Slashdot Mirror
CNN Talks WIth ACLU Tech Maven Barry Steinhardt
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."
As long as people are not willing to sacrifice fundamental liberties for a temporary sense of safety...
They are. Welcome to the real world. In my experience, most people long for safety and stability, not liberty and truth. I would be more than delighted to be proven wrong, though.
"I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy"
Here's more info about ACLU's campaign to challenge new security laws, called Keep America Safe and Free
It's interesting to note their views that in order to keep America safe, you do not necessarily have to take away freedom.
More info about the controversial PATRIOT ACT.
Best of luck to him!
Once the opponents come 'into the mainstream' then as night follows day the pro-legislation campaigners will start shouting their side of the corner. No doubt they will shout louder and as the mainstream always works, the person who shouts loudest usually wins over the public at large.
Perhaps when some of the politicians calling for enhanced surveillance get caught on terahertz candid camera getting spanked by underaged hookers we will finally see some saner legislation protecting privacy.
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!
*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.
Sadly people forget what their fundamental liberties are a lot more readily than they forget the tragedies on television everyday. I wish they would see that every time a new piece of legislation comes through unchecked it brings us one step backwards in the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Here's a longer interview with Barry from Wired
They also have some nice information on 'Carnivore' and 'Magic Lantern', spy technologies that the FBI is using on Americans.
Scary stuff.
When do you envision us winning this war on terror? I'm not just talking about Iraq, but all terrorism, as G-Dub originally outlined? Do you really think we're going to make it all disappear? Sure, just after we win that war on drugs we declared fifteen years ago. It certainly doesn't help that, since 9/11, we've upped our pace of walking over smaller countries sovreign rights, fueling more hatred towards the US.
There will be no end to the war on terror; we will always be fighting it, because it has always existed. With that in mind, just when do we get to excerise our full civil liberties again?
Welcome to the real world. Lawmakers, authorities etc are people, not ideal machines. Suppose there was somebody in FBI who hated you and your family, just imagine what all could he do if he had information about your whole life....Or a more grimmer scenario... Somebody in the police wants to harm you.... some govt employee who has acess to this database desparately needs money... so if you are rich enough he could compile a list of the rich and money in their banks and sell them to mafia so that they can demand extortion
Well these are the "real" issues, then come the moral issue of what right does the govt have to know of who I am. We dont want a police state you seeMy Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
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
The arguments seem to boil down to "trust" and "possible misuse".
Fair enough, but I really think people are getting a little paranoid here.
Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me; they go home at night to their families; and have a private life - just like anybody else.
It is in their interest to protect their private life just as much (if not more so!) as you or me.
Even the (President | Prime Minister) if they were to leave office would be as subject to any government surveillance as anybody else.
If the NSA employee could discover something about you in the future and use it against you; well that's a bummer; but there is just as much chance of something being found and used against that NSA employee.
I think I trust my Government. They're elected after all; the big caveat being that the majority of what is the "Government" is the civil service; which of course does not change with elections. I'm sure "Yes Prime Minister" has been seen outside the UK.
Even Civil Servants fall in love, and have cats and dogs as pets.
We've also had the secret police in western countries for years; and probably still have departments that are "even more secret than the secret ones that we know about"; but so what.
I think people need to chill out a bit.
Most people do long for safety and stability. The problem is that safety and stability are a natural consequence of of liberty and truth but no one notices. The world has huge amounts of liberty and truth and is a very safe place to be. Crossing the road is still the most dangerous thing you are likely to do even with all the wars, despots and terrorists. The sense of proportion gets lost at times like this however, which is how these worring laws get passed. If every 'Man killed by terrorist' report came along with the millions of 'Man has entirely trouble free day' reports that could also me true at that point, then maybe we wouldn't panic so much.
1) Read 1984, and find out what happens to people with nothing to hide
2) Read about Stalin and what happened to people with nothing to hide
3) Read about Nixon and what he wanted to do to people with nothing to hide.
