Defending Against Surveillance?

Extrudedaluminiu asks: "With the recent news about domestic spying by the NSA, American citizens are put in a very difficult situation. Citizens in other countries, around the globe, also find themselves in situations where their lives can be examined by government agencies or other groups of questionable ethics. What can people in this kind of world do to defend themselves? Are there any approaches to thwarting or mitigating surveillance that will work on a mass scale? What technologies can people use to hold on to their freedoms, in a difficult world?"

Comments

Stuff That Doesn't Work

[nuintari]

I can assure, anything you saw in enemy of the state is pure bullshit. sweeping the room with an AM radio,while switching channels.... hello? other frequency ranges? Sticking strange decies in your spent potatoe chips bags won't do squat either, Mylar is just sooo reflective.

Coat Hangers in the ceiling does nothing, nor does the tinfoil/aluminum foil hat.

Anyone else know any good ones that are just utter bunk?

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[Anonymous Coward]

What will work is mass disobedience. Surveillance systems work only if they have clues that they can look out for that stand out in some way. The simplest way to, say, make it impossible for a request for the original translation of the little red book to be flagged, is for loads of people to request it.

So if you can convince large numbers of people, if possible a majority, to continually perform acts which might flag systems like Echelon, eg. by continually generating and sending emails containing keywords like "bomb" and "kill the president" and things like that, you will render their effectiveness null.

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[lynzh]

At the private car where I sometimes work there were police cars running by frequently, sniffing here and there. After some weeks of policemen harrasment we had our lawyer file a complaint about being harrased at our 'hobby shed'. Since then I haven't seen any policecars on the prowl.

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[technos]

weeping the room with an AM radio,while switching channels.... hello? other frequency ranges?

Actually, this used to work with early miniature transmitters. In an effort to keep them small, very little attention was paid to what undesirable RF was being thrown off by the device.

Re: Stuff That Doesn't Work

[Black Parrot]

> Coat Hangers in the ceiling does nothing, nor does the tinfoil/aluminum foil hat.

Sure they do. After spending a few hours watching you putting up the hangers and making the hat, they'll write you off as a kook and spend their time spying on someone else.

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[Philip K Dickhead]

Posting provocative JE's on slashdot!

Sure to to get me & my friends list into at least 'tier-2' on these lists.

Google is their "Echelon for the Internet." Look into the background of Schmidt.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/03/google .privacy.reut/index.html
http://www.google-watch.org/jobad.html

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[Anonymous Coward]

What will work is mass disobedience. Surveillance systems work only if they have clues that they can look out for that stand out in some way. The simplest way to, say, make it impossible for a request for the original translation of the little red book to be flagged, is for loads of people to request it.

So if you can convince large numbers of people, if possible a majority, to continually perform acts which might flag systems like Echelon, eg. by continually generating and sending emails containing keywords like "bomb" and "kill the president" and things like that, you will render their effectiveness null.

M-x spook

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[TheWanderingHermit]

Bzzztttt!

Appeal to Fear.

Well known logical fallacy.

You lose. Try again.

Other examples:
"You know, Professor Smith, I really need to get an A in this class. I'd like to stop by during your office hours later to discuss my grade. I'll be in your building anyways, visiting my father. He's your dean, by the way. I'll see you later."

"I don't think a Red Ryder BB rifle would make a good present for you. They are very dangerous and you'll put your eye out. Now, don't you agree that you should think of another gift idea?"

"You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of hell."

"You shouldn't say such things against multiculturalism! If the chair heard what you were saying, you would never receive tenure. So, you had just better learn to accept that it is simply wrong to speak out against it."

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll never catch you if you post anonymously.

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[Nutria]

"I don't think a Red Ryder BB rifle would make a good present for you. They are very dangerous and you'll put your eye out. Now, don't you agree that you should think of another gift idea?"

You've never seen A Christmas Story, have you?

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you need to wake up! "IF" ... are you serious, are you that uneducated and ignorant, or maybe illiterate, or just too damn lazy to read? It is because of uneducated [m]asses like yourself that throw away our freedoms that the founding fathers of the US put in place Electoral College. So, the ignorant masses can not become the feared Machiavelli's "tyranny of the majority".

Go to www.google.com/unclesam and do a search for Carnivore, or Echeleon, or whatever you fits your fancy. Go read already!

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
- Benjamin Franklin Let me translate what our founding father here was trying to say: "if you don't want freedom move to china...bitch!

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Your tinfoil hat needs adjusting. I recommend you take a break and see if you can go a day without watching Enemy of the State.

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[Keebler71]

I can assure you I am significantly more informed about this subject than you are. Regardless, you need to learn that reading has nothing to do with being knowledgeable.

I you want me to "read up" on Echeleon, fine. Here are some other google searches for you as well:

ahref=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1& q=abominable+snowman&spell=1rel=url2html-23792http ://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&q=abominab le+snowman&spell=1>

ahref=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=loch+ne ss+monster&btnG=Google+Searchrel=url2html-23792htt p://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=loch+ness+monste r&btnG=Google+Search>

ahref=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ufo&btn G=Google+Searchrel=url2html-23792http://www.google .com/search?hl=en&q=ufo&btnG=Google+Search>

Just because you can google it, doesn't make it true.

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[man_ls]

Appeal to fear, in fact, isn't a logical fallacy at all -- it's one of the central routes to persuasion.

That said, it doesn't always work. Those items specified above, almost certainly wouldn't work, because they lack many of the elements necessary to make a fear appeal successful.

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[TheWanderingHermit]

There is a big difference between persuasion and logic. For example, if you ever have a chance to hear an Amway/Quixtar "dealer" give their sales pitch, it is VERY presuasive, but devoid of logic and long on mis-truths. They're just so wrapped up in it, they don't see that.

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[Anonymous Coward]

"Appeal to fear" isn't a logical fallacy per se. There's really been no attempt to model it in a first order predicate calculus system, therefore it's not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is something that can be modelled in a system such as that and proven false. "Appeal to fear" is a rhetorical technique, and sometimes quite effective. It doesn't mean it's right or proves anything, but it's a very loose definition of "logic" to have "appeal to fear" be included as a logical fallacy.

Re:Stuff That Doesn't Work

[psykocrime]

How will that make you feel?

I, for one, would feel a great deal of anger at the individuals who committed the act. Which, coincidentally enough, is the same way I'd feel if it happened now.


Are tens of thousands of lives worth losing the right to make international calls freely with known terrorist networks (that is the limit of scope of the most recent NSA revelations).


Those tens of thousands of people are going to die one day, regardless... and a great many of them would probably say that they would rather die than live without freedom. "Live Free or Die" still means something to some people. Ultimately, none of us are guaranteed any certain lifespan, or is anybody else responsible for our safety. It may sound cruel, but it's reality. If you're worried about dying in a 9/11 style attack, you do have the option of moving out into the Montana wilderness somewhere and living a Unabomber lifestyle. Remember, neither you nor I (nor anyone else) is *entitled* to any certain lifestyle or standard of living.


If such systems as Echelon exist, they do serve a useful purpose albeit they may have the possibility of infringing our rights.

If they are controlled by an authoritarian government, and they *can* be used to infringe our rights, it's guaranteed that they *will* be used to infringe our rights. History should have taught us all this lesson by now. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and all that...


How about we instead focus our energies to make sure they are used appropriately following due processes of law instead of trying to render them completely "ineffective" even for the worst cases for which they were designed.


Because it's impossible. Because the government A. controls the "rules", B. prosecutes people for violating the "rules" and C. controls the judges who run the trials. To expect to be able to force a government to obey it's own rules, when it willingly violates them, is naive. The government should not be "above the law" but in practice is pretty much always is. And it's getting more and more that way, because too many people are too willing to sit on their asses and watch it happen.

Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[Pyromage]

For Gods sake people, what's wrong with you?! Write your Senators & Reps, and if they don't do anything, then vote these assholes out of office when the elections come! Donate money to the ACLU.

Seriously people, technologies won't help you hold on to your freedoms. There's no silver bullet. You have to do it for yourselves!

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[rkcallaghan]

For Gods sake people, what's wrong with you?! Write your Senators & Reps, and if they don't do anything, then vote these assholes out of office when the elections come! Donate money to the ACLU.

Seriously people, technologies won't help you hold on to your freedoms. There's no silver bullet. You have to do it for yourselves!

What do you suggest if:
* - Our Senators & Representatives are bought off / unreachable.
* - Our voting machines are rigged and we're unable to vote them out of office.
* - While being monitored, we have no means of collaboration and organization to form a revolution.
* - Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.

You can disagree with me whether the first two are true or not; that's okay. This is a theoretical discussion which ultimately lands square on the third one. The fourth is provided for clarity.

~Rebecca

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[mattwarden]

And what shall I do while I'm spending all of my free time trying to educate a population who is rather uninterested with invasions of privacy? How can I protect myself until enough elections pass to get a critical mass of responsible Congressmen elected?

What's wrong with me? What's wrong is that I realize that when push comes to shove, I have to be able to defend myself, no matter what idiot gets elected (unfortunately, I do not control the entire electorate... yet).

You can't just dismiss the question. That's nearly as bad as accepting the situation. You're obviously opposed to the invasions of privaciy and destruction of liberties. Tell me, how much time to you devote to getting freedom-protecting people elected? How much do you donate to the ACLU? Did you vote for crappy presidential candidate #1 or crappy presidential candidate #2 in the last election (forgive my assumption that you're an American; it's really just rhetorical here).

It doesn't say "You have these rights, as long as you devote all your time to politics" in the Constitution. What's wrong with using legal means as well as reasonable political means to protect one's freedoms and privacy?

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[Planesdragon]

* - Our Senators & Representatives are bought off / unreachable.

Run against them, or support someone to run against them.

* - Our voting machines are rigged and we're unable to vote them out of office.

File suit in federal district court. Election fraud causing more than the margin of error of a difference is provable in court, and worst comes to worst there's always the option of a recall election.

* - While being monitored, we have no means of collaboration and organization to form a revolution.

Your revolution should START with the collaboration and organization. Our system of government was designed to have bi-annual non-violent revolutions. The Republicans did it, the Civil Rights movement did it, the pro-alcohol lobby did it, and the prohibition movement did it.

* - Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.

With a just cause and a convincing argument of actual fraud on the part of the elected government, you can expect the United States military to fracture and bring the weapons for you. The oath is "defend the consitution", not "defend the President."

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[Nutria]

What do you suggest if:
* - Our Senators & Representatives are bought off / unreachable.
* - Our voting machines are rigged and we're unable to vote them out of office.
* - While being monitored, we have no means of collaboration and organization to form a revolution.
* - Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.

Commit murder-suicide on your family because there's no hope?

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[ndansmith]

* - Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.

I suggest you do what Mahatma Gandhi did in India.

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[Pig Hogger]

What do you suggest if:* - Our Senators & Representatives are bought off / unreachable.

Picket them. Force your way towards them.

* - Our voting machines are rigged and we're unable to vote them out of office.

Smash them.

* - While being monitored, we have no means of collaboration and organization to form a revolution.

Overwhelm the surveillance with bogus data.

* - Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.

Just do nothing at all. Bring everything to a screeching halt.

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[Weird_one]

You missed one, the first and most important one.

*- How do you convince a large enough percentage of the populace that freedom is worth dying for, and especially more than that new Celine Dion CD, and their SUV?

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[aminorex]

That depends on your oppressors having a conscience. Not applicable to the U.S.

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[PaulBu]

Seriously people, technologies won't help you hold on to your freedoms.

YMMV, but in my book guns and strong crypto count as "technologies", also quite suitable for defending one's personal freedon in the short run. In longer run, all other "technologies" which tend to make people more productive and richer/more self-sufficient generally work towards for protecting their freedoms as well.

There's no silver bullet.

I guess there are, but lead tend to be cheaper... ;-)

I am not sure myself if the original question was more of a troll asking for educated guesses on the most fashionable shapes in tinfoil hat design, but it would still be entertaining. Offering a political solution to a technological question is taking the question itself a bit too seriously.

Paul B.

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Tell me, how much time to you devote to getting freedom-protecting people elected? How much do you donate to the ACLU?

He could devote every waking second to getting them elected. He could donate his last red cent to the ACLU. Wouldn't do a bit of good. Not one.

I don't expect him to sacrifice his own life to that, either. It's too much to ask, knowing the outcome beforehand. Legal means might have worked up until recent history, but they no longer do. There's a point that if corruption creeps past it, all the safeguards don't work anymore. That point has been passed. Didn't you notice?

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[Anonymous Coward]

Why donate money to a leftist organization like the ACLU? They will sell you out as quickly as anyone else.

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[stanmann]

If the majority of your populace is more interested in Celine Dion and an SUV than "being oppressed" then by definition THEY AREN'T UNDER OPPRESSION. but thats just MHO

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[SamLJones]

Donating to the ACLU would only work if the ACLU actually cared about liberties. The ACLU does far more to reduce liberties than it does to enhance/defend them.

Re:Ballot boxes, envelopes, and postage

[Weird_one]

I wasn't attempting to state they were oppressed. I was attempting to state that they are complacent sheep giving up all their freedoms for a few toys. That, their ignorance and lack of concern for their former right to privacy, free assembly, and free speech, don't seem to matter to them as long as they have their distractions. Unfortunately, one day they just might see why once we fought and died for those freedoms while they watch their family and friends being arrested or killed for "subversive actions".

I have the Answers!

[saden1]

A Tinfoil Hat is the Answer!

Re:I have the Answers!

[hayesjaj]

Nope, that doesn't work either.

Re:I have the Answers!

[DocOmega]

From Wikipedia:
While tin-foil hats may have originated in some understanding of the Faraday cage effect, the use of such a hat to attenuate radio waves belongs properly to the realm of pseudoscience.

Article is here.

So tinfoil hats don't work. We need to legislate this problem away, not wear funny metal hats. The problem is that few are aware of the privacy issues, and fewer still who care enough to pick up the phone. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard the "well if you've nothing to hide, then what does it matter" arguement, I'd be buying Dom Perignon.

No, it'd be too obvious

[A beautiful mind]

I can't say that, no, that'd be blatantly obvious...

Tinfoil hats!

I couldn't resist...

Re:No, it'd be too obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

They capped the Washington Monument with aluminum, and look how much good that did!

being better citizens ?

[metalcup]

Pehaphs by being more proactive as citizens, and demanding and electing the right set of people to legislate. This, IMO, whould be a permanent solution - we could keep developing ways of evading 'surveillance', but the the agencies would just develop something better - wouldn't they ? FP, btw :D

Re:being better citizens ?

[godglike]

There is no permanent solution. Voting in the "right people" is only temporary since people change, retire, and have to be replaced. You have to keep on asking yourself if you can still trust the politicians you have.

Move to Canada.

[keesh]

Move to Canada. I hear they still have a few remaining civil liberties here.

Re:Move to Canada.

[Nutria]

I hear they still have a few remaining civil liberties here.

Like the recommendation by the former Ontario Attorney General that sharia be allowed as the law in family courts?

Thank Atheism your post was modded funny!

Re:Move to Canada.

[belmolis]

That was to be voluntary, only for Muslims, and in any case was NOT implemented. In fact, the Ontario government not only decided against this proposal, it now plans to abolish all use of religious law in the legal system, including the Jewish courts, which have not been a problem.

Re:Move to Canada.

[mi]

Move to Canada. I hear they still have a few remaining civil liberties here.

