The Age of Technological Transparency

endychavez writes "Executives and politicians may be starting to realize that privacy is dead and secrets can no longer be kept in the information age. There is always a technological trail, and transparency is pervasive. Just ask Patricia Dunn and Mark Foley. In a piece at eWeek, Ed Cone from CIO Insight talks about the specific technologies that brought them down." From the article: "Foley may have thought his IMs were disappearing into the ether as soon as they cleared his computer screen. Instead, the messages were saved, and his career was ruined, and the House leadership is left to fight for survival. We talk a lot a about transparency as a virtue in the age of the web, and hold it up as a marketing technique and a better way to run an enterprise. Sun's blogging CEO, Jonathan Schwartz, is lobbying the SEC to allow more financial information to be disclosed online. Corporations are using all manner of web-techs to speak more directly to stakeholders. But transparency needs to be understood as more than a slogan or a strategy. It's a reality. It can be imposed on you by the Internet, whether you want to be transparent or not."

Comments

Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

There is no guarantee of privacy anywhere in the Constitution- only a requirement that the evidence gathered can't be used against you in court.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Weston O'Reilly]

Did the article claim there is? A bit off topic (like the parent), but why are people always so quick to drag that observation out? Of course there's no "right" to privacy. Does that mean a completely transparent society is a *good* thing? It's legal to lie to your mother too - but should you?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

That is incorrect.

The Bill of Rights is explicitly written to define government invasions of privacy illegal (mainly in the Fourth Amendment).

It says nothing about being "used against you in court." This is merely the means courts employ to limit, in practice, the abuse of such illegally collected information. Nonetheless, it is the unreasonable search and seizure itself which is Constitutionally forbidden.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Stradenko]

I lie to his mother all the time...is that wrong?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bill of Rights only lists a few rights that the founding fathers thought might most explicitly need writing down. They were very clear about not wanting people to become confused (or to be lied to) and think that the Bill of Rights enumerates the only rights they have. That's why it was reluctantly added as a set of amendments, rather than made a part of the main body. Please read the Federalist papers and other historical documents of the time.

Personal privacy is a natural right. Courts didn't just "make it up" any more than they might "make up" that you have a right to breathe. Some rights were considered by the founders to be so obvious that no reasonable legislature or court would infringe on them.

Government does not grant you rights. Rights come from right. Or if you prefer, truth, nature, or God. Government only restricts rights and/or takes them away.

The often repeated claim that "the right to privacy is nowhere in the constitution" advertises a deep ignorance of consitutional law by those who claim it.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Irish_Samurai]

While I am all for privacy rights, I must ask the question. Are we entering an age where unreasonable Search and Seizure isn't required anymore to commit acts that the population perceives as an invasion of their privacy? Is it now possible for passive and non intrusive observation to yeild the same results? If so, do we need to define our privacy or attempt to limit passive observation?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[thefirelane]

There is no guarantee of privacy anywhere in the Constitution- only a requirement that the evidence gathered can't be used against you in court.

Only on /. would something this dumb be said. The constitution is not a computer program: "gee, you're right... you don't actually have a right to air"

So you're telling me the MLK's rights were not violated when the FBI threatened him with the release of his personal activities if he didn't do what the government said? Please.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[TheRaven64]

Now, it's been six or seven years since I last read the US Constitution (I'm British, so it doesn't directly affect me), but I seem to recall that the Bill of Rights made it very clear that it was not an enumeration of all rights that individuals had. If I remember history correctly, there was some dispute amongst the founding fathers as to whether it should be included at all, since people might start saying 'the Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee your right to X, so you don't have that right.'

Re:Privacy is a myth

[geekoid]

What?
Is your understanding of the constitution really that shallow?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Zenaku]

God damn right. Why is it that the Brits understand our Constitution better than most Americans? The bill of rights is NOT an exhaustive enumeration of all rights, and a right can exist without being listed there. The bill of rights is merely a list of those rights the founding father's were specifically concerned enough to protect with a written "guarantee." (In quotes because it seems they no longer apply).

I'm getting tired of hearing "there is no such right" because the constitution doesn't specifically call it out. It doesn't have to.

Please note that nowhere in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right not to be murdered, or the right to bear children, or the right to learn to read. That doesn't mean you don't have those rights.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[jfengel]

There's an explicit statement that "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 tenth amendment).

Unfortunately, that's been rendered effectively null by a vigorous reading of the Commerce Clause, "The Congress shall have Power ... to regulate Commerce ... among the several States". (Ellipses are for clarity, not to torture the syntax.)

Just about everything has been crammed into that. The original civil rights laws were justified on the idea that merchants have to sell you stuff no matter what your race because you might be from out of state (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States et al. (1964)). California's in-state medical marijuana laws were overturned because legal marijuana, even in-state, affects the flow of marijuana elsewhere (marijuana being a fungible commodity).

So you can pretty much stick a fork in the idea that the 10th Amendment reserves you any rights that Congress can't take away. There are other places where you might derive a right to privacy (say, 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"), but Amendment X won't help.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[regular_gonzalez]

One could argue that it can be inferred from the 9th Amendment. However, one not even need stretch the point that far. The Supreme Court found an implicit Constitutional 'right to privacy' during Roe v. Wade.

The decision, written by Justice Harry Blackmun and based on the residual right of privacy, struck down dozens of state antiabortion statutes.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Homology]

> So you can pretty much stick a fork in the idea that the 10th Amendment reserves you any rights that Congress can't take away.

Exactly, it was proved once again when Military Commissions Act 2006 was passed: rollback habeas corpus, use torture, and provide immunity for US officials from torture prosecution.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[jfengel]

Well, that one's still got the Supreme Court to get past. There's a chance that that it will be ruled unconstitutional, at least to the degree that it applies to Americans. But non-citizens never had any rights under the Constitution.

They do have some rights under the Geneva Convention, which is the law of the land of the US, and it's possible that the Supreme Court could find the two laws incompatible and chuck the Military Commissions Act. But you won't find that out for at least two years; the wheels of justice grind pretty damn slow.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Moofie]

"Are we entering an age where unreasonable Search and Seizure isn't required anymore to commit acts that the population perceives as an invasion of their privacy?"

No. It's still unreasonable.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Dr Damage I]

Signatories to the geneva conventions are bound by the geneva conventions even when engaged in conflict with a non signatory until the non signatory violates the conventions see third geneva convention wiki (article 2)

I submit that the following acts constitute violations of the geneva conventions:

• cutting off the heads of prisoners
• not bearing arms openly
• the failure of combatants to wear a mark, identifiable at a distance identifying them as such
• not having a chain of command in which officers are responsible for the actions of subordinates

Insisting that the US remains bound by the Geneva conventions in its conflict with Al-Quaeda and its allies not only is not supported by the Geneva conventions but actively undermines the provisions of the Geneva conventions by removing the incentives created within the conventions for adhering to them.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[evil_Tak]

Don't worry, it's only a matter of time until Roe v. Wade is overturned, and our (legal) right to privacy will go away again.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That wasn't the question. The question is, have we now advanced technologically to a point where unreasonable searches and seizures are totally unneccessary, because all information about you is already in the public sphere rather than the private sphere?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Given the advance of technology to peer into every possible aspect of your life without a physical search, where does this mythical right exist?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No, my understanding of language and technology is that great. It appears this so-called "right to privacy" was invented in the 1970s, and a little more than 30 years later, technology has advanced to the point where private spaces and private information have been de facto wiped out.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Especially since it doesn't physically exist anymore anyway- it isn't THAT hard to get, say, your medical insurance records.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[symbolic]

How does it define "signatory"? If al quaeda isn't eligible to become a signatory (and I seriously doubt that it is), then your suggestion that the US is not bound might well be inaccurate.

Second, if this is already a part of the Geneva Convention, then why the need for all of this rediculous legislation?

Finally, I might point out - that the US erroneously decide (via it's commander-in-chief) that it is above the Geneva Convention, and pass all manner of laws to codify it - the fact is that with respect to the Geneva Convention, the US is a participant in an international theatre - As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it may still decide that the US is bound - local laws notwithstanding.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Some_Llama]

"There is no guarantee of privacy anywhere in the Constitution- only a requirement that the evidence gathered can't be used against you in court."

Can someone please mod this down into oblivion where it belongs? Plenty of supporting posts for downmodding in reply to this thread.

It just irks me that dis-(or just bad)information is being posted as the frist post.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[yaphadam097]

Except that when we talk about the tenth amendment in this context we should also consider the ninth:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The question is, what types of privacy do people reasonably expect? And don't these reasonable expectations essentially amount to "unenumerated" rights?

I also think that we should always consider the founders' intents when discussing these things. Some interesting background here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_th e_United_States_Constitution

It seems to me that the ninth and the tenth amendment are two of the most ignored/abused pieces of legislation in the history of the country.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Depends on your point of view- I honestly think it's closer to the truth, but the courts do disagree.

The funny thing is from the technological standpoint- who ever promised you that information stored in a public network deserved any more privacy than shouting it in the park through a megaphone?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[jfengel]

It doesn't matter if al Qaeda is a signatory: we're bound by it. We adopted the treaty, that makes it the law of the land.

The loophole is that the GC applies to "legal combatants", who do things like wear uniforms, follow a chain of command, etc. Member of al Qaeda don't do that, so the GC arguably doesn't apply to them.