Nothing to hide is NOT the same as agreeing with the goverment.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I think if more news are like this, with pictures, people might start to half-assedly guess what a war is really like - death and misery.
Anyway - I have been kind of thinking (and hoping) that maybe the war will go off so badly until the US will put a "non-aggressive" clause in the constitution like Germany or Japan. I mean, what do you have to lose from it? just because you have the biggest gun doesn't mean you should wave it around and use it. - and you can still use your troops duing UN approved stuff - I think the only military excursions that US undertook since the UN has been UN approved actions.
(subject change, to something slightly on topic) My heart sinks when I see articles like this on CNN because I know they don't really care about stuff like this. Remember that CNN is in the same league as RIAA and MPAA - they are called content providers, who is willing to do everything they can so that they can be sure you are paying more than your fair share.
Maybe I am just being pessimistic, though - somebody please prove me wrong.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
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.
National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes?
Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
The USA, we have a Constitutional Democracy, is better know as a Capitalist Republic.
The civil servants are regular folks. The Elected Officials are the Ruling Bosses, who have been known (at times) to try controlling the future by sometimes questionable actions. However, as long as they are the Ruling Bosses there will be no questions [HEIL ______ (fill in the blank)].
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
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
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.
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
The arguments seem to boil down to "trust" and "possible misuse".
Fair enough, but I really think people are getting a little paranoid here.
But in a free society, shouldn't people have the right to be paranoid? The right to free speech includes anonymous speech, and the right NOT to speak out.
Life is not so "black and white" or "right and wrong" with respect to privacy. Say I'm a licensed, professional engineering. My company is committing illegal actions violating environmental standards, and endangering the welfare of the local population. If my free speech were truly protected, then blowing the whistle would be consequence free. But anyone knows that companies have something to hide, and that employees who violate that "corporate wall of silence" find it harder to get a job with another employer. Thus, anonymous speech could be used, if I wanted to protect my career. What if the company I worked for had influence politically -- and with our current law and mind frame....i could be considered a terrorist.
Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me; they go home at night to their families; and have a private life - just like anybody else.
That argument alone isn't enough for me. Kennith Lay was a person "just like me" -- he went home every night to his home and family. But the big difference is Kennith Lay got rich off putting 42,000 american familes out of work. Misuse isn't a "hypothetical situation" its a standard operating procedure. Wouldn't you misuse it? What if the "security benifits" outweighed the "costs". Besides, no one's going to find out about it. And after they realized we prevented Sept. 11th 2: The Sequel, they wouldn't question our methods. The ends will justify the means for the public.
It is in their interest to protect their private life just as much (if not more so!) as you or me.
Or divert the watchful eye's attention on to someone else's. Remember, in 1984 all the party members could turn off their telescreens.
Even the (President | Prime Minister) if they were to leave office would be as subject to any government surveillance as anybody else.
If everyone were equal under the law, George W. Bush would have to take the bus and would never have come to power. His "youthful indiscretions" were D.U.Is at age 29. Police Officers found him driving on the shoulder of the road! Now he gets to send other families' kids off to die, having never fought in a war himself (He dodged the draft by joining the national guard back during Nam.)
If the NSA employee could discover something about you in the future and use it against you; well that's a bummer; but there is just as much chance of something being found and used against that NSA employee.
Again, more motivation to find dirt on other people. Get results, and they won't be looking for fault on the inside. There are plenty of patsy's in the american public.
I think I trust my Government. They're elected after all;
Not in my country, buddy. Stupid Florida.
the big caveat being that the majority of what is the "Government" is the civil service; which of course does not change with elections. I'm sure "Yes Prime Minister" has been seen outside the UK.
Even Civil Servants fall in love, and have cats and dogs as pets.
Plenty of people who've done horrible, horrible things were animal lovers or some such drek. Hitler was a strict vegetarian. G.W. Bush Jr reads scripture every day in the morning, even when he was executing retarded people as the Governor of Texas.
