Slashdot Mirror
House and Senate Reject E-mail Surveillance
vena writes "The Star Tribune reports the House and Senate today agreed not to allow email surveillance of American citizens proposed by the Total Information Awareness program. Additionally, negotiators agreed to halt all future funding on the program without extensive consultation with Congress."
Does this mean I can stop using PGP?
Trolling is a art,
Then, on the other hand they're spying on international communication lines as much as possible (Echelon, Echelon II, etc...). Of course that's perfectly legitimate for them because it hardly affects privacy of the American people.
--- Eat my sig.
"Hey, bob, this thing we all swore to uphold, are they serious?"
How much you want to bet this gets tacked on to the next "patriot" style bill?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
I guess even they couldn't stomach the idea of reading other people's spam.
Too bad, they could have compared prices on herbal viagra.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
They won't let the Pentagon spy on Americans? That's OK, I'm sure we can find somebody else to do it for us, and return the favor to them, since we are allowed to spy on foreigners.
You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Just don't lie to me, pal. Not that I'd know if you were.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
From the article: Lt. Cmdr. Donald Sewell, a Pentagon spokesman, defended the program, saying, "The Department of Defense still feels that it's a tool that can be used to alert us to terrorist acts before they occur." He added, "It's not a program that snoops into American citizens' privacy."
How can it not be a program that snoops into American citizens privacy? From past experience, I've found that the other issue is that once databases are available, they will be tapped for a variety of purposes not originally envisioned or intended.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
all your mail are not belong to us
They didn't *win* anything. All "they" are required to do is issue a report to congress in 90 days detailing the system's function and scope. They aren't required to stop anything, assuming they file the appropriate paperwork.
. html (the one cited by the poster is a boiled-down version).
A better version of the article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/politics/12PRIV
From what I read in the article, the house and senate have voiced oposition. But it goes on to say, "The only obstacles to the provision becoming law would be the failure of the conferees to reach agreement on the overall spending bill in which it is included, or a successful veto of the bill by President Bush." Looks as if it could still go through.
I was worried about people seeing my love letters to CowboyNeal. That he NEVER RESPONDS TO
Even if they don't look at it right now, they can always change the laws later and go back and read your e-mail then.
Storage is cheap, and tape is cheap. The one protection you might have is that they only have backups on tapes and that the tapes go bad after a few years. But if they back up onto optical media, they basically have a record of all your e-mails for all eternity.
Heck, I run a mail server and a backup server for my company. It's really handy when an IMAP user accidentally deletes an e-mail. I can just go back and restore that mailbox for them. Even for something a year old.
The point is, just because the law says you are safe this instant doesn't mean squat. All that you do is recorded. If you don't like that, then use something like nonymouse.com and/or PGP.
But there are still many, many other ways in which personal information is aggregated and analyzed, without the benefit of an oversight committee, or even significant regulation. So I'm still worried.
And I have another creeping worry: what if convicted felon Poindexter might have actually done some good with his (admittedly grotesque, and probably wildly impractical) database?
I mean, I'm always the first to howl about how those who give up freedom to gain a little security deserve neither, but does anybody else wonder about this? I mean, things are getting a little tense in the world these days.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
[text removed by line eater v9.3 - thanks for shopping with the NSA!]
They care about themselves. The executive branch is increasingly refusing to even CONSULT with Congress regarding these admittedly outrageous plans. But you'd be wrong to think that they're blocking this because they give a shit about your rights. They just want to be included... to make sure they have a hand in everything. In this case they're just exercising their right to refuse to fund ANY project in an attempt to get the WH to play ball with them. Otherwise they're going to take their ball and bat and go home, I guess.
please tell Tom Daschle to stop suggesting that we are not protected from terrorists if you don't want the government to be able to do anything about it.
We don't *NEED* protection from terrorists, and the measures enacted so far have done *nothing* but strip us of the very conveniences and freedoms we would like to protect.
You might point out that we have had no real acts of domestic terrorism since September 2001. True. But how often did we experience such attacks *prior* to the WTC attack? And, even if we *did* expect something since that time, why would anyone bother? Ever seen the Twilight Zone episode "The Monsters are Coming to Maple Street"? That about covers it.
As much as I hate the "if we don't blah, the terrorists have already won", our attourney general, and the OHS, and TIA, all *embody* the ultimate goals of any potential terrorists. Why should *real* terrorists waste their time and effort doing what we will willingly, even beggingly, do to ourselves? Personally, I'd rather risk a quick death less likely than getting struck by lightning, than have the afforementioned whack-jobs supposedly "protecting" us make a long and sedate life not worth living. But then, I don't consider myself a sheep. If you like having Ashcroft herd you into a nice "secure" detention cells, by all means beg for more. But leave me the hell out of your plans.
i was under the impression that you cannot prosecute people for acts committed before they were made a crime. anyone have any info on that?
but this acticle only says a provision has been made that the surveillance information is not to be used against American Citizens and the bill is likely to pass unless Bush vetoes it or the spending is not approved.
The only obstacles to the provision becoming law would be the failure of the conferees to reach agreement on the overall spending bill in which it is included, or a successful veto of the bill by President Bush.
