ACLU Joins Fight Against Internet Surveillance

aychamo writes "The American Civil Liberties Union today joined an expanding group of organizations filing lawsuits against a new rule that increases the FBI's power to conduct surveillance on the Internet. The rule being challenged is one the Federal Communications Commission adopted in September, granting an FBI request to expand wiretapping authority to online communications.he ACLU charged in a petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the ruling goes beyond the authority of CALEA, which specifically exempted information services. "The ACLU seeks review of the CALEA order on the grounds that it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise contrary to law," the organization charged in its petition."

Comments

Colleges' costs for CALEA compliance

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

Separately, The American Council on Education filed a court challenge arguing that compliance with the rules would require colleges and universities to spend $7 billion in upgrading switches and routers.

Here's a good reference on just what will be required for universities to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA),and the resultant costs involved.

Re:Colleges' costs for CALEA compliance

[rhyskegtapper]

At this point the only people monitoring my University's network traffic are bored CS students. However, if that kind of deal came into effect I don't think the already cash strapped department could handle the added weight. Hell, half their staff or more at this point are student oncampus work-study jobs.

Encryption

[jimmyhat3939]

I avoid this problem altogether by encrypting my phone conversations with AES-256 grade encryption. It took a few months for me and all of my friends to learn to do the encryption on our voices in real-time, but now it works great and we have no fear of the FBI whatsoever!

Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[thekel]

After all, how long can we maintain the 1st with out it?

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[linuxrunner]

You're kidding right? I hope so, but just in case:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Let me break it down:
  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Basically says, that any country (state, etc) to remain FREE must have a well maintained army (militia).. Ok... Now with that out of the way

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Means that, just because we have a military, doesn't mean we're safe, so thereofre the right of "the people", that's us, the average person, will not be infringed. Why? Because the Brittish just tried to take our guns away so we couldn't win the war. We wouldn't give them up, and fought back.

Without guns, we could not stand up against our government.

The 2nd Amendment is actually quite simple. If you just read it. This is why they use "the people" in the Second Amendment, to mean everyday people.. you and me... just like they used in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment too!

Or maybe the right to free speech was only really meant for government officials?

Tough Question

[gbulmash]

This is always a tough question. The argument goes that the more surveilance power we give law enforcement, the more ability they have to prevent crime. OTOH, I'm probably mangling the quote, but "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither" makes sense as well. The more power we give the government to invade our lives, the more they'll use it.

Re:Tough Question

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The more power we give the government to invade our lives, the more they'll use it.

What do you mean "will use it"? Ever been to the US since september 11, 2001?

Re:Tough Question

[Prospero's Grue]

The more power we give the government to invade our lives, the more they'll use it.

I'm not really opposed to granting law-enforcement the power to do surveillence on e-mail, traffic, or what-have-you - but it's ridiculous that every proposal that comes forward to expand police powers also involves no oversight or accountability.

If you think I'm a criminal and you want my ISP to disclose my e-mails then call a judge, present your evidence, get a warrant, collect the e-mails, notify me that I'm under investigation, and we're all set. The same as it works with everything else.

The hypocricy that comes with "we need to expand the law so the police have the same powers over this new-fangled technology thing" and "we must not extend the oversight principles while we're at it" is mind-boggling.

Re:Tough Question

[Tackhead]

> And also strangely, those that don't want to trust the government with health care, are more than willing to trust the government to carry out capital punishment.

In the past century, governments have racke dup 180,000,000 deaths.

Trusting a government with health care is strange. Trusting the government with killing is simply a matter of recognizing a core competency.

I need some sleep

[pavon]

When I read this headline the light-saber ad was displaying at the top, and my mind filled with pictures of jedi ACLU lawyers battling video surveillence droids. Whhhoommm chttzzz clnk.

*waves hand* These are not the geeks you are looking for.

Re:ACLU

[scheming daemons]

While I admire the ACLU for taking on some contentious issues which are nasty, but have to be defended, most of their stuff seems to be things like forcing a nativity scene out of a city park or trying to make it possible for someone to mask their face in a driver's license photo.

