Slashdot Mirror
FBI Planning New Net-Tapping Push
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.'"
I know you will all hate me for saying this, but with a warrent the officials should be able to get into anywhere they want, including your electronic systems. As far from the article this law isn't about removing the needs for warrents, simply about making it possible for systems to be tapped when needed and when lawful. Denying officials access to these systems would be like denying them access to certain buildings. Although it is true that most buildings will never need to be investigated some will have bodies buried under the basement. Our right to privacy is protected by the need for warrents; making it harder for officials to conduct lawful investigations just helps criminals.
Philosophy.
make me wonder why we just don't encrypt the entire network ? I understand there would be more over-head, but wouldn't that be the same as games pushing hardware?
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
I also don't agree with the provision that says that law enforcement officials would not have to publish a yearly "notice of the actual number of communications interceptions." Keeping this information private would not help their investigations. What difference does it make to a terrorist whether the FBI intercepted 12,000 or 120,000 communiques.
- Every conversation I have ever taken part in.
- Every place I have ever gone.
- Every purchase I have ever made.
- Every person I have ever talked to.
- Every book I have ever read.
- Every thought I have ever had.
It is required for the security of America and the World. The only people who resist the adoption of laws to allow the above are the people who have something to hide. Those who have something to hide are terrorists who wish to strip me of my "freedom".There are many ways to implement court-ordered wiretapping. The CALEA debate is not about whether IP networks should be wiretappable but about how it should be done and who should pay for it. Before CALEA, the FBI had to install Carnivore sniffing equipment at ISPs. I guess they think that's too much work, so they want every router at every ISP to be upgraded to have built-in wiretapping, so they don't have to lug any equipment around. And they want the ISPs to pay for these upgrades. And according to the article, now they want the ISPs to also filter the traffic for them, so they get only the traffic they want.
IMO this is an expensive, complex, failure-prone solution to the problem.
I don't think so. . .
Next week legislation will be introduced that will require everyone to submit to mandatory daily body cavity searches. You can never be sure where evil is lurking.
...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.
This is just adding another way for bad people to get into places they're not supposed to be....i mean, if the government can monitor me while on the internet, whats to stop "the bad guys" from using the same thing thats built right into the router? Also, would this even stop anything? I mean, with the encription technologies out there now, whats to stop the terrorists from encripting the data with practically uncrackable algroithms? To me this seems like spending a bunch of money to add a security hole, that only makes terrorists take one simple step to avoid.
So, you run your own business, eh? Do you expect that your business will never be robbed?
If you expect to be robbed, then why do we need any laws protecting your property rights?
Of course you can. Provided that you never need a credit history. But most businesses operate on net 30 or similar. So you'd need some protection and "privacy". You might want to look up "fraud" and "identity theft".
Maybe. You may be right. Or
RobotRunAmok
(email not shown publicly)
Well, it does seem that you DO value this "privacy" thing to some degree. You're using a 'nym and you've chosen to not reveal you email address. Why is that?
You're posting
With the way warrants work now, abuse is fairly hard, at least at the individual level. Some pissed off or nosy cop or FBI agent can't simply search your house or tap your net connection and so on. If the cop shows up at an ISP with the tap equipment, and so warrant, it's not likely he'll get it in there and it's pretty likely he'll get caught. Same idea as if you come home, and there's a cop rifling through your shit. You ask for a warrant and one isn't forthcomming, he's in a lot of trouble.
Well the problem here is that this can all be activated remotely, silently. A similar idea would be for the government to put cameras in your home. I have a feeling nearly everyone would object to this, regardless of the justification. The problem is that with something like this, an individual can spy on you at random, with almost no accountability. They just turn tapping on and go. There's no oversight.
Between the cost and the abuse potential, I can't possibly see this as a good thing. All power you give the government has potential for abuse, and you need to weigh that against what it gets you. This gets them nothing but convenience, they already have the legal authority to tap connections and such, and opens up huge potential for abuse. Thus it should not be allowed. The cost argument just makes it that much more compelling. It is not the burden of private businesses/citizens to bear this cost.
I also find all this extremely uncompelling because our existing crime fighting tools appear to be working. Violent crime in the US keeps going down. I don't think we'll ever eliminate it, but it looks like we are moving in the right direction, it looks like we ARE able to fight it. Thus I'm not seeing the need for this vastly expanded government power.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
You're absolutely correct about this law enabling individuals to bypass the protections we've built up since our country was founded.
