Slashdot Mirror
It's "1984" in Europe, What About Your Country?
An anonymous reader asks: "A few hours ago, the European parliament accepted a proposal '...on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services...'. Summarized: any data (internet connections, traffic, email, file sharing, SMS, phone calls) of 450 million people of Europe has to be collected by telcos, to be used by governments in their fight against 'crime and terrorism' ... oh, and child porn, of course. In Germany, over-the-sea reports are limited and usually do not include the latest developments in law and order, but since Slashdot has readers all over the world, I would like to ask: how is the status of YOUR country in terms of anti-terrorism-laws, observations and such? Any recommendations where one can still live free and unobserved in a non-nanny state?"
It is a relatively modern Idea that Freedom is equal to Privacy. While the truth they are rather disjunct concepts. You still have the right of free speech you can still say whatever you want and just as long as it doesn't cause direct harm, (Like yelling Fire in a crowded room) you have the right to say it.
But just recently the right of privacy seems to be implicit to your freedom of speech. With freedom of speech (At least the American ideal) you should be able to state your views without getting arrested for it. But it doesn't state that you can say it without anyone knowing that you said it.
I am not saying you shouldn't fight to keep your privacy, but it is not taking away a right, it is taking away a luxury, that we enjoy. In many ways I want to keep privacy, because then we are able to say our views that can shake things up without breaking social norms of living in the real world. But on the down side as with any luxury, if we over use it we get comfortable and abuse it. Saying things that should not say and shake things up that if a person had a chance to think twice about it wouldn't shake up. Pushing society too fast is as dangerous as letting it become stagnate, and Luxuries like privacy should be treated well or could be forced to be removed.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I have nothing more to say at this time.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I'm guessing that's a British billion (i.e., an American million)...
Last I checked there were only 6 billion people on earth - so 450 billion people in europe in the last month would be a intrest feat.
(On a related note - why do they have a "mail us if you see something wrong" when it doesnt do anything to email them)
snowulf.com
All goverments crave power, it's people not fighting them that lets them grab it.
Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark.
Any recommendations where one can still live free and unobserved in a non-nanny state?"
The answer is directly proportional to how much money you have and how willing you are to spread it around.
Funny? Yes. True? Sadly yes as well in most of the world.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I agree the concepts are distinct, but most people who value freedom are wary of "big brother" style governments that perform far too much surveillance on their own citizens, because that puts them in a dangerously powerful position to later use that information to restrict freedoms.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The moon, I guess (assuming that nobody else owns it). Let's face it, liberty is dying. Unless some libertarians, Goldwater conservatives, Ron Paul, socially liberal Democrats and Republicans (in the true sense of the word liberal; somebody who advocates freedom), and other liberty-minded people band together to take control from our power-hungry authoritarian leaders, the USA is going to turn into "1984" as well.
Being an illegal Mexican immigrant in the US appears to meet all of your criteria.
It's the other way around - the British billion used to be a million million, i.e. 1000 American billions. They officially changed it, though - see here.
So who has the storage space necessary to pull this off?
503 Sig Unavailable
The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
The fathers of our nation enshrined in the constitution the right to pamphlet anonymously. You have the RIGHT to criticize the government without fear that they will track you down and punish you.
But just recently the right of privacy seems to be implicit to your freedom of speech. With freedom of speech (At least the American ideal) you should be able to state your views without getting arrested for it. But it doesn't state that you can say it without anyone knowing that you said it.
If I call my friend up to chat about the old college days I absolutely have a right to privacy. What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business.
I'm astonished at how some people in the United States act. NYC recently implemented random bag searches in the subway- only they can only search your bags and only before you get on the subway- if you don't want to be searched you can walk away (exactly what kind of terrorist this is supposed to catch is beyond me and a subject for another debate). What astounds me about this, however, is just how many people go out of their way to be searched. If the cops don't call you over to be searched you don't have to stop- I've walked past every time without being stopped. Some people, however, walk over to the cops, open their bags and show them the contents without being asked. I have no idea what society I am living in but I would love to find some place in this world where people actually have self respect and care about their rights.
-sirket
Obscurity is the only true path to privacy.
Open Source Sushi
Speaking from Denmark (part of the EU), I would say that 1984 is definitly moving closer. The techincal aspects that makes it, more or less, impossiple to record everything a person says and of course the loss of privace aside, I find it the most scary thing, that the general attitude seems to be: "If you don't have anything to hide, so it doesn't matter, does it?"
It has been shown that slick monitoring of information does not protect citizens from terrorism. Monitoring the general public is such a large undertaking that funds spent doing that have far better places to be spent. If given the chance, the general public would not elect to do such a wasteful activity. It is ineffective, just as the current rules regarding airline screenings do not work. Knives and "weapons" still make it on the airline, etc. By monitoring the general airwaves, terrorists will use encryption. What then? Force all communications over non encrypted channels? What about bank transactions, etc? You can not protect the public from its self. Safety is relative, and its been proven that consumers do not want that level of "safety" for that price.
I'll just summarize my fears like this: If you lack privacy, tyrants can go unchecked in power.
/need/ privacy in order to sustain a democracy.
And of course, without privacy, everything the citizen does is clear to the government, but the government can act without the same level of transparency.
The government stops working under the whims of the people, and the people start working under the control of the government.
We
http://mediagoblin.org/
Until countries decide that the central banks are evil nothing will change. This is something that has been a very big issue historically. Most great leaders were killed going against the Central Privately Held Banks. They have complete power and now want complete global control. Only a very, very, brave leader will fight the Central Bank. Here in the US, our late President Kennedy issues US Bank Notes in direct competition with the Federal Reserve. They day he was assasinated they revoked them. This is by far the one issue that completely trumps all others. The central banks are responsible for wars, depressions, murders, and complete financial enslavement. Money may be the root of all evil, but the privately held central banks are pure evil.
Mind | Body | Spirit | Cash
Wow! I had no idea that 9000% of the world's population (give or take) lived in Europe!
Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
You obviously never studied this issue seriously. The absence of privacy forces people to modify their behavior. The less privacy, the less freedom of behavior. It is not just illegal behavior that is suppressed, but any behavior that is outside the accepted norms.
Lack of privacy is the single greatest threat to freedom we now face.
New Zealand is relatively good. I'm biased, I live here.
One of the last attempts at privacy invasion that hit the media was a case of the postal service (which is an SOE) was gathering data on house conditions. This information was deemed to assist with targeted advertising, for a price. There was a large public backlash.
On TV news, there were some quick queries put forward to members of the public. I'll never forget the American dude was simply said, "I moved to here from America to get away from this kind of stuff."
The one thing worrying me is possibility of NZ signing a Free Trade agreement with the US. You get dicked when you do that. But we're quite anti-American here due to the Iraq war, so we may be safe for now =)
On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives voted to renew 16 parts of the "USA Patriot Act" that were set to expire at year's end. These include National Security Letters (basically search warrants the FBI issues itself without judicial review) and the ability of the FBI to obtain your medical records and records of library activity. Hopefully, the Senate will remember why the Constitution was written in the first place. Heck, some of this probably contravenes the Magna Carta.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
I've heard that Europeans are skinnier than Americans, but I think that's a bit extreme, don't you?
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Utter tosh!
Privacy allows one the right to think what one wants without a coersive government locking one up.
When a government monitors emails, and builds networks of who knows whom, I find it extremely intrusive.
Europe has history. If any of the evil governments that existed in it's past existed today, they would need about fifteen minutes to get a long list of everyone they did not like, (and those that communicated with them) and lock them up or worse.
The "luxury" you speak of was in existance previous to the information age when governments could not track your thoughts, personal networks, banking information, health information and all the other info that they keep in large databases. Today, fridges and toasters are networked and will betray you, not simply a disgruntled family member or the neibour's kid. Did you know they keep track of what food you buy via your safeway card? That is "total information awareness" and it is not to protect you, but to protect your government from you. What did Echelon do to prevent Sept 11? Nothing. Terrorists used countermeasures and will continue to do so. They may be deranged fanatics but they're not stupid.
Look at Iraq. They have government goon squads that execute thousands a month. (Morgues are filled.) Thanks to the information age, not are actions considered treasonous but thoughts also. An email. A phone call. It's OK until it's your ass. (Or knee cap or skull.) Your slashdot posting of 2002 may seal your fate.
Don't be so foolish to assume that all future governments will be benign.
In the mean time it is our responsiblity to build networks resistant to these policies.
-b
You can say any right is a luxury. People define what are rights.
I suggest you read about Griswold v. Connecticut for more information about the U.S. Supreme Court's take on the right to privacy.
Though I'm hardly old enough to remember this but only thru my parents and some very early memories, the propoganda during world war II about how evil to population of hitlers rule was.
Today, thanks to the internet, we all know it was bull shit... that people of one country are just like the people of another... all having their daily living concerns.
This whole terrorism blow up was not without a cause. You screw someone enough and they will retaliate or someone else will use it as an excuse to.
So it is with the WTC..... and the trillion dollar bet... a stock market gamble that drain south east asia of their economy. and then the totally disconnected but some how magically connected via bush adminastration and threated media helping to bang war drums.....
The point is simple... of the over 6 billion people on this planet, it is a small fraction of a percent that is totally responsible for the excuse of terrorism.
Search the web for trillion dollar bet and "what the world wants"....
And see what the few are doing to keep a much better world from us all.
They are the real terrorist and as the deceptive do, they clain its someone else.
This whole thing reminds me of ACDC's song "We're on a highway to hell", because... - oh hello there uniformed men - I was just posting on Slashdot, nothing to worry.. - aah let me go - neeed to keeep posting...
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
True, they are not equivalent, but that does not mean privacy is not a right. In the US its considered covered under the 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated More on this here.
Well here's a big fat FUCK YOU BACK
:-)
:-(
You feel good now that you've got that off your chest, don't you?!
if nothing else to prove that things are fucked up everywhere
Considering that the US House of Representatives just passed the Patriot[sic] Act today, your timing is impeccable.
"Fascism could better be called 'corporatism', for it is merely the merging of state power with corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator who "invented" fascism
You know... if you were a terrorist, isn't that exactly what you'd do? Get your buddy to distract the cops by showing them his bag while you walk on to the subway with the bomb in your bag.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I call bullshit.
The government of Canada already affirms its right to use so called security certificates to detain people without charging them or giving them full access to the evidence against them.
The government of Canada is moving to require ISPs and telecommunications companies to retain and provide information about the private communications of its citizens.
Canada is no better than any place else.
How do you capture this information.... do you try it at an application layer? You'd probably capture it at IP as you don't want to ignore TCP/UDP/other layer4 protocols. Do they expect telcos to SPAN all the traffic inbound AND outbound to some monster sniffer(s). You'd want to filter out the control (bgp,ospf etc..) traffic, but a 10Gb pipe (20Gb/s if you think about full duplex). If we used marketingmath whereby a 10Gb ~ 1GB...
The largest EMC DMX (DMX-3) can handle approximately 251TB of storage. You'd fill up the array in ~70hrs (3days!) using ONLY a single 10Gb/s link. Remember that large disk arrays out there have interfaces that are 2Gb/s FibreChannel. So you'd need atleast 5 interfaces (in a perfect world once again), that were capable of 2Gb/s. So you can forget about SATA arrays, as those couldn't dream of this bandwidth.
Oh yeah... how do you back this thing up... Fastest tape drives out there run 150MB/s (LTO-3) application throughput with compression.
Good Luck...
Your local SAN Administrator.
Here in Washington state, it's still perfectly legal to have sex with horses, but draw Bush's head on a pike, and the secret service will show up.
