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.
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.
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.
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.