And that's not the worst of it. Individuals can harass other individuals.
But the same tactics can apply to groups within the law enforcement agencies. And that makes it too easy to implement a police state without ever passing another law. They can monitor anyone / anywhere / anytime without any oversight or paperwork.
Goodbye Democracy.
Always go under the impression you are being watched 24/7 and anything you say or do *will* be seen/read/heard and used against you at some point.
Even if you are doing nothing wrong, still assume the above.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Back in 2004 some of the highest-ranking politicians and other most influential people in Greece had their cell phone conversations surreptitiously recorded by an unknown organization for a period of months.
The job could not have been pulled off without the presence of automated wire-tapping functionality built into the Ericsson switches in Greece. What makes the "greek experience" relevant here is that Greece didn't even purchase the wire-tapping "option" to their switches, it would have cost millions more and they decided to save the money and thought that by not purchasing the extra software and hardware they didn't even have to worry about the issue. They were very wrong.
If ever there was proof that wire-tapping features built into systems for law-enforcement use can and will be exploited by unauthorized users, this is it. It really does not get more clean-cut than this - except for the speculation as to who exactly these unauthorized wire-tappers were - the leading candidate is the CIA. Which would lead even just a mildly paranoid person to wonder if perhaps the FBI is jealous of the CIA's latitude in foreign operations and they just want the same, easily-abused by themselves, features within their own jurisdiction.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
There were breaks when I hit submit. Something with the overall legnth maybe? Perhaps I am just insane!
You guys know exactly where we're headed, right?
I hope you've been reading your Vinge. This is equivalent to homework, if you're a technologist (programmers, that means you.)
Our destination is the Secure Hardware Environment (SHE).
That is, every computing device will have to have a section for the government built in, and the government will require access to just a small part of network traffic.
Further: All manufacturing will be observed. (see: Don't Try This at Home, and Remote Biology Labs -- how could it be allowed to work out any other way?) The US government (not sure which parts) is already rejecting chips for computers where the manufacturing process is unknown or unwatched (link lost; sorry.)
This will be done for your safety.
See also: Big Brother Takes a Controlling Interest in Chips. Rainbows End.
This is an interesting read, a historical perspective of a police state during the reign of Elisabeth I (in 16th century). It is often only with many years of hindsight that you can really understand what was going on. This has happened before, let history be your guide.
The terrorists fight dirty. The only way to fight them is to adopt some of their own tactics. This means that we may have to cooperate with some "unsavory characters." People you don't like, people you don't respect, people you don't want around, people you don't want your kids to interact with, people you wouldn't even allow inside your own home.
So tonight I'm announcing my intention to cooperate with the United States Government.
Now, if they have nothing to hide, why are they so worried that we know how often this tool is used?
If privacy is dead, then transparency is our only hope. But the current mood in our government is to trust no one -- not a single citizen. Yet somehow, anyone in law enforcement or homeland security is deemed automatically trustworthy.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Ok, I've posted this a couple of times already...not just karma whoring, I just thought it was so fitting to the parent topic that I would post once more. I think we should all sing together!
The Terrorist Song
(Sung to the tune of Python's The Lumber Jack Song)
I'm a terrorist and I'm OK
I read at night and I work all day.
The Government:
He's a terrorist and he's OK
He reads at night and he works all day.
I read a lot and I seek the truth
I go to the lavatory.
After OKC, I saw some things that didn't make sense to me.
The Government:
He doesn't believe our story about OKC,
We monitor when he goes to the lavatory.
On Wednesday night, he went to an unapproved web site.
Chorus:
He's a terrorist and he's OK
He reads at night and he works all day.
When, after 9-11 didn't all add up,
I met with others on the net, to talk it up.
The government:
He didn't believe our story about 9-11.
We followed him to unapproved web sites after hours.
In our report, we'll say he had bomb-making materials under his sink.
Chorus:
He's a terrorist and he's OK
He reads at night and he works all day.
I don't think a plane hit the Pentagon.
I think the World Trade Center buildings fell all wrong.
I wish I could convince my dear ol' mom!!
The government:
He's a terrorist and we're going to make him pay?!
We read his e-mail and didn't like what he had to say?!...