It gets tricky from there. The supposedly "illegal combatants" have not been proven to be illegal in any court, and the way the Bush administration has read it, the mere charge is sufficient to prevent a court from changing that determination. That's not exactly unusual on a battlefield, where snap legal decisions have to be made under fire, but Guantanamo is hardly "under fire". These may be innocent bystanders but there is no court to which they can appeal that claim, and some would say that this sort of catch-22 is illegal no matter what the laws say.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[thefirelane]

You are just making yourself look less intelligent. Such topics have been covered in the past

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Irish_Samurai]

EXACTLY!

My personal take on it is now is the time to define that right. We are quickly approaching a state where you can legally obtain information where previously it required unlawful acts. There is no protection for the "citizen" here.

Of course that opens up the can of worms for defining who is allowed those rights and who isn't, or when those rights can be exercised. It's a can of worms I believe is worth opening. Otherwise, those who know how to manipulate the rules have a foot up. While having the advantage is not something I am opposed to in most situations, the results in context of this subject are far reaching and have implications that could cause more harm than good in the long run.

Lets fix the leaky pipe before we have to replace the ceiling.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[jfengel]

That's correct: al Qaeda members have done things that put them outside of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

However, although that's true of al Qaeda in general, there is currently no way to appeal a claim that one is not a member of al Qaeda. Wearing civilian clothes is in fact a terrible crime in a terrorist, since it puts civilians at risk, but it's something that civilians do all the time.

Under the current interpretations, the mere accusation that one is a terrorist is enough to put one forever beyond the possibility of release. There is no court to whom you can appeal your innocence. Making it legal for the US government to put you away forever, merely on somebody's say-so, is a very dangerous legal precedent, whether the Geneva Convention applies or not.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Arguably, that case only affects private property. What about credit card records for hydroponic equipment, which is arguably in the public sphere?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[NoOneInParticular]

Indeed, the military Geneva conventions doesn't apply anymore. You are no longer at war, you are an occupying nation. Congratulations. Now you are stuck with the civilian part of the Geneva conventions. You're no longer dealing with soldiers, but with organized crime. It is a question of quelling the crime/rebellion and you can do one of two things: establish law and order by rigorous prosecution and fair trial, or by trying to stump out the rebellion by sheer force and brutality. So you've taken the second choice. Congrats, you've lost control, and are on your way out.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[diablomonic]

Thatd be fine dr damage, if it weren't for the fact that

A) the people being tortured are often innocent of any "terrorist" activity, as seen in various extraordinary rendition victims that ended up being released months later (but of course not apologised to or compensated for or given justice by punishing those responsible for months of torture)

B) The US has no real chain of command for responsibility purposes anyway. Bush and his cronies dont have "the buck stops here" signs, they have "I didnt do it, blame him, I know nussink" signs. Its not a punish those responsible system so much as a blame the (probably innocent) scapegoat for your mistakes and crimes.

I find it hilarious (in a laugh till you cry morbidly sort of way) that everything americans accuse other "terrorist nations" or "rogue states" of doing, they are doing themselves.

They are basically like a big primary school bully, walking around punching people and stealing their lunch money, all the while crying to the principal that some of the victims tried to fight back.

Now Im not religious, but it seems a decent percentage of the idiotic americans behind such behaviour claim to be, perhaps they should actually read that book they love so much, something about removing a log in your eye?

let the flaming begin (oh no you didnt...)

Re:Privacy is a myth

[sgtrock]

But non-citizens never had any rights under the Constitution.

This simply isn't true! The amendments clearly bear this out as does the Constitution itself. Over and over again, there is no reference to citizens but to people or persons. Even the section on elections simply leaves it up to the states to resolve for themselves.

The Federal courts have always recognized that the Constitution covers all persons in the United States. Why do you think Bush & Co. kept all the enemy combatants in Gitmo? If they bring them into the US, they fall under US civilian jurisdiction. Keeping them in Gitmo allows Bush to continue to keep them under military control.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Some_Llama]

"Depends on your point of view- ..."

Well in regards to the constitution, no it doesn't thankfully.

It is quite well understood that the constituion guarantees us from an invasive government, as all of the preplys the the GP obviously show.

"I honestly think it's closer to the truth, but the courts do disagree."

Exactly, so you posted a remark you knew to be false and thus helped to spread disinformation... do you happen to work for Fox?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[falconwolf]

There is no guarantee of privacy anywhere in the Constitution- only a requirement that the evidence gathered can't be used against you in court.

Actually as early as the early 1800s, 1817 I'm thinking, the USSC ruled that privacy was a right. Privacy was guaranted as part free speech, that anonymous speech was very important to democracy. Though by no means all many papers were written anonymously during the War for Independence. Even now nobody knows for sure who wrote all of the "Federalist Papers" though some say James Madison wrote some of them and others wrote other ones.

Falcon

Re:Privacy is a myth

[grimwell]

That is very interesting and I honestly didn't know that. Thanks.

Then to offer protection for the current US administration, it depends on if the war in Iraq is a war of aggression or not. If the Iraqi war is a war of aggression, then the US would have been the first to break conventions. So that would free Iraqi allies from being bound by the conventions, yes?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[falconwolf]

There is no guarantee of privacy anywhere in the Constitution- only a requirement that the evidence gathered can't be used against you in court.

Only on /. would something this dumb be said. The constitution is not a computer program: "gee, you're right... you don't actually have a right to air"

I've heard the same thing basically in the real world. I've met some who believe this and say it.

Falcon

Re:Privacy is a myth

[falconwolf]

It appears this so-called "right to privacy" was invented in the 1970s

The Right to Privacy wasn't "invented" in the 1970s. In the early 1800s the USSC ruled that privacy was part of the First Admendment's Freedom of Speech, specifically that democracy required anonymous speech. There have been other USSC ruling also saying there is a right to privacy in the 1800s and 1900s including one in 1969.

Falcon

Re:Privacy is a myth

[ozmanjusri]

but actively undermines the provisions of the Geneva conventions by removing the incentives created within the conventions for adhering to them.

The greatest incentive for adhering to the Geneva Conventions is not becoming barbarians, even if those you are in conflict with are already barbaric.

The goal of a people at war is rarely to become their enemy.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[FLEB]

You'd like to do that, but some very persuasive people have no problems at all with the widening loophole in personal privacy, whereas the people who are up in arms are a band of kooks, pervs, or criminals out to hide something, while the rational, middle-of-the-road people have enough in their own lives to keep up with not to know or care.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Dr Damage I]

How does it define "signatory"? If al quaeda isn't eligible to become a signatory (and I seriously doubt that it is), then your suggestion that the US is not bound might well be inaccurate.

Read my comment again. It begins: "Signatories to the geneva conventions are bound by the geneva conventions even when engaged in conflict with a non signatory...".

Finally, I might point out - that the US erroneously decide (via it's commander-in-chief) that it is above the Geneva Convention, and pass all manner of laws to codify it - the fact is that with respect to the Geneva Convention, the US is a participant in an international theatre - As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it may still decide that the US is bound - local laws notwithstanding.

Since the Geneva conventions specifically excludes from it's protections those who flout its provisions, The US is merely applying the provisions of the Geneva conventions more rigorously than you are apparently willing to apply them. If the rest of the world feels that America should be bound by some unwritten provisions then perhaps it is time for the rest of the world to codify the provision which states:

"In a conflict between a high contracting party and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention unless the party is the United States in which case the party is bound under all circumstances."

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Exactly, so you posted a remark you knew to be false and thus helped to spread disinformation.

No, I posted a remark I consider to be true but which is currently considered heretical by some in hopes of sparking a more productive debate on the topic.

Thank you for proving my point that the concept is heretical, but I'd rather you joined in the debate on the subject of how information in the public sphere of commerce can be considered private.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The Right to Privacy wasn't "invented" in the 1970s. In the early 1800s the USSC ruled that privacy was part of the First Admendment's Freedom of Speech, specifically that democracy required anonymous speech.

I don't see covering up illegal actions as being anonymous speech. Nor do I see information put out in the public sphere of the world of commerce as being anonymous anything.

There have been other USSC ruling also saying there is a right to privacy in the 1800s and 1900s including one in 1969.

But it wasn't until 1973 that transactions in the public sphere were considered a part of privacy at all; and for the most part that was a disconnect between the law and reality.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[sootman]

It was once explained to me like this: at the time the constitution was written, privacy was a natural right, like gravity. Want to have a private conversation? Walk into the middle of a big open field and have it. The constitution also doesn't say "you have the right to walk on the ground." Privacy didn't need to be explicitly listed. And, as others have pointed out, several other amendments relate to privacy, esp. the 4th and 5th.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Questor Thews]

I'm barely even christian and I know more about that book than most bible-thumpers. You have to understand them; they only care about the parts that tell you what your neighbor is doing that is not permitted in the bible. And the parts that list the punishiments for various crimes and where it says to hate gays and enslave women. They don't seem to remember 'love thy neighbor' or 'judge not, lest ye be judged' or similar passages. They conviently overlook the tolerence passages and any of the redeeming parts of the bible. The part about all of this is that there are so many christians in the US, and when one of these bible-thumping idjits opens his mouth to spew hate, they just sit back and let it go. No outrage, no comment, nothing.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Some_Llama]

"No, I posted a remark I consider to be true but which is currently considered heretical by some in hopes of sparking a more productive debate on the topic."