We've also had the secret police in western countries for years; and probably still have departments that are "even more secret than the secret ones that we know about"; but so what.
So why should I just sit there and let a soulless organization be funded with my money to work against me and deny me the very freedoms I'm supposedly paying them to "protect"? Are YOU being served?
I think people need to chill out a bit.
I think you need to graduate High School, go to college, maybe stop watching "Yes Prime Minister" and look at how dreadfully dangerous your government IS. Not "will be" or "can be", but IS.
They don't support NAMBLA's activities or endorse the content of their message, just their right to actually hold and advocate an unpopular view in public. An actual link to their statement on NAMBLA is here. I'm a straight married male with a young son. The prospect of someone's actually doing something bad to him someday horrifies me. I am disgusted by NAMBLA. But they have a fundamental right to their view and message, however unpopular or disgusting.
The ACLU defends groups and activities on all sides of the political spectrum. They have defended the American Nazi Party, NAMBLA, peace protestors, evangelical churches, and Ollie North. They stand for a principle, not a slice of the political spectrum, and they are consistent in that.
And in these times, we need the ACLU more than ever. It looks like nobody else is really interested in standing up for the Constitution - including the government.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Not that I agree with NAMBLA (I don't) but you're misconstruing the facts of the matter. They defended NAMBLA's right to exist as a free entity, and to exercise their free speech rights concerning this topic, even as unpopular as it may be. The ACLU was not condoning child molestation , or the group themselves. They were fighting to protect free speech. It was the principle, removed from the facts of the matter. Read the following statement and see if it makes sense as juxtoposed with the aforementioned: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Poindexter is lucky not to be in jail, let alone directing Total Information Awareness. I seem to recall cover-ups for Iran Contra. Do we want this criminal dictating our freedoms to us?
e s/ 18/archive/
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episod
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):
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
the most obvious answer is the sedition act of 1798, but there are countless others. it looks like the avalon project is a pretty good resource for that sort of thing. there's a list of united states statutes pertaining to human rights here, but it's not exactly a complete list. there are plenty of rights-violating laws that aren't listed.
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
CNN is liberal as a news organization can get. Yeah. OK. Wrong.
CNN is actually very conservative in their reporting. Perhaps not as conservative as the Lehrer News Hour, but conservative none-the-less. CNN does little but repeat whatever Ari Fleitcher (et al) is spewing at the moment. Unfortunately, there is no money in providing thought provoking commentary on important issues that do not have the mass appeal that things like war do. So CNN (and Fox and CBS and NBC...) resort to sound bites, flashy images, and superficial commentary. That's what sells, so that's what they provide.
If you want examples of liberal journalism, look at the UK's The Independant and The Register. Look at NPR. At Pacifica Radio. These are true examples of liberal journalism. If those are not credible enough, then there is the New York Times, the Washington Post. Not as aggressively liberal as the previous set, but far less conservative than the cable news providers.
BTW - kudos on your stance on our military. While I may not agree with everything our government does with it, I whole-heartedly support our brothers who have given a piece of their lives to protect the rest of us. Even if I disagree with their decision to join, I respect that decision and I wish them all the best in their chosen path, and that they return safely. All of them. I cannot find fault with their desire to protect our country and it's people.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
As long as the ACLU refuses to recognize the 2nd Amendment I'll continue to not recognize the ALCU as actually looking out for our civil liberties.
On reflection, it seems like the ACLU is just not recognizing what you think the 2nd Amendment means. Their position seems fairly reasonable to me. I would expect a reasonable person would understand their dithering on the second amendment(do we advocate people can own nukes? do we support some 'weapons of mass destruction' exception? if we support an exception that is not explicit in the amendment, doesn't that mean we're back where we started?) when it's so much different that the black-and-white of, say, civil forfeiture laws.
If you think the ACLU has done nothing for "our civil liberties," I'd suggest you conduct some legal research.
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".