For goodness sake, they don't even have a Constitution!

Huge actual holes in the civil liberties also exist -- one of the provinces, for example, mandates the use of a certain language in public life.

Re:Move to Canada.

[Nutria]

That was to be voluntary, only for Muslims, and in any case was NOT implemented.

And I did indicate that it was a recommendation.

Let's talk, then, about Canadian freedom from politically incorrect speech.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bernstein200 312020910.asp
http://www.zerointelligence.net/archives/000565.ph p
http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/battles/vancouve r/doug_collins.html

Re:Move to Canada.

[Haeleth]

For goodness sake, they don't even have a Constitution!

And since when has a constitution ever been anything more than a piece of paper with words on it?

Did the fact that the US has a constitution prevent millions of African Americans being held as slaves? Not for the first 80 years of its existence. There were 12 amendments on other matters before the government finally got round to adding a ban on slavery to their text.

Did the fact that the US has a constitution then guarantee the newly freed African Americans the same rights as Americans of other ethnicities? No, segregation persisted for another century after that.

Did the fact that the US has a constitution prevent other abuses of rights and liberties, such as the prohibition of alcohol or the internment of Japanese Americans (most of whom were full US citizens)? Nope.

Does it today prevent abuses like mentally disabled people being executed for crimes they don't even understand, or people being executed for crimes they committed as a child? No. Does it enable you to exercise your rights of free speech and free assembly by holding a banner critical of the president somewhere where he might see it? No. Does it even prevent obviously ludicrous violations of people's rights like the "three strikes" laws? Why, no, the Supreme Court has actually found that it is constitutional to jail someone for 25 years to life for stealing a slice of pizza!

Man, that's some constitution you guys have. I wish my country had something like that. No, really.

Re:Move to Canada.

[Clover_Kicker]

> For goodness sake, they don't even have a Constitution!

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/

Re:Move to Canada.

[belmolis]

Yes, you mentioned that it was a recommendation, but not that it would have been voluntary and restricted to Muslims or it had already been definitively rejected.

On the subject of laws against hate speech, I agree that they are wrong, but that's another topic. Overall civil liberties in Canada are in good shape, better than the great majority of other countries, but it is true that there are areas, such as the hate speech laws, that could use improvement.

Re:Move to Canada.

[Nutria]

Yes, you mentioned that it was a recommendation, but not that it would have been voluntary and restricted to Muslims or it had already been definitively rejected.

Yes, but that was spelled out in the article.

Doh! (Slaps head) Forgot this is Slashdot...

Re:Move to Canada.

[belmolis]

It's one thing to expect people to read the main article. It's another thing to expect people to read an article linked from a comment. The point is, anybody reading your comment and taking it at face value is likely to think that Ontario is seriously considering imposing Sharia law on everybody. The fact that the person who reads the linked article will discover that that isn't true doesn't change the fact that making the statement without the necessary qualifications is misleading.

Re:Move to Canada.

[SleepyHappyDoc]

Move to Canada. I hear they still have a few remaining civil liberties here.

That's because there's a federal election campaign right now, and they're lying to us so we'll vote for them.

Re:Move to Canada.

[WoodieR]

you are joking, right ? my sarkie detector is on, but it ain't being triggered ...

Re:Move to Canada.

[Detritus]

Did the fact that the US has a constitution prevent other abuses of rights and liberties, such as the prohibition of alcohol or the internment of Japanese Americans (most of whom were full US citizens)? Nope.

Prohibition did require a constitutional amendment (Eighteenth Amendment). The sad thing is that after Franklin Roosevelt and his abuse of the Constitution, the federal government would not bother amending the constitution to enact a similar ban. It would just assert that it had the power to do as it pleases.

Re:Move to Canada.

[Anonymous Coward]

Move to Canada. I hear they still have a few remaining civil liberties here.

No, in fact we don't.

Freedom of speech? Hah! The Liberal government passed a law preventing anyone besides a political party from buying ad time on TV. Want to buy a 30 second spot to complain about the vast corruption in the Liberal party? Can't.

Be boring

[Weasel Boy]

I'm sorry, but if they want you, they pretty much have you. Your only hope is to be so utterly dull that nobody wants you. You pretty much have to have no life whatsoever. Since you're asking for advice on Slashdot, I'd say you're safe.

easy

[awgriff279]

To start with encrypt your email use your firewall have strong password protestion etc...

One word

[bioglaze]

One word: cryptography

No Electronics

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

If you have some information that you think is worth keeping, DON'T use electronics to store it. It seems that governments are focusing more on computers than on stuff printed or written on paper and hidden well. If you don't give them 1's and 0's to look at, they might not see anything at all. Just my $.02.

Re:No Electronics

[Chris6502]

Better keep your colour printouts well hidden. The machine identification code will tell them when it was printed and on what printer. See http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/

Vote

[Karma Farmer]

There's a super secret high-tech black box invented by the ancient g(r)eeks that is designed to protect your freedoms. It's regular, educated use will prevent survellience. I suggest everyone learn to use one.

It's called a "ballot box."

Re:Vote

[OzPeter]

Yeah .. I have heard of these .. along with this company called Diebold ... I hear that they are very supportive of the electoral process.

I think I can generalise that a lot of people don't trust the electoral process anymore. And even if the contest is honest, the main political parties seem to act in very similiar ways (probably due to the amount of special interest money floating around).

I am not sure how to reverse this trend of feeling that the government is screwing the electoral process and the people all at the same time. I think it would take electing some pretty impressive politicians, but I suspect that the electoral process also tends to weed out those sort of people.

Cynical, yes. But I think this is a serious problem - How do you get people involved if they feel no connection between what they do and what the government does.

NOTE that I am not pinning this on republicans or democrats, but rather the process in general.

Re:Vote

[slavemowgli]

Ballot boxes only work when you (i.e., the population in general) actually have a chance to *choose* between different policies. If it's choosing between two evils that, for 95% of all cases, will screw you over in the same way, then you don't actually have a choice, and the ballot box is just a pseudodemocratic legitimation device for a corrupt system where laws go to the highest bidder.

Re:Vote

[wulfhound]

Amen!! I get the feeling we're being governed by the kind of corporate middle managers (Bush, Blair...) who might make VP, but never CEO or Chairman. The interesting question is, who really /does/ hold all the power now? Ignoring all the idiot conspiracies about giant green lizards -- there seems to be a huge accumulation of wealth and power going up the chain, but where does it actually end up?

Re:Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a super secret high-tech black box invented by the ancient g(r)eeks that is designed to protect your freedoms. It's regular, educated use will prevent survellience. I suggest everyone learn to use one.
It's called a "ballot box."

Unfortunately, the effectiveness of the ballot box is directly proportional to the level of education and intelligence of its users.

Have you read any of the comments on other websites about this whole surveillance thing? There are millions upon millions of sheep out there bleating "oh, but they're not spying on me, so it's okay." And "but they have to spy on us to protect us, so it's okay." And "but I don't have anything to hide, so it's okay."

The ballot box will only prevent abuses of your rights if a majority of the people you have to share it with firstly recognise that there is a risk of abuse, and secondly, critically, care about the abuse. If they don't, then they'll happily vote for your rights to be abused.

Kind of like how the German people in the 1930s happily voted for a guy called Hitler, who told them he could protect them from the evil Jews and communists who'd set fire to the Reichstag...

I'll leave it to other people to risk Godwin's wrath by drawing the all-too-obvious analogies with recent events in the USA. Let it suffice to say that if the ballot box guaranteed any protection from tyranny, there would not have been a second world war or a holocaust.

Re:Vote

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

General conspiracy theory crap would tell you that its old european families like the Rothschilds.

Not sure that it's them, or any of the other names bandied around. But, I think they got it basically right, and its one or even a few families that have made an art of not really being noticed publically.

Re:Vote

[voice_of_all_reason]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

Might as well go all the way!

