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.
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.
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
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?
...
...
Then maybe it's time to replace your state reps. Try the Libertarian Party.
Whether you otherwise love or hate them, you have to admit their platform plank on privacy sounds a hell of a lot better than that of the virtually indistinguishable ElephantDonkey policitians:
The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant.
We oppose all restrictions and regulations on the private development, sale, and use of encryption technology. We specifically oppose any requirement for disclosure of encryption methods or keys, including the government's proposals for so-called "key escrow" which is truly government access to keys, and any requirement for use of government-specified devices or protocols. We also oppose government classification of civilian research on encryption methods.
We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing.
We further oppose the nearly universal requirement for use of the Social Security Number as a personal identification code, whether by government agencies or by intimidation of private companies by governments. "
more here
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.
Obviously, you aren't a New Yorker. Giuliani may be popular, but he's over the top at times. Remember his position on certain art exhibits? Not to mention, his personal life would certainly cause some objections. Also, he's not well. Why do I have a feeling I've been trolled?
maybe not in history, but we are the current world leader according to: this.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
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 don't know the details of this National ID card project, but here I Germany we have something very similar. It's called a "Personalausweis" and there's really nothing bad about it. Around the age of 16 you get one, and it's the ONLY valid proof of your identity (even your Passport contains a copy of it). Thus, you don't need a drivers licence like in the US to prove your age, just show your card and every government institution, bank or theater will accept it.
Um... I didn't do it!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it George W. Bush who created that? "Either you're with us, or you are against us." At least, that's what I gleaned from my own newspaper, the Dutch "de Volkskrant". Alas, I can't find the reference, neither in the dead tree nor on the internet. So it may be wrong.
Stefan.
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
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....
Thanks, ESR.
Constitutionally Correct
"where is the part in the constitution that says you have the right to be anonymous."
1st and 9th amendments. See also McIntyre (sp?!) v. Ohio Election Commission
"I understand the right of free speech, and general "freedoms" granted"
The constitution does not grant freedoms. It acknowledges that the gov't will not take them away.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
[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]
[
*bong*
"In the context of electronic mail, messages are viewed as having an envelope and contents. The envelope contains whatever information is needed to accomplish transmission and delivery." (RFC 2822 - Internet Message Format)