Back in April a bill was passed that was supposed to crack on "express kidnappings" by making telcos hold more data on cellphone calls (often used in this kind of crime), but it was extended to internet traffic and suddenly ISPs would have to keep records of users email, sites visited, etc. for 10 years. When the news broke what the government wanted to do, the negative response was so big that the president vetoed the law and proposed a rewriting almost immediately. Barrapunto (Spanish Slashdot) story on the veto
...Somalia. They've been without a central government for 15 years. Some say it's anarchy, some it's the libertarian dream. But it's not a police state for sure.
please excuse my apathy
8.836382222 x 10^-6 square km = 8,836,382.22 square mm = 13,696.4198 square inches = 95.114 square feet.
Still not a lot of land, but more than 1/4 inch.
They say that there is a silver lining to every cloud. This is a pretty damn big cloud (as it covers all of Europe) and the silver lining is impressively small...
/dev/urandom | nc $FOO.co.uk 9 to fill the databases with garbage and render the monitoring economically unfeasible.
But hopefully this will spur the use of encryption in all communications, with temporary key pairs. If you don't have your secret key anymore, they can't subpoena it.
HTTPS by default is better than HTTP by default. (Though we'll have to deal with millions of self-signed certificates...)
I can imagine the protesting now, by the way: cat
"This legislation proudly bought to you by EMC, NetApp, and Sun"
Probably not, but right now I do suspect those three will be partying hard.
"What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business."
Not even if you two are seriouly planning on flying planes into buildings or releasing sarin gas in a subway?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
"Chilling effect" Is one of those words meant to spark emotional response of negative feeling about a topic, without us having us think about it.
It is much like how the Bush administration made the general US population believe there were WMD in Iraq when they used the term "A Slam Dunk" or in a commercial when they say choosing their products is a "No Brainer", it is a way of proving a point to a person emotionally and allowing them to bypass rational thinking.
Congratulations you have been scammed by using pop-culture wording. I was just listing to NPR this morning about it. Insightful is being able to see past these pop words meant to make us feel in the way the author wants us to.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Freedom is slavery.
...to be used by governments in their fight against 'crime and terrorism' ... oh, and child porn, of course...
War is peace.
Ignorance is strength.
That's 1984. Not your laws.
What exactly are we crying about here? Oh no, you can't download kiddy porn, wage war against the infidels and generally do stuff you're not supposed to in Europe any more. Who cares about privacy?
Hiding nothing is nothing to hide
The government doesn't really care what you're doing in your personal life, what you're doing with your friend tomorrow, and they're not going to bother following along with it.
Don't do the wrong thing,
Don't get arrested,
Don't cry about it.
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
Well called.
Bill C-74
Long term, no, it doesn't look as though Canada is 'safe' when it comes to privacy. Short term, if federal elections become annual as minority gov'ts are successively defeated, perhaps they'll have a hard time passing much of anything. Any Canadians thinking about voting Liberal in January should consider this bill before doing so.
Loose lips lose spit.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
We're behind schedule.
Sincerely,
The National Security Agency
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
I suggest you read about Griswold v. Connecticut for more information about the U.S. Supreme Court's take on the right to privacy.
Precisely. Privacy is certainly not a freedom of speech. It is a freedom of self interest though--bound up with that 'pursuit of happiness' that was oddly enough put into one of America's founding documents.
Griswold is the legal backing of this right. It was a '65 case about contraceptives that 7 of 9 justices backed, because the understanding of privacy is inherent in the other constitutional protections (in their "penumbras," as Justice Douglas wrote for the majority). All Justice nominees are asked about their agreement with this case, since it's pretty important to senetors as well. Roberts was non-commital on everything, but you could tell from his tone that he agreed with Griswold at least.
The problem comes down to a (possibly) simpler moral question of order versus freedom. In D&D terms, Lawful vs. Chaotic. The mean of American humans, I'm pretty sure, is still in the neutral range.
Which is not to say that it's not something that should still be faught for. (Yeah, yeah, I'm Chaotic Good, you shouldn't have asked.)
So many words, so little understanding. Mock away, my anonymous friend. Your beliefs, and the beliefs of those you claim as compadres, have not one iota of effect on reality.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
They're monitoring the dead, too.
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
Looks like the Federalists were right.The argument that privacy is not a right is based on the fallacious idea that our rights are limited to those listed in the Bill of Rights. The 9th Amendment is pretty straightforward: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (Emphasis mine).
There are only two possible rational interpretations: First, that all actions are rights unless that action is explicitly prohibited, or Second, that there is a mystical list of "other rights" floating around somewhere that nobody knows about, except obviously you, and maybe some other people in government.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Wow, Europe sure had alot more people in 1984!
I'd recommend you read about Peter McWilliams, specifically the circumstances of his death. Then you can start reading some of his books. You might want to start with Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. It's very light and engaging, despite its length. I know I devoured my hardcover edition (now out of print, but available via special order from your local Borders, if you have one) in a week.
This is not an indictment, but a suggestion based on the assumption you would care to expand your knowledge. If you're just trolling, then pay me no mind.
sic
I have been looking for just such a place in which to retire, but without much success. It's ironic that the people of the Russia now have more personal liberty than we do here in the USA from what I've read. It's almost as though we're slowly reversing roles with them.
Grand Cayman island is probably the place with the least governmental interference in people's lives that I've found thus far, but the cost of living is pretty high there judging from the cost of real estate.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
1984 when it was written, was meant to shock people out of complacency. Referring to it every time there is a privacy law or violation diminishes this effect. What happens then is that people stop paying attention to these messages and you then have an effect counter to your intent.
sic
The Fourth Amendment has two very distinct clauses. The first bars "unreasonable" searches and seizures. There is a whole body of law that tells us what is "reasonable" in different circumstances, but it is well settled that there are many cases where it is reasonable to search without a warrant. The clause of the 4th you quoted simply says if you get a warrant, it must be supported by probable cause. The existence of this clause creates a strong judicial preference for warrants -- a judge will require a warrant if there was any practical way to get one under the circumstances. But there are many "reasonable" searches that require neither a warrant nor even probable cause.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Well, sir, if privacy is just a luxury we can do without, would you mind sharing with use your real name, date of birth, full address, phone number, SSN (or whatever ID is used in the country of your residence), bank account numbers, a few choice passwords, etc.?