[mister_llah]

With 1984 and McCarthy era paranoia "in" this year, my advice to everyone is to turn in as many people who act suspiciously as possible... to draw attention away from yourself!

Re:Might as well go all the way!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

OK, I'll start. I believe the following people have been acting suspiciously, and may represent a serious danger to our fundamental way of life here in the UK. I suggest that they be arrested and put on trial as soon as possible.

• Tony Blair
• Charles Clarke
• David Blunkett
• Jack Straw
• George W Bush
• Donald Rumsfeld
• Dick Cheney

Re:Might as well go all the way!

[VJ42]

You don't want to go around talking like that, special branch and MI5 will be at you door before you know it. Our only hope is to vote Monster Raving Looney. At least then we'll have honest politicians ;p

Re:Might as well go all the way!

[Nutria]

You don't want to go around talking like that, special branch and MI5 will be at you door before you know it.

Move to the USA. You can say/write/publish all sorts of nasty things about W/Cheney/Rumsfeld and no one will touch you.

Just don't advocate harm to them. Then you might get sent to Guantanimo....

Re:Might as well go all the way!

[TheGratefulNet]

Jack Straw

"we can share the women, we can share the wine..." ;)

Re:Might as well go all the way!

[TubeSteak]

You forgot * * Beatles Beatles.

His abuse of the /.'s PageRank makes him a threat to websites everywhere.

Re:Might as well go all the way!

[WoodieR]

sir, if you are listing the true threats to freedom, life, liberty, and the happiness of pursuit, then you must include Canadians Jean Chretien, and Paul Martin ...

You "hear" that they remain?

[Short Circuit]

Have you actually observed any of them? :)

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[jsmyth]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the good ol' UK, failing to provide deryption keys when they are demanded will get you 2 years in jail.

Dont forget we have a Bush suckup running things here.

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[djsmiley]

And how often do you have people demanding keys off you, and if you've done nothing wrong (my point in the first place) why would they?!

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[Short Circuit]

You trust the system of a country with cameras on every corner, and a government that wants to hold you for 90 days so they have enough evidence to charge you with something?

Our judicial system on this side of the pond may have once been similar to yours, but you guys seem to be going down the 1984 route a lot faster than we are.

Manual Typewriter, Multiple identical Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Go do all of your important work on a manual typewriter, no carbon paper, type each copy required. Keep multiple identical cars—made before they started putting all of these advanced computers in cars—inside of a three-car [or more] garage, and keep some people in your house for fodder, so that if they are following from above, they don't know which one is you [they do this for the president and celebrities, so why not you?]

Note: Obviously none of us do—or will do—this, as we are too busy online, posting on slashdot.

Re:Manual Typewriter, Multiple identical Cars

[innocent_white_lamb]

Go do all of your important work on a manual typewriter, no carbon paper, type each copy required.
 
Won't work. Text can be recovered from the typewriter ribbon. With a film ribbon you can read directly off of the ribbon; with a new cloth ribbon you could probably do the same. A worn cloth ribbon might be harder to deal with, but I'm pretty sure that it could be done.

Heeelllloooooo

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think he posted that? He KNOWS they're watching!

accept it

[pizpot]

The best strategy is to accept the loss of freedom. Otherwise, it will look as though the terrorists had won, and destroyed the heart of the western world.

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Arrests under anti-terror legislation since 11 September 2001: 10,000s.

Convictions under anti-terror legislation since 11 September 2001: 10s.

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

So slashdot is a help forum for psychotics?

[heinousjay]

I guess maybe I'll start getting advice on how to soothe my mental illnesses on Slashdot soon, too. We'll start with my sex addiction.

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

You trust the system of a country with cameras on every corner, and a government that wants to hold you for 90 days so they have enough evidence to charge you with something?

The government doesn't want to hold us for 90 days before charging us. They voted on it, they don't want it. The prime minister wanted it. He couldn't convince the rest of the government that it was a good idea.

Our judicial system on this side of the pond may have once been similar to yours, but you guys seem to be going down the 1984 route a lot faster than we are.

Not really. We've had terrorist detentions since the 80s, which was part of the response to the IRA. We've had cameras on the streets for as long as I can remember. Things aren't getting rapidly worse, despite recent terrorist attacks, our laws are remaining quite stable.

You know what? There isn't massive abuse. Sure, there's one or two incidents where somebody fucked up, but we don't have secret police, we have privacy (in fact, we have laws protecting our privacy, which is more than can be said for you guys), we have free association, and all those things that are antithetical to 1984.

Compare that with you holding files on peaceful protestors, with you actually having terrorist detentions that are demonstrably wrong, with you torturing your prisoners... it seems that you are much further along than the UK. Seriously, you held UK citizens as terrorists for years, and when we finally had them released to us, we responded by saying "Huh? There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that these guys are terrorists", and promptly let them go. Are you really so convinced that we are further along than you? Because of a few cameras and a failed attempt at passing a stupid law?

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[Threni]

What if you want to do something that's not wrong, but it is illegal? What if a future government introduced laws similar to those of Nazi Germany in the 1930's? Maybe it becomes illegal to shelter Muslims. You're saying you'd not do that because it's illegal? Or you've convinced yourself that "that couldn't happen here"?

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[heinousjay]

Yeah, it looks like a bunch of terrorists are getting off on legal technicalities.

Defending Against Surveillance?

[Black Parrot]

Get fat and walk around naked.

Don't make it easy

[linuxwrangler]

Encrypt everything. Don't make it obvious what is important and what isn't and force "them" to waste lots of processor cycles to get Aunt Betty's cobbler recipe. I'm planning to convert all my web sites to HTTPS.

Also, help throw up smoke screens. Spare bandwidth can be used to send random garbage - some of it should be truly random so no amount of work will allow someone to conclude that they have successfully decrypted usless data but rather that they still have work to do.

Educate yourself so you know how to protect your rights in the event that you become an unjust target.

Donate to the EFF, ACLU or other rights-defender of your choice.

Write your legislators, support those who will defend your freedoms, fight those who don't, and vote.

And remember to separate the people, the goals and the techniques. There really are "bad guys" out there and we have many smart and dedicated people defending us against them. Help them where you can. But remember that they are all sworn to defend the Constitution (here in the U.S.) and it's up to us to make sure they remember and abide by that pledge. The ends do not always justify the means.

Re:Don't make it easy

[slavemowgli]

Spare bandwidth can be used to send random garbage - some of it should be truly random so no amount of work will allow someone to conclude that they have successfully decrypted usless data but rather that they still have work to do.

That only works if you make sure that the actual, real traffic also looks like truly random data.

Re:Don't make it easy

[shotgunefx]

Isn't this called Chaffing and winnowing?

Re:Don't make it easy

[RaNdOm OuTpUt]

Spare bandwidth can be used to send random garbage Does anybody want to write a program to do this. My ideas are that it use the CLI, though a GUI could be a future goal. It should also work with windows, because one place this would be particularly useful is work, as almost all traffic there is monitered, and people are often forced to use windows. Just an idea. If anyone else thinks this would be goo, please email me.

Let's give 'em something to talk about......

[DynaSoar]

"Are there any approaches to thwarting or mitigating surveillance that will work on a mass scale?"

Poison their databases.

Plan and publicize, but don't hold, activities which fall under their "threat" category but aren't actually threatening, ie. protests at military related sites.

Call a flash mob that happens to be at such a place, but don't let that fact on when calling it.

Make sure to be at grandma's for Sunday dinner when such things do or do not occur.

Put up a web site for a bogus anti-something organization and encrypt the hell out of the pages, those being fair use snippets out of "Cryptonomicon" or some such.

There's far more potential spookees than spooks.

Re:Let's give 'em something to talk about......

[Extrudedaluminiu]

How effective would something like this be? We don't quite know what is in these databases that we are spoofing.

