would take away our most basic rights if they think it is the right thing or politcally correct thing to do.
Pay attention today otherwise you may lose more than you will ever know.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
That is because email is not like real-mail. The real-world comparision is more like a postcard: on a postcard you write the address and the message on one and the same visible "body", just like in email.
If you consider encrypted mail on the other hand, you have a postcard with a readable address and "invisible" content, ergo, the same as a mail in an envelope. It really is that simple, once you think about it.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the DMCA help here. I thought that the DMCA stated that it was against the law for a person to decrypt something that was not intended for them. Couldn't an argument be made that the HTTP requests are encoded using an extremely week encryption algorithm called ASCII, a symmetric key algorithm that maps a byte to a character?
do you have any reasonable right to privacy as to the locations you visit in the real world? no.
do you have any reasonable right to privacy to the return address and destination address of a letter you send? no, but you do have a reasonable right to privacy to the contents of the envelope.
what they are saying in a poor manor is that you should hav the same expectations of privacy on line as you do in the real world. surfing the web is like walking down the street, and e-mailing is like sending a letter.
however, if they are for real about this, I would like this information to be publicly available for all to see if they so choose, not just the government(that would just be to big brotherish)
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Sorry for replying my own mail: I overread the part about SSL. There is still yet another difference between email and real post. The postal service is "trusted", this means, you trust the Postal service *not* to read your mail. This would be on par with a "trusted network" (you trust every node on the network for ensuring your privacy), and that is in *no way* the internet.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Marketroids would most certainly gain eventual access to whatever records accumulate about the populace. Look at DMV, or any other government institusion and the total lack of responsibility in regards to information people assume is private.
And the marketing lobby has been pushing hard to bring forth the very scenerio that is nearly upon us. They have been there from the very beginnings when these issues were just starting to be a concern. And now that I think about it, what sector would be best suited to contract with the govt to glean information about people's online activity? Marketing folks already have the system worked out, and not only that, a starter database for a whole bunch of people already.
Chuck Schumer? Right wing? He is an EXTREME Leftist from New York City. His main power base has traditionally been the Jewish Community.
BTW He is one of the most anti gun guys out there
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
What happens when the FBI starts using your web surfing habits to obtains search warrants or to detain you?
For all you "I don't do anything wrong people": What happens when reading slashdot makes you a suspected hacker (ie terrorist)?
What happens when you have to have a Star of David on your national ID card to identify if you are Jewish?
From the perspective of encouraging people to understand the realities of email, this is a GOOD thing. A reason people do not use encryption on their email is the belief that no one will read the email enroute. The first high-profile case of someone being arrested for statements made in supposedly private email will drive the public to protect themselves.
An example of this is the now common confidential paper handling companies. Twenty years ago companies didn't hire these confidential paper shredding companies as a matter of normal business. Even shredders were not that common outside of payroll and human resources departments. Companies found out that they had no expectation of privacy for papers in their dumpster. Police shows and news reports highlighted secrets being found through dumpster diving. Today, one may be hard pressed to find a company that doesn't ensure as many documents as possible find their way into confidential trash bins picked up by specialized waste handlers.
In the end, the more hub-bub that comes out of this reality, the better. Nothing drives sales like a real risk uncovered.
I look forward to a Law & Order episode where they read the email of a suspect, find it all encrypted, and later find out the suspect had nothing to do with the crime.
Hmmm, literacy and clear thinking aren't your strong points, are they?
Have a nice day, sir.
Cites two senators who I'd thought to be more clueful (Orrin Hatch and Chuck Schumer)."
This is that thing called sarcasm, isn't it? Hatch and Schumer are both cut from the same cloth as Feinstein, and are both willing to trample any freedoms they run across to get what they want.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
You mean, some senator, who has been sending letters for who knows how many years, doesn't think it's unreasonable that people know the same amount about his e-mail as they do letters. Or that, having actually left his house over the last couple years, has come to grips with the fact that if you walk into the little pornking store next door your neighbors might notice, and so can anyone who cares? I really don't think anonymity is all it's cracked up to be. If you haven't got the balls to say what you want/need to say you need to either get balls or change the system that makes you afraid to talk. Not learn how to talk without anyone knowing who you are. Civil Disobedience is doing something against unjust laws and saying I did that, and this is why. Not being anonymous. Get over the fact that just because you are sitting in your home, your ethernet packets aren't and people can see them. Sheesh
Similarly, I don't expect that when I'm browsing at a magazine rack, the guy next to me can't see what I'm looking at. But if there's a video camera in the ceiling at every magazine rack, with software that reports my name (via face-id) and every article I look at to a central database, I would find that somewhat upsetting.