Just me:
I wish I'd been born, back when America was really free!!
The Government:
He's a terrorist and we're going to make him pay
He reads the Constitution and knows his rights.
He's just like McVeigh, Bin Laden, and al-Qaeda!!
Chorus:
He's a terrorist and he's OK
He reads at night and he works all day.
Ron Paul
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.
I assume we're talking about the same FBI that just stopped the plan to blow up the Holland Tunnel by monitoring a chat room where the the suspects were discussing their plans. Of course, all the terrorism experts say that the "plot" would have never worked and that no real terrorists would sit around discussing their plans in an open chat room. Who knows what they'll "find" if they leave the chat rooms?
The US government is probably the most powerful threat to peoples' security, but it is certainly not the only threat.
Whether or not the FBI manages to mandate that backdoors be installed in your ISPs equipment, you have to already assume that some backdoors exist. Maybe the government already did some of it while no one was looking, maybe some peeping tom at your ISP did it so he could read your love letters, maybe organized criminals are trying to build a database of names and social security numbers, whatever. You damn well know that not everyone is able to secure their system, or that they don't have your best interest as their top priority, and that includes the ISPs. Big Brother and all his Little Brothers are already a plausible threat, and this particular story doesn't change a thing.
It is your responsibility and my responsibility to make sure that we have protected our privacy. Encrypt your mail. Make sure your next stupid web server project can do everything on top of SSL. Meet with people and expand the PGP WoT. Assume the government and the identity thieves and the little green men from Alpha Centauri will completely subvert the network, and work on protecting the endpoint(s) instead. As it has always been, the Internet isn't trustworthy, so don't get your panties in a bunch just because someone wants to make it worse.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Has the memory of 9/11 faded that much?
When you have to trot out that bogeyman, it means your argument has no value. Back under your rock!
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
No. And I find it very telling that it is brought up so often by people who want to take away our Rights.
Fascism has nothing to do with Jews.
Fascism depends upon identifying an "enemy of the state". This "enemy" has to be so terrible that the Rights of the rest of the citizens must be "temporarily" restricted to prevent the atrocities that these enemies will surely bring.
The Nazi party identified Jews, Communists and Blacks as "enemies of the State". Pay attention to history.
And I never said that it was "inefficiency" that lead to Fascism. What I said was:
"Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people."
Freedom is not safe nor is it free.
Our Forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that their signatures would be used to condemn them to death if the British won the war.
They believed in Freedom enough to PUBLICLY identify themselves and their beliefs.
They fought and died for provide those Freedoms to you. And now you want to sell those Freedoms because there is a slight chance that you will be injured or killed.
The chance of a "terrorist" killing you is LESS than the chance of someone in your own family killing you.
It is LESS likely than you being killed on the highways.
Yeah, these people were all wrong about Freedom when they signed their death warrants back then:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/
It's so good of people like you who are willing to sell our Freedoms and Rights for a false sense of "security".
Makes sense to me. Totally.
hang brain.
There is a little piece of legislature you should be familiar with, but obviously you are not.
.22 and .380 (non military pistols only), those can STILL kill a terrorist when 20 people stand up and open fire on Akbar and Ahmad.
It is called the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. It has several Ammendments, most of them (14 onward) are crap. But 1 - 10 are known as the bill of rights, and were not added lightly. They ensure that the government will NEVER infringe upon the rights of the people. Properly abided by, this Constitution, by itself, can easily guarantee that the rights of the people are not infringed.
One of these rights is the right to be "secure in their persons, papers, property and effects and to be secure from unreasonable search".
Its known as "the fourth ammendment".
Being that MANY liberals here are die hards of privacy and right to free speech, perhaps you ought to read up on your laws, and learn the law that CREATED THIS REPUBLIC (which we now falsely mislabel democracy due to the demagogues on both sides advertising it as such (read your Franklin quotes if you wish to dig up the truth, our founding fathers HATED the term Democracy as much as they hated Monarchy).
Might I add that if you move to China, the law will do for you exactly what you asked of it in your comment? Their constitution says that China GRANTS the citizens rights, and can revoke them when the citizens rights infringe upon interests of the state (whatever they may be).
Perhaps we should reinstate the right of the people to organize local militias, the right to bear arms, and the right to police oneself instead of waiting for the "authorities" to come dictate how life is to be lived.