No?
Hmmm. How about the name, address, phone number and an accurate physical description of your current "significant other" and, while you're at it, please tell us how he or she is in bed, in as much elaborate detail as you can recall.
Also no?
Fine, Just take some digital pictures of your adorable children (or other pre-teen family members) in the shower and put them on a publicly accessible web page along with their names and the address of the school they go to.
Still no?
You know what, forget it. I'll just contact the establishments that have your personal info and ask them for it. Maybe install a tap on your phone line and a key logger on your computer as well and, just to be thorough, ask your cell phone company for some triangulation data.
What? I can't?
Bummer.
Hey, not a problem. There's this individual, Joe something-or-other, who's desperate to get a date with my cousin. She says he's not very bright but still sort of fun to see him go out of his way to impress her. Lately he's been telling her about his job in some law enforcement agency and how they're tracking suspected terrorists and that they can do all those things I talked about without needing a warrant or "probable cause" or anything because, let's face it, those pesky accountability issues just made their job harder so they got a couple of laws passed to get rid of them.
Anyway, I spoke to cuz and she believes Joe will do it if she's nice to him and pretends to be really interested in his boring stories. So you see, chum, not a problem!
Seriously, if you really think the 'average american' gave a damn about their rights, then why doesn't the Libertarian party get more recognition?
Why don't more people actually research candidates before voting instead of bitching after an election?
Lots of people like to point fingers, but I would rather they just shut their mouths. There are plenty of ways to actively work towards greater freedom (or towards more government control, welfare, or whatever you wish).
As a Representative Republic, elected leaders should do what is BEST in the interest of citizens regardless of what they are griping about with their shallow common knowledge. (this has no direct relation to 'freedoms' or being big brother).
I don't believe in gun control (let's see, compare the crime rates in Illinois..where guns are highly feered vs Kentucky with an open firearms policy). Armed citizens thwart criminals. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns regardless of any laws (duh..they are criminals).
On the other side, there are a few instances of when it isn't in the public's best interest to know what it takes to keep our country secure. Joe Public cannot handle the reality. Good example: most Americans don't want to visit slaughter houses to know what gets put into their hotdogs. They just want to eat them without being bothered with the details.
So on that note, most people never wanted to be bothered with the fact that the Echelon network has been inplace for longer than porn sites. Carnivore (FBI system) has been around for awhile too.
Why do you think 128bit export encryption was banned for so long?
Do you _really_ think that they are getting lax? How about the fact that technology exists to circumvent it? (oh, you thought the best cryptographers and graduates from Cornell, Harvard, Berkeley work at some company like Symantec or Microsoft???)
oh, and throw out the tinfoil hat. Tempest technologies suggest a hat made of thick Pb. And they are more stylish.
Gold? Why- gold and paper are the same- something we agree has value in order to facilitate trade. If you fear the dollar will implode, buy antibiotics and ammunition- things that would have real intrinsic use and thus value.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
And if you have probable cause then get a warrant and tap the line. But keeping a record of every call and communication that everybody makes on the off chance that a terrorist may have made a call? No way.
-sirket
You know, really, I think the government reactions to terrorism have and will hurt this country more than the destruction of two sky scrapers and the loss of thousands of lives. A good quote someone here on /. I think has in their sig, says something like "Terrorists can attack our freedom, but only Congress can destroy it." Isn't that the truth.
The more and more we limit people's freedoms, the more similar we become to the sick visions of people like Osama bin Laden. They want a world in which people have few if any freedoms, and where no one may dare diagree with Islam. We are moving in the direction of the first, and if you replace 'Islam' with 'our government', we might be headed towards that one as well.
What I'm saying is that, while terrorist attacks are horrible and despicable, having a "few" people die from terrorist attacks is far better IMHO than giving in to those terrorists who love to murder innocent civilians in cold blood and volunteering to give away our freedoms. Granted, this may be easy for me to say, as I have not been directly, personally affected(no one I know has been killed/injured/involved) by terrorism, but I would really like to think that I would still believe this even if I had been directly affected. I'm sure that probably wouldn't be the case though.
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
When socialism goes to an extreme it's called communism and when capiatlism goes to an extreme it can be called fascism. I think it's clear that in certain aspects, the government is shifting from a government for the people to a government that does nothing but serve corporate interests. The fear induced by the threat of terror is just a clever excuse/diversion. The grand irony I find in all of this is that if you want to get away from this you actually have to shift to the left. One of the only vocal members of the Senate who is standing up to this (Russ Feingold from Wisconsin) is a democrat.
http://www.stockmarketgarden.com/
What kind of words are not meant "to make us feel in the way the author wants us to"?
Unfortunately, the federalists were wrong.
Here in Australia our constitution was based on the very principle you refer to and includes no individual rights other than freedom of religion and the right to a trial in relation to certain types of offence. To this day a bill of rights is opposed, mainly be conservative politicians, because "we couldn't list all of our freedoms" and "it would be unneccessary" and so on.
Sadly, we have recently seen wave after wave of terrible, terrible legislation encroaching on the lives and freedoms of ordinary, innocent people. Refugees are treated like criminals rather than people who are likely to be seeking shelter and are detained in appalling conditions in the desert or on remote islands, potentially indefinitely. The original inhabitants of this country are marginalised and ignored. More fundamentally, every Australian is now subject to arbitrary and relatively unchecked laws relating to 'terrorism' which allow for extended periods of detention without trial and without a warrant. These laws are enthusiastically promoted by the police and security agencies. Australia has one of the highest rates of phone-tapping in the world, and also retains ridiculous sedition laws essentially making it illegal to criticise the government too strongly.