I'm sure you don't mind running into a friend when you're out shopping. But if your friend followed you around everywhere you went, taking notes, are you saying you wouldn't mind?
"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 particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Orrin (Escape) Hatch is NOT what I would call a conservative. He flip flops around, talks tough and does little, then winds up voting for the most PC optiotion.
Considering how conservative Utah is I'm surprised they put up with the guy.
And yes, 'Office of Homeland Securuity' sounds too much like Nightwatch to me.
"...We need to err on the side of having tools available."
No, no, no! We need err on the side of the protection of our freedoms and civil liberties!
Which part of "inalienable" don't you understand?
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who know binary, and those who do not.
As I recall, the DMCA was Orrin Hatch's baby?
Why are you surprised?
I don't think it is any coincidence that these
bills start in mostly low tech states. Utah, SC, etc.
There aren't enough programmers in those states for their votes to make a big enough impact.
I am from SC and a programmer and totally pissed at Fritz. There just aren't enough of my kind.
Well, Orrin Hatch and Chuck Scumer don't think people should have any privacy the continuing thread is they, themselves, are not entitled to privacy either. So, the only way to fight bastards like this that don't have any respect for the Constitution or the principles this country was founded on is to dig into their privacy, and release that information to the media.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
The article is by the Duncan Campbell, and speaks to this very issue.
3 61 ,558371,00.html
"How the plotters slipped US net"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1
One interesting factoid I had not heard was that in '98, the US tried to kill Bin Laden with a cruise missle, using similar methods as the Russians when they attempted to kill Milosevich-- by tracing the source of a phone.
Cheers,
-b
Disclaimer: IANAL.
First, unless you use IMAP4 or POP3 over SSL, you don't even have a reasonable expectation of privcacy about the body of the e-mails you pull down to you own personal machine. The argument is that if you really cared if anybody read your mail, you would send it in an envelope. Similarly, if you don't want people reading your e-mail, put it in an electronic envelope. (Notice that this envelope need not be secure in order to trigger the privacy provisions, just as a real physical envelope is not secure. You need merely have shown that you intended the communication to be private.) Even then, the address on your mail is only private because a post office box is a secure container. If you leave your mail on a table in a restaurant where I can read the addresses, even upside down, you just gave up your expectation of privacy about those addresses.
In that light, it's clear that the headers you send in the clear through a public network as dissassembled packets which not only can but must be reassembled on the way aren't sent with the expectation of privacy. If you wanted that, then you'd have sent the headers in a way that indicates you care whether third parties can read them. There's no case law about that, but I expect that the threshold you'd need to reach to trigger such an expectation would be quite low indeed. It might well be enough to send your headers as a post request over SSL -- that's the equivalent of putting your letter inside another envelope and having a trusted third party (such as your attorney) forward it for you. There, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even for the address to which the letter is sent.
..is fiction if not outright fantasy. In such cases one can make a world better - or worse - than it really is or could be. A society tolerant enough for a complete lack of privacy to be workable is so far a dream and nothing more.
Many people will be unwilling to join yet another mailing list. Lists are fairly intrusive and fill up one's box.
PGP plugin for ICQ.
'nuff said.
Employers have long asserted the right to monitor employee Web surfing because you "have not expectation of privacy". Filters have been placed on public Web access, Parents have been urged to monitor all Web access by their (near-adult) adolescents. ISPs have been cutting people off for using P2P applications (for sharing copyright material). It was only a matter of time before the government go into the act. The private sector has once again forshadowed the government in quashing freedoms. This is not an isolated act. It is part of a long pattern of control and surveillance.
Today, the US Postal Service can institute a "mail cover" on you without a warrant. And record the return address of every piece of mail you receive.
How is this of any real practical difference from looking at you e-mail headers?
"Social breakdown?" By the gods that's what Falwell says. High divorce rate? That's because, as the Western country with the highest church membership rate, more people get married who would only live together in Europe. Obese people? That's largely because of an abundance of food, and an acceptance of immigrants: it's just a genetic fact that populations from regions with long feast-and-famine natural histories are disposed to store fat easily. The percentage of citizens in prison is one I'll grant you - the drug war should be ended at once, and if it were our prison rates would be normal.
