Slashdot Mirror
Government Internet Surveillance Up
Harvey Manfrenjensenton writes "According to this story at Newhouse News Service, the assault on Americans' rights known as the Patriot Act, passed by Congress in October, has produced results that are as disturbing -- and rampant -- as could have been anticipated. Law enforcement used to need a court order to tap your phone, read your mail, etc. Now they just need a whim. ISP's and Telcos can barely keep up with the volume of requests by Feds wanting to read your email." EFF's analysis of the Patriot Act is good reading.
"USA PATRIOT" is an acronym, and a misnomer at that. Lowercasing it only hides this fact, the proper name is capitalized.
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
No, they still need a judge to issue a warrant in order to read your e-mail. The article is about things that do not need a warrant, which includes who is sending you mail and who you are sending mail.
The telephone companies and the post office have been giving out this information for decades without a warrant.
I agree with you in that Americans take everything too far: from "super-sized fries to gas-guzzling SUVs.
However, I must disagree with what you say about the camera operators in England. I read a story (probably on here) about how they often abuse the cameras to watch young women as they walk the sidewalks, often "following" one they particularly like.
vi ~/.emacs
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler
I know that it is against the grain here at Slashdot, but how many people here have actually read the provisions in the USA PATRIOT act? After hearing everyone on here complain and complain about it, I was sure that it was going to be a crock when I actually started analyzing it. Personally, I like almost all of the changes that the Act introduced, and I have been amazed at the clarity that the bill has.
For example:
The computer tresspass statute. This statute says that law enforcement doesn't have to get a warrant to eavesdrop on a computer tresspasser if they have the permission of the owner of the computer (very generalized). Think about what the problem was here. Somebody calls the FBI and says that a hacker had broken into their computer. The FBI could not watch what the hacker did on the computer, even with the permission of the owner of the computer, because it was assumed that it violated the privacy of the hacker. Come on. You have to admit that is pretty silly. Do you want the FBI to have to take several hours to draft and get a warrant signed in a situation such as that?
Next, much of the changes in how email is handled was changed so that the laws are the same with email as it is with telephone. It is pretty easy for the FBI to find out who you are emailing. But it takes quite a bit more work for them to actually read your email. This is congruant to the ability of the FBI to get a Pen tap/trace on a telephone to find out who you are calling, compared to requiring a warrant to actually listen in on your calls.
It is amazing to note people's perception of the DoJ. The FBI and the US Attorneys are not some huge govt. agency listening in on everyones phone calls and reading everyones email. They are an overworked, underpaid agency doing its best to combat crime within a wierd, confusing legal system. Of course they overstep their bounds sometimes, but the amount of good work that they do with the miniscule resources and respect they have is amazing.
I for one say good job!
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
"Those who sell their liberty for security are understandable, if pitiable, creatures. "Those who sell the liberty of others for wealth, power, or even a moment's respite deserve only the end of a rope." -Patrick Henry
They have been doing this for years, with the postal system. There is something called a mail cover. Essentially, a law enforcement agency submits a request to the postal inspector to have mail monitored for a recipient. While they do not physically open the mail, they do keep track of who is sending and recieving mail, and general information that can be discovered about the contents of the mail from without. This is done without court order and with no particular oversight. Furthermore, you don't have the right to know if this is being done, nor does it need to be brought up at trial should it be used as an evidence gathering technique.
198.137.241.10 (resolves to e002.eop.gov)
198.137.241.11 (resolves to sseop102.eop.gov)
EOP is Executive Office of You-Know-Who, and I can only conjecture as to what the "SS" stands for. I don't have any political content on my website so I don't know why they'd be stopping by. All they requested was the index.
I've also had several hits from senate.gov, and one from 38.203.152.66 (ns1.dcitp.gov). A cursory glance at http://www.dcitp.gov (funny Flash intro!) reveals that DCITP is essentially the Fed's cybercrime training center. I don't know whether to be flattered or worried...
My firewall box has denied 35 _inbound_ packets today from a "Calypso Online" in Herndon, VA:Not major in and of itself, but this IP block was previously assigned to a company called "Cyveillance.com." Cyveillance's repeated inbound probes were what earned that IP block a spot in my firewall to begin with, and while the IPs now belong to Calypso, the new owner is up to the same tricks.
Cyveillance still exists; they've moved to 63.100.163.127 and are still as blatant as ever about what they do: "100 Percent Relevant Intelligence Mined Directly From the Internet - Cyveillance." I can't figure out who Calypso Online is, calypso.com is registered and seems a likely suspect; it resolves but isn't running a web server. Perhaps Cyveillance and Calypso are one in the same.
What does all this mean? Quite possibly nothing, but quite possibly something. All I know is I hate the idea of being monitored and I've been painting firewall rules with a broad brush lately.
Uuuuh, you have a pretty twisted view of Canadian politics. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms here. Many Americans are not aware of this - this grants a base list of freedoms and expectations similar to your consitution. I would also sumbit that a number of our laws are a) much more sane, and b) much more intelligently enforced (for example, we don't give people 15 years in a federal FPMITAP for minor drug possession).
Unlike the US Consistution, there has been no widespread effort to undermine these freedoms, either. You can be stopped and searched without cause in the United States too, you even glorify it on Fox (ever see Cops?). It's only if you have money and intelligence to work the legal system you an enjoy those rights.
Calling Canada totalitarian is sheer trolling.. yes, there's a little too much hand holding here, and the tax rate reflects that, but things have the potential to change here. When's the last time the official political opposition in the US has been anything but democrat or republican, hrmm? Compare crime rates recently?
..don't panic
I think you misunderstood. They were suggesting Canada as a convenient escape once all hell breaks loose.