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....
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 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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
- 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!
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
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?
"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
Your phone land line in an unencrypted, insecure wire. With some parts from Radioshack I could easily listen in to everything you have to say. But it's still protected by law.
Your cell phone is even easier to listen in to. But again, your conversations are protected by law.
Paper mail is incredibly insecure. Open the envelope. But we prosecute the hell out of anyone who dares to do such a thing.
I could bug your home with a little effort and a bit of technical know-how without ever having to walk through the front door. Just need some windows, is all. How much time do you think I'll spend in jail if I do it?
And yet, for some strange reason (or perhaps not-so-strange reason) email is considered to be a free-for-all. The hypocrisy of the exception is rather funny, if you ask me.
Good thing I use encryption on all of my important emails.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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.
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.
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
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?
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...
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
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)
Same argument applies to HTTP headers. Guys, you're sending traffic across an unencrypted, insecure wire. What expectation of privacy do you really have?
You're absolutely right. Fuck it. If you send a letter through the post office, unless you've physically secured it by putting a lock on it, anyone and everyone should be able to open it and toss it around the office. If you make a phone call without encrypting the voice stream, you're sending it out over an unsecure wire, and you deserve to have anyone and everyone listen in on your conversation for whatever reason their whim may dictate.
Oops, did I say dictate ?
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
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....
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.
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.
"...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.
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.
OK guys, privacy is not the right to break the law and not be caught. Law enforcement is entitled to colect evidence against you without your consent if they already have probable cause, or if the evidence is out in the open.
Courts have already ruled that who you call and who calls you is not private and that information can be collected without a warrant. The police can also follow you and film you in a public place without a warrant to see who you meet with
Everyone who reads slashdot is smart enough to know that Hatch is right on this one. THERE IS NOTHING PRIVATE ABOUT EMAIL HEADERS. It's like the address on a letter, it has to be public or it wouldn't work.
Do you believe that the FROM: field on that email you just sent is private? Even when it passes through 20 routers and 5 servers? Of course not. Since you don't resonably expect it to be private, hence you have no "expectation of privacy" and no warrant is needed to gather that information.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Many people will be unwilling to join yet another mailing list. Lists are fairly intrusive and fill up one's box.
"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
Your phone land line in an unencrypted, insecure wire. With some parts from Radioshack I could easily listen in to everything you have to say. But it's still protected by law.
Because in the absence of significant undertaking--actually going onto someone's property and planting the alligator clips on the junction box--the phone conversation is secure. In normal usage, phone conversations cannot be overheard by any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants. In normal usage, email can. Your analogy to phone lines falls apart right here.
Secondly, it is a serious violation of the law to do this. If you really want to do this, the FBI will be happy to come down to your house and stick a gun in your face and place you under arrest. Given that it requires a criminal act to eavesdrop on a landline, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy--it's axiomatic that you can reasonably expect people to follow the law. (Whether or not this legal axiom is correct is another story altogether.)
Other tidbit is that proof by analogy is intellectual fraud.
Your cell phone is even easier to listen in to. But again, your conversations are protected by law.
No, they aren't. Cops don't need wiretaps to listen in on radiotelephone transmissions--you're *broadcasting*, and anyone with a receiver can listen in. Ever wonder why attorneys don't use cell phones for privileged attorney-client information? Because there is no recognized reasonable expectation of privacy on cell phones.
Cops often seek court orders for radiotelephony anyway, in the interests of making sure the information doesn't get bounced out of court--but in a strictly legal sense, they don't need to.
Again, proof by analogy is intellectual fraud.
Paper mail is incredibly insecure. Open the envelope. But we prosecute the hell out of anyone who dares to do such a thing.
We have laws which require the confidentiality of the US Mail, and we have armed Postal Inspectors who will be more than happy to shove a gun in your face and place you under arrest if you try and violate this confidence. In light of the fact that the confidentiality of the mail is protected by Federal law, there is a very reasonable expectation of privacy in the mail.
Again, proof by analogy is intellectual fraud.
I could bug your home with a little effort and a bit of technical know-how without ever having to walk through the front door. Just need some windows, is all. How much time do you think I'll spend in jail if I do it?
Given that this is, you guessed it, against the law, and that armed cops will be happy to shove a gun in your face and place you under arrest if you do it, there is a very reasonable expectation of privacy within one's own home.
Again, proof by analogy is intellectual fraud.
In short, none of your examples hold water.
As it turns out, if you want to eavesdrop on my phone calls, or intercept my mail, I do have a security force that's charged with keeping my communications secure. You (assuming you're an American) have a security force that does the exact same thing for you.
To the former, that's under the authority of the FBI.
To the latter, that's under the authority of the Postal Inspectors.
Given that there are strict laws against eavesdropping on phone calls and intercepting mail, the expectation of privacy in phone calls and mail is entirely reasonable.
"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
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.
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
[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]
[
Maybe it's about time slashdroids stopped jabbering and implemented something to improve their privacy, crowds.
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
...that they can login to my porn accounts and get free porn while I foot the bill? I hope not.
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
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
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
They also have Postal Inspectors who cheerfully represent themselves as someone else in mailed materials in order to entrap them into violating federal laws. How assured do you feel that they (the Postal Inspectors, not the nice people who go out in all kinds of weather to deliver your mail) are strictly adhering to that law?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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.