How have we meddled in the government of Saudi Arabia? It's the Saudi princes who have been funding bin Laden. If we ever encouraged that, it was years ago. Our meddling consists in pressuring the sane side of the royal family to stay that way.
Viet Nam was a mistake - a French mistake we inherited, not realizing they'd screwed it up as badly as Algeria. But if you've ever visited Southeast Asia, you'd understand why it was desirable to defend those peoples against Communism. Yes, the government in the South was corrupt - but less so than mainland China is today. And we went in just a few years after China had killed 10 million or more in the Great Leap Forward.
150,000 people in Iraq? If we killed that many of their soldiers in the aggressive war they started, we shouldn't have stopped there. It's our shame we didn't finish that war properly.
We've bombed 14 countries? How many of these were NATO or UN actions? Or do you think these agencies - often opposed by the hard right, are just shills for Amercan interests? And do you begin to ask about the people with mothers and fathers whose lives were preserved by our military actions, which often have had no direct reward for America?
It's the job of every government to value the lives of its own citizens first.
In your last line, I take it you think the Trade Center atrocity was an "effective protest," "although violence can never be condoned." As Heinlein observed, "Patriotism is a nice long polysyllabic abstract word of Latin derivation, which translates into Anglo-Saxon as Women and Children First. And every culture that has ever lasted is based on Women and Children First or it doesn't last very long." They've indiscriminately killed thousands of our women, orphaned thousands of our children. In response, and in defense, violence must be far more than condoned, or we've no right to continue to exist as a civilization.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
No kidding. Schumer and Hatch are pretty different politically--except in one area. They may differ in what they want to government to do, but they both agree that it should have functionally unlimited power to do whatever it is it wants to do...
"We've bombed 14 countries?"
It wasn't we, wytcld. You've just admitted you didn't know anything about it. It was the U.S. government.
Let's see: Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos. A pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. Libya, Panama, Grenada, Iraq. Yugoslavia.
Afghanistan: 60 missiles costing $2,000,000 each into a dry, mostly empty valley, according to last Sunday's "60 Minutes" TV program. I'll bet that annoyed the dung beetles. I'll bet they were saying, "Why would anyone want to spend $120,000,000 just to move our favorite rocks around?
More.
I would support an initiative to find ways to live in the world without bombing.
"That's largely because of
The percentage of immigrants did not change in the last 30 years. The obesity did.
"How have we meddled in the government of Saudi Arabia?"
The U.S. supports an anti-democratic regime there. I don't have links to articles for you, however.
Nothing I said, or would ever say, it intended to condone violence of any kind.
In some ways the U.S. is the best, also: What should be the Response to Violence? .
Bush's education improvements were
What many people don't realize is that, until labeled as terrorists, terrorists have the same rights as you. You know that you're not a terrorist, but the gov't doesn't. Whatever rights you want, you have to be fully ready to give those rights, and more*, to terrorists.
I think the United States is great the way it is, objectivly. But, we harbor an overall sense of trust, which is easy for terrorists to abuse. And as long as we want the gov't to trust us, we have to trust terrorists and wait until they break that trust to treat them differently than us. This greatly increases the ability of terrorists to do their thing.
*I say terrorists get more rights than you or I because they are working our freedoms to gain as much as possible from them. I'd assume most non-terrorists don't push to make sure we're getting every single freedom we're owed.
Don't worry - Soon paper shredding will be illegal too!
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
I don't know why you would expect Hatch to be clueful. While he is a visible supporter of the Microsoft Anti-Trust prosecutions, I suspect it is only because Novell is in his state.
This is much ado about nothing. Re-read the
statement:
'Americans have no reasonable
expectation of privacy in the identities of their e-mail correspondents, or the addresses of Web pages they visit.'
This is merely a statement of fact. The fact is,
right now, on the internet, you have no privacy
in your email, or web pages.
It seems that this is going to create a huge demand for the Peekabooty browser that Cult of the Dead Cow was origianlly going to release at this year's defcon. If the feds want to be more intrusive, I want to be less cooperative. P2P browsers seem to be great way to foil this big brother foolishness. Anyone with info on the ETA of Peekabooty's release?