We have it worse than the US - at least you have SOME protected rights. We have none, and in times like these that means we are gradually losing them all. A bill of rights is essential in protecting basic freedoms, which are not inherent characteristics but human constructions and therefore must be protected by humans.
Read Pynchon.
I used to feel all idealistic and outraged about this, but by now I'm ready to face reality. Governments and media corporations are big and powerful; privacy-conscious individuals are tiny and weak. Most people don't care about privacy, because they simply do not understand it (and because they don't exercise their free speech rights anyway). After all, if you're not a terrorist, then you have nothing to hide -- right ?
So, I am pretty sure that the erosion of privacy is inevitable. It will happen sooner rather than later. Question is, how can a tiny, weak individual protect himself from the Homeland RIAA anti-terrorist piracy-fighting taskforce ? I can think of a few solutions, but all of them are sub-par.
So... any other bright ideas ?
>|<*:=
It's pretty obvious what "chilling effect" means. A "chilling effect" is a change in behavior on the part of a group because of a new perception of potential consequences of behavior, regardless of whether or not there actually ARE new consequences, or the perception is accurate.
I'm not sure why you think the term is so vague. Possibly you have never experienced one. Think of what happens when someone gets in trouble for doing something many people have done, eg, mp3-sharing at work. Lots of people will change their behavior even if the person who was caught was being scrutinized for some very specific other reason, because they would assume a policy of general scrutiny was in place.
more people die by car crashes, diseases, normal crime, etc etc.
Where are the billions spend to fight those?
That's true, but it hardly means that NAZI Germany was not a threat to our (the rest of the world) way of life.
The real lie about the holocaust that is perpetuated nowadays is that anti-semitimism and eugenics were common only in NAZI Germany, when they were actually a world wide social trend. Countries in Europe and America turned down boatloads of Jewish refugees, and many nations were considering their own laws on how to remove them from society. The nations invaded by Germany during WWII like to claim that it was the Germans doing, but something that big doesn't happen without popular support. Eugenics was the next big thing, and many believed it would be a cure to all disease, and all of societies societies social ills. They believed we would breed our way to a better society, by making people better.
If I call my friend up to chat about the old college days I absolutely have a right to privacy. What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business.
You are absolutely right there.
With regards to this new EU rule, the slashdot blurb of course doesn't mention this, but what they are going to store is the fact that you chatted to your friend between this and this time, but not the content of this conversation. While this is bad and stupid, it is not by far as bad as the blurb is trying to make it look.
Supposedly this is usefull to get an insight into the conenctions between individuals who might be involved in terrorist or criminal activities.
Of course, about all investigations resulting from attacks in the last half decade point at a lack of cooperation and not of information (usually the information was actually there), but who cares.
The more and more we limit people's freedoms, the more similar we become to the sick visions of people like Osama bin Laden. They want a world in which people have few if any freedoms, and where no one may dare diagree with Islam. We are moving in the direction of the first, and if you replace 'Islam' with 'our government', we might be headed towards that one as well.
See, judging from what I've heard of their material, what they're wanting is pretty much what most slashdotters seem to be wanting - the US government to get it's nose out of their business. What they want is the US to stop interfering in middle-eastern politics, and letting them get back to killing/getting killed by the Israelis. I'm the first to condemn terrorist methodology, but really, let's not get into demonizing our opponents. It's stupid, irrational, deceitful, and it clouds the real issues.
(Note to any outraged future posters: I am not endorsing terrorism, I am simply asking we look at their motivations analytically rather than emotionally)
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
In many ways privacy does protect that, and in a sense that's one of america's founding principals, that citizens reserve the right to become "terrorists" if the government gets out of hand. To the British, the american "rebels" were terrorists. This is the thing that scares me most about terrorism, it's persicuting an "idea" not a crime. The people who crashed a plane into the towers were MURDERERS -- who cares what their motivation is. It's like "hate crimes" - is it any worse to kill a random stranger than it is to kill someone because they're a certain race that you hate?
Also, if the government had just cause to think that those two friends were plotting to crash a plane into a building, then they should go to a court, state for the record what they think, and why, and with a judge's permission tap the phone for a certain amount of time. If it turns out they were wrong, they should tell the person and destroy all evidence. They shouldn't be able to get a secret warrant and never disclose what/why the did to anyone.
The whole idea is that there's supposed to be a balance. The balance is getting out of whack.
RandomAndInteresting.comdefending the world from stupidity since 1979
So whats the end game? This isn't going to work, so they'll double their efforts and try something doubly draconian and doubly futile.
A well encrypted ham signal should sound like static, but with it you can co-ordinate attacks just as easily as on the internet. Encrypted letters have been used to wage wars since the greeks. A well designed script can see the transmission of a childs christmas list turned into a plan for a bomb by encoding the white space. There arn't the resources to monitor every human / human interaction and a list of visited websites and voip calls isn't going to stop the next terroist attack.
You want to stop terrorism? Stop spreading the terror. 24 hour news does more for terrorism than the internet ever did. What's more valuble to a company: it's phone line or it's advertising? (Hint: phone lines weren't invented until the 20th century) But I would no more sanction the removal of the press, than I would the logging of the internet.
Every year 40,000 people are killed by traffic accidents in the USA alone. Thats a Madrid bombing every two days, or a London bombing every 5 hours, or a 9/11 every month. Its a tragedy, but your not going to stop it by bombing the hell out of Detroit and monitoring the sale of cars, you'll rust 'radicalise' those that you are trying to protect - isn't that what the right to arms is all about?
So is it the governments business if your planning an attact? Sure it is. But the result of a terrosist attack is never going to be as bad as the sanctions imposed trying to stop it from happening.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Ah, well it's because the dead can vote here. So they're counted too.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Quite so. What this all boils down to is a single question that our societies must answer: 'is freedom worth dying for?'
