Slashdot Mirror
EFF Asks How Big Brother Is Watching The Internet
MacDork writes "The EFF filed a FOIA request yesterday with the FBI and other offices of the US DOJ regarding expanded powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act. The EFF is making the request in an attempt to find out whether or not Section 216 is being used to monitor web browsing without a warrant. The DOJ has already stated they can collect email and IP addresses, but has not been forthcoming on the subject of URL addresses. It seems the EFF is seeking any documentation to confirm such activity is taking place. One can only hope the automated FOIA search doesn't produce any false negatives or cost the EFF $372,999."
I don't like the idea of them monitoring web browsing, URLs, content, etc, without essentially a "warrant". I also think ISPs should not store any sort of historical browsing information. The fact there is no response as to whether or not this occurs is also disconcerting, because not only are they probably doing it, but they don't even care if we know or not.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
My right to privacy. Seriousely. If the FBI suspects someone of terrorist activity, it shouldn't be hard to get a warrant to monitor their internet traffic.
It's the whole "those who are willingly to sacrifice freedom for security deserve niether" bit.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Not quite. IP addresses will only give you slashdot.org. URL's can tell which stories you went to/posted to.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
... Have to say "Big Brother"? That just sounds like typical /. paranoia. Before you mod me, consider this: By its very nature the internet is insecure. Any email you send passes through and is temporarily stored on at least several computers before reaching its destination. It's not just "Big Brother" who's watching, it could be anyone with an interest in you, really. I'd say it's more likely that a corrupt server admin, or a large corporation is more likely to read your email than the goverment. In the end the answer is simple: Use any of the myriads of free encryption programs!
The difference between freedom and opression are the rights of privacy afforded to us as citizens. The idea that monitering could POTENTIALLY come up with valuable information in fighting terror is outweighed by the individual's right to maintain one's items private. I mean, if you can't even come close to a hit, is the cost of jeopardizing our freedoms worth it? Remember, under our government, even criminals have rights afforded to them that can not be revoked without due process.
If only preventing terrorism is all homeland security was about. The concern is not for the intended use, but the guaranteed misuse of power.
I think this is excellent. Even if they get nothing, I still think it's a step in the right direction. Let the people be aware of what's going on.
# fuser -v
#
If they are, I would sue the government for distributing child porn. I'm pretty sure I did some things in front of my computer that would qualify as porn before I was 18.
Pretty damn sure.
Its servers and clients are connected to others around the world. How people decided to do credit-card commerce there is still beyond me, however revolutionary or secure it is now. While there are fair uses of information and rights to privacy, "Internet privacy" still feels like an oxymoron, and technology like quantum computers may soon crack encryption like SSL, so I'm doubting we can stay private for very long. (Please correct me if SSL/other forms of "https" can never be cracked.)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
There would be a lot of government employees watching nerds masturbating, for one.
The ideas in '1984' always seemed a little simplistic and naive to me. In a society that values fame and media exposure so highly, wouldn't it be easier to get us all to spy on each other? Informant meets reality TV, all in the name of state security and voyeurism.
Terrorist Attack? Put this in perspective. As a symbol and a demonstration of the relative laxity of certain aspects of the American security net 9/11 was devastating. But statistically 2,000 people is fewer than we lose on a monthly basis to car accidents. If there's one thing that past governments have demonstrated (not to invoke Godwin or anything) it's that if you give them the power, they will take it, and hang responsible use *cough*McCarthy*cough*. The more America lets itself quietly give up civil liberties--particularly on the domain of the internet, where the only parties with a vested interest in covering their activites for the sake of a conspiracy will find relatively easy ways around surveillance, the more this country ceases to be worth living in. Who wants absolute security at the expense of being arrested and helf without charges indefinitely? (which is now legally feasible at the government's discretion. Taking reasonable precautions in the name of security is common sense, but with the best military in the world and more security legislation than is healthy already passed, this is nothing we need, not now, not ever. I'd rather sacrifice the perceived security bonus and instead continue to live in a country worth ilving in with unrestriced access to a venue whose primary purpose is free discourse--exactly what the First Amendment is meant to protect.
If 49% had tried to make a difference, who did they vote for?
/frank
As has been pointed out multiple times, in the grand scheme of things the difference between R's and D's is miniscule in this country. BOTH parties believe in bigger government, BOTH parties believe in more control over the lives of citizens, BOTH parties are willing to sell you down the river in a heartbeat.
If 49% had tried to make a difference, they would have brought in new voices to the political scene.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Terrorism is a real threat.
You still stand a greater chance of dieing in a car crash or being shot by someone you know than getting killed in a terrorist attack.
Terrorism does *NOT* justify the abridgement of civil rights. *NOTHING* justifies the abridgement of civil rights.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The internet is a very big space...
There are millions of "transactions" going on every second
If someone wants to listen to YOU specifically, they need to know you exist...
Carnivore is dead, but what good was it anyway? With anon servers, and other tricks, like encryption, and attachments, how could they even know what is going on?
So, if the FBI or anyone takes an interest in YOU it is because you came to be on their radar in some way...either by visiting a suspected web site, or sending e-mail to a suspect...then, you are in their scope...
What is the moral of the story?
Stay out of their radar...
--E--
I found the CBS link, where the FBI was unable to find documents that were previously released under FOIA, particularly troubling. Either there is a direct effort to render FOIA useless, or, perhaps more likely, that the FBI's computer systems are just incapable of managing even the most basic intelligence queries.
Something else to keep in mind, most people don't have "Leave It To Beaver" perfect lives. Blackmail is particularly powerful weapon used to silence people; Ad Hominem attacks are excellent protection from scrutiny when framed as "credibility" or "character" issues. It is a supremely valueable political weapon to know all of your opponent's weaknesses without having to expose any of your own.