Re:Let's give 'em something to talk about......

[DynaSoar]

"We don't quite know what is in these databases that we are spoofing"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

Don't suppose that's the only one, either.

Re:Let's give 'em something to talk about......

[littlerubberfeet]

Right track. How about this:

screw with the signal to noise ratio.

Example:
If we all but little red books, the dartmouth student no longer is a signal, just one of a bunch of noise. If we up the noise enough to make sure this type of domestic spying overloads the capabilities of Department of Homeland Security, one of two things would happen:

A)We would have an innefective DHS, and nobody would have much to worry about, the system would be overloaded, and any investigation would be rendered meaningless. Unfortunately, this would also mean we would lack any decent domestic security where we need it. We would lose the capability to protect against actual terrorism, like the Aryan Nations, Timthy McVeighs and KKKs of the country

B)We would force the DHS to actually invesigate and monitor true threats by not bothing with the 'noise' we create.

Re: How about do nothing wrong?

[Black Parrot]

> How about just not doing anything wrong in the first place and putting some belife in the judicial system, im not sure about you yanks, but i know that i generally trust the judicial system over here in the good ol' UK.

Yeah, the worst they'll do if you're innocent is chase you through the subways and shoot you six times in the head.

Pretty obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

...don't do anything to attract attention. Keep your nose clean. Do the right thing. Insert proactive ciche here. Simply put, the U.S. government could care less about Joe Sixpack. If you do things that make you stans out, then accept the consequenses of standing out.

Re:Pretty obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Simply put, the U.S. government could care less about Joe Sixpack"

Yup, and if it happens to convenient to test psychotropic drugs on him - they certainly won't have any qualms, or at least did not have any in the past:

CIA shrinks and LSD
LSD And The CIA

Or if you're a pesky US citizen in a 3rd world country, or have any contact with anyone from there, even in the US, you could wind up in a big mess:

John Negroponte - Ambassador to Honduras
The Salvador Option

Am I 100% sure that all of these bad things happened? No. But I do know that people abuse power, and it's the nature of these organizations that very little, if anything, that they did which puts them in a bad light will wind up as public knowledge.

Approaches

[Anonymous Coward]

Encryption isn't a sure-fire solution for all privacy problems. Its an easy word to throw around, but the question that is more important is what to encrypt and how to handle the infrastructure around that.

For example, I could encrypt all my email, ever. But then who would be able to read it? A lot less people than now. I could encrypt or hide all traffic to/from my computer (Tor, stunnel, etc.), but those won't solve everything.

Also, what about getting data from organizations? Like asking universities, bookstore, online data vendors, phone companies, and more? Dropping off the "grid" entirely is a difficult option. But those services could hold enough data about you to drive massive holes through any comprehensive privacy policy.

Re:Approaches

[TubeSteak]

Dropping off the grid is amazingly simple, which is what makes it so difficult.

You essentially have to give up many of the convienences you're accustomed to. Taking home library books, having any bills to pay, a bank account, cable tv, credit cards, pharmacies, lengthy hosptial stays... the list goes on.

It requires true dedication to give up decades of social progress.

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And the other 29,950 people arrested?

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[heinousjay]

I'm pretty sure you missed my point (not to mention the joke underlying it)

Read it again with this comment in mind and it may make sense. If not, I fear for your comprehension skills.

Force Audit trail

[maxwells_deamon]

If you live somewhere that uses a voting method that is not auditable, protest by sending in absentee ballots.

They are paper. They can be audited and they will more than offset the "cost savings" of having the electronic balloting.

Re:Force Audit trail

[DavidTC]

And they are tallied on, tada, Diebold counters.

Encrypt Everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Use GPG (PGP). Can Skype be tunneled via SSL? And wear sunglasses and a hat in public. Seriously. These nation of surveillance can't happen. Also, use your voting power. And your voice. Speak up! Donate to the EFF and the ACLU. Impeach serveral members of the current administration.

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[Short Circuit]

The government doesn't want to hold us for 90 days before charging us. They voted on it, they don't want it. The prime minister wanted it. He couldn't convince the rest of the government that it was a good idea.

Good point...I forgot that distinction. It's worth noting that Tony Blair, up to this point, has largely been doing whatever Bush asks for.

Are you really so convinced that we are further along than you? Because of a few cameras and a failed attempt at passing a stupid law?

Not anymore. You have some good points.

Really, I can't wait to vote again. From copyright law to terrorism legislation, it's been crazy here for years.

Domestic Spying? Or just being Dumb?

[the eric conspiracy]

As far as I can tell the incident under question was interception of international communications. The real puzzlement in this case is why the NSA didn't just go to the FISA court which routinely issues authorization for these sorts of intercepts. It is pretty unlikely that there would have been any issues with getting the authorization.

It seems to me to be more of a political foot-shot than anything.

Re:Domestic Spying? Or just being Dumb?

[Stradivarius]

I can only assume it's because FISA requires that there be probable cause that the subject of the intercept be a foreign power or agent thereof.

Suppose the government captures a terrorist's cell phone addressbook. They then decide they'd like to eavesdrop on everyone in that list, in case some of them are also involved in terrorism. The administration may not be able to convince a FISA judge that simply being in someone's phone list is "probable cause" that the person is themselves a foreign agent or terrorist.

Details on FISA

Re:Domestic Spying? Or just being Dumb?

[belmolis]

It's conceivable that there are cases in which there is a legitimate reason for surveilance but in which the courts would not under current law issue a warrant. However, I think that it is important to note that NO SUCH ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE by the Bush Administration. They haven't outlined any such situations much less described any actual cases in which this problem has arisen. There is not a shred of evidence that the requirement for a warrant has been, or would have been had Bush not authorized warrantless interception, an impediment. Bush et al. just don't like having anyone keeping them in check. Its part of their general contempt for the rule of law.

Re:Domestic Spying? Or just being Dumb?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not matter if there is a "legitimate" reason or not. The law is the law and it is the government's job to follow the law. The government is a delicate system of checks and balances, and this is a perfect example of two branches overstepping the third to the detriment of our civil liberties. Although it does not matter because once two judges friendly to the administration are on the court, it may be enough to sway judicial opinions to mark these things legal. Notice how the Supreme Court for the most part has stayed away from allegations of torture and Gitmo Bay. It is because all the branches of the government are afraid to go against the president for fear of being labeled a terrorist and losing re-election/being forced out of court.

Re:Domestic Spying? Or just being Dumb?

[Gingernads]

"It is because all the branches of the government are afraid to go against the president for fear of being labeled a terrorist and losing re-election/being forced out of court."

I'm British, so forgive me if I misunderstand your system... isn't the Supreme Court a 'job for life'? If so, then why would the Supreme Court Judges fear for their jobs by going against the grain? They will easily outlast a number of Presidents of whatever party. As I see it, their position is much like that of the President himself... Make the right noises, get some sucker to elect you, then do whatever you please.

Isn't it funny how there have been millions of people willing to risk their lives for a just cause but hardly anyone will risk their job.

Re:Domestic Spying? Or just being Dumb?

[belmolis]

Yes, Supreme Court judges are appointed for life. They can be impeached, but it is not easy. They are potentially subject to social pressure, but I suspect that any reluctance on the part of the Supreme Court to rule against the President is due to the justices' interpretation of the Constitution and, at worst, in some cases, their political views, not fear of retaliation.

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[GigsVT]

The question is, who would you vote for?

I'd say if you are voting for a democrat or republican, you aren't accomplishing much.

Automatic encrypted IP

[cryptoluddite]

What I'm suggesting is changing some flags/options in the ip or tcp/udp headers so that data is automatically encrypted. So just add this to the open source protocol stacks and most connection you make will be encrypted to some degree automatically... you wouldn't know that you were talking to the proper site, but you would at least know that your connections would be much more difficult to be intercepted automatically.

