Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CNN Talks WIth ACLU Tech Maven Barry Steinhardt

Posted by timothy on from the watch-that-mandatory-stuff-now dept.

muon1183 writes " CNN interviews Barry Steinhardt, the ACLU's cyberchief and former staff laywer for the EFF. Steinhardt speaks on his concerns about current and upcoming legislation and its impacts on your civil liberties. It's good that this is finally making the mainstream media."

11 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Serious Question by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not trolling.

    I'm interested as to why someone who has "nothing to hide" should be worried about mass surveillance by their government?

    It certainly doesn't bother me.

    What the arguments?
    Why should I be worried?

    I'm quite willing to change my mind!

    1. Re:Serious Question by AndyS · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We had a really unpleasant rail disaster in the UK a while ago. One of the survivors, who was horrifically burned, made a point of harassing the government over safety measures and so on.

      Fast forward a little way and a leaked memo appeared, asking party machinery (just the Labour party here) to get details on her, and see if she was working with the opposition in order to discredit her.

      This is the nub of it, a lot of people have stuff to hide. It might not even be anythign that is a crime, but purely something that you are ashamed of, or might affect how other people see you (which, in this day and age, can be pretty much anything). It basically is a useful tool to settle personal scores, and to stop people from exercising their rights to loudly question their political masters.

      Now, I'm not saying this WILL occur, but it certainly can. They can neuter your ability to effectively say anything about the government.

      And that's not even going all the way.

  2. Eh. Typical mainsteam press, almost content-free by NBarnes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    *insert Benjamin Franklin quote here*

    I'm not as down on the likelihood of winning as Steinhardt is. Cryptography remains essentially unsolvable in bulk.

    Unfortunatley, the borderless nature of much technology means there's a scary point to be made that while the next ten years of surveilance technology is unlikely to be all that useful against sophisticated terrorist, it'll be perfectly effective against broke domestic dissidents.

  3. How George W protects his online rights... by MosesJones · · Score: 2, Interesting


    He Hosts under a UK IP Block! The Whitehouse is hosted Here!

    Looks like Georgie Boy is looking for an exit plan :-)

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  4. Good but.... by objwiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is good to see these concerns elevated to the general public but I always keep this little thought in mind when I read about technology (especially internet related) the mainstream media.

    I get the impression that the mainstream media is scared of the internet. I wonder if part of it due to changes in how we get our information. In the old days, we turned the TV to 1 of 3 or 4 channels and that was about it. Today, we can use search engines and countless news sites instead. So, the mainstream media feels threatened by the internet as it reduces their influence as well as their revenues.

    I got the impression by how some journalist report their discoveries in a local channels expose on the internet. I remember one article where this journalist was inquiring about cookies websites leave behind and the information others can potentially garner from them. Her reaction was of shock! Her response was that a hapless computer user was totally helpless (no mention of turning off cookies for example) unless the government steps in and starts regulating cookies. As a result of this news article, I got the impression that the journalist was more afraid of the internet than anything else.

  5. GPS phones not needed for tracking by pesc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article:
    If Steinhardt were to upgrade to a device with global-positioning capabilities, investigators might even track his whereabouts.

    Mr. Steinhart is being tracked right now; he doesn't have to upgrade anything.

    While your mobile phone is active it will connect with the nearest base station. As you move, it will change base stations. By tracking the base stations you use, you can get a quite nice plot of how you move around. This can be done using todays tech and you don't have to use the phone; just leave it on.

    Today the resolution is somewhat lacking, but there are technologies that help. The mobile tech of tomorrow will use smaller cells, providing a finer tracking resolution.

    --

    )9TSS
  6. Why You Should Use Encryption by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This seems like a good opportunity to post a link to my article Why You Should Use Encryption.

    Yes, I mean you. And not just you computer geeks. Your mom should be using encryption too.

    Another page of interest is Is This the America I Love?

    Thank you for your attention.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  7. Re:The Government is made up of people, just like by onion2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok. Imagine the situation:

    Microsoft buys some (more) politicians and gets a law passed saying that emulated gaming is illegal. This means that people who write emulators are criminals, and those associated with them ought to be 'watched'.

    You get an FBI phone tap.

    Why? In your slashdot 'fans' list is one 'rtaylor', who has links to WineX on his website.

    You see, you've done nothing wrong, and yet 'they're watching you'! This is sounds like a pretty extreme example, but this sort of thing is entirely possible once as soon as a less trustworthy government (or civil servant) gets any power. Stopping privacy violations now might save a whole lot of grief in the future. Of course, it might never happen. Personally I'd like to hedge my bets.