If a terrorist attack occurs killing millions of people, the people would have been wise to reflect upon their actions. What suffering they must have caused to fuel such an attack.
Facing the idea that Terrorism is just an artifact of the way global politics are handled will be tough for America. Given a seat at the negotiating table, and an honest ear to hear their side, who would choose terror ?
Taking away my freedom will not change global politics, and will not reduce the root causes of terrorism.
{sigh} yes, but government has a way of ... simplifying things. They're not always rational, not always well-informed, and the resulting torrent of illogic usually gets someone screwed over bigtime. Trust me, when the goverment gets through with it the waters will be very clear. Not accurate, by any means ... but clear. If you know what I mean.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The FBI's argument of "umm, well, it's not indexed so we can't find it" is, at best, moronic -- at worst, it's an attempt to intentionally deny FOIA requests by claiming "keyword isn't indexed, no document for you".
The whole concept of an index revolves around most-common keywords. You index what is most likely to be searched for -- that's why indexes enhance performance. Indexes are about speeding up queries -- they're not about filtering queries.
Surely the FBI employs someone that knows about "grep". I understand that indexing is useful. In this instance, though, we're talking about the FBI failing to find documents in its possession because they weren't "indexed". Guess what, if the FBI *makes* the indexes and refuses to comply with FOIA requests on the basis of "that keyword wasn't indexed" then all FOIA requests are worthless.
Now that I think about it, I'm off to write a letter to my various Congress-critters.
the internet was -never- free, nor -ever- safe from big brother. its pretty ludicrous that we're 'fighting for the Net', when in fact it was the 'net info apparat which gave Big Brother the leg-up it needed in the first place
the big question is this
every computer in existence is prime target for a 'highly sensitive orbiting equipment platform' or two (interferometry) thats been launched 'in the name of NSA^H^H^Hnational security' in the last 15 years or so
now *that* is some tin-foil the EFF should be un-rolling, yo. seriously. its legit.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
All the information contained on my buyer card is as legit as the info I give the NYT everytime they ask for a registration. I don't care about getting additional direct marketing offers . . . I just want the price of the food before they jumped the price up so they may offer discounts to card holders.
Does this mean they can also read any information we post on forms that use the GET method instead of POST? Since GET encodes the form information in the URL, by recording these URL's that would be the same as tapping a phone conversation.
I don't remember being asked if I wanted to pay extra for obtaining my information.
Your elected representatives were. They probably considered a host of reasons for opting to charge extra for FOI requests, including the following:
1) Somebody's got to pay for it, and raising taxes isn't generally a popular idea.
2) Many people and businesses use material obtained through FOI requests for financial gain. These folks have financial incentive to request everything they can get, and paying for these requests from the general fund makes such businesses insanely profitable on the backs of taxpayers.
3) Paying for them makes sure that requesters really want the information, and aren't sending agencies on wild goose chases for truckloads of data just because they can.
Now, if you'd like to posit that government largesse should be reduced and the funds formerly directed at it should be used to pay for every document you could possibly want, that's a separate argument. Personally, I'm in favour of reduced government size and you -still- having to pay for your own documents. I don't have any particular desire to pay the photocopy charges on every truckload of documents you think you might find interesting.
Nobody's making you pay for information. They're making you pay for paper, toner, and somebody's time to make you your own personal copy of it.
And yes, I do expect a warrant before they go prying into my traffic if it never touches government servers.
I never said the government should be able to take traffic willy nilly from servers owned by non-government entities.
My point is, YOUR INTERNET TRAFFIC IS NOT PRIVATE.
I expect a warrant before they go prying into my mail, too, even though it goes through several government offices prior to reaching my home.
Then I've got a ballbuster for you -- if your illegal activity is printed on a postcard, or is noticeable from outside the sealed letter (say, a computer has detected anthrax in your envelope), they don't need a warrant to come and get you. In many cases, you've also committed a FEDERAL crime because you used the USPS to send that illegal material.
You can't expect privacy in a public arena. Internet traffic is public. If you want privacy, use your own network or encrypt your traffic.
Encryption is like putting on clothes rather than walking around with your naughty bits in plain site.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
I can run a 6400000-bit encrypted stream between site A and site B, but if I am financially attached to one of the nodes they will get the information they are looking for. This isn't about reading text as it flows through a router, it is about noting where a suspect communicates, how often, at what times, etc. Perhaps then expanding the search to other users of that location, as warrants are not needed for execution.
This does an end-run around encryption. Hence the "Big Brother" aspect.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
there are quite a few threads under this story about civil rights in the usa and their abridgement since 9/11.
remember when it happened? the immediate consensus afterward was that we needed to carry on with our lives as before, or else "the terrorists would have won." we couldn't allow them to cow us, by god!
but, after all, we did change the way we live, with all this "homeland security" and "USA-PATRIOT" and guantanamo and abu ghraib and all the other abridgements of civil and human rights... the sad truth is that, thanks to the current administration, "the terrorists" did win...
i leave you with this quote from louis brandeis:
"experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purpose is beneficent. men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
if i'm a grammar nazi, you're an illiteracy nazi.
Always Encrypt, shred, proxy, etc.
If you do it always , then all activity seems to have the same sensitivity.
If you do it sometimes , then those few times stand out sorely.
That's one of the biggest reasons why you should show your parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, neighbors, etc., how to use PGP or x509. That way all traffic looks the same.
But is it really possible to surf anonymously?
You have to trust the proxy you're using, and nowadays a Fed could just as easily subpoena the proxy logs (or maybe get that without a Judge's involvement as the article suggests). About the only thing you could really do would be to proxy-hop from one proxy to the next, routing all traffic through umpteen (yes umpteen) proxies-- thereby making it difficult to track down the traffic. But who really has the time and bandwidth for that?