Slashdot Mirror
Limited Email Surveillance Approved
MrNougat writes "CNet reports that some surveillance of your email has been permitted by U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan in Washington, D.C., without first requiring any evidence of wrongdoing. Curiously: 'instead of asking to eavesdrop on the contents of the e-mail messages, which would require some evidence of wrongdoing, prosecutors [of the US Justice Dept.] instead requested the identities of the correspondents. Also included in the request was header information like date and time and Internet address--but not subject lines.'"
Hey, you're still kind of free. Well, free-ish. I'm sure your government is doing this for your own good. There couldn't possibly be any other reason.
In my opinion, if you're not already assuming that the contents of your unencrypted email are public to the world, you're fooling yourself. If you want it to be unreadable, encrypt it.
I think the only permission anybody ought to need in order to eavesdrop on a communication is the owner of the wire. If you're contracting with the owner of the wire for services, and privacy is important to you, make that part of the contract. Or save yourself some effort and money and simply encrypt your communications. It's nearly effortless. It won't cost you anything (money wise) for the software.
Also, I take exception with the summary that "some surveillance of your email has been permitted." The article says, "the Justice Department asked a federal magistrate judge to approve monitoring of an unnamed person's e-mail correspondents." I sincerely doubt that I am that person or one of his correspondents, unless he is a spammer. I recognize this could affect me in the future because a precedent has been set ... but again, that's easily handled with encryption now, isn't it?
Complaining about this is tantamount to making love to your wife in your open front doorway and then demanding a law be passed to protect your privacy from your neighbor or the police car driving by. For crying out loud! Isn't some burden on you to secure your own privacy? This is not so far from the DMCA requiring legal protection against breaking "protection mechanisms" that are not effective in the slightest. Why in the world would you trust the government enough to expect them to take responsibility for securing your privacy?
People seem to be looking for an expensive legislative solution to a technological problem that already has an inexpensive technical solution.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Everyday I feel more like I'm Chinese....
http://www.pgpi.org/
You are aware that Haliburton recently landed a 347 million dollar contract to build new "emergency detention" facilities in the continental U.S.? They're building prison camps for tens or hundreds of thousands of people. The reason given is "immigration emergencies", or disaster housing.
I don't know exactly how to pound the point home any harder, but they are preparing for national upheaval. They are building concentration camps, my friend, and if anyone tries rebellion they are going to become permanent residents. You're presenting a false choice, letting rebels live or killing them. They've plans to lock them up en masse. Bush already has defacto power to strip citizenship and human rights away at will; locking protestors or armed rebels into Kellogg Root and Brown maintained mass prison camps wouldn't stonker them at all. In case ya'll haven't noticed, crossing SS designated boundaries around public events (I interpret this as leaving the "1st Amendment Zone") is now a federal felony subjecting the criminal to arrest -- by the Secret Service. As a terrorist, essentially.
This isn't a new plan, either. Reagan's people had a contingency plan set up to mass arrest and imprison dissenters back in '84. Our boy Oliver North had a huge hand in the plan. It's amazing how the same names keep popping up.
they have taken on vast unconstitutional powers to capture terrorists. Now, the next step is to redefine "terrorist". They've already designated PETA a terrorist organisation. Peace groups have been infiltrated and monitored since 2001 -- as terrorists, of course. Bush has linked criticism and terrorism already. His posse obviously is following a plan which ends with their party enabled to imprison dissenters without trial, subject to torture at will, or even death. Didja hear Guantanamo has a execution station now?
You can't get near the President anymore unless you sign a loyalty oath and are vetted by the SS for Republicanism. Show up with a sign or a T-Shirt with something to say and you are out, or under arrest. And despite what you might think,the cops are all on board with the President. I saw what happened in Chicago back in 2003. The cops are hard-core Republicans. Same with the military brass (not so much the rank and file). Someone once refered to the Army as the armed forces of the Republican party.
In other news, hunger strikes have nearly disappeared at Guantanamo Bay after they've strapped the hunger strike non-people into "feeding chairs", forced food down tubes, and physically prevented the tortured from throwing up the food. Afterwards they locked them into "cold cells" for punishment. I can only assume they're using the cold water hoses in the 50 degree concrete cells again, to get those prisoners nice and hypothermic and quiet.
I don't feel very ironic anymore. This is very dangerous. they are totally out of control, and there is no mass media that anyone trusts anymore, since news was turned into a "business" instead of a loss leader to keep a broadcast license, to tell us what's happening. We have to read overseas press to find out what's going on in our own country.