    --
    http://twitter.com/onion2k
  8. Re:ACLU's Efforts...... by MrTangent · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Before you state your position, would you provide facts (links) to how NAMBLA tells visitors "which music to listen to", "what gay porn to watch" and "what kind of stuff in your house to get underage boys to have sex with you"? Otherwise it would seem you're exaggerating since you provide no evidence of this alleged behavior.

    Granted, I haven't been to the NAMBLA site until just now (in order to see if they were offering what you described) and I saw nothing there to back up your claim. I (and obviously you) don't agree with the site, but the reason the ACLU fought for them was because an individual killed a child and they were blamed. NAMBLA was sued because this individual had apparently visited their site before the killing. The ACLU wasn't agreeing with NAMBLA's point of view, or the fact that it's a pedophile group, but rather that they weren't responsible for the tragic death of a child, at the hands of an individual. It was a witch hunt, basically, due to the actions of one sick individual.

    The closest analogy would be if you killed someone, and somehow the authorities knew you visited slashdot.org and tried to get a list of everyone who visited slashdot.org and prosecute them. Which I would assume even yourself would find ludicrous. Whether you agree with NAMBLA or not, they weren't responsible for the death and that was the crux of the situation. All other details are largely moot, as far as I'm concerned. The ACLU could have just as easily been fighting for a gun manufacturer's right to manufacture weapons without the fear of being prosecuted for an individual's actions.

    Here's the full details I found while looking all this up (as I was unaware the ACLU defended NAMBLA before reading this thread):

    BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union will represent a group that advocates sex between men and boys in a lawsuit brought by the family of a slain 10-year-old. The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge said the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its web site which is now off-line incited the attempted molestation and murder of the boy on Oct. 1, 1997. One of two men convicted in the killing, Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group's web site shortly before the killing, and also had in his possession some of NAMBLA's publications. Also convicted in the killing was 24-year-old Salvatore Sicari. The ACLU said the case, filed in federal court in mid-May, involves issues of freedom of speech and association. "For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. "It has to do with communications on a web site, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever." ACLU officials said NAMBLA members deny encouraging coercion, rape or violence. Attorney Lawrence Frisoli, who represents the Curleys, said he is glad the ACLU is defending NAMBLA, because he has had trouble locating the group's members. Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said Wednesday that the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists, or other materials identifying members. The ACLU also will act as a surrogate for NAMBLA, allowing its members to defend themselves in court while remaining anonymous. According to the Globe, NAMBLA officials in the past have said their main goal is the abolition of age-of-consent laws that classify sex with children as rape. At two separate trials last year, prosecutors said Jaynes and Sicari were sexually obsessed with the boy, lured him from his Cambridge neighborhood with the promise of a new bike, and then smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances. They then stuffed him into a concrete-filled container and dumped it into a Maine river. Sicari, convicted of first-degree murder, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Jaynes' second-degree murder and kidnapping convictions enable him to seek parole in 23 years. The Curleys last week were awarded $328 million by a superior court jury in a civil suit against Jaynes and Sicari.
  9. Giving the Government too much of a "good" thing by Gryftir · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People forget that if the government got all the data they wanted, it would be way to massive to really analyze. The best they could do would be to, given a particular name, dig up information about that person. Most data about what people do would never ever ever be seen. Indeed even now there are backlogs in stuff like wire tap transcriptions. If every piece of data is being watched, humans can't possibly watch it all.

    I'm not saying that this is a good thing. Certainly the governments ability to look intimate details up from my life scares me. I'm just saying that we need to worry less about people using general data to find criminals, and more about digging up info about us after some suspicion.

    Still automated data miners, checking against a profile, will eventually be something to worry about. I'd watch for profiles for terrorists, then kiddie porn, then, once that is established, move on to other crimes.

    Gryftir
    Logic tells us about a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy, an either or that fails to take into account other options. "Your either with us, or against us."

    --
    http://www.santacruzbynight.com/index.shtml Santa Cruz By Night Vampire Larp
  10. Re:ACLU's Efforts...... by Gorbie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I think that the ACLU is interpreting the second ammendment poorly, this is actually the best arguement I have heard in regard to gun control.

    I think the difference between their interpretation and the intended one is in the wording "the people". If the second ammendment was intended to allow only the government to have guns it should read "The People".