There would be some configuration that say you want lots of throughput (xtea) versus lots of encryption so a server can do like 5% more overhead but make it millions of times harder to read the traffic. The normal exchange, tcp syn with reply of syn,ack, provides enough steps to construct a shared 'secret' key, so your experience wouldn't need to be slowed down or degraded at all. It would just be much harder to intercept en masse.

Re:Automatic encrypted IP

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like IPSec? Just wait for IPv6.

Try again

[Eil]

Are there any approaches to thwarting or mitigating surveillance that will work on a mass scale?

No. Because if there were, or were actually used on a mass scale, they would be illegal very quickly.

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[Short Circuit]

You're not accomplishing much if you don't, either. What's more important is voting on issues. If the challenger to an incumbant is advocating on issues that you care about, and the incumbant disagrees with you on policy, vote for the challenger, and participate in public polls where possible.

Even if the challenger doesn't win, your vote will hopefully have contributed to a narrow margin. And narrow margins scare sensible incumbants into adjusting their policies.

Information overload

[Pig Hogger]

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you can always baffle them with bullshit".

Keep talking. All the time. Say nothing but gibberish. Overwhelm them with data to the point that they can't cope anymore.

If 20% of a given ISP user's would, everyday, post random gibberish on 10 different USENET groups, this would be a good start. Let those fuckers wonder what the hell we're talking about.

Let them outlaw encryption. Let them sue everybody.

"The best way to force a redesign is to throw a monkey wrench in the works".

Don't cooperate with the police. Never talk to them. Let them wonder. Let them find out by themselves that you're up to nothing bad. Bog them down. Let them think that EVERY civilian is suspect.

Re:Information overload

[_Splat]

If 20% of a given ISP user's would, everyday, post random gibberish on 10 different USENET groups, this would be a good start. Let those fuckers wonder what the hell we're talking about.

Fill USENET with garbage? I was pretty sure that was already happening...

Re:Information overload

[TubeSteak]

Gibberish is subject to statistical analysis, as is the output of encryption algorithms.

While you may not be able to break the encryption, I'm pretty sure statistical analysis can tell the difference between garbage and encrypted garbage (if there's enough data to analyse)

Why bother?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

I really don't mind if the NSA spies on me. I don't have anything to hide. I'm not quite saying "if you're not a criminal, you don't have anything to hide," but honestly, I've sent enough passwords in cleartext, opened enough VNC ports, run enough unpatched systems, voiced enough subversive opinions in public, logged in on enough computers outside my control (including some that I know are being watched), sent my social security number to enough places, that if someone really wanted to steal my identity or my information there's nothing valuable.

Part of that is because I'm a student, so I don't have a credit account or so forth. But I'll treat my bank account with as much care as I treat a couple of other secure items; I'll maintain my prepaid phone so that I lose at most about $30, not $20000, if my phone gets stolen or "hacked", etc.

If I get a job that requires secrets, I know how to keep those safe. I've written and used a ciphersaber for personal data, I use SSH for shell connections, I've tried my hand at Diffie-Hellman - and I'm smart enough to use professional products for AES and the like if necessary. But as of right now, I really don't care if you stick Carnivore on my router. Half of what you'll see is flash games, Wikipedia, and Xbox Live, and most of the rest I'll tell you if you ask nicely.

Scramble the cameras

[Pig Hogger]

Make yourself a cap visor and shoulder pads festooned with infrared LEDs. Cameras are sensitive to infrared radiation, and this will cause a bright halo around your face so you won't be identified by the cameras, yet people will not see the obstuctive light.

Bill of Rights, Crypto Communication Tools

[QuietRiot]

US Bill of Rights

[ Amendment IV ]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Want to read my stuff? Go ahead and crack it - no warrant necessary.

Get the rabbit installed on a machine behind your firewall
==> http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
Faster than freenet
==> http://www.i2p.net/
Encrypt Jabber
==> http://www.vanemery.com/Linux/Jabber/jabberd.html
Onion Routing
==> http://tor.eff.org/
Emerging Network To Reduce Orwellian Potency Yield
==> http://entropy.stop1984.com/
Free Internet telephony
==> http://skype.com/
GNU-ified P2p
==> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnunet/


DO NOT DENY yourself about 2 hours @ InfoAnarchy.org
OMG! ==> http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Pag e
LearnLearnLearnLearn ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography

=================EMAIL ENCRYPTION===============
GPG (Free PGP)
==> http://gnupg.org/
Integrated with Thunderbird
==> http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Mutt can't be beat as a mailreader and integrates GPG wonderfully.
==> http://mutt.blackfish.org.uk/
==> http://www.mutt.org/links.html
==> http://wiki.mutt.org/index.cgi?UserPages

!!! Please do not immediately send newly created keys to the keyservers (as many HOWTOs instruct new users to). They are already overflowing with "test keys" and other people's experiments from over the years THAT HAVE NO EXPIRATION and will never be deleted. These keys are "orphans" and most will never be used. As keyservers sync together, and most keys are never deleted once submitted - GET YOUR KEY SETUP CORRECTLY AND HAVE PRACTICE WITH IT BEFORE SENDING IT OFF TO THE KEYSERVERS!!! Otherwise storage requirements will continue to grow and using these in the future will become more difficult FOR ALL. Please, if you are just starting out with PGP or GPG or GnuPG or anything similar (the last two are in fact the same thing) use manual key distribution to begin (ascii armor your public key with


$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org

and copy and paste it into an email body or attach it to an email


$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org > myPubKey.txt

to gain practice with GPG before uploading your key. This way if you need to create another you won't have uploaded your mistakes. Many choices need to be made and it's worth getting things right before "going public" with your new digital ID. Experiment with yourself and a few different email accounts or with some friends first.)

SET AN EXPIRATION OF 2-5 YEARS OR SO AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR PREFERENCES THE WAY YOU LIKE THEM BEFORE SENDING TO A KEYSERVER! Better yet is to HOST YOUR

Re:Bill of Rights, Crypto Communication Tools

[rahrens]

Try this:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The combination of these two amendments certainly appear to me to infer a right to privacy. Also, if the IVth amendment specifically gives a power to the government allowing searches and seazures under carefully prescribed circumstances, this also infers a right to privacy basic enough that violations of it must be carefully crafted.

don't forget our four boxes of liberty

[spoonyfork]

Recommended order: soap, ballot, jury, ammo.

Revolutions don't need guns

[Phronesis]

Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.

In 1979, largely unarmed civilians overthrew the government of Iran, which boasted the world's sixth largest armed forces and was led by Shah Reza Pahlevi, whose brutality toward dissidents was legend---he was torturing children to make their parents talk long before Saddam Hussein was.

The current regime in Iran is almost as bloodthirsty and evil as the Shah's but my point is not to defend them, just to point out that revolutions don't need weapons if people understand political tactics. Most importantly, if the soldiers and police were to lose faith in the current regime then repression becomes impossible.

We don't have the sort of corrupt and evil government that you hypothesize above, but if we did, the people would not stand for it and would throw them out of power in a heartbeat.

Re:Revolutions don't need guns

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Such revolutions always have a few tyrants manipulating the populace so thay they are a cohesive group with direction. Without them, it doesn't work. With them, what comes after the revolution is worse than what came before.

There hasn't been a revolution worthy of the word since France, I think. And even that one might be a little bloodthirsty to some.

Re:Revolutions don't need guns

[rudolfel]

We don't have the sort of corrupt and evil government that you hypothesize above, but if we did, the people would not stand for it and would throw them out of power in a heartbeat.

ROTFL. You're american, right ?

Re:How about do nothing wrong?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sorry, I took your post the wrong way. I find it's best to put a smiley when you mean one around these parts, or you just look like yet another troll, and get a suitably sarcastic reply (or ignored) accordingly...