Is therefore safe to assume the Pentagon feels entitled to surveil the rest of the worlds population on the off chance they may spot a terrorist at some point ? I'm not trying to flame here but the article seemed a little short on fact and I am unclear as to the levels of surveillance the bill supports in its current form. If I understand it the overall plan has not actually been killed, just subjected to more congressional oversight and currently exempts American Citizens
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
According to a slightly more inclusive NYTimes article I read on this earlier today, one of Iowa's senators - Charles Grassley - co-sponsored the bill. I wrote him a letter this morning thanking him for it. It's the first time ever I've felt like I had a reason to do so.
I appreciated his quote from the article,
"Protecting Americans' civil liberties while at the same time winning the war against terrorism has got to be top priority for the United States. Congressional oversight of this program will be a must as we proceed in the war against terror. The acceptance of this amendment sends a signal that Congress won't sit on its hands as the TIA program moves forward."
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
All of my friends have been asking me why I keep randomly throwing spy USCOI Mena bluebird virus Sears Tower electronic surveillance Vince Foster White Water ASPIC industrial espionage Semtex CBNRC Mossad Juiliett Class Submarine all these strange words into my emails. It's from spook, a military asset class struggle AUTODIN Mafia MDA genetic cryptographic South Africa Crypto AG keyhole Rubin Medco eavesdropping Chobetsu little emacs script that adds high-risk words to my emails. The theory is, the extra traffic of false-positives will overwhelm any Steve Case North Korea Cohiba computer terrorism PGP SCUD missile AIMSX ARPA CISU arrangements class struggle chameleon man ISEC security espionage effort by the government to gamma Uzi FIPS140 bemd assassinate CDMA ANDVT Elvis USCODE 22nd SAS threat Bletchley Park colonel industrial espionage csystems monitor email traffic.
Does that mean I can stop doing this now? My coworkers think I chameleon man SWAT PGP JFK ANZUS top secret Cohiba USCODE Delta Force ASDIC virus assassination Noriega World Trade Center cryptanalysis have Tourettes.
No I'm not trolling.
We still won something very valuable. After 9/11 *everything* was going through without so much as a question. At least now our elected representatives are saying, "hold on a minute," instead of just rolling over. The victory is that someone, somewhere is remembering that we have something called rights and they're at least taking the time to see if they apply.
TW
I was hoping to send some nice emails in arabic like:
Jihad to Microsoft! Linux has risen in an explosive blaze of fury! I like VX works. Food tastes good with ricin it. Death to BUSH using new hedge trimmers. 90% off swedish made penis enlargers! (Which is what they're really looking for)
I'm not a real doctor, but I recommend beer.
So, American agencies have some limitations on how they may spy on American citizens. Likewise UK agencies may not spy on UK subjects. Fair enough, until those two agree to swap notes, so US spies on Brits (freely and legally) and the Brits spy on the yankees (freely and legally).
I think we need some international treaty, on the level of the Geneva convention, that limits the sharing of "intelligence" information to the level that would have been legal to obtain if it had been done by local authorities. And strong (death?) penalties to those who break the convention.
Well, I am (still?) allowed to dream...
One thing we've seen, is that terrorists are not stupid. Does Lt. Cmdr. Sewell really think that terrorists will communicate important details through e-mail? I suppose that if the threat of being discovered is there, it's less likely to be used, but there are varied ways of communicating that are not easy to track.
What worries me is that U.S. 'intelligence,' is taking the view that technology (and the invasiveness that comes with it) will offer a panacea to the current terrorist threat. I'm probably not the first to remind anyone that even WITH all the technology currently utilized by the US military, it has still been unable to bring down a man who lives in caves.
I agree with you...it's not a question of if, but when the current data surveillance/collection efforts will be repurposed to suit some other, unrelated interest.
Apparenlty few read the article (including the poster) before replying.
If all take a moment to read any of the 3 articles published today reporting the conferees agreement, it should be clear that the agreement does not prohibit surveillance of electronic communication between US citizens.
The agreement addresses the use of the data collected in prosecuting citizens and includes congressional oversight of further funding and reasearch but does not prohibit the evesdropping.
qANQR1DBwU4DFRm5nWRHfUAQCACvS5Q/HAkmsluEsbKSFhwvo
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
No.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
I take EVERYTHING my government tells me with a large amount of cynicism and suspicion.
As is your duty as a citizen of a (supposedly) free society.
Call me paranoid or a wacko
No. I'll call you a patriot since that is what you are by being "eternally vigilant".
It's sad that so many people don't realise that going along with your government right or wrong isn't patriotism. It's treason.
Show me in the Bill of Rights were you are guaranteed a right to privacy.
IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(Hint: its not in the Bill of Rights)
It is indeed the Bill of Rights that guarantees the protection of individual liberties; you'll remember that the federalists argued that no such things is necessary, because enumerating specific rights only means that the government can find ways to infringe upon other rights, that have not been explicitly enumerated. The anti-federalists, on the other hand, were afraid of a strong central government, and wanted a bill of rights to serve as an explicit social contract between the people and the government.
Bush Lies Watch