Oh, so you're a troll.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes, but not all trolls have negative reasons for existing. I actually do believe that the original reasons for several constitutional concpets have been outstripped by technology- and I'm a supporter of a new Continental Congress to rewrite the damned thing and bring it more in line with reality as it exists today.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[bob frost]

Sorry, you are incorrect. Americans' "right to privacy" in the contemporary sense is a consequence of case law, ie, Supreme Court decisions. The first major break toward our contemporary notion of a right to privacy was in Giswold v. Connecticut (1963), where the court held that state and federal laws prohibiting the sending and possession of birth control information violated citizens' rights to privacy in their personal affairs. Roe v. Wade (1973--yes, the "abortion decision") was based on Griswold and affirmed it, as did Lawrence v. Texas (2003--overturning state anti-sodomy laws). Based on the current reading of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause (which, no doubt, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas would love to reverse), those decisions cover all units of government within the USA.

It's interesting to note, BTW, that this series of decisions, largely based around the personal privacy of one's sexual life, are a major wedge within the right wing in the US. Religious conservatives would love to overturn them all, thereby allowing states into the bedroom in the name of protecting Christian virtue, while libertarians largely want to keep the government out of citizens' private lives. At the same time, however, privacy protections of personal data wrt third parties are badly under-defined, except for medical and financial data. Recent European Union directives are much more solid on those questions.

I teach this stuff. See: .

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Some_Llama]

"and I'm a supporter of a new Continental Congress to rewrite the damned thing and bring it more in line with reality as it exists today."

Hmm, I actually believe the reverse, I think the original constituion was very well written, but only because of some very bad amendments is it becoming short of useless. It seems to me that when people try to make a good thing "better", it ends up working out for the worse... especially with the current status of corporations and their influence I see a new constitution being "by the corporation, for the corporation" at the expense of the populace.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Actually, that's one of the things I'd like to see changed- I want corporations to be demoted from persons *explicitly* in the constitution, by banning them from funding lobbyists and making campaign contributions, and requiring truth in advertisting as a constitutional mandate.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Some_Llama]

Can we also add holding the C level executives criminally and financially responsible for laws broken by the corporation for which they work?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You mean actually, as opposed to the common 10% of damages fines the courts seem to be so fond of right now?

I'm actually for asset confiscation and exile for anybody heading even a single partnership, let alone a corporation.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"No, I posted a remark I consider to be true but which is currently considered heretical by some in hopes of sparking a more productive debate on the topic."

Oh, so you're a troll.

I'd just like to point out that if it was a troll, it was a very successfull positive one; the debate is still active 5 days later!

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Some_Llama]

"if it was a troll"

You already stipulated that you were. I seriously doubt anyone is debating whether or not privacy is considered a right, espically your statement that it is not "guaranteed" by the constitution.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Wrong debate- the debate I wanted is whether the law matches reality- that is the expectation of privacy in an increasingly public world as technology progresses to shrink the private domain. That debate did happen- in the 72+ posts so far- as well as a couple of other side debates that were highly interesting, and therefore valuable to slashdot- troll or no troll.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, well lest we forget who originally created all of those problems in the Middle East by establishing those regimes to being with.

Oh, wait. Was that the United States AGAIN?

Read your history books. Quickfast, before Orwell becomes right about everything 'cept the year 'Cause, if my memory serves, a number of pseudo-political members had, ironically, given power, weapons, money, and support to a few nameless facist bastards just a few decades ago.

Filtering

[TheRecklessWanderer]

Anything that catches stupid people is good. I used to tell people years ago, when I ran a computer store: "Don't put anything on the internet that you wouldn't be comfortable shouting across a crowded room." How hard is that to understand? If you can't figure that out, you have no business running a huge conglomerate like HP. Man, oh man.

Re:Filtering

[King_TJ]

That's an oversimplification... so maybe that's why people find it "hard to understand". If I'm on my *personal* computer and I instant message a friend, I have an understanding that the content is destined to travel directly from point A (my IP address) to point B (the receiver's IP address). Yes, it will travel through other people's routers and networks on the way, but it's generally assumed that such traffic isn't subject to review by humans, in-transit.

Chatting over IM on the net is much more like carrying on a one-on-one conversation with somebody in an empty room, with the door closed. Could someone be eavesdropping with their ear against the door, or even spying with a hidden microphone in the room? Of course... but we regularly make the assumption that they're not. It's just not practical to go to great lengths to assure privacy in most cases. "Good enough" really is good enough in many situations.

Re:Filtering

[flyingfsck]

IM isn't point to point. It passes through a central IM server, which normally logs everything. Running a public IM server (AIM, MS IM) is a fantastic intelligence tool...

Re:Filtering

[hotdiggitydawg]

If I'm on my *personal* computer and I instant message a friend, I have an understanding that the content is destined to travel directly from point A (my IP address) to point B (the receiver's IP address). Yes, it will travel through other people's routers and networks on the way, but it's generally assumed that such traffic isn't subject to review by humans, in-transit.

Garbage - there are plenty of IM services that are not peer-to-peer. And even if they are, you can bet that such traffic IS subject to review by humans. Ever heard of tcpdump or ethereal?

Sorry, but even Sen. Stevens has a better understanding of the net than you - at least he worked out it was a series of tubes. Chatting over IM is more like sending someone a postcard in another country. You're trusting the the postal staff at both ends (and the convicted fraudsters serving out their community service at the mail-sorting centres) not to do anything with the supplied information. If you send sensitive information that way, you're merely hoping that the signal gets lost among all the noise, and sooner or later you're gonna get burned. Security by obscurity does not work - security by trivial obscurity works even less.

Re:Filtering

[King_TJ]

First off, it doesn't have to. I've had IM chats where we established a "direct connect" type of chat session, bypassing any central server. It's just like doing the old /DCC CHAT command in IRC.

But even when it does, I still maintain that users should expect a reasonable level of privacy. If nothing else, through simple obscurity - because millions of sessions are flowing through a major IM service's servers each day. What are the chances your particular chat is being read by a 3rd. party? (I would hope that a respectable IM service hosted by a major company like Yahoo or Microsoft would have polices punishing employees who manually sifted through chat sessions and viewed them, too.)

Re:Filtering

[vertinox]

"Don't put anything on the internet that you wouldn't be comfortable shouting across a crowded room."

The problem with this is that companies are taking my information without consent and shouting it all day long over the PA system and bullhorns at a croweded Football stadium.

Most of this information I never put up on the internet myself... It wouldn't bother me other than the fact someone can take it and run my credit score into the ground and/or possibly get me arrested for things I didn't do.

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argumentation is flawed. "There are billion of webpages in Googles index. What is the chance that you pick just the one you picked." Add keyword scanning or fulltext indices and that 3rd party may find what interrests him, and if thats you...

Re:Filtering

[Moofie]

"I still maintain that users should expect a reasonable level of privacy."

Regardless of what they may expect, they're not going to get it unless they use reasonably solid encryption.

Got a secret? Don't put it in plaintext.

Re:Filtering

[TheRecklessWanderer]

It is an overslimplification, but that is the easiest way to describe it to end users. If you say, "well, probably no one will listen" then that is mostly correct". From what I read, the logs of the IM software was what was pulled, on the local machine, so anybody with logging turned on can have that happen to them if their hardware gets subpeoned (did I spell that right?). Your best protection from casual surveillance on the net is the sheer volume of IP traffic. But if someone is looking for you specifically, especially if they are connected to the right people, you are cooked. Come on, you know it's true. So, don't say anything on the net you aren't happy shouting across a crowded room.

Re:Filtering

[Pentavirate]

It's also come to light that Foley's IM with the 18 year old former page was set up as something of a prank. The 18 year old kid was egging him on so that he could take the log and show his friends and laugh about it. Somewhere during the passing around, politicos got ahold of it and decided to use it against the congressman. As long as there is a log on either computer, you have no idea where your IM conversations are going to end up and who are going to read them. In fact, I regularly save tech support/customer support chat sessions in order to prove future failures were their fault should one occur.

Re:Filtering

[Neoncow]

Don't put anything on the internet that you wouldn't be comfortable shouting across a crowded room.

One problem with general statements is that they tempt counterexamples. For example, I just farted. See, that caused to harm to anybody on the Internet! Anyway. I'm going for a walk.

Re:Filtering

[grimwell]

What's keeping the other party from recording the IM conversation and maybe later leaking it?

Cash? ;)

Re:Filtering

[cerberusss]

Yeah well, that's not going to help the gentleman in TFA.

Lessons Learned?

[Kadin2048]

There's a certain amount of irony in that the issue which gets the folks in Congress interested in technology, is watching one of their own get busted because he didn't understand that what he was sending over the "tubes" could be saved at either end.

I guess if you can't convince them that "knowledge is power," maybe we should work on "knowledge is not getting indicted."

Re:Lessons Learned?

[wickedsteve]

So those tubes are transperant tubes, eh?

Oh Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean all those chat room transcripts where I posed as an eighteen year-old 5'4" 110lb blonde cheerleader on AOL back in 1995 are still out there somewhere. . .?

Re:Oh Crap

[Aqua_boy17]

That...was you???

Re:Oh Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

GRANDPA?!?

Re:Oh Crap

[tehcyder]

That...was you???

No, it was me.

Signed, A Fed.

Re:Oh Crap

[BlueYoshi]

wow a probable cute girl reading /.

It were a gentlemen's agreement.

