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."

Comments

Re:Could be good

[Zayin]

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.

ACLU's Efforts

[Gorilla_Man]

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!

Mighty nice petard you've got there Senator.

[mikeophile]

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.

Serious Question

[Boss, Pointy Haired]

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!

Re:Serious Question

[onion2k]

Its a question of trust. Do you, honestly, trust this government, or any future government, not to misuse the data they collect right now?

Re:Serious Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people are innocent until proven guilty, and the innocent have the right to conduct themselves as they want in private.

People like to do strange things, and they might not want other people to know about them. If the things are legal, then they have the right to keep them private.

Although most people don't demmand privacy like this - it's important that we all have a basic level of privacy so that when we do want it we don't have to be suspected of being up to something for asking for it.

Also, there is a fear that the information could be used for something it isn't meant to use for, and that people should not be exposed to this risk if they have done nothing wrong.

I agree with you a bit - but I think that people have a right to privacy if that is what they want. With mass surveillance, people can't choose.

Re:Serious Question

[pediddle]

Here's a link to David Ross's page on the subject. Suprisingly, many of the examples listed there do apply to me, and apply to most of the people I know (if only more of my friends and coworkers would use PGP...).

What, you say? All of those examples are still about hiding things? I thought I said I had nothing to hide!

IMHO, there's a huge difference between having "something to hide" from an FBI investigation -- i.e., committing a crime -- and maintaining your privacy. You don't want everyone to know that you pick your nose and eat it, so when you send a letter to your psycologist about your "problem", you should be allowed and able to protect that message with encryption.

And, of course, if you're transmitting other types of secrets, namely trade secrets for your company, you should be able to encrypt that as well.

Now, you may still ask, so what if the government can view those messages, as long as "real people" can't? My answer to that is that the government is made of "real people" too, and I don't want any old FBI agent to know about me picking my nose. Extend that analogy as necessary for different levels of "secrets", as well as different levels of paranoia about how Big Brother will stretch any information about you to fit His purposes.

Re:Serious Question

[AndyS]

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.

Re:Serious Question

[rknop]

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

Ask yourself what you do every day.

Then ask yourself if, seriously, everything that you do and which you consider "nothing to hide" is also something that every potentially powerful religious political group or other self-appointed "guardian of public morality" would also consider "nothing to hide."

If we lived in a utopian society where individualism was respted, where victimless crimes were just considered poor judgement but nothing to bring charges on, and where moral judgements were considered private opinions and not a reason for censure or imprisionment, then a university surveillance society (e.g. like what's depicted in Robert J. Sawyers' Hominids and Humans) could actually be a good thing. Unfortunately, we live in a society where people are lining up to condemn others for wrong thinking, where people can't wait to limit each other's freedoms in the name of morality and other arbitrary reasons.

Are you a homosexual? Do you read any pornographic magazines? Heck, do you look at lingeire catalogs? Do you ever drink alcohol before noon? Do you ever masturbate? Do you ever post to "hacker" message boards like Slashdot? Do you read opinions online critical of the government? Critical of the RIAA? Do you believe that Islam may be at it's core a pecaeful religion? Worse, are you a muslim? Are you an atheist? Do you ever send personal E-mail while at work? Do you ever look at sports scores or other personal sites while at work? How about when you're telecommunting from home?

There are so many various groups with strong opinions about other people's personal morality who have a lot of political influence in this country that I simply do not trust society with universal surveillance capabilities. If we really did respect individual freedom as much as we claim to, then no problem. In the mean time, when we've got things like the DMCA and the philosophy behind it, and when it's a struggle to get anti-homosexual-sex laws stricken from the books, a universal surveillance society will turn this country into a totalitarian state. Nearly everybody has something to hide. Even if you don't really, even if you don't do anything you're embarassed about and if you don't do anything to hurt anybody, there is probably some sort of fundamentalist group out there with a lot of sympathy and ability to get somebody elected who does think you ought to hide it. The easier it is for them to track down the people like you doing these "immoral" things you didn't think you had to hide, the more likely you are, in the best case, to check your own behavior-- behavior you would otherwise have thought innocuous. (And in the worst case, you'd be brought up on charges for it.)

-Rob

Re:Serious Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you have a bathroom door?

Eh. Typical mainsteam press, almost content-free

[NBarnes]

*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.

Re:Could be good

[pmodern]

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.

Wired Interview with Barry

[Gorilla_Man]

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.

Re:Support our troops

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Could be good

[Bertrum]

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

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.

Be afraid of Big Brother

[MosesJones]

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.

Good but....

[objwiz]

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.

Why You Should Use Encryption

[MichaelCrawford]

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.

Re:The Government is made up of people, just like

[Pray_4_Mojo]

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.

Re:ACLU's Efforts......

[jht]

... include such lovely items as supporting the 'rights' of grown men to molest under-age boys (ie. NAMBLA). Yeah... you'll have to forgive me if I fail to become overly enthusiastic when the ACLU jumps on board these days.

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.