My parents live in a heavy ex military, ex and current police and redneck neighborhood. They are liberals, but are happy to have said neighbors. They live next to a violent big city in VA (with very tough gun laws to keep the city "safe", but illegal gun crime with unlicensed smuggled guns leads the charts, only topped by illegal KNIFE AND FIST crime.) My folks however, have a neighborhood with ZERO crime rate for 10 years ongoing. Less than 5 miles away from said violent city (part of Hampton Roads, VA). Why? Because of almost NO gun laws. In Newport News, you need 45 days to 3 months to get a conceal carry permit. Yeah, tough law enforcement... and massive crime. In Williamsburg, Yorktown, Gloucester. It takes at most 45 days. Usually 3 to 15. I think Wmsbg has had 3 violent murders in 3 years(all college students, all with KNIVES, not guns), and despite 3 day conceal carry permits and liberal gun laws, wmsbg is a top retiree spot in the state. Odd? I think not.
Perhaps instead of defending draconian bullshit, we should defend the Constitution. I've seen it at work. Jefferson was right. "Let your pistol be your companion on all your walks." And indeed, if you do, and you know your pistol well, it shall keep you safer than all the 911 calls in the world ever could. (Cops will have to figure out who to shoot after they find your dead, raped body. You already have a 100% correct idea who to shoot while the rape is getting ready to occur.)
Perhaps if, instead of paying more idiots to staff Homeland Security, perhaps we should allow our citizens to do what they did in 1940, that is CARRY ON PLANES! South american nations allow it, and I have YET to see one successful hijacking, even if they're only allowed to carry
Might I add that I have done plenty of aeronautical research, my father and his father were both engineers (one mechanical, and my father was aeronautical and space researcher) both agree that "explosive" decompression like in "Final Destination" is the stuff of movies. Most aircraft actually DO leak. Ask military people if their planes decompose when they perform HALO jumps. I have yet to hear of a military plane fall apart when they go do the HALO jump. But just like uber explosive diesel tanks in movies, everyone buys what the government sells and tyranny lives on. (Hint, diesel is a high compression BURN, it does not explode if a gas tank is hit. Diesel takes ENORMOUS pressure to ignite.)
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Put "lawful intercept" back doors everywhere, and how long do you think it will take the next Kevin Mitnick to figure out how to exploit them? Remember that the FBI wanted remote access, so physical security won't help, and that 38,000 FBI passwords were so lame that a cracking program could guess them.
Nor is this theoretical. The Greek prime minister and many government officials found themselves eavesdropped on through the "lawful intercept" features on a celllco switch. To belabor the point, whoever was doing it was not the Greek police.
No kidding...which proves the point a lot of us have been saying for a damn long time.
This isn't about terror, this isn't about child porn.
Hell, the NSA request to ATT came in February of 2001, before 9/11.
This is about setting up an authoritarian Judeo-Christian Police State. Finally, finally it's becoming apparent.
If information is meant to be hidden, it is all but impossible to stop it from remaining hidden in this day and age.
The solution is at our fingertips (but maybe only for a while) and that solution is firearms an ordnance.
Take back the country, by force if neccessary.
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
Great Firewall Of China was created with THIS EXACT HARDWARE by such freedom loving companies as CISCO, IBM and MICROSOFT, if memory serves. Yeah, This is how China polices their internet so fast. How soon do you think our "employment issue" will be solved by creating the Great Firewall of America??
goto www.spp.gov and do some thought.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Hmmm... The day they push this through is the day I go buy a router that *I* compile the firmware for.
If they make THAT illegal?... I am not sure... I might just become a criminal...
Look up "Phil Hartman". You can find other examples on your own.
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.
"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.
"Terrorism" is about scaring other people. The country was in no more danger that day than a year prior.
"Terrorism" is about scaring other people. Their businesses were in no more danger that day than than a year prior.
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".
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.
What "excesses of current policy"?
Either the reduction of Rights is necessary, or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.
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.
"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.
Look up "McCarthy witch hunt".
Fascism did not start in Germany. Fascism started in Hungary and Italy. It didn't really care much about Jews until Hitler came into power. Furthermore, terrorism has only killed maybe ten thousand people. Fascist and authoritarian governments have killed over ten million.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I believe that it is you that needs to work on your "cognitive thinking".