[FatSean]

Expectation of privacy was cobbled together by judicial decisions I believe. You are right, it is not enumerated in the Constitution.

They took it from us. They tricked the gullible majority with that old canard: "Sure, it gives the gov't the power to really fuck you up...but don't worry...we'll only use this power against 'bad guys'".

Electronic trail

[PIPBoy3000]

It's been happening for quite awhile. Nearly ten years ago, I had the displeasure of dealing with someone within our organization that was exploiting security holes to gain more access than they should have had. Once we were on to them, we were deluged with evidence - weblogs, files on the PC, program history, and more.

The moral of the story is stay squeaky clean, or assume that some day you'll have to pay the piper. Your wife could be looking at your browser history. Your e-mail could be hacked. Live life as if all your secrets were public knowlege.

It's strange to think that technology really could lead to a more moral society. Usually politicians are preaching the opposite.

Re:Electronic trail

[giorgiofr]

Eh, "encrypt your data and secure your communication" is a better strategy than that.

Re:Electronic trail

[glhturbo]

It's strange to think that technology really could lead to a more moral society

(SARCASM on)

What drove the videotape's use into the home: pr0n

What drive cable TV into the home: pr0n

What drive the Internet into the home: pr0n

What drove broadband into the home: pr0n

Technology NEVER will produce morality....

(SARCASM off)

Note to humor impaired: I'm not anti-pr0n, I just thought the sentence italicized above was hilarious....

Re:Electronic trail

[Knuckles]

your wife could be looking at your browser history

If you cannot be honest with your wife, then change that or get a divorce.

Re:Electronic trail

[feepness]

If you cannot be honest with your wife, then change that or get a divorce.

Spoken like someone with less than five years of marriage under their belt.

I can be perfectly honest with my wife. I'm just not interested in discussing how those pants make her butt look, or more specifically, discussing the incorrectness of my opinion of how those pants make her butt look.

Which is why the answer is always: "Just fine, sweetie. Just fine."

Re:Electronic trail

[Some_Llama]

"Spoken like someone with less than five years of marriage under their belt. "

Spoken like someone with less than 15 years under yours, unless you can be truthful to your wife, and your wife can appreciate your truthfulness (and vice versa), your marriage is doomed.

DOOMED I SAY!!!!

Re:Electronic trail

[pipingguy]

It's strange to think that technology really could lead to a more moral society.

Morality is not the same thing as honesty. I prefer the latter over the former, as "morality" depends on one's interpretation.

Re:Electronic trail

[Knuckles]

I'm just not interested in discussing how those pants make her butt look

So you have a website about you wife's butt? You were talking about your browser history ...

Re:Electronic trail

[BK425]

This is what's really really really bad about "suvelleince society". Everybodies looking over their shoulder, assuming crap like "Your wife (or big brother) could be looking at your browser history." Instead of asking themselves; is it -RIGHT- that I sit in here alone while that human I promised to love and treasure is lonely in the next room. It's not an examination of responsibility, it's a reaction to fear.

This kind of thinking (constant observation) doesn't lead to an ethical society, it kills the very idea of ethics. bk425

Blogging CEO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun's blogging CEO, Jonathan Schwartz

I wonder what Sun's non-blogging CEO has to say about this...

not just politicians and companies

[Keebler71]

I'd like to point out that it is not just the pols and corporations that are learning these lessons... The media as well has and will continue to be 'bit' by this. While they once held a monolpoly on information, recent doctored photos scandals (Lebanon), CBS (forged?) documents, etc.. have all placed added scrutiny to the media's analysis, sources and methods.

I believe it is more complicated than you make it.

[rolfwind]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c onlaw/rightofprivacy.html

It starts off:

"The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of......"

karma

[User 956]

Foley may have thought his IMs were disappearing into the ether as soon as they cleared his computer screen. Instead, the messages were saved, and his career was ruined, and the House leadership is left to fight for survival.

Well, the bright side of all this is that it brings it home to these people that they need to understand how this technology works, because it's becoming a cornerstone of our society. Ted Stevens, for example, might actually take 5 minutes and find out how the intertubes actually works. (Hint: it's not a truck)

Re:karma

[Linux Ate My Dog!]

The reverse hopefully might also happen: we will all learn that a humungous amount of people have secrets that are not currently socially sanctioned (fetishes, desires, habits, phobias, fears) and we could become a less puritanical and more understanding society as a result.

Many, many of the people wagging their fingers at Foley are probably also sighing in relief "At least they didn't find out about my...". Shame makes people suicidal, and act irrationally, and be vulnerable to blackmailers and abusive people. As a councellor I once worked with summarized: shame kills. Yes, a lot of us will experience shame as our secrtes are made public, but somewhere along the line there will be strength in numbers, and we as a society can move on from obsessing over details.

Re:karma

[splutty]

> and find out how the intertubes actually works. (Hint: it's not a truck)

I prefer 'intersubways' really, or in the extreme case 'intermetros'.

Where'd they get the IM records?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone have details regarding where they found the records of the IM conversations? I know this can be turned on, but I thought that it was generally off by default. The article mentioned that a fellow page helped newscasters get a hold of the conversations, but how?

Re:Where'd they get the IM records?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is my understanding that any online communication, whether email, or IM etc. is stored either on your system or the ISP's servers, or the cache servers (or all three). This is why web pages saved on Google's systems are available long after they are taken down by the original site. I friend was able to did up an email I sent him to his first website he put online in 1995. More than 10 years later he retrieved it.

I always say don't ever do or put anything online that you would not want the world to see. Because it will always be there.

Pre-guilt

[soundvessel]

I don't want to defend the guy, but at this point we can't convict him and say "Foley may have thought his IMs were disappearing into the ether as soon as they cleared his computer screen. Instead, the messages were saved, and his career was ruined, and the House leadership is left to fight for survival." IMs can be forged, and the younger generation certainly knows how to forge an IM log. And the idea that multiple pages are reporting this says nothing of whether or not they collaborated on this, perhaps because they just didn't like the guy, or found him creepy.

Obviously his admissions so far don't bode well for him being innocent of the charges, but the media (and people in general) need to tone down the pre-guilt.

Re:Pre-guilt

[Aqua_boy17]

Well I would not want to defend him either, but his resignation in the middle of a re-election campaign could be considered a tacit admission of guilt by some.

That said, I've been amazed of the spin that the conservative media has been putting on this. For one thing, they're all questioning the timing and making this look like a liberal smear campaign. For another, why is everyone focused on outing the page instead of protecting the identity of someone who may have been a victim of sexual predation? Is this a campaign get to the truth or to discredit the source? Where are all of the conservatives yelling "won't someone think of the children?"

One thing is certain. It's a long way until November and the mud slinging is just starting on both sides.

Re:Pre-guilt

[soundvessel]

I agree, it can be considered, at least in the public eye, as a tacit admission of guilt. But his resignation is all but executed the moment something like this comes out this close to an election. He could have been caught stealing staples from the office and have to resign. Nonetheless, it's not a legal admission of guilt.

Both conservative and liberal media have gone a little too far with this. I laughed at the Daily Show and Colbert Report, to be sure, but I almost felt guilty myself doing so.

Re:Pre-guilt

[westlake]

Obviously his admissions so far don't bode well for him being innocent of the charges, but the media (and people in general) need to tone down the pre-guilt.

"Evidence of flight is evidence of guilt." Foley bolted as soon as the story broke on ABC Bews. No one -- not the Speaker of the House --- not Foley's own attorney --- has dared to challenge the authenticity of the IMs.

Re:Pre-guilt

[porkmusket]

What the hell are you talking about? He's not going to trial, he's admitted what he did. The verdict is in, and he's guilty.

Re:Pre-guilt

[soundvessel]

"Evidence of flight is evidence of guilt." Foley bolted as soon as the story broke on ABC Bews. No one -- not the Speaker of the House --- not Foley's own attorney --- has dared to challenge the authenticity of the IMs.

I definitely agree on the second point, no one has publically [I'm sure they are privately]. And someone (the media) should be. But that issue of protecting the minors also plays a huge role here.

As for the first point, just because it's a saying and is in quotes doesn't make it true. OJ Simpson took flight, but he was technically not guilty.

Re:Pre-guilt

[soundvessel]

Show me the textual admission. Has he been booked in criminal court yet? Even if you're pleading guilty there's still a process to go through.

Re:Pre-guilt

[kupan787]

OJ Simpson took flight, but he was technically not guilty.

Probably the worst example you could have come up with. I think it is just about understood by everyone that OJ WAS guilty. I am sure there are a few people that take off running and aren't guilty, but why the hell would you do this. Why not come out publicly offering DNA or fingerprints if you know you didn't do it. Running is about the dumbest thing you could do.

Re:Pre-guilt

[soundvessel]

I totally thought he was guilty, as a citizen. But what I thought doesn't mean anything in terms of whether or not he was guilty. Hence the use of "technically." And, likewise, I totally think Foley is guilty here. That doesn't mean a thing.

Re:Pre-guilt

[porkmusket]

You're missing the point. There is no criminal or civil case planned, no charges have been filed. The dude made a mistake and resigned, he is not going to court. So this only discussion of 'pre-guilt' is stupid, as no one is trying to determine guilt.

All we have is the evidence presented and Foley's public remarks. IMNHO, the dude is fucking slimeball beyond all reasonable doubt.