Anti-war protesters

[MarkusQ]

The problem with that theory is, there's no credible indication that we've captured any terrorists to get address books from in the first place. Instead (from related reports) it seems more likely that they're going after administration critics, anti-war protesters, and others who they would be hard pressed to come up with probably cause for.

--MarkusQ

P.S. Another hole in the theory ("The administration may not be able to convince a FISA judge that simply being in someone's phone list is "probable cause" that the person is themselves a foreign agent or terrorist.") is that the problem isn't that they asked for permission, were denied, and went ahead anyway. They never asked in the first place, which makes it look a lot like they knew they were in the wrong from the very start.

Re:Anti-war protesters

[the eric conspiracy]

It now seems that Congress was advised that these investigations were going on before the press picked up on it. If so both the legislature and executive have let us down.

intentionally left blank

[cortana]

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

hQEOAwrqJsAYQX3cEAP+KR6M0Ty7ETedwnNyg+B6eNpsOKEnmt 531lur0bgnzZzD
VsTSZlC+XHGkmdnIRGl8Ux1Spk4yC5+SnExYDdZpfFSnUYSuUa O9ZjULk4fiexn/
F3Df3qrN8rdW14ok9zEbX4BzflMs70D75rM5yqic2rIUeMoRuc 61gIFWIcKFYQYD /0tPqWl5gbUELf/p3fpNE+4KmwjjSg1a6ogM5haEOFWzPj2d8t X9RqWMXYPKXHtW
auC73kpn+BixXt5W+mScIV390XZBBxidj2UqkTvcxcqafi9udk Pcgy/O2vd+mI1u
BwwWvLwlrN2nxFWV0ijBDK/vjCyjPrLX6z/UTSh2Fwsl0n8BK/ mYaw0ZpvZjfLcu
PLKP5Hy2JwlRAH8Ci4SvpOdDjy+0wa5HIBbSLheLD0AK4Olntq 681JnQjr907Wj8
d5VuiAjjirRjcDqiVsFARKve7kzSNBSRfXQozDdUC4y95lfc2k xUiiWB+yKSR3Y+
X4xV/MX0g3e3JI6X/2/DquON
=wGEZ
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

Re: How about do nothing wrong?

[Paul Jakma]

He wasn't chased at all. De Menezes *walked* through the station, broke into a trot on the platform to get into the train and then sat down. Next thing he knows a man who had accompanied him onto the train (a police officer, but Charles couldn't have known that because at no point did they identify themselves to him. Also at least 2 other surveillance officers were on the train with him) physically restrains him and pins him down into his seat, while two or more special ops police officers (or possibly soldiers..) come running along and then shoot him *eleven* times, no questions asked, over a 30 second period.

Course, he lived in the same building and had vaguely the same skin colour as a suspected terrorist, and he went from that building to a tube station, so you can't really blame the police.

The man reported by witnesses as running through Stockport station and jumping over the barrier was not Charles but one of the police officers (or SAS squaddies possibly, we don't know yet - MoD confirms military were involved, though they deny they were directly involved) running to go execute Charles.

Vote

[godglike]

Vote Early, Vote Often.

Vote against politicians that suggest these stupid things, vote against politicians that aquiesce to these stupid things, and vote against politicians who try and rig things so your vote, or anyone else's, is meaningless.

Vote for third parties, to keep the major parties honest.

Letter writing and phone calls are good too, but voting them hits them in the pay packet.

Buy my new invention - The Faraday Suit (n/t)

[Jafafa Hots]

:) no text!

You forgot redistricting

[TubeSteak]

Redistricting is one of many ways that the American electorate is recieving a good hard dicking by their elected representative(s).

To sum it up, if you redraw the congressional districts so that there is always a majority for whichever party, then there really is no inter-party competition for that seat.

Like the Parent, I am not pinning this on republicans or democrats. Both sides have done this, it just happens that recently some republican got caught for blatantly abusing the process.

Possibly the only thing worse than people blatantly abusing the system, are the people who do it in a subtle fashion.

Re:You forgot redistricting

[cloudmaster]

I've never understood how that works. If you move the borders around so that you have, say, more Democrats in one district, then you're by definition moving Republicans into another district, throwing the balance off there, so you end up with a majority where there may not have been one before. I guess if you group all of the Republicans into a couple of districts, then you can get more Democrat districts, but it seems like the effect would be minimal as long as places are weighed on population. Maybe if there's one "vote" per district, and you corrall all of "party a" into just a couple of districts while you spread "party b" across more?

Stupid 2-party system making that even close to possible...

Revolutions without tyrants

[Phronesis]

A few examples of successful revolutions after France, which produced neither reigns of terror nor Napoleons in their wake:

Gandhi's revolution in India, Solidarity's revolution in Poland, the real Irish Revolution (the one that liberated Southern Ireland, not the terrorism in the North masquerading as a republican war of independence), Chile's revolution against colonialism in 1810-2.

One could also point to the Mexican revolution, but that was much more complicated and bloody although I would still argue that its outcome was better (if only marginally) than the antecedant conditions.

Re:Revolutions without tyrants

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I stand corrected. At the very least, Gandhi should have been obvious to me.

Chile might not count, we're talking right around the time I contended that the good ones ended, just to nitpick.

But India and Poland are both really recent, one even within my own lifetime.

Re: How about do nothing wrong?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Course, he lived in the same building and had vaguely the same skin colour as a suspected terrorist, and he went from that building to a tube station, so you can't really blame the police.

Absolutely. The police did nothing wrong at all. Their actions as both judge, jury and executioner has a long established precedent in British jurisprudence.

Stay as small as possible

[phill7]

In an ideal case, we must stay as low profile as possible in face of the masses. If we have to take actions, it must be within masses as Mr or Mrs Nobodys that individually do an almost insignificant job and which can be replaced easilly by most anyone. The actions taken must be significant only on a large scale, but as less as possible on an individual scale. A sord of Anti-Superman society. This means depending as less as possible on the leaders, i.e., having a society made on individuals that can communicate with each others, understand each others and be able to take decisions by their own at the same time. Any army type of society is eliminated by such. Otherwise any movement is lost as soon as the core is down, like a dum machine.

On cases where it's not possible, we must still tend to be as replacable as possible. People who believe in what they fight for will be more willing to take risks, but never more than what's necessary, even for the brave ones. Otherwise, we can weaken the movement more than anything else. If this path is adopted, more complicated stuff like encryption might be usefull, but still have it's limits because of possible betrayals and infiltrations. That's the main weekeness of any secret society model: nobody really knows what the other is doing, it's all based on blind confidence to people most often unknown to each others. So, technologie must not take the place of values, respect, good intuition and strong communication, it should only be a tool to lower risks as much as possible. North American phone lines are filtered with a policy based on key words. If thoses words are used, your conversation is recorded automatically, and listened if your suspected. Maybe shutting or changing thoses key words might be more efficient than encryption. Encryption, if detected, could have the result of awaking suspicion (since it's not widelly used, it's suspicious in deed). How should any government spy know that you're only transmitting your new secret blueberry pie receipt when it's encrypted? Maybe it's more secure to transmit in clear any kind of "secret" than to transmit a pie receipt encrypted, and try to use key words as least as possible. It could be a strange situation to end up with the Mounted Police tapping your phone to discover your delicious pie secret!

Of course, if some of us count on Divine protection, it's the best possible garanty (no joke). But those ones must know what they are doing, which is rarelly the case! :-) Otherwise, we're better off falling on the previous advices.

Anyway, good people have nothing to hide. This will end up in a bored police tapping your phone line or house or spying your mail. Well done for him!!! >:-))

You fail it

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere near first post ;)

Bush is a Commie

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironic, isn't it?

So, is Bush more like Stalin or Mao? Of course, it was Nixon that restarted relations with China. And domestic spying does sounds kinda like Nixon.