Well, unless your name is "Richard Pipes" I don't believe that he posted here.
Are you his secretary? Are you scheduling his appointments?
If not, then learn to support the statements that YOU make. Don't try to dump your claims off on someone who is not here and has not posted.
Actually, I did address them.
The "consequences" you speak of are nothing more than emotional reactions by people who do not understand statistics. And those "consequences" are what the "terrorists" are attempting to achieve.
So, if you are afraid because a terrorist killed someone, then the terrorist has "won" that round.
Nice attempt at a strawman. I did not say that the United States has no enemies. North Korea and Iran and two obvious examples.
But you won't stop North Korea or Iran by spying upon what US citizens say in chatrooms.
Just as McCarthy's witch hunts to find "Communists" in "Hollywood" did not in any way, shape or form hinder Soviet Russia's activities.
Did you understand it that time?
It was you who brought up "cognitive thinking".
It was you who tried to deflect arguments to "Richard Pipes".
It was you who could not understand that McCarthy did nothing to hinder Soviet Russia.
It is you who is resorting to personal attacks. That would seem to indicate that you're cache of "logic" has been expended.
Statistically, you are more likely to die from suicide than from a terrorist attack.
The only reason that terrorism still exists is because people do not understand statistics and allow their emotions to be manipulated. You've chose the emotional side of this issue and I have chosen the rational, statistical side.
You've been listening to way too much Republican propaganda.
The fact is various different intelligence and investigative agencies already had all of the pieces of the plot in different datasets necessary to detect and stop the 9/11 attacks. However, the various agencies did not communicate with each other for various different reasons--some legal, some turf. In theory, this is why the Department of Homeland Security was created--to facilitate the kind of sharing needed for these cases. Whether it will be effective is a debate for another day.
But let's repeat the important part again, so that it has a better chance of being recorded in your brain: The various different intelligence and investigative agencies already had all of the pieces of the plot in different datasets necessary to detect and stop the 9/11 attacks. In other words, the "openness and freedom" that existed before the 9/11 attacks still managed to tell us everything we needed to know about the attacks.
It was the government that "let us down" by not connecting the dots. Of course, they don't want to say it that way because it makes them look bad, so suddenly we need all sorts of new surveillance laws to collect data that we don't need.
If there is a "secret backdoor" in routers and switches, it will be found by security experts both white and black hat. This will open up ENORMOUS security and privacy issues. Compromise a machine, get it to link to the routers and switches and just collect the info. Could it BE more obvious? And if you think a warrant will be used, you're imagining things. Accoding to Bush, he doesn't need a warrant for anything while we are "at war." The war is just an excuse to allow his group to snatch more power for themselves and take more away from the people. If he was REALLY interested in fighting terrorism and defending the homeland, the closing of borders would have been the FIRST thing he did, not the last and most reluctant thing...
Hmm, so what you're saying is that you vote for the politician that does his best in scaring the hell out of you, right?
Now pray tell us, what was your position after the first bombing of the WTC, and what did you do in order to advance it?
Face it -- you were traumatized by watching two giant building crumble on live TV. You probably had no more than an emotional reaction when the WTC was bombed in 1993 (6 dead), or when the Oklahoma City bombing occured in 1995 (167 dead). However, the events of 9/11 truly left an imprint on you, and shrewd politicians have taken advantage of it and are playing on your fears.
One example: I am sure you have heard of the a device called a dirty bomb; Bush mentioned it in his speeches, and the media jumped on it to promote the scarefest. You probably think that a dirty bomb is significantly more dangerous than a conventional bomb by some orders of magnitude. However, that is not the case, as even the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that "A dirty bomb is in no way similar to a nuclear weapon. The presumed purpose of its use would be therefore not as a Weapon of Mass Destruction but rather as a Weapon of Mass Disruption." A true leader would be one who would calm the population, and explain what the deal is; not scare everybody to death in order to promote compliance.
You see, I also used to think that a dirty bomb is truly a horrible device, but after watching The Power of Nightmares I found out that it is not much different than a conventional bomb; so, if you survive the initial blast, you just gotta get the hell out of the area, and you should be ok. Now, have you seen Dick, Rumsfeld, or Rice appear on TV and tell us that a dirty bomb isn't all what it's hyped to be? No sir; what we get is lame shows like 24 with a single hero who does miracles in saving us from the bad guys (one of which, ironically enough, turns out to be the president).