Re:Pre-guilt

[BK425]

You are mistaken. US criminal law normally goes: accusation, investigation, charge, trial. It's kinda like "Ready aim fire" you get ready before you aim, you aim before you fire, and firing (the sentence, if convicted at trial) comes last.

With Foley we've done accusation and the Investigation is in progress. Many press reports include statements by state and federal agencies (specifically FBI) saying that Foley is under investigation. After that's done the prosecutors (federal, state, and w/legislators possibly special) will decide wether there will be a "criminal or civil case planned" and tell us.

We won't know wether there's a "criminal or civil case planned" until -after- the prosecutors announce it (and that's assuming the statute of limitations runs without anyone finding new evidence), that comes after the investigations are (at least declared) complete.

IMO the guys probably guilty as sin but the public circus this has turned into is really "theater of the absurd" and a LOT of the public reaction really highlights the real lack of basic education about civics that a tremendous number of people seem to suffer from IANAL bk425

Re:Pre-guilt

[soundvessel]

Exactly my point. Just because the guy's a slimeball and is accused of (and admitted to, somewhat, but not directly) some henious shit doesn't mean he's given up his rights.

Did we learn NOTHING from the Sam Jain fiasco?

[bunions]

honestly, those HP execs wouldn't have had all these troubles if they'd paid more attention to somethingawful and penny-arcade some years back.

Slashdot ACHING to cover Foley...

[Anonymous Coward]

The liberal burgeois editor tower of slashdot has been salivating over this story for so long...

They ache to be able to present it to the proletariate usersluts ....

Oh my ... news for nerds people... its not about Robots or Source Code anymore...

Its about another Marxist / MAOist front in the political war to control.

That's just the nature of information

[Reality Master 201]

If you do enough shady crap long enough, you get caught eventually. You can be clever about it, but usually people get careless and/orinvolve one or more other parties.

If Folley had written letters to the boy on clay tablets or papyrus, using technology available at least since the age of the ancient Egyptians, he'd still have run the exact same risk. Because he would still have been acting like a creepy, hypocritical pedophile and still would have been committing statements proving that to a semi-permanent medium.

The basic problem is that people like to tell secrets and gossip, and so information leaks out. They drink and they brag, they're indiscreet, often they're outright stupid. We've had the exact same character flaw for a million years: we just cant shut up. It just gets disseminated more quickly now.

Re:That's just the nature of information

[DeadManCoding]

While I agree that most people don't realize that their mouth is flapping when it's not supposed to be, not all of the human race has that problem. I realize it's an oxy moron, but some military positions do require a security clearance, which basically states that you can keep your mouth shut. Having been through the process myself, I can tell you that it's not easy. I was actually denied my security clearance due to personal reasons. Long story short, some people can keep their mouths shut, but meeting those people is far and few between.

Ninth Amendment: "I don't get no respect."

[Kadin2048]

This is a good point.

I think what it boils down to is this: the Constitution isn't an exclusive document. It wasn't intended to mean, "everything is illegal, except for a few certain things." They enumerated the really big important stuff that they thought the Government needed to avoid, but they weren't giving Congress a carte blanche to trample on the other rights that people had always assumed that they had.

Unfortunately, the Ninth Amendment doesn't seem to get a whole lot of respect from the USSC or anybody else. It pretty much gets ignored; rather than drawing on the "pneumbra" and other IMO shaky legal arguments, I think it would have safe to just say 'hey, people have always had a certain right to privacy, therefore it's protected under the Ninth Amendment.' That makes it harder to chisel away at established freedoms, even if they weren't one of the top eight that made it into enumerated Amendments, or into the body of the Constitution itself.

Re:Ninth Amendment: "I don't get no respect."

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the framers of the U.S. constitution should have used the approach of the British, namely: Rather than enumerating your rights, everything is considered legal except for when a law makes something illegal.

Bill of rights? We don't need no stinkin' bill of rights .

Re:Ninth Amendment: "I don't get no respect."

[Pentavirate]

Perhaps the framers of the U.S. constitution should have used the approach of the British, namely: Rather than enumerating your rights, everything is considered legal except for when a law makes something illegal.

They did. The bill of rights was merely a list of rights that the founders deemed so important that even the government couldn't make them illegal.

You have to be careful with the attitude that we have rights that aren't innumerated in the constitution because pragmatically anyone can misconstrue anything into a right (ie, I have a right to kill my kids because, as my father used to say, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out!"). The vehicle that was supposed to prevent congress from making laws against rights was voting them out of office. If a majority of people want everyone to have a right to a certain amount of privacy, than they shouldn't vote for people that would vote for those kinds of laws. Now you can argue how effective this vehicle is, but it doesn't change how the system was set up to work.

Re:Ninth Amendment: "I don't get no respect."

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the framers of the U.S. constitution should have used the approach of the British, namely: Rather than enumerating your rights, everything is considered legal except for when a law makes something illegal.

The point of the US Constitution is not to describe what things citizens can or cannot do. Rather, it defines how the federal government works and what it is allowed to do.

That's part of the reason why the Constitution did not originally include a Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton's argument for that strategy is here.

The pretext is nonsense.

[Jerk City Troll]

... [S]ecrets can no longer be kept in the information age. There is always a technological trail, and transparency is pervasive.

That is silly.

Such a statement is analogous to declaring security dead because systems have been compromised in the past. Like security, the means to privacy must and are continuing to evolve. Adoption of these mechanisms may be a bit behind the curve, but that in no way means that privacy is “dead” for anyone or everyone. In the past, rotational cyphers, Enigma, and “security envelopes” were enough to keep your messages secure (for a while). These days, we have incredibly powerful tools for keeping our data private, we simply have to be willing to use them.

And that is happening. Who does not use strong encryption for conducting electronic commerce? Nobody. As for privacy in email and other forms of communication, eventually, after enough scandals like those recently at Hewlett-Packard, people will adapt to protect themselves. Then the baseline will be raised and those who would wish to violate privacy will resume efforts in advancing the sophistication of their tools. Then those on the privacy side will move on again. This cycle will repeat again and again.

Privacy is an arms race, in a manner of speaking, and just because privacy is behind at times in no way means that it is a lost cause.

It doesn't matter if you delete your logs

[Anonymous Coward]

because they can be saved on the other side...

Re:It doesn't matter if you delete your logs

[Anonymous Coward]

you're blowing my mind!

Secrecy isn't dead.

[Darlantan]

Secrecy is no more dead than it has been for a long while. There are some people who just don't seem to understand the medium. Sending messages across the internet is not like passing a letter to a person across the table from you. It's more like passing a letter along through a chain of 20 people -- any of which can read it as they handle it. You don't send secret things that way, or if you do, there's this little thing called encryption that you might want to look into. Also, much like a letter, once it is out of your hands you can't gaurantee that it won't come up at some later time when you least want it to. Also, are you _sure_ you can trust the person you're communicating with? Can you even verify that you're talking with who you think you're talking to?

The same basic rules of secrecy that have always applied still apply today. First and foremost, if you want to keep something REALLY secret, keep it to yourself!

Privacy, however, is a different matter.

The chickens have returned home to roost

[Travoltus]

The Republicans have spent so much time destroying our privacy and installing their surveillance state and now they have fallen victim to their own monster.

I suspect they will be huge champions of privacy after this.

Re:The chickens have returned home to roost

[advocate_one]

Have you seen how Fox news is reporting on the Foley incident??? they're effectively claiming that he's a Democrat!!!

Re:The chickens have returned home to roost

[MadMidnightBomber]

In other news, IBM uses scanning tunneling microscope to build world's smallest violin, plays it for Hastert and co.

Re:The chickens have returned home to roost

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans have spent so much time destroying our privacy and installing their surveillance state and now they have fallen victim to their own monster.

Thank Buddha that the Democrats have been working to protect our privacy.

Or at least theirs. Like how Bill Clinton invited Ken Starr into his personal life, and then whined about the unfairness of it afterwards?

REASON * April 1998

License to Grill
How the Clintons invited Ken Starr into their private lives.

By Virginia Postrel

Like just about everyone else in America, I believe Bill Clinton had a sexual affair--if not dictionary-definition "sexual relations"--with intern Monica Lewinsky. I think it's likely, though by no means a sure thing, that he lied about that affair in a sworn deposition. And I wouldn't put it past him to suborn perjury or obstruct justice, though the evidence at this writing is very murky on those serious charges.

The president has what is popularly known as a zipper problem. He appears to like the sort of women who are unlikely to head health care task forces or jet off to Davos, Switzerland, to lecture the world on the morally corrupting effects of capitalism. Given both power and charisma, Clinton seems to have ample opportunity to act on his impulses. And though it's unlikely that Lewinsky will be his final fling, he manages to hold his marriage together and even inspire ferocious loyalty in his wife. Power and charisma probably have something to do with that feat too.

Clinton also lies all the time--so much that he often appears unable to tell he's doing it. His State of the Union address was full of what Washington Post columnist James Glassman rightly calls "big, brazen, and undeniable" lies, starting with "two whoppers": that "we have the smallest government in 35 years" and that Clinton wants to spend any budget surplus on Social Security rather than new programs. The government has shrunk (modestly) by only one measure, the number of federal employees; it spends, taxes, and regulates more than ever. And Clinton is proposing so many new spending programs--without offsetting cuts--that he can't fund them without substantial new taxes on cigarettes and corporate income. Given his lies about policy, and about his past, it's not surprising that even his political allies disbelieve him about Monica Lewinsky.