Since the 4th Amendment concerns the use of government force to obtain information, does not the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" _mean_ that such force isn't necessary in a given situation? For example, the reason there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place is that no force (i.e., a warrant) is needed for surveillance. If this is correct, then claiming that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, and then using this to justify _forcing_ the ISP to install surveillance equipment, is contradictory. The use of force is an admission that a reasonable expectation of privacy existed.
Can you post the addresses of these anonymizers and perhaps a link to software that utilizes them? After all, the more people who use them, the more anonymous they are.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
..because it's still going to get bounced through unsecured servers in foreign countries w/o laws like the US has. You'll still get "HOT SEXXX" messages, but they'll be from spammers in Brazil.
All the laws in the US aren't going to stop annoying spammers from other countries. *sigh*
Would falsifing Email headers be like lying to a police officer? Will the CIA track down all of the Japanese and Chinese pron site that Spam me. In short will I get any SPAM reliefe here? Actualy I'm not counting on it.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Even if I agreed with your argument, why should the response to "X is not secure right now" be "you don't have an expecation of privacy right now when doing X"? The contents of letters used to be easily accessible, but we adopted mechanisms and laws to protect them. With E-mail, even if it were like a postcard, we could adopt mechanisms and laws to protect their contents. The fact that most people send out E-mail in the plain through unsecure servers is a historical accident and shouldn't drive our policies in perpetuity.
In his response, Ashcroft said he believed "To:" and "From:" lines of e-mail could be intercepted without a court order, but "Subject:" lines would require a judge's signature. "We're not asking that we get content or the subject," he replied. "We want information on who sent it and to whom it was sent."
So if I wish to preserve the privacy of those with whom I communicate from the government, I need only insert fake To: and From: headers in the body of the email, and use the real addresses in the SMTP envelope. Just like spammers do. OK, not much trouble to do that, and no encryption needed.
Edith Keeler Must Die
I look forward to a Law & Order episode where they read the email of a suspect, find it all encrypted, and later find out the suspect had nothing to do with the crime.
Same here. Unfortunately, with the current mindset of most Americans and the general tendancy of the mainstream media to pander to/reinforce/create that, we could be waiting a while.
Just some background here:
While I don't agree with the literal statement, Hatch's assertion is based on a U.S. Supreme Court case Smith v. Maryland 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl? court=us&vol=442&invol=735) which found no "legitimate expectation of privacy" in phone numbers logged by Trap-and-trace and PEN register devices. The Smith Court held that since this signalling data was openly conveyed to the phone company (and was further recorded and incorporated into billing records) that no warrant was required by law enforcement to collect this information in the course of a criminal investigation.
However, while there is no 4th Amendment warrant requirement, this data is, in fact, protected by Federal Statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3121-3124) which prohibits access except by law enforcement and then only by a court order -- although this is rather easilly obtained on the bare affirmation that such information is likely to prove relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
By analogy, internet routing data (ip and pop addresses) which is shared not only with the local but intemediate and remote hosts is similarly likely to be found to be outside the Fourth Amendment.
But again, the Fourth Amendment is not the end of the inquiry. The FBI has had a mixed results in its previous attempts to secure orders for the use of Carnivore in what they call "PEN Mode" under the exception in the existing PEN Register/Trap-and-trace law (which makes very specific reference to a monitored telephone)
The Dept. of Justice would like to see current law amended to explicitly include IP routing data. This does not include subject lines (and would not pass constitutional muster if it did). Moreover, whatever temptation there might be to keep "scanning down the page", there is in fact no page to scan down. The data is logged in real time and no copy of the payload (or remaining header) is retained.
I believe the standards for access to routing data should be steeper than phone numbers (if I don't want doubleclick knowing my business, I certainly don't want the government logging my requests to trannielove.com). However, informed debate would also be a pleasant change.
[stock rant on the subject]
There have been several postings already that point out that the First Amendment does, or does not in fact, protect anonymous speech.
There is a confusion about what 'anonymity' means. Courts have ruled specifically about two aspects of anonymity, and have ruled that one form is protected, and one form is not protected. Others tend to think that anonymity is related to privacy. To lump them all under 'anonymity' is to ensure further confusion.