You can invoke 9/11 as much as you want, but while you are in your little bubble, scared to death of the next attack, instead of seeing a shrink, politicians are conducting a power-grab and dividing lots of pork among themselves.
I'm going to repeat it again--much like the Republicans, maybe if I repeat it enough it will get through to you: We had all the information necessary to stop the 9/11 Attacks.
Unfortunately, some of the information was at the CIA. Some of the information was at the FBI. Some of the information was at the NSA. None of the groups shared their information. In some cases, they couldn't because it was illegal--the CIA is forbidden from "domestic spying", while the FBI is forbidden from "foreign spying." Some of it is turf--why give the FBI information so they can make the arrest and get all the credit? So while the CIA thought these guys were bad news, they didn't tell the FBI. The FBI thought these guys were bad news but they didn't have enough evidence to convince the higher-ups to devote the resources to watching them. The NSA had the evidence that these guys were bad news, but telling the FBI or CIA would have meant divulging national security capabilities.
But I will repeat this again, so it will hopefully get through: We had all the information necessary to stop the 9/11 Attacks.
That's why I get incensed when people bring up 9/11 in this context. 9/11 was not an issue where we didn't have enough information. 9/11 was an organizational problem. There was no reasonable way to make sure that information about dangerous people would get to the appropriate people where they could be watched and/or arrested. So the argument that we need "more information" to "prevent another 9/11" is wrong. What we need to do is do a better job of managing the information we have.
You see, this is why we had an investigation into 9/11--much to the President's chagrin--so we could find out what went wrong and try to fix the problem so it wouldn't happen again.
Lets say, for instance, that my business competes with US businesses, or has competitive procurement where some of the parties involved are US businesses. There is a significant chance that my sensitive data will be accessed by the US government and passed to US competitors or those US businesses I am dealing with (Hint: The French were notorious for this, and their security people reputedly even bugged business class seats on Air France).
Am I willing to accept this risk - hell no. SOLUTION: don't buy any more IT gear from the US - the Chinese/Taiwanese/Japanese/Europeans (exept the French) have just become more trustworthy. RESULT: The US IT sector will need to host a few more farewells, to say goodbye to a few more export markets!
...then why should you accept being treated as a criminal ? This planet will just become one day a Zoo with chipped, tattooed and rfid'd humans wandering around lining up happily for their free daily beating.
Some say it doesn't matter if someone else is always listening/watching. Well, do you speak and behave the same if someone is watching ? Can you pee with someone standing beside you watching ?
Hell, I'm not in the U.S., still I've come to a point where I don't even sign [before you start, I mean gpg] my e-mails going to the U.S., let alone use encryption.
I'd never use network equipment with backdoors known to have been built in (and I don't even have trade secrets to guard). Would you ? Would a company ? Would they prosecute you if you use certified hw with backdoors but keep everyone out with proxies and firewalls ? Or would they then make it also illegal to filter network traffic ?
Am I going too far ? Maybe. But sometimes you have to think further. Where can a road paved with ever more often restrictions lead ? If the police gets more freedoms while you loose your freedoms, what does that tell you about your future ?
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Great. So now politicians will not only be able to talk out of their own asses, but mine as well?
That just don't seem right.
Do you know who created the Taliban? Who trained Al-Qaeda? Who then ditched them after it looked as tho they weren't going to be able to serve the purpose of protecting that huge oil pipeline Unocal was salivating over? That's right. WE did. We created this enemy. It's not like there are some bearded towel wearing kooks on the other side of the world that just straight up hate our freedoms... oh no no, they have a much much deeper seated hatred for us. Why we would worry about them is another question altogether however. The taliban tried to hand Osama over to us multiple times and were refused each time. It seems we still needed the bogeyman for other purposes after he bombed those US Embassies and the USS Cole.
You're nothing; like me.
No. I have something against irregular wiretaps done without warrents. Possibly even without the involvement of the police.
If you think that nobody outside of the police forces is going to have the codes to break into your network a week after the date is available, you've got your head in the sand.