Nonetheless, Clinton does not deserve his current round of legal troubles. To be publicly humiliated as a moral weakling, lacking both judgment and self-control--that he deserves. To be distrusted by both intimates and the general public--he deserves that too. But for sexual pecadillos and routine lies to lead to possible high crimes and misdemeanors takes more than just Clinton's personal flaws. It takes very bad policy.

There is one sense in which the president deserves what has happened to him: He and his political allies are the people who made it possible, who created the legal mechanisms by which his private life became a matter of public, legal record. In that bitter irony lies the one hopeful aspect of L'Affaire Monica. It may, finally, create a consensus to rein in legal excesses that threaten not just Bill Clinton but the liberties of all Americans. But if Republicans are seduced by scandal and Democrats by dreams of vengeance, it may make matters worse.

The "crisis in the White House" begins with the Independent Counsel Statute. From the start, many Republicans opposed that law for corroding the constitutional division of powers. Back then, of course, presidents were Republicans, so the opposition was easy to ascribe to partisan motives. But in 1994, when the statute was up for reauthorization, a Democrat was in the White House, and his party controlled Congress. The most vocal opposition still came from conservative Republicans, who turned out to be remarkably principled.

They were utterly

Re:The chickens have returned home to roost

[Software]

I suspect they will be huge champions of privacy after this.

As much as I'd like to think so, I doubt this will be the case. I don't think the Republicans would like to be seen as doing anything that might appear to favor Foley. Plus they're just too committed to increasing surveillance of the general public. All in the name of terrorism, of course. Or protecting the children from the Foleys of the world. Or something.

Re:The chickens have returned home to roost

[kbielefe]

Mark Foley is not the victim in this case. If the republican party is a victim of anything, it is the victim of Foley's misbehavior. Republicans have this crazy idea called taking responsibility for one's actions, which is why Foley resigned instead of whining about being a victim of a political witch hunt. It sounds absurd, but we actually like it when terrorists or paedophiles are held to account, even if they're republicans.

All that being said, I had no idea that the IMs in question were international communications intercepted by the NSA.

Re:The chickens have returned home to roost

[Tyler Durden]

Republicans have this crazy idea called taking responsibility for one's actions...

Yeah, whatever. The Bush administration is the antithesis of "taking responsibility of one's actions."

Republicans talk a good game about it to get votes, but are utterly incapable of living up to this ideal.

Mod parent insightful

[Travoltus]

Well said.

Now where are the Libertarians to oppose Government interference in the privacy/surveillance arms race?

*chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp*...

Standard of Proof

[Anonymous Coward]

While there's a point (nothing's ever really deleted), it's, well, wrong. Yes, there exist lots of records out there. What the article misses is that most types of records can be FORGED. E-mail headers. MAC addresses. Some kinds of IM. And that's what a clever person can forge, let alone what someone with access to someone else's account can fake. Or someone who hacks into a box can plant.

The only way any of these logs out there can be considered "proof" of anything is if they're coupled to a strong identification scheme, one in which the user actively participates. Frankly, I don't see that happening soon.

The next generation of privacy will come out of people smart enough to forge the records that people who don't understand technology take as gospel fact.

A series of tubes

[Foofoobar]

Foley may have thought his IMs were disappearing into the ether as soon as they cleared his computer screen

Actually from my understanding, most Senators are under the impression that the internet is a series of tubes for sticking your penis into.

This has been my mantra for years.

[csoto]

My colleagues have bemoaned the efforts by others to "expose" their doings, with the very astute observation that "they could come to the wrong conclusions just exactly what we do." My argument has been that they ALREADY make judgements about you, based on what limited knowledge they can acquire. It's far better to "be transparent" and tell your story the way YOU want it to be understood. They may not buy it (see the other article about Scoble blogging ;), but at least you have a chance to give "your side" of a "discussion" that's happening whether you want it to or not.

Privacy is an illusion.

Re:This has been my mantra for years.

[kbielefe]

Sorry, I had to stop laughing because I mispronounced "doings" in my head with the oi as in "oil" (I've been reading a lot of Russian lately), transforming it into a pseudo-slang word that changes the meaning of the sentence a lot.

I agree with what you said, with one addition. I'm not narcissistic enough to believe that the government cares at all about what I do, not to mention cares enough to devote enough resources to piece together my electronic footprints. On the contrary, I believe they expend a great amount of effort to filter my useless data out.

Miniscule Payback...

[garcia]

"Executives and politicians may be starting to realize that privacy is dead and secrets can no longer be kept in the information age. There is always a technological trail, and transparency is pervasive.

Starting to? No, they realized that long ago -- what they are finally realizing is that they are no longer immune to the effects their legislation has created.

The more bullshit that the administrations, Congresses, and Houses create, the more the community will buck against. We might be fighting the war differently than we would have (or should have) but we are fighting it.

I consider this a miniscule bit of payback for the warrantless wiretaps and the "Patriot" Act.

This is proof positive ...

[dkleinsc]

When the world relies on computers, geeks collectively rule the world. Of course, most of them never use that power, since they'd much rather go home and kill off some demons or spend quality time with their children, but a well-placed geek could have just about every leader in every field (excepting geekdom of course) by the balls.

And no one is concerned?

[vinnythenose]

Having evidence on your hard drive these days is pretty much a guarantee of guilt. However, people seem to forget that should someone want to, it is relatively easy to plant information.

You ever piss off a pscyhopathic computer geek and you're screwed.

You'll turn on your computer one day to find illicit files all over the hard drive with timestamps ranging back through history. It'll look like you've been collecting whatever it is for months.

Or hell, someone doesn't like you, they forge their log files on their computer and claim you were sending nasty IM stuff, when the authorities don't see the matching logs on your computer, they will just assume that you cleared them out to protect yourself.

Yup, those timestamps are obviously immutable written in stone and never lie.

I don't blog, I don' IM...

[flyingrobots]

Call me old fashioned, but I don't do these things, I don't have an MySpace account, I don't do any of this stuff. FOR THIS VERY REASON.

I interact with my friends in person. It's a lot more fun and fulfilling.

I don't have to live online, I find and network with folks just fine using very simple tools (phone, visits, post office, and some email). I have emails, sure, and I have some postings here and on news groups. But I try to say only those things that need to be said.

If you have something to say that is potentially embarrasing, don't use the internet.

You can still have privacy. Just don't say things that you want to keep private....

Re:I don't blog, I don' IM...

[^_^x]

I send e-mail, use three IM clients, and have a blog...
However, my real name hasn't been on the Internet in 10 years, aside from online orders I've made. Sign-ups that require a name get a fake one. My installation of Windows thinks I'm "me," so when little surprises like MS Office metadata tags with creator names show up, I shrug it off because my files are marked with "Author: me" and so on...

My username varies from place to place. I have a few I use a lot, a few I use occasionally, and a bunch of one-timers. I have a mail account for quick personal mail, one for spam and signups, one for business correspondence, and one for projects with classmates/coworkers.

Basically, it's my strategy to avoid putting personally identifiable info online, and when I do, I make note of it, and assume someone has added it to all the other info I have out there. I still socialize online, and even met a few gaming friends in person, they just didn't know my name until I met them face to face.

It may seem paranoid to some, but there's no need to assume there's evil at work here: Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity... maybe some of the databases I'm in will simply be compromised and dump ALL their user info into plain sight. In that case, I'd like to keep as much of that leaked data false as I can. :)

Incomplete analogy

[R2.0]

...and you are both carrying tape recorders, which you may or may not be aware of, may or may not know how to operate, and may or may not stay under your control for the indefinite future.

The point is that, whether you *expect* privacy in an IM conversation is irrelevant - unless you take certain active precautions, the data IS being recorded and CAN be accessed by others (not necessarily the govt.)

If someone violates your expectation of privacy they may be rude, immoral, illegal, or evil. That doesn't mean you are not a fool for allowing the data to exist to begin with. If I walk through the worst part of DC at night and get mugged, the muggers are criminals - but I am still stupid. I'd rather be careful and safe than self righteous (sp?) and vulnerable.

When will they learn...?

[filesiteguy]

You know, first it was some Chinese emporer trying to burn the bamboo parchment, then it was Nixon trying to erase tapes (remember those?) from his private discussions. Then it is Ley trying to shred documents and emails. Now it is congressman trying to hide behind the idea that the net is fleeting.

My guess is that in fifty or so years, some senator will be brought down not knowing the two way VOIP product was archiving everything at some central server.

Maybe he should have talked to Senator Gore, who invented the thing. He'd know where all the super sekret filez are kept.

Bad example using Foley

[Dan East]

Foley may have thought his IMs were disappearing into the ether as soon as they cleared his computer screen.

That's a pretty stupid assumption. Why would he think they disappeared? Um, if they disappeared then what would be the point of sending them? He was sending messages to a recipient completely outside his control. They guy obviously got thrills by pushing things to the limit, and flirting with being discovered. It was only a matter of time before one of the recipients simply forwarded the messages onto someone else. IM isn't exactly the most secure medium available, but that is completely a moot point in this case - it's not like the messages were even intercepted by a 3rd party.

The only reason there is "technological transparency" is because of a lack of technical understanding and competence by end users. People that really want to be "technologically opaque" can certainly do so.