We certainly used to believe that the answer was 'yes'. Many of our ancestors died fighting various oppressors, be they warlike dictators or exploitative bosses or selfish aristocrats or slavers... They believed in freedom, and fought for it, and often died for it. Millions and millions of them.
Now, however, we're cowards. We aren't prepared to die for freedom. We're prepared to give up every last precious liberty in order to slightly reduce the risk of a few hundred or thousand people getting blown up every few years.
This is pathetic, and a horrible betrayal of what was fought for in the past. We're no longer prepared to die for freedom; we're prepared to give it all up to marginally reduce an already minor risk to our own precious lives. We suck.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Imagine a world in which everything every government (or other group in power) did was immediately 100% transparent to any observer. I can see no downsides to this whatsoever - the depressing thing is that it's eminently possible, equally sensible - but ultimately impossible.
The problem with this choice is that it is fundamentally different to the choice that is actually being offered. With this question you are offering a sure fire cast iron guarantee that you can stop a terrorist attack by using limited (time and scope) infringements of a limited number of peoples freedoms and privacy. If this was the case then everyone would vote to stop the attack.
The real choice being offered, however, is this: wide spread infringement of liberty for a (possibly) reduced risk of a future unknown terrorist attack. If this choice was offered to you would you opt for it? We don't know that there is even going to be another terrorist attack (although I think it's likely). We don't know where a future attack would take place. We don't know when a future attack would take place. There are so many variables that it is absurd to even think we can stop a terrorist if they really wanted to blow something up. It might be possible to lock down the airports and the subways but is it possible to lock down all the shopping centers, petrol stations, football stadiums, rock concerts, churches, theaters, etc, etc. There are just too many places to blow people up. Even if you did manage to secure all of those what about the roads. A terrorist willing to die for his cause could case havoc simply by deliberately crashing his car on a motorway.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Don't panic, it's just another European directive - we'll just ignore it like we do most of them. Even if somebody in power gives enough of a damn to enforce it, it will take ten years for them actually get around to it, and not without much grumbling and demands for the EU to actually fund its implementation, at which point it will get cut from the budget and quietly forgotten about.
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
Of course I'd want my family to live.
But lets change this situation to something closer to reality:
Let's imagine that the FBI comes to you one fine day and says: "Sir, we suspect that a terrorist attack will destroy a flight at some point. Incidentally, your entire family is going to be flying on a plane at some point. In order to possibly try to prevent it we need to stomp on the freedom and the rights of everybody in this country, including you and your family. Also it is almost a given that your family will be directly negatively affected by this - your daughters ex-boyfriend has made a call to the terrorist burning hotline in a fit of jealous rage, so she'll be vanishing soon. We'd like you to decide whether we should give you the illusion of security. And make it quick, you never know when they could strike again"
Even if you give up every right you ever have and become a slave to your government, you will not have made terrorism impossible, it will still be able to happen, and the side effect is that you will be living in fear like you wouldn't believe every damned day of your life, because that guy you just cut up? Might call the 'Witch / Terrorist buring hotline' with your license plate. You run a sucessful business? Your competitor can get the competative edge, whilst you are in solitary for planning to blow up a turnpike.
You need to ask yourself, IF these actions are taken will it solve the problem? Could you think of a way of doing it anyway? The answer is almost invariably NO, it wouldn't solve anything, but it would harm you. Remember the old saw: Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
How would ANY new laws bring back your dead loved ones? How would fewer rights bring them back either? How would living in a constant state of fear honor their memory? And most importantly, how would surrendering everything stop it happening again? Sure you can stop / make much harder a particular attack vector, but there are always new ways to do something... If you are alive, you are at risk, the only way to be safe is to die.
One last thing, how would you like to know that your innocent wife was locked up on death row about to die as an innocent casualty of the war on terror. That your new laws to protect your wife actually killed her? Because all this 'so some innocents will be caught in the net, its worth it to protect the rest of us' is fine, until you or those you love are the innocents lost for the cause....
Obviously you didn't. And being Americans and not Europeans you don't know anything about EU laws. 1: This is a directive, not a law. It has to be ratified by a member single state before being in effect in that state. 2: They don't record the content. They just record who called who, when and whit which username/telephone number/IMEI/cell. BUT the point is that... 3: They are already doing it. This is about retention, which means that they have to keep the data for a certain amount of time. What happens is that now you can delete the logs whenever, but after this will be ratified, you'll have to save the logs. BTW in most of the state this is already law (or good practise) and it's not like our freedom is compromised, luckily our privacy laws fork fine. To have access to these logs (in my country) a judge approval is needed.
several countries went from democracies to totalitarian governments and dictatorships in the space of a few months. A spotty fraction of this kind of information was used by these governments in europe to steal, inprison, starve, torture, rape and kill millions of european citizens, and their families and closer friends.
A few years ago in Europe, several countries which did not have totalitarian governments where invaded and conquered by countries that had them, and the same thing happened. Other "voluntarily" gave up a part of their soverignty to join as "allies". To pay for that "privilege", they put millions of their citizens at the mercy of those countries peacefully.
Those citizens weren't always jews.
In a few years we have NO guarantee of which kind of government we are going to have in our country. It may even be a government from a foreign power, or our country may be forced to join an "alliance".
Do you know what Hitler would do with this kind of information about you?
This is not only another salvo in the war for freedom, it means the ante just went up thousand-fold. It means there is no turning back, because everything is at stake.
People who have commited no crime will die because of this, and other, collected and stored information.
Democracy is no guarantee against the future.
Emmanuel Goldstein
DISCLAIMER: If you are a dictator of my country sometime in the future, this message is designed only to catch people likely of commiting thought-crimes.
Please mod this up doubleplusgood.
The "chilling effect" is already being felt by those of us that use photography as either a hobby or profession. We have to question the reaction we will get to photographing something in public.
I like to shoot cityscapes and industrial-looking areas as a hobby. I now regularly get stopped by either security guards or (very occasionally) the police. The security guards are always convinced that I am doing something strictly illegal (they *always* mention 9/11) and had better stop now. The police just want to know what I am doing.