There is a First Amendment right to 'unsigned' expression. You can CHOOSE not to put your name on something you write, because you have the right to express yourself how you wish to express yourself, and to COMPELL an author or artist or whistleblower or witness to SIGN their own expressions is a blow against freedom of self-expression, and has a chilling effect on expression.
There are regulatory exceptions: the post office usually does not reject to unsigned envelopes, but sometimes does reject unsigned packages.
However, there is no right of 'unaccountability'. That is, if a third party is able to prove that you were the responsible author/artist/whistleblower/witness, then this fact is admissible, and you are able to be prosecuted if your expression is libelous, slanderous, or in some other way breaks existing laws. You are always accountable for your actions, including expression.
The Internet makes it easy to elude obvious signatures, but most ISPs keep enough logs to ensure some modicum of accountability. It is because of this linkage, and because of the confusion over the use of 'anonymity' that the courts are beginning to form guidelines, and the law enforcement community is interested in shaping that process to favor the availability of latent evidence.
The guidelines describe what standards must be followed to force ISPs to divulge private records to turn 'unsigned' expressions into 'accountable' expressions. In short, the courts seem to say that the specific expressions must be shown specifically to have a strong case for illegal forms of expression: again, libel, slander, or other legally disallowed forms of expression. This hurdle must be met BEFORE the ISPs are required to divulge private information.
[end of stock rant]
[
You are such a fool, so stop shooting off your mouth- since when was Chuckie Schumer an 'ultra conservative christian right' supporter?
You really are ignorant, aren't you?
You really don't follow American politics, but yap and yap about it anyway, right?
You're very quick to point fingers, and in the process display your own arrogant, bigoted, and (I'll say it again) ignorant thoughts.
Suck my left one, you fool!
Chuck Schumer clued in to something? Now that should be modded as funny! The guy is as dumb as my cat who sits around licking his asshole all day.
Come on, you really expect us to believe that Schumer is your idea of an intelligent guy?
Now, Orrin Hatch, heh, sometimes he's ok. SOMETIMES.
Somewhere along the great evolution of the net, two sides developed.
.gov, where accountability based on responsibility was developed.
.edu where immature minds wanted to buck the system.
.com interests and it goes even lower.
The
The
These were the two parallel forces that drove the internet up until the 90's when the net was mainstream for everyone. Yet the two mindsets definetly contradict one another in goals.
Since the 09-11-01 things are going to change. You say your a geek? Ok what kind? Are you 10 in 100 in your family/friends/co-worker group? We only represent %10 percent. In that %10 percent this issue is going to be split 50/50. Add in
Majority is going to make it happen. It's time we laid to rest this myth of "we're allowed to not be accountable for what we do on the net because it's all virtual" Virtual my ass, I got to fix it when it breaks, I got to have some accountability if someone does something illegal on my server. What if someone puts a link to my site to the funniest joke in the world and kills somebody? Well that joke is bogus, but kiddie porn isn't. Maybe I'm just getting on in my years and starting to think we need more responsibility on the net. As an adult, I've sort of accepted the fact when things need to change, even if I don't like it, I have to change to cover my own butt.
--toq
~~moderators *note* I use my real account because I stand behind my opinions and take responsibility for them, unlike a typical anonymous karma whore
The Jews are culpable in the horrors of September 11. They are culpable because the dragged America into their foreign adventures by using their ownership of the media to manipulate public opinion. Note that Jews are only 2% of the USA population. Yt they have caused untold misery for the other 98% who don't give a damn about their Middle Eastern tribal wars and rivalries.
Note that Senator "Chuck" Schumer is a Jew. He is one of the biggest Jews. If you don't believe the Jewish ability to influence mass media, you should read Who Rules America.
Maybe it's about time slashdroids stopped jabbering and implemented something to improve their privacy, crowds.
have they gotten into it yet?
Besides, it is not an historical accident, email existed long before I was born (and I'm not the youngest either), when computers coudn't cope encrypition as we know it. Back in the days, simple text was good enough and even today it is good enough...for email...as postcards... privacy not included
What you want is a whole new set of email protocols that push encryption, digital signing and all the like. I'm all for it! Go and implement it, I'll help as far as I can. You just forget the existing userbase of SMTP/POP3 that is around and that you don't get to move to something new and better. You need a big (bad) company to be behind such a move, remember the HTML-free days? I do! Microsoft pushed Outlook and now I get HTML emails daily now. If Microsoft (for example) would set Outlook to be defaulting to encryption (PGP-like), I bet we'll have encryption established within a few years. It's not likely to happen but I talk about the critical user mass we need.