Anway, I cannot understand how Bush thought he would get away with this. This domestic spying business is sooo illegal. First of all, the FISA
law is by definition the *only* law about domestic surveillance.
Whoops! Let's read the law:

" 1809. Criminal sanctions

Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally-- (1) engages in
electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by
statute; or (2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of
law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that
the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not
authorized by statute. ...
(c) Penalties

An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not
more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or
both."

Source:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/u sc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html

Yay, a fine or jail time! Hmm, and furthermore, the only provision in
the FISA law that *might* allow this sort of thing is if Congress
declared war. But whoops again -- they didn't!

" 1811. Authorization during time of war

Release date: 2005-03-17

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney
General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order
under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for
a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration
of war by the Congress."

Source:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/u sc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

(And it's been far longer than 15 days either way you read it.)

Training Vids

[BIGstan]

Don't cooperate with the police. Never talk to them. Let them wonder. Let them find out by themselves that you're up to nothing bad. Bog them down. Let them think that EVERY civilian is suspect.

I saw some police training videos on this once, stating the same thing. At least I think it was the same thing. It was hard to understand, seeing as how it was from the early 40's, in GERMAN.

Re:Dumb Domestic Spying?

[Animats]

The real puzzlement in this case is why the NSA didn't just go to the FISA court which routinely issues authorization for these sorts of intercepts. It is pretty unlikely that there would have been any issues with getting the authorization.

Probably because, when it comes out who the Administration has been eavesdropping on, it's going to be embarassing. Like Watergate.

My method: Pushing for impeachment

[smagruder]

That seems to me to be the best way of dealing with Bush's unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens.

If the eavesdropping was purely international

[porkchop_d_clown]

the law does not require a warrant. In addition, the law apparently permits the AG to authorize wiretaps in some other cases, without a warrant.

As near as I can tell, you only need a warrant if one of the persons in the call is a U.S. citizen or holds a U.S. "green card" (i.e., they have permanent residency).

Which is what the NYT is claiming, but for which they provide no proof whatsoever - they printed anonymous claims that US citizens and residents were tapped without a warrant but they don't say who was tapped, when or anything else - leaving us to guess as to who, why, how and even "did this really happen"?

Excuse me

[porkchop_d_clown]

Do you have any evidence for making this claim? Or are you saying that anti-war protesters are in the habit of calling bin-Laden?

Because if you actually RTFNYTA (Read the fucking New York Times Article) the claim was that the NSA was monitoring calls to and from terrorists overseas.

Spying on the Quakers

[MarkusQ]

It's been in the news that the DOD has been spying on anti-war protesters, civil rights leaders and so forth. While I don't have first hand evidence that the two programs overlap, to refuse to connect the dots and at least suspect the possibility you would have to be stunningly obtuse or shamelessly disingenuous.

--MarkusQ

Re:Spying on the Quakers

[porkchop_d_clown]

This may come as a shock to you, but the NSA is not the FBI and the two agencies do not cooperate and do not have any shared jurisdiction. The NSA investigates foreign, military threats. The FBI is a police department. As a bonus, no one has claimed that the FBI did anything illegal while investigating domestic groups.

*sigh*

[MarkusQ]

And this may come as news to you, but the DOD is not the FBI or the NSA; the FBI is also, in this context, a red herring. My orginal point (which I stand by) is that given what we know about the actions of other executive branch agencies (the DOD, speifically, though the FBI could be used as well), and the history of similar claims (from "we are doing it to protect you from dirty bomber" to "we have had many successful prosecutions") and even in the current argument that have turned out to be false, we have basically two reasonable choices:

• Assume that Bush is inconsistant, stupid, or both, taking a path in this instance that is both at odds with other executive branch actions and needlessly unconstitutional, or
• Assume that Bush is both consistant and reasonably clever, in which case he had a good reason for not seeking the warrents in these cases, and (looking at the examples from elsewhere in the executive branch) we can make an educated guess what those reasons were.

So what are you claiming? That he's too dumb realize that it's a slam dunk to get the warrents and he risks major fallout within his own party to cut corners, or that he's smart enough not to take that risk unless he's covering up for a worse offense, in which case we're within reason to assume the existence of such an offense?

Dumb and honest or smart and corrupt. You can't have it both ways.

--MarkusQ

P.S. I suppose dumb and corrupt can't be rulled out either, if you don't like the other options.

Follow up

[MarkusQ]

Because if you actually RTFNYTA (Read the fucking New York Times Article) the claim was that the NSA was monitoring calls to and from terrorists overseas.

And if you read today's news you'd see that the spying was much more extensive than originally revealed.

President Bush and his aides have said his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to monitoring international phone and e-mail communications linked to people with connections to al-Qaida. What has not been acknowledged, according to the Times, is that NSA technicians combed large amounts of phone and Internet traffic seeking patterns pointing to terrorism suspects.

This so-called "pattern analysis" on calls within the United States would often otherwise require a warrant if the government wanted to trace who calls whom.

--MarkusQ

Yes, yes.

[porkchop_d_clown]

I'm still waiting for evidence that they tapped someone because they were an anti-war protester.

It's bullshit like that that embarrasses the Democratic party and helps boost Bush's approval ratings back up.

Re:Yes, yes.

[MarkusQ]

I'm still waiting for evidence that they tapped someone because they were an anti-war protester.

So am I. I never said, or implied, that I had or knew of such evidence. I quite clearly said that, given the pattern of conduct for which we have evidence, it is the more likely inference. By setting up this straw man you are dodging the real question: what reason do you think he had for going outside the law when it would, by all accounts, have been just as easy and politically much less risky to get a warrant? The ideas I've seen floated so far:

• He was doing it because he knew he couldn't get warrants
  • Because the targets were political opponents, not terrorists
  • Because they were based on evidence found through torture
  • Because they were for financial gain (e.g. stock information)
• Because he wants to hand Hillary the presidency with no checks and balances left in the system
• Because he's incompetent
  • Back on the bottle
  • Drunk with power
  • Criminally stupid
• Because the taps were a side show in a much larger program of blatantly illegal domestic spying
• Because he's trying to set up a dictatorship

Unless you can propose something better, I'm going to stick with the first option.

It's bullshit like that that embarrasses the Democratic party and helps boost Bush's approval ratings back up.

1. I am not a Democrat, and have never claimed to be. I am a fiscally (and constitutionally) conservative anti-war Republican, thank you.
2. I don't give a flying fig about Bush's approval ratings, one way or the other. I don't want him tried in the court of public opinion, I want him tried by the Senate after the House brings articles of impeachment as provided for in the constitution.
3. Before you start using the term "bullshit" you may want to check that your reading comprehension is up to snuff.

--MarkusQ

Nice.

[porkchop_d_clown]

No one. NO ONE has provided a scrap of evidence that the "DOD" was doing any spying whatsoever. Can't you even get your facts straight?

Here's a 3rd clue. The DOD isn't a single entity and does not have an intelligence gathering capability outside of the NRO. It depends on the NSA and the CIA for strategic intelligence gathering.

As for "what I am claiming" - I'm claiming that you have no evidence whatsoever of any of the wild speculation that you have been throwing around as fact. Given that you can't even get your mind around what the actual accusations the NYT made, that doesn't surprise me much.

To review:

1. The NYT reports that unnamed sources claim the NSA engaged in eavesdropping of phone calls from Americans and/or legal residents to members of al Queda without a warrant. If true this might be considered a violation of FISA, except, of course, every president since Carter has engaged in similar program and members of Clinton's Justice department agree that what Bush did appears to be legal.

2. The NYT reports that the FBI has been monitoring anti-war activists. Again, shock, shock, this is the same thing every president has done since at least Johnson - who was, in case you flunked history, a Democrat.

I'm waiting for you to provide the slightest evidence that Bush was wiretapping anti-war protesters.