Dan East

Re:Bad example using Foley

[wdhowellsr]

Now it turns out the IMs might have been a prank by the page involved. He has lawyered up with Timonthy McVeigh's old lawyer (which can't be good considering McVeigh was executed) and was supposedly goaded into creating the fake IM's. That is the scarier problem since emails and IM's or almost any computer information can be faked, time-stamped and passed off as real by anyone reading this post. I don't think we have seen the last of the dirty tricks on either side of the aisle. It's funny, I always thought fake photos and videos would be the bane of the Criminal Justice system, it turns out it fake data files.

Re:Bad example using Foley

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... Prank... Right. You must think we're as stupid as say... Bill O'Reily. People don't resign in disgrace and check themselves into rehab over things that didn't happen. Nice try at spin, but it's much too late.

Re:Bad example using Foley

[wdhowellsr]

First I believe to the core of my being that all politicians are bought and paid for long before they get to DC. That being said my point was that if I wanted to I could create emails and IM's that would tie you to anything from child pornography, terrorism, mail fraud, or any other thing you can think of. Unfortunately this is a fact of the "Brave New World" we are living in and once the more nefarious geeks realize it we are in for a world of trouble.

Who says transparency is a virtue?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

We talk a lot a about transparency as a virtue in the age of the web

Speak for yourself.

Personally, I'm not at all convinced. I value my own privacy. Perhaps more objectively, I recognise that no-one is perfect, and if you dig hard enough you can turn up dirt on anyone. I also recognise that most people in the world are basically good, decent people, and I would prefer to respect a reasonable level of privacy and live in a world where we saw the good in people. You can't do that in a world where everyone's whole life story is computerised, often against their will and without their knowledge, and the media delight in data mining on anyone of any conceivable interest (or at least, worth a few more sales).

Now, governments on the other hand, they should have no right to privacy; on the contrary, IMHO they should be required to justify any attempt to withhold information from the public to an independent authority. Businesses should also be subject to much stricter openness requirements than individuals.

Re:breaking on drudge

[Anonymous Coward]

it's all fun and games until someone resigns and confronts their alcoholism and related behavioral problems

A different kind of transparency

[m0nstr42]

The headline made me think of a totally different and wholly more positive thing. I think we're approaching an age of technological transparency in another sense as well; being that technology is becoming more and more transparent to the user. You no longer need to understand unix to profficiently utilize a computer for day-to-day tasks. You don't need to know anything about the technology behind antilock brakes or active stability control to benefit from a safer automobile. Information transfer is ubiquitous, and the general public knows only a minimal of communication technology. Most of the best technologies are the ones you don't even know you're using.

The Hobgoblin of My Little Mind

[XLawyer]

How to be consistent? One man's treasured "transparency" is another's outrageous "death of privacy". Certainly no technical distinction exists between my IMs, your IMs, and Foley's IMs. Nor is there a technical distinction between the way Foley's secrets were exposed and the way anyone else's could be exposed.

As a U.S. representitive wasn't he aware...

[ivanmarsh]

That recent legislation requires your ISP to keep a record of your internet traffic?

Yup, saw that also

[Travoltus]

They're hoping to confuse just enough people to make a difference.

Democrats should rip them a new one over this and make them apologize.

Re:Yup, saw that also

[Artifakt]

There's an axiom in the military: Once may be just happenstance, twice may be coincidence, but three times is enemy action!

From the counts I'm seeing other places, Fox has made this same 'mistake' at least five times in two days, labeling not just Foley but Hastert as (D). The exact count is confused as some of these 'mistakes' were on repeating display bars and no one is evidently sure just how many times some of them cycled before they were corrected. Either Fox is crewed by people who couldn't get a job on a high school paper, or this is way, way past the bounds of 'accidental'. I'm sure when the Democrats mention this to the Dept. of Justice, Gonzales will order a full investigation into the matter. It will begin right after the Republican party wins every single one of of those disputed seats, unless it is delayed by a few whiners complaining about how the exit polls don't match the results.

To illustrate your point

[megaditto]

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in the cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it has in some way obstructed the interstate commerce.

J. Edgar Hoover

It's simple, actually

[Travoltus]

Privacy falls under the definition of 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'.

It may not be removed without due process and probable cause - defined as a) conviction of a crime; or b) you're actually suspected of a crime.

Recommendation: Deniable Encryption

[arodland]

Use a tool such as Off-the-Record Messaging. You get authentication to protect you against man-in-the-middle attacks, strong encryption, and a clever scheme that makes it so that if someone does manage to break a key and read a conversation, or if one of the parties to the conversation snitches, it still can't be proven that you've said anything in particular; the key material for authentication is published after the fact, so that while it's valid at the time you're having the conversation, afterwards anyone could forge a message that would pass authentication. So if someone comes out and says that you said X, and that they have logs and packet dumps to prove it, you can "prove" that you actually said Y, and that you have logs and packet dumps to prove it, and from a mathematical perspective both of your claims are equally credible -- either or both of you could be presenting a forgery. Fun!

booyah, hole in one

[Travoltus]

Well said. I can't find one error in what you posted. Clinton did set America up for this.

Sadly, the Republicans have not learned this lesson, either.

The USAPATRIOT Act and the REAL ID Act will be especially onerous in the hands of the Democrats, as they will have had more time to actually plan to use it maliciously (as will the Republicans, but they may lose Congress and not have the power to wield it as wickedly as they want).

states rights

[falconwolf]

Unfortunately, that's been rendered effectively null by a vigorous reading of the Commerce Clause, "The Congress shall have Power ... to regulate Commerce ... among the several States". (Ellipses are for clarity, not to torture the syntax.)

Yeap, especially the recent USSC ruling on medical marijuana. And the Justices didn't even feel the need to back their decision by any clause or section of the Constitution though that was the argument used for states rights. Those Justices that ruled against state rights should be dragged out and flogged in a public square. Say maybe a hundred tymes then made to read out loud the Constitution then flogged some more.

unreasonable searchs and seizers

[falconwolf]

have we now advanced technologically to a point where unreasonable searches and seizures are totally unneccessary

Unreasonable searchs and seizers have never been neccessary. Anyone who disagrees prove othewise. Meanwhile to see where unreasonable searchs and seizers can lead just look at NAZI Germany and Stalin's USSR.

Falcon

Re:unreasonable searchs and seizers

[Irish_Samurai]

OK, let me rephrase it.

Is the concept of unreasonable search and seizure outdated because legally you don't have to do anything that is legally defined as unreasonable in order to gather the relvant information?

Re:unreasonable searchs and seizers

[falconwolf]

Is the concept of unreasonable search and seizure outdated because legally you don't have to do anything that is legally defined as unreasonable in order to gather the relvant information?

Now it depends on who's doing the defining. If you define it like Bush does, "I can do whatever I want because I am the President", then there's most definately a place for "unreasonable search and seizer".

Falcon

Re:unreasonable searchs and seizers

[Irish_Samurai]

That's not what I'm stating. I'm stating that you don't even have to resort to "legally unreasonable" methods to gather the relevant data.

To define unreasonable in reference to the opinion of the principle target is too open ended.

Is passive observation unreasonable search and seizure?

If so, why? Privacy is NOT defined. It is an assumed right under other constitutional amendments in regard to active information gathering. What happens when all applicable data sources are public record and all transmissions captured use a public frequency.

There is no legal privacy there. It hasn't been argued to a refinement, nor has it been ruled to a granularity for precedent, that establishes what privacy legally refers to in context of passive observation. All the while, general public facing sources of information keep cropping up. Also, the means for personally involved parties of an event to release information relative to their observation have become easier to use.

The information is out and available. Is is unreasonable search and seizure to go get it or is it unreasonable research and data gathering?

Re:unreasonable searchs and seizers

[falconwolf]

Is passive observation unreasonable search and seizure?

It depends on where, for instance in public spaces it's reasonable, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. As a photographer though I generally ask for permission to take a photo of someone, as long as they are not identifiable I can sale any photo taken in a public space. The only tyme a signed release form is needed is if the person or people in the photo can be identified. Where it gets interesting is when a trademark is in the photo, for instance a photo of MacDonalds or the Golden Arch can not be sold if it demeans the brand. There is an exception to this, it can be used if the photo is part of a news story.

Falcon

Re:unreasonable searchs and seizers

[Irish_Samurai]

As a photographer though I generally ask for permission to take a photo of someone, as long as they are not identifiable I can sale any photo taken in a public space.

Great. You don't legally have to, that's my point. People do this to prevent a possible lawsuit, not because its mandatory. If you are in a public place and have an photo taken of you, you can have that image published. Otherwise papparazzi wouldn't be able to function.

Where it gets interesting is when a trademark is in the photo, for instance a photo of MacDonalds or the Golden Arch can not be sold if it demeans the brand.

What the hell does this have to do with privacy? This is the exact OPPOSITE of privacy. Trademarked symbols are protecting their use because of their popularity - not privacy.

The point being, passive observation is not unreasonable search and seizure.

Re:unreasonable searchs and seizers

[falconwolf]

Where it gets interesting is when a trademark is in the photo, for instance a photo of MacDonalds or the Golden Arch can not be sold if it demeans the brand.

What the hell does this have to do with privacy? This is the exact OPPOSITE of privacy. Trademarked symbols are protecting their use because of their poularity - not privacy.

As you've pointed out yourself it doesn't have anything to do with privacy, however it specifically has to do with photography in public. As for the papparazzi, they are able to get away with what they do because it is news.