For no company it would be wise in the current political climate to push encryption.... Sad but true.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Okay, postal workers are humans and thus by definition untrustworthy. Now consider this: I get a real mail that was openend, I will see that quite quickly because of the damaged envelope and can go complain to my Post Office. (Not that I expect that they'll do anything about it). With emails this is not true: if my email has been intercepted, duplicated and stored by someone detection by me is not possible, since it's justs bits 'n bytes. So, how am I going to prove that anyone read my email? I can't.... even if there are laws that forbid to read my mail, how can we enforce those laws if you can never prove an infraction. It simply is not possible.
This need a whole new infrastructure for encrypted mail, ditching the old standards, and *that* is not going to happen.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
it's cleartext I believe...now consider this: this "free rein" to sniff simply becomes a huge Profiling Operation for the gov't. If I just d/load the newsgroup entirely (as I often do) or even just the headers, I will get the stuff that's illegal here in the US as well as my choice of porn. Now, you know I will toss out the illegal items (of course), but does the govt know that? No. They will INSTANTLY have suspicion of my online habits.
It just HAS to be M$.
.NET
Then they claim they have OS that only authorized software providers (companies paying enough) can make programs for, and then they can make their OS public (as they get money for all software) so goverments can enforce everyone to use only that software as the OS costs nothing but a little freedom to a single user.
Why not. Then the system can store all information about the user to the client system, which it turn saves M$ money, as they don't have to buy too many database servers, and governments are happy when they can just ask M$ to give them access to the users computer.
No offence, just letting my mind wander. M$ is just an example.
---
Mystran the Dark-Elf, Wasteland of Mind,
Cyberspace's not
No, the obesity is a symptom of the social breakdown. People are eating when they are not hungry. This is an indication they are unhappy.
Bush's education improvements were
Yo, AC. I'm definitely against giving away any freedom.
Bush's education improvements were
The real problem seems to be the secret agencies of the U.S. government, not the military. As I mentioned above, I've tried to gather information and links together to support this observation: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
You have nothing to fear because you will never do anything. At one point in your life you decided that your highest aspiration was to not be bothered. You are irrelevent because you choose to be. You wear your wool proudly and even manage to call this virtue. The government doesn't care, I don't care and even you don't care. You will never do anything. But thanks for the heads up.
'Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the identities of their e-mail correspondents, or the addresses of Web pages they visit.'
This is news? Get your heads out of your asses. Of course there is no privacy on the internet. There are plenty of legal ways spy on someone on the internet (note: being able to use it as evidence in court is an entirely different matter). Anyone with a router, pop3 server, or irc server can do it.
...that they can login to my porn accounts and get free porn while I foot the bill? I hope not.
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
Don't get me wrong, I find most "conservatives" to be clueless hypocrites, just as most "liberals" are clueless hypocrites. Some very few are actually principled individuals, Shumer is not.
However, as per Chuckies voting record, he is a socialist. An "International Socialist" as opposed I guess to a "National Socialist".
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Proposed New Headers:
X-IntendedPriv: Yes
X-EncryptionMethod: ROT27
X-PrivacyNotice: This message is intende to be private and shall be considered as such.
bin Laden is powerless without support. He has that support because of socially backward actions by people in the U.S. government.
Thanks for the link. Someone sent the letter to me as email, but the link is better.
Bush's education improvements were
Have a look at the article: What should be the Response to Violence? .
My best guess is that the secret agencies of the U.S. government are not acting for the good of the country. Also read the article Friendly Dictators which is linked there.
The book, The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, linked there is excellent also. It is a quick read, and very valuable.
Bush's education improvements were
'Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights :
The right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and protection of honour and reputation (Art. 17) : . 08/04/88. CCPR General comment 16. (General Comments)
1.Article 17 provides for the right of every person to be protected against arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence as well as against unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. In the view of the Committee this right is required to be guaranteed against all such interferences and attacks whether they emanate from State authorities or from natural or legal persons. The obligations imposed by this article require the State to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to the prohibition against such interferences and attacks as well as to the protection of this right.'
Public spectacles are not copyrightable. You can not copyright a fire-works, or yourself walking in a clown suit.
