Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Planning New Net-Tapping Push

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the in-america-backdoor-routes-you dept.

Section_Ei8ht writes to tell us CNet is reporting that the FBI is pushing for legislation to allow law enforcement officials free access to networking gear via built in backdoors for eavesdropping. From the article: "Jim Harper, a policy analyst at the free-market Cato Institute and member of a Homeland Security advisory board, said the proposal would 'have a negative impact on Internet users' privacy. People expect their information to be private unless the government meets certain legal standards,' Harper said. 'Right now the Department of Justice is pushing the wrong way on all this.'"

4 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. It may take months, it may take years... by QCompson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...but this legislation or something very similar to it will pass. The fbi/U.S. government has discovered just how easy and effective it is to monitor citizens over the internet. Since so much of our daily life now occurs over the "tubes" of the internet (banking, purchasing, social-networking, entertainment, phone-calls, etc.), it makes it all too simple for the government to assemble detailed files on citizens just by eavesdropping on their net connection.

    Sure, at first the feds/police will need to get warrants, but eventually that requirement too will fade away. The eye of Big Brother in every room will be present in the form of our internet connections. It is so pathetically easy for the government to get monitoring power over our online lives; all they have to do is repeat three words over and over again. Terrorism, child porn. Terrorism, child porn. Terrorism, child porn. That's it. If they keep repeating those three words, any legislation they want will glide right through Congress.

  2. Re:I am a patriotic American. by KylePflug · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Ironically, though this was meant as sarcasm, I really don't mind if the government knows most of those things about me (OK, maybe not 'every thought I've ever had,' but most of the rest would be pretty much fine by me.)

    However, I object in principle for two reasons:
    • Because someday the government may become actually oppressive (as in "take arms" oppressive), and it is at that point that the infrastructure which our rights to privacy currently prevent would be a serious liability to all interested in life, liberty, et al.
    • Because while I don't have anything I would object horribly to the government knowing about me, I am not willing to cast my vote to allow them to, because to do so would be taking on the authority to decide that neither would anyone else.

    So no, I have nothing to hide, and don't really object to some at least mostly impartial body knowing my 'secrets' as a matter of pragmatism, but in principle and because I can't speak for those around me, I object.
  3. Sales of US-manufactured networking equipment? by RDaneel2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Who is going to want to buy this stuff?

    Not anyone outside the US... and not anyone *inside* - at least until they are required by law to "patriotically" only buy US-made networking gear.

    It would have been nice if they had learned *something* from the years of the crypto export restrictions - stuff without the restrictions / backdoors / etc will be made somewhere, and will be purchased and used...

    All this crap does is kill the viability in the global marketplace of products from US networking gear manufacturers. Sigh.

  4. They are the same. by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nice analogy. However if someone in your family murders you, frankly no one else gives a damn.

    Look up "Phil Hartman". You can find other examples on your own.

    As oppossed to, say, a few thousand people getting killed at the same time and witnessed by people around the globe.

    It was only "witnessed by people around the globe" because it was repeatedly broadcast.

    If they repeatedly broadcast car wrecks around the globe, then the same could be said of them.

    People who then wonder, can I even count on being safe going to work in the morning.

    "Terrorism" is about scaring other people. Again, there is more of a threat to those people from other cars on the highway than from terrorists.

    Financial markets that then wonder, exactly how resilient is this supposed super power.

    "Terrorism" is about scaring other people. The country was in no more danger that day than a year prior.

    Industry leaders who then wonder, maybe I should scale back hiring and investment because who knows what's going to happen next.

    "Terrorism" is about scaring other people. Their businesses were in no more danger that day than than a year prior.

    So all things considered, the two are not the same and the consequences of one are much greater and reach much further than the other.

    No, they are the same in that in each scenario, people die.
    http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

    The only differences are:
    a. You are far more likely to die from aspirin than from terrorism.

    b. People who do not understand statistics succumb to the "terror" in "terrorism".

    Thankfully, outside of Slashdot, the nation is not populated by chicken littles and people are willing to take a slight reduction in privacy/anonymity in return for an increased liklihood that the government will be able to prevent more attacks.

    And, over time, those "slight reductions" result in ... a police state.

    Now, to demonstrate your understanding of statistics, why don't you name 5 countries which have fewer Rights than the US and fewer terrorist attacks.

    If you cannot, then your point is invalid.

    People also have enough common sense to realize that this is not a dictatorship, GW and friends will be out of power in a few more years, and our system of government will - as it always has - correct what some see as the excesses of current policy.

    What "excesses of current policy"?

    Either the reduction of Rights is necessary, or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.

    By the way, facism starts when the populace has its involvement in political life curtailed.

    Really? Perhaps you can provide an example of such? All of the Fascist states that I'm familiar with (Italy, German, etc) did not prevent the citizens from participating in politics. In fact, the citizens were encouraged to support the Fascists by identifying the "threats" in their communities.

    The first shadow of the future police states was cast by the policies of Czarist Russia. It was not the czars overreaction to domestic terrorism that spawned it, it was the systematic denial of political involvement to the Russian citizenry for centuries.

    "first shadow" and "centuries" don't match. Something cannot be the "first shadow" that happens over "centuries".

    You may also want to read about various monarchs throughout the ages.

    There have and always will be enemies of the state, and it is foolish to think that they are falsehoods perpetuated by those in power.

    Look up "McCarthy witch hunt".

    The key to preventing facism is an engaged citizenry with the political ability to curtail the overreaction of the g