Back in the '80s when it was common for the games companies to copy-protect their games (before they finally figured out that this just upset their legitimate customers), a friend of mine came in with a cracked copy of the latest game -- weeks before the game was available to legitimate purchasers. Network backdoor codes are going to be like that. The 2% of crooked cops will ensure that no spammer is going to lack for that information.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
"all they have to do is repeat three words over and over again. Terrorism, child porn. Terrorism, child porn. Terrorism, child porn."
You forgot drugs and drug traffickers. The "war on drugs" has been at the forefront on our loss of civil liberties in the last fifty years or so. Before that there were the McCarthy years with the communist purges. There were also a lot of terrible abuses of peoples civil liberties by the states and feds during Prohibition as well, until that is we found the good sense to repeal the insane amendment.
There is a long history of abuses in this country. Usually the abuses have been restricted to a minority of the population and no one else seemed to care. The beast that has been allowed to feed on the hapless minority is larger, hungrier and more insecure and aggressive. Now the people of the majority have begin to smell its foul breath and feel the chill of its shadow. This is a natural progression of this type of abuse of power and should have been expected by all. IMHO those who have created, supported, simply ignored or indeed often applauded this beasts self righteous feeding frenzy on others will deserve the attention they get when its fear driven hunger is directed toward them.
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." Thomas Jefferson
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
Association fallacy's such as the logical argument tool "reductio ad absurdum" (reduction to the absurd) or "reductio ad Hitlerum" (reduction to Hitler), which are what Godwin's Law attempts to thwart, are tools of debate usually employed to expose a contradiction, fallacy or weak argument. They really should not be used to set the framework for such discussion. I do agree that Godwin's Law does indeed express valid concerns when applied to a lot of Internet discussions. Such hyperbole has been way to common and often has been an indication of a weak argument, and such does tend to degrade the whole environment. In its essence the law would tend to promote discussion of more depth. However it also has the inherent tendency to apply a "political correctness" to such discussion. At some point Godwin's Law becomes untenable as valid limiter for the frame of discussion. Fascist states rarely happen overnight. Such a state is often the devolution of a Democracy or Republic and as such the decline is deceptively gradual. The signs of such trends toward fascist like states are apparent today in many lands including the USA and UK. To ban these observations in discussions because of the wish to elevate the content at some point defeats the validity of the discussion.
If you haven't already, you should read some Hermann Hesse. The novels Krieg und Frieden, Steppenwolf and Demian are insightful as to the stealthy insipid effects of such "politically correct" rules on discussion in social environments leading to a fascist state. Or maybe some George Orwell, the novels "1984", "Animal Farm", "Coming Up For Air" were also somewhat interesting in this regard. I do agree that those that rant incessantly and illogically in such a manner are in no way helpful indeed they often actually defeat their own agendas. Since my point of view is often tainted by these types I wish many would just shut-tf-up.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
Ah, I see the propaganda machine has been doing its job. Do you really think that "terrorists" are just people born with an irrational hatred for "freedom" and that's why they blow themselves up just to terrorize people half way across the globe from them?
Why are we so often the target of terrorism, and not other countries? How come Canada doesn't have to worry about terrorist attacks in their country, despite their defense budget being miniscule compared to ours and their equally (if not more) free and open atmosphere?
Do you think Palestinians simply have a genetic defect which compels 17 year-old girls who once aspired to be journalists or teachers to strap bombs to their chest and blow up Israelis? Why would a nation with no standing army want to purposely instigate war with the second most well-armed nation in the world--thanks to the billions of dollars of annual defense aid from the U.S.? Because they've got some sort of terrorist gene and the Israeli government just isn't doing enough to protect its citizens?
Terrorism starts when desperate people are pushed to extremes through continuous oppression. It's what desperate people resort to when they have no other recourse. It has nothing to do with whether a government is performing its duty to protect its citizens. That's why no matter how much money we pour into "defense" and the War on Terrorism, and no matter how much power we grant to our government, we'll never be as safe as countries that don't interfere with the democratic will of foreign nations, that don't manipulate the political process of other states, don't impose suicidal economic policies on developing nations, and don't exploit weaker nations for their economic resources.
But keep buying into whatever CNN/Fox News wants you to believe, and ignore the obvious realities that are in front of you. The fact that the military industrial complex exerts enormous influence over our government and is exploiting our position as the world's superpower for its financial interests has nothing to do with the creation of terrorists, I'm sure. It's all just a bunch of crazy rag-heads who have a fanatical hatred of "freedom" and "democracy"...