You have the right to record details of events you were involved in as well. For example, you may take copies of e:mail, chats, and postings that you were involved or interested in.
You are entitled to privacy. What this means is that you have some right that someone else will not engage in actions that will bring together disperse episodes of your life. That is, a person engaging in one or more actions that brings together a series of your events, is invading your privacy.
A person who, by noting your actions, assigns you to a list of people noted for having the same actions, is also invading your privacy.
The reason being, is that your inclusion in a list may be a misrepresentation of what you really are. My interest in product X does not mean that I support it, but may just be sussing the class that X belongs to.
People who act to preserve their privacy, do so in a way that prevents search tags being assigned to their events.
It is the processing, not the recording of events, that invades privacy. Please understand this.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
I*A*AL, not a technical person, so I lurk here and post mostly on Plastic, but it seems many think of "privacy" in entirely benign terms, and say they're not concerned with corporate data mining or a bored ISP admin reading your e-mails. "What have I got to hide", you think?
The problem is when law enforcement is given sweeping powers to ferret out heinous crimes, but these crimes are often shadowy conspiracies proven by surreptitious monitoring of citizens. And there gets to be "mission creep" by law enforcement. Look to the War on Drugs for an example. Sweeping powers of surveillance (wiretaps, keyboard sniffing) to sweep up, ultimately (by the numbers), retail-level pot distributors and low-level drug mules, not the "kingpins" the laws were designed to get.
And now, they are already fingering the Taliban-opium-money-terror link, but its not clear that the old-style "drug czar" nominee, John Walters (like we need another czar) who is committed to a "drug free" fantasy by interdiction/eradication/imprisonment.
Whatever you think of pot smoking (which bet. 10-20% of the population uses, per studies), doesn't it ring ironic in at least your mind that when the Prez and his admin is busily preaching about our "freedom" and how fascistic totalitarian regimes have ended up on the scrap bin of history, that people are not only *not* free to use recreational or medicinal drugs of their choice, but are indeed imprisoned and gulaged *by the millions* right here in the good-old freedom lovin' USA to impose that prohibitionist policy, ultimately one designed to pander to the Christian right "family" groups. And if most Americans don't see this, our imprisonment status (#3) 2x Europe because of drug crime is plain knowledge to the rest of the world.
And what happens if international terrorists are connected to other crimes like hacking, and Joe Cracker is suddenly dealt with like he's a hijacker, SWAT team busting his doors down at 4 a.m. and all (with a fair number of Joes being killed in the act of arrest by thinking the ninja warriors were criminal invaders). Or maybe Joe's next door-neighbor. Whoops, wrong addy. This stuff not only happens, it happens frequently in the WOD.
So, if you don't smoke pot, don't don't worry. When they come for the guys who support international terrorism by not purchasing enough licenses for networked software or using cracks, you'll know that 1984 is finally here.
And that's what people ought to be thinking about when thinking about whether the gov't shoud have access to all header info to look over everyone's shoulder as they surf or communicate. Sweet, isn't it. I think Jefferson would be spinning in his grave to hear Ashcroft's wish list of new law enforcement powers.
Oppose John Walters' nomonation for "drug czar"; Sen. Jud. Cmte hrng 10/9/01
J
One important reason that privacy and anonymous communication is important, is the effect on a society when normal mechanisms for societal functioning are suppressed. Anonymous communication is certainly a normal mechanism: "don't tell anyone I told you this, but..."
Your faith in your government and/or your country is admirable. However, you didn't mention Sen. McCarthy, for example, or the abuse of the RICO laws, or racial profiling, or any of the other ways in which freedoms and rights have been abused over the past few decades. Perhaps these things haven't affected you personally, but they've affected other people.
The US is to be admired for having survived these things with values relatively intact, but one big reason it does so is because the freedoms it provides its citizens allows those citizens to function without fear of reprisal for things they say or do, within reason. Once again, anonymous communication is an important part of that.
To put it in the terms you used, privacy and anonymous communications are an integral part of the values which you say add traction to the slippery slope. Take them away, and the slope becomes that much more slippery.
Don't join in the tyranny of the masses in calling for our rights to be taken away in the name of security - you're playing directly into the hands of those who would like to see the U.S. fall, allowing fear to dictate your actions, turning the country against itself, and making it weaker.
Your best guess is as good as that one made by folks who claim that black helicopters are following them ...