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."

Comments

Creepy stuff

[dj42]

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.

Re:Creepy stuff

[Seigen]

I agree, but unfortunately since 9/11 the american government is growing more and more corrupt. The very fact that our government goes out of its way to find ways around its own rules like imprisoning people in foreign countries to get around any rights they might have adequately demonstrates this. It seems that right or wrong has almost gone out of fashion. If you can spin your arguments such that the public buys them, even if they are lies, then you win. A warrant should be required. FOIA inquires that are won in court shouldn't be returned without the information content redacted. To a very great extent the workings of our government need to become less secretive lest we lose the freedoms we cherish.

Re:Creepy stuff

[Martin Blank]

A 13yr old with a camcorder can also set it up in the bushes to look inside your home and watch what you're doing. This doesn't mean the FBI shouldn't be required to get a warrant to do the same.

In the same realm, just because they can sniff the network traffic doesn't mean that they should. They have to get a warrant to tap your phone, and they should have to do the same to tap your IM conversations, e-mail correspondence, and web history.

Just because they can do something doesn't mean they should be able to without restrictions.

Re:Which is more important?

[flewp]

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.

Why does the title...

[Anonymous Coward]

... 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!

Re:Which is more important?

[comm3c]

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.

Re:Which is more important?

[SparksMcGee]

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.

Doesn't Matter

[Tony]

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.