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
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
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
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?
Sometimes I wonder if the people proposing these laws plan to emigrate when they retire...
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.