Does this dampen my enthusiasm for taking those pictures? Sure. I feel like the mindset has taken hold that no one can do anything that even vaguely appears to be out of the ordinary. (Note that there are no laws, that I am aware of, the specifically forbid photographing anything in the public view, with the exception of military installations.) While I am not asserting that taking pictures of things in public is a right, it is also not illegal, so should not be abridged.
As an interesting sidenote, I believe corporations will use/are using this hysteria to increase their own level of 'privacy'. They can claim that photographing their facilities is contrary to 'national security', even when you are photographing from a public sidewalk. I'm sure this makes them feel 'more secure', and would allow them to hide potentially-illegal activity much more easily.
The commission (the executive branch of the EU government) which is generally the organ proposing laws is appointed by the heads of state of the member states of the EU - one appointee each, but must be approved by parliament (if parliament refuses approval, the heads of state will generally have to propose replacements, which has happened a few times - I don't know what would happen in the case of a stand off between the two).
The council of ministers consists of the ministers of the member states, and generally sits in groups of their respective areas (like when the agriculture ministers were used to try to push the patent directive through the council)
The council generally has the most power in terms of making law. The commission second, as they prepare the initial proposal. The parliament is a weak third.
The reason for that is that the council represents the governments of the member states, that still formally are sovereign nations. The council acts with the authority of those governments.
Thus the position of the parliament is comparable to the position of Congress in the US under the Articles of Confederation (note to those not familiar with US history: this has nothing to do with the Confederacy of the southern states around the civil war), before the constitution was enacted and the US became a federal republic. You also have the same pressures towards creating a more cohesive central government with actual power to enforce decisions as what lead to the US constitution.
(Of course it's highly contentious amongst people in the EU whether the EU should become a state or not - considering the ridiculous over-engineering of the proposed constitution i think we can be very happy it's moving slowly)
Let's say you knew ahead of time that a drunk driver will kill your family. Would you outlaw alcohol? Would you outlaw cars? We accept risky devices and behaviors that we know will kill people. It's part of being free.
This example is much better than yours, seeing as how drunk drivers kill about 20,000 Americans every year. Terrorists in the US killed about 3,000 people 4 years ago. Where is the $21B "War on Drunk Driving"?
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
The government hoax is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of hoaxes. It's the belief in non-existent "states" and "nations" and that "government" is both legitimate and necessary. In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the "United States," it's claimed only "government" can provide the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This is nonsense if only for the reason "government" has no duty to protect anyone and their property.
Another reason is: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. It's that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then "government" is not "necessary" to "protect" what doesn't exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don't "protect" them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of another nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire people who don't acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn't:
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.
What exactly is "government?" Have you ever seen a "government?" While there are varying degrees, "government" is one man violently controlling the life and property of another man. In some places this violent control is "decreed" to be for the latter's "own good" and "protection" and hailed as the "best system in the world." Because it's based on violence, there are no "states" or "nations," "states" being "voluntary associations." You may recognize that violent control over a man's life and property is what we like to call... slavery. Slavery is a form of "government," and in most cases, if not all, synonymous with "government." Govern means control, not protect. Have you ever noticed the word "protect" is mysteriously not included in any definitions of govern?
"govern. To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage. State v Ream, 16 Neb 681, 683." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
In "democracies" and so-called "democratic republics," slaves are given the false choice of choosing new masters. The old plantations can be seen as "political subdivisions" such as "cities," only smaller: "nations" have "presidents," "states" have "governors," "counties" have "commissioners," "cities" have "mayors" and plantations have masters.
"Government" is a group of men and women providing the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" at the barrel of a gun. We have no choice in accepting and paying for their wonderful services. Their services are so valuable we're compelled to accept and pay for them. And non-political libertarians and voluntaryists are the extremists?
To keep this short, I'll use statements from politicians themselves i.e., their sacred "law" that's worshipped, revered and most important, feared. Compare the following:
"tax. A forced burden, charge, exaction, imposition or contribution assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment by authority of a sovereign state upon the persons or property within its jurisdiction to provide for public revenue for the support of the government, the administration of the law, or the payment of public expenses. 51 AmJ1st Tax 3." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1255.
"The organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates. United States v McGlone (DC Pa) 19 F Supp 285, 286." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1051.
The first is a "kinder, gentler" way of descri
Slight nitpick: The Nazi government killed about 12 million people in the concentration camps. 6 million jews, and 6 million others; communists, homosexuals, deserters, criminals, and other "enemies of the state".
Let's say you knew ahead of time that a drunk driver will kill your family. Would you outlaw alcohol? Would you outlaw cars?
We don't outlaw alcohol, but we do restrict its sale and consumption. We also restrict the licensing for cars and revoke that licensing for drunk driving.
We accept risky devices and behaviors that we know will kill people. It's part of being free.
There is an inherent risk in using these things, but we don't accept the behavior you speak of. We give people the opportunity to use these things responsibly and take away those opportunities when they clearly demonstrate that they are incapable of using them responsibly.
Where is the $21B "War on Drunk Driving"?
It's not labeled "War on Drunk Driving" but if I had to guess how much money and time was spent on finding, arresting, processing, trying, convicting, and jailing just the drunk drivers in our country, I would not be surprised if we hit that amount every few years. Ask your local police officers how many drunk drivers they pick up every week and then multiply that by every other city, county, and state officer across the country. Factor in the time spent by the clerks, judges, guards, DMV workers, and all the other people that come into contact with these idiots and you're looking at a huge sum of money.
> just in case you haven't noticed, Slashdot != the federal government. Why exactly
> would the OP be obligated to release any details of his personal life to a private
> entity such as yourself?
Just in case you haven't noticed, that was exactly the point of my post, specifically the last part.
However, I'll try to state it in more clear terms:
Governments (federal and otherwise) are comprised of people. the same goes for law enforcement, intelligence, "secret service" and other governmental agencies.