No.. most of their stuff does not. Just most of the stuff that jokers like O'Reilly and Limbaugh like to focus on.

Almost all of their cases are about protecting the civil rights of the individual against the "man". You don't hear about most of those, because Fox News won't highlight them.

Re:Huh?

[the arbiter]

You're right. I don't think it's the quality or nature of the ACLU's work that has earned them such emnity...I honestly think it's just that most Americans would be far happier living under a police state. Seriously.

Terrorism is rare

[digitaldc]

"The diverse organizations also warned that the expanded eavesdropping rules represent only the beginning of what will become a broader effort to regulate the Internet."

Is this to fight terrorists or to regulate the internet? or both?

How much privacy are people willing to give up in order to fight a war without a clear enemy?

Re:Terrorism is rare

[scheming daemons]

I'm not willing to give up any.

But sadly, I find myself in the distinct minority.

It's a tired old canard, but the terrorists really have won. America has changed because of 9/11. For the worse.

We're becoming what we used to despise and fight against during the cold war... a totalitarian police state.

... one tiny step at a time. But unmistakable in the final destination.

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[scheming daemons]

Bravo.

seriously, some people don't get it. When the ACLU defends the KKK holding a protest march, they aren't agreeing with the KKK.. they are defending their right to march.

This makes the ACLU even more noble, in my opinion. The ability to defend a person or group that you loathe with every fiber of your being (at sometimes considerable monetary and PR expense to yourself), just to uphold a higher ideal, is downright saint-like.

Some people think it's about "defending the KKK" or "blocking harmless nativity scenes on public buildings" or "keeping the 10 commandments out of courtrooms". It is not... and the failure of a person to "get" the point says more about them than the ACLU.

"defending the KKK's right to protest" is about defending your right to espouse an unpopular idea.

"taking nativity scenes off of the government property" is about defending your right to not have your government endorse a particular religious viewpoint.

"taking the 10 commandments out of the courtroom" is about defending your right to not be pre-judged, even subliminally, because you don't share the religious beliefs of the people who will decide your fate.

"fighting against Intelligent Design in the classroom" is about defending your right, and your childrens' rights, to not be religiously indoctrinated by the state.

The ACLU will defend your civil rights, no matter how loathesome you or your viewpoints are. That makes them noble. Those that can't see that are too simple to get it.

Re:Huh?

[the arbiter]

Glad you asked, actually. I'll take your questions in order. Bear in mind that I'm a firearms owner and pretty into it...but I guarantee my answers will surprise you. "Liberal" gun owners aren't common.

1. I'd like to see the ACLU get involved in these cases, as we (as a nation) need some clarity on just how laws regulating firearms actually apply in the real world, not just as abstract legislation. The Second Amendment and whether it applies to individual or militia ownership has never been clarified. It needs to be.

2. I don't know if regulation of firearms is "constitutional" or not, not being a lawyer, but it's a damn good idea.

3 & 4. Here's what I'd like to see (well-regulated and status quo changes): This is what I call the "automotive" model of firearms ownership. Libertarians will probably have a stroke and if you're one you shouldn't read this :)

What society gets: Licensing (passing a course equivalent to the "Gunsite" series of classes, not cheap or easy) and registration...mandatory. Insurance...mandatory. Draconian penalties for possession of stolen, unlicensed or unregistered firearms. I think a mandatory 10-year sentence for a first offense is not out of line.

What gun owners get: An end to idiotic laws that ban posession of certain firearms based, fundamentally, on what they look like. A Winchester 1897 repeating rifle has MORE capacity that most modern "assault" weapons and is just as accurate and deadly, and yet can be bought in all fifty states. Let's end the bullshit and let those who can pay the insurance for destructive weaponry own them. If you can't pay for your acts or mistakes then you don't get to play.

Obviously, although I'm a lifelong shooter and gun owner, I am not an NRA member. They're the worst thing to ever happen to gun owners and a political and PR liability for us.