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.
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
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).
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.
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
wasn't the cdc (cult of the dead cow) going to release peer to peer web browsing software, to make it difficult to track who is viewing a website? Or maybe its original intent was to defeat web censorship. Encrypting the connection between peers (so any logging the connection of the person really viewing the site does not see the url requests) no one will be able to know what sites you visit. And I bet cdc is planning on encrypting p2p connections, since it is supposed to allow people living in very oppressive countries the ability to surf the web without getting killed. Oh, the joys of p2p!
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
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.
I think Mr Schumer would disagree that he is an "avowed member of the ultra-conservative christian right". And Hatch is one of the most respected members of the Senate (he used to be the chairman of the most important committee there). That doesnt sound to me like his opinion is normally ridiculed... Its even a stretch to call Hatch an ultra-conservative- he is known to go out of his way to occomodate others, and he even supported stem cell research (a very non-ultra-conservative thing to do).
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
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...^_^
- 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!
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?
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
> 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.
I agree with this sentiment but It's not Orwell that I believe will be the pattern for the future.
The Orwellian state was not technologically based and wasn't really very smart. Not surprising given the book was a comment on 1940s political conditions rather than the prophecy that everyone seems to think it was.
Big Brother hadn't met Larry Ellison and for all anyone knew the telescreens were just televisions. The fear came from knowing that everyone else was an informer anyway so it didn't really matter. The thought police were in your own head because a careless word could betray you and you had to hold yourself in check.
The way things are going I'd start rereading Brave New World (and the authors retrospective on it - the name escapes me) and Fahrenheit 451. Maybe also find an excuse to watch THX 1138 again.
Both books seem to depict a more likely future to me than simple repression. Both societies are basically anti intellectual with the masses discouraged from learning things that might 'make them unhappy'.
There's no need for a repressive police state and the jackboot if nobody knows enough to challenge authority or cares enough to protest anything.
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!
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.
This would be a great idea, if Giuliani didn't already have a track record of trampling on citizens' rights?
Please don't try to excercise your freedom of press by taking pictures of the WTC wreckage, even if you're blocks away and on the proper side of the barrier. Generalissimo Giuliani has instructed the police to confiscate your camera if you do.
Also, as of 6am this morning, the entire island of Manhattan south of Central Park is one big carpool lane. I haven't heard yet what happens to single-passenger vehicles that get caught, but the entire concept makes me angry.
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