Individual people, in general, have their own agendas. They can be dishonest, deceitful, jealous, vengeful, prone to criminal activity or just under pressure to perform wrongful acts.
Therefore implicitly trusting a group of individuals that you have never met is not a very good idea.
And the logical conclusion is that implicitly trusting a government or its agencies is not a very good idea.
The question that you need to ask yourself is: is there a chance that my private information will be abused?
Most of the SlashDot tinfoil-hat crowd fear governmental abuse but I believe that abuse by individuals is at least as likely.
Now, I can live with some loss of privacy, provided I trust the safeguards against abuse but, unfortunately, given the incidents of policemen planting evidence and getting off with "a note in their permanent record", I do not have this trust.
If the constitution (or the equivalent) of a country said something to the effect of "any person in a position of power or authority who is found guilty of abusing their power or authority shall have their genitals publicly mauled by a pack of rabid rats" and there were significant safeguards implemented to ensure that a large number of violators are caught, convicted, and punished accordingly, then I would be satisfied that the risk of abuse is low enough for me to trust a government.
The motto of the Spider-man movie was "with great power comes great responsibility". I believe in a different motto "with great power there should come a great fear". Because responsibility is just an empty word, easily brushed aside unless backed by a real fear of the consequences of abusing this responsibility.
Until that day comes, I don't want their prying hands anywhere near my information.
Any private information that has the potential of being misused must remain private unless there is a *really* good cause for the government to peek at it, and then there should be a rigorous process of examining the cause, approving the *limited* invasion of privacy and safeguarding the data, with lots of people involved and each one *accountable* for their decisions and actions.
Freedom is not when the people fear the government, it's the other way around.
They're is no rules similar to the Patriot Act or anything similar yet in Canada. But the politician speeches are showing that they are slowly preparing the canadian population for it, for the sake of "security", of course.
This is interesting, because only on theses times we see which principles are held serious and which are not. Freedom of expression and the rights for privacy are always the first things to fall when things are getting "serious". Just like it's a favor they're doing to us when we're good kids.
Ok. But who's going to control THEM while they control us?
as you can see here infringment of intellectual propriety is one of "crimes" that they want to fight
Come on, we're *far* ahead of Europe in moving towards 1984. We've got Goldstein, er, Osama, Bush, Rove et al are re-"purposing" why they invaded Iraq almost daily, the GOP has completely and totally forgotten every reason they gave for impeaching President Clinton*, and the media, at least until the last month, has almost exclusively reported what the White House and the GOP wanted, denigrating any opposition.
mark "I am not a number, I am a free radical!"
* draft dodger
smoked dope (ignore Bush & cocaine)
lied to Congress
sent troops in without proper equipment
sent too few troops in
no exit strategy
nation building
etc, etc, etc...
However, we don't have traffic cameras, or tollroads, or grocery store cards, or neighborhood policemen (or even much of a police presence at all).
In other words, my friends and neighbors know what I'm doing, but the government has no idea at all (except where "the government" is my friends and neighbors, like the IRS guy I go to lodge with). That's a fundamental difference, in my opinion.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
ok, from the telephony standpoint, those records are already collected. It's called a Call Detail Record, it notes things you'd expect like origination number, termination number, billing number, dialed digits plus things you might not such as interconnect call time, switching addresses, etc. It gets used for diagnostic information, billing, system monitoring (as in, how well phones are being switched, failure rates, etc).
In the US, that information can also be requested for police use, but requires a subpoena.
Retention of the records varies by state. IIRC, Florida has the longer of the retention laws, at around 5 years.
Dump the IRS - http://www.fairtax.org
There is always a plethora of pedantic jackasses on Slashdot. First off- try quoting everything I said and not what you want to cherry pick.
What I said was: "If I call my friend up to chat about the old college days I absolutely have a right to privacy. What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business."
Let me restate this in a way that will make you happy- "The government has ABSOLUTELY no right to UNILATERALLY log or monitor the calls of it's citizens."
Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Letter to William Duane, 1803.
How can one work to keep the government in check, or overthrow it if necessary if the government can keep complete track of a persons communications?
Government agencies have been snooping through packets the whole time.. the only difference is now they can do it without "guilt" thanks to new relative laws. It is easy to do.. even in 1989, a 15 year old kid could hack into something like the JANET (Yugoslavian Packet Switching Network) and rule supreme unnoticed.
The truth is that society hasnt changed that much over the last few thousand years.. it is just getting easier to persecute folks for their "sins".
Sure sure. . . crime and terrorism and child porn. Certainly most people in their right mind are against child porn. I certainly would consider taking justice into my own hands if someone were to put my children in such a situation. And, yes, terrorism is terrorism. Whether you are a CIA contractor torturing prisoners, a soldier killing innocent civilians 'accidentally', or even the real deal Jihad warrior with your holy cruise missile buried deep in sand, terrorism is terrorism.
However, this is just a big scam for governments to launder more money. Child porn will not be reduced but they will certainly say that they reduced it by 25% as soon as they get a few more scapegoats for the new 'program'. Agencies will claim that it has helped decrease crime and terrorism by some arbitrary percentage. The only real solution is the Muslim extremist approach. It will save all countries extreme amounts of money. Hang child porn sickos in the middle of town and broadcast it on TV nationally. If you think this would be inhumane, then obviously you have never been molested or had gangs kidnap your little sister and threaten to kill her if you testify. You want to stop crime? feed the poor and hungry! Maybe the world needs a new Marie Antoinette to hang as well. Want to stop terrorism? Its simple. Stop creating it. Quit financing wars and switching sides every 20 years to hedge your bets. It has nothing to do with the internet. Say bye bye to all those tax dollars - they wont be used to help you or anyone you know!
Has anyone done the math on the amount of storage that this will take? Seriously - it seems like it is a good time to be selling hard drives. And who the hell is going to be responsible for administrating this mess? Are gov't employees in the UK better than gov't employees here in the states?