People do this to prevent a possible lawsuit, not because its mandatory.

I don't sale the photos I take, not yet, but I ask anyway as a matter of curtsy. If they don't want their photo taken then I won't take it. Now I am hoping to break into photography professionally, but then I don't plan on doing much if any of people. Not during the day at least, I'd prefer to do nature and nighttime for sale. Something I'd like to get is a telescope I can mount my camera to for shots of the stars however I'd need to find a place where I could set it up as city, home, and street lights drownout the light from stars.

Falcon

Subpeoned

[eldorel]

it's usually spelled Subpoena, but I think subpeoned better fits our current legal system...

Re:Subpeoned

[TheRecklessWanderer]

I thought it looked funny, but every way I tried it, it looked funny so I gave up and left it. I'm far too proud to use a spell check. :(

I suspect they will be huge champions of privacy

[falconwolf]

The Republicans have spent so much time destroying our privacy and installing their surveillance state and now they have fallen victim to their own monster.

I suspect they will be huge champions of privacy after this

I curtainly hope so but I doubt it.

Falcon

free speech

[falconwolf]

I don't see covering up illegal actions as being anonymous speech. Nor do I see information put out in the public sphere of the world of commerce as being anonymous anything.

Where did I say anything about covering up illegal actions? As for commerce, there's disagreement as to whether commercial speech does or doesn't enjoy the same freedom as personal or political speech. Actually USSC rulings are mixed on this, some have limited commercial speech whereas others have said it enjoys the same rights to free speech.

But it wasn't until 1973 that transactions in the public sphere were considered a part of privacy at all; and for the most part that was a disconnect between the law and reality.

Yea I agree there's a disconnect in the expectation of privacy in public domains, people should expect any privacy when they are in public.

Falcon

Re:free speech

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Where did I say anything about covering up illegal actions?

What would be the purpose in covering up legal actions? Just paranoia?

As for commerce, there's disagreement as to whether commercial speech does or doesn't enjoy the same freedom as personal or political speech. Actually USSC rulings are mixed on this, some have limited commercial speech whereas others have said it enjoys the same rights to free speech.

Ah, not quite my point. My point is that if you're shouting out in the public sphere, if you're doing *anything* off your property, the reasonable expectation given our current state of technology is that it is being recorded. Whether anybody you know is watching that recording or not, is a good question. But there should be *no* reason to expect privacy in anything outside of your property, regardless of the law on the topic.

Yea I agree there's a disconnect in the expectation of privacy in public domains, people should expect any privacy when they are in public.

Therefore, for instance, abortion shouldn't be private; it is a service provided and paid for in the public sphere. Nor should Mr. Foley have expected his IM messages to be private- not once they left his computer anyway. It's all the same thing.

public or private

[falconwolf]

What would be the purpose in covering up legal actions? Just paranoia?

Are you willing to publish your SSN, if not why are you covering it up? Also I guess you haven't heard that many potential employers use the net to lookup applicants and see what they've uploaded or said which can disqualify them. Students using Myspace and Facebook along with blogs to upload and post helterskelter are only hurting themself by what they do if they don't take precautions to safeguard their privacy.

Therefore, for instance, abortion shouldn't be private; it is a service provided and paid for in the public sphere. Nor should Mr. Foley have expected his IM messages to be private- not once they left his computer anyway. It's all the same thing.

Abortion is a private matter unless it's done in a public place or is paid for by the public, and I'm against my tax dollars paying for abortions. However I don't know of any government programs that pay for abortions or public places where they are done, I don't know if insurance pays or not, otherwise the cost of abortions are paid for by individuals so they aren't public. As for Foley, I agree. Nobody should expect their electronic communications are private unless they take steps to encrypt it and make sure neither end has the ability to save or print it out. Years ago I used Yahoo Messenger and when I did I saved all of my sessions as well as printed them out, therefore I know not to expect privacy.

Oh I just realized I left a word out when I said " Yea I agree there's a disconnect in the expectation of privacy in public domains, people should expect any privacy when they are in public." I should of said they should not expect privacy in public domains.

Falcon

Re:public or private

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Are you willing to publish your SSN, if not why are you covering it up?

Anybody can look it up with the Social Security system. In addition to that, I provide it freely on credit applications, health insurance, job applications, my resume...But I'm not talking publication, I'm talking simple use in situations where it might be recorded by a third party. I have no reason to hide my SSN from such people- do you?

Also I guess you haven't heard that many potential employers use the net to lookup applicants and see what they've uploaded or said which can disqualify them.

No, I'm well aware of that- and I'm downright proud of my online record.

Students using Myspace and Facebook along with blogs to upload and post helterskelter are only hurting themself by what they do if they don't take precautions to safeguard their privacy.

Possibly- either that or they're protecting themselves from unreasonable employers who are too stupid to value diversity. That sword cuts both ways.

Abortion is a private matter unless it's done in a public place or is paid for by the public,

Most legal abortions are done in a public business. I wouldn't want a relative of mine getting an abortion from a non-public provider. That is just asking for trouble.

and I'm against my tax dollars paying for abortions. However I don't know of any government programs that pay for abortions or public places where they are done, I don't know if insurance pays or not, otherwise the cost of abortions are paid for by individuals so they aren't public.

Hmm, just for kicks, I'm an insurance executive. I've got a choice of paying $400 for an abortion, or paying $6000 for a birth plus adding a new dependant to a policy holder. Which do you think I'd do?

As for Foley, I agree. Nobody should expect their electronic communications are private unless they take steps to encrypt it and make sure neither end has the ability to save or print it out. Years ago I used Yahoo Messenger and when I did I saved all of my sessions as well as printed them out, therefore I know not to expect privacy.

If a second person knows your secret, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Oh I just realized I left a word out when I said " Yea I agree there's a disconnect in the expectation of privacy in public domains, people should expect any privacy when they are in public." I should of said they should not expect privacy in public domains.

Correct. The problem is that technology is quickly widening the public domain until there is no private domain left.

Re:public or private

[falconwolf]

I have no reason to hide my SSN from such people- do you?

Yes I do, I don't want my id stolen or my credit messed with. Maybe you haven't been paying attention but I have been watching how people have their credit worthiness destroyed by those who have stolen their id. The way things are today all you need is someone's snn to do this. People can easily get credit cards and loans with someone else's snn, unless their credit isn't good to begin with. And if it is bad they aren't as able to get credit for say a mortage. If they are able to get one then they will pay more for the loan as loan points and interest on the load is partially determined by credit worthiness. The better a person's FICA credit score is the less they pay on loans. But once their credit is messed up by someone stealing their id it takes years and years to get it straightened out as well as a lot of money. Innocent people have even been arrested because someone stole and used their id. I try to keep as much info about me private as possible so as to not make it any easier for someone to steal my id. I used to markout and rip up or burn credit card offers and everything else that gave someone else the possibility of gaining access to my credit but I plan on getting a paper shredder instead.

Possibly- either that or they're protecting themselves from unreasonable employers who are too stupid to value diversity. That sword cuts both ways.

Agreed, it cuts both ways and I wouldn't want to work for anyone who would look for info with these tactics. However some don't know what they do online is there permanently and that employers look for it, and not everyone may have a choice. Who knows, I may end up without a choice myself. I'm on disability and haven't worked in years but I want to start working as soon as I can, but I won't have much of a choice as to what I'll be able to do.

Most legal abortions are done in a public business. I wouldn't want a relative of mine getting an abortion from a non-public provider. That is just asking for trouble.

No abortions that I know of are done in a public place. Most happen on private property, which is no different than say a mall. The mall is private property and the owners can ask or requeast that you leave the property and if you don't they can have the police forcibly remove you or arrest you if you resist. Simply a public place is a place that is owned by the public, which usually means the government.

Hmm, just for kicks, I'm an insurance executive. I've got a choice of paying $400 for an abortion, or paying $6000 for a birth plus adding a new dependant to a policy holder. Which do you think I'd do?

Though I don't like it and it's short sighted for the near term it's more profitable for insurance to do this, their expenses are lower. However if they think about the long term then they'll realize that baby may become a paying client and pay more than what insurance paid.

If a second person knows your secret, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Though I didn't explicitly stated that that was my point. Notice that I said I saved all of my Yahoo! Messenger sessions as well as printed them out.

Correct. The problem is that technology is quickly widening the public domain until there is no private domain left.

Yea, Larry Elison, ceo of Oracle, years ago said there is no privacy. Obviously it's in his interest to say that as he leads a database company and if someone wants to save electronic communications and have them easily searchable then they need a database. There is privacy but only as much as a person is willing to work to keep their privacy and stay home without going online or anything. If I owned my own home, I've been designing a home I want to build some day but first I need to start working again, I can't think of any reason I'd get one of those security systems that are monitored by some business. Instead what I'd do if I wanted is to automate the home and set it up so using user id and password I would be able to check the system at anytime and get messages whenever something happens over the net.

Falcon

Re:public or private

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes I do, I don't want my id stolen or my credit messed with. Maybe you haven't been paying attention but I have been watching how people have their credit worthiness destroyed by those who have stolen their id.

Got news for you- all they have to do is simply invent an SSN. All of the credit reporting agencies now know those are non-unique. As for stolen ID, if they want to do that all they need to do is work for a business that does credit applications.

The way things are today all you need is someone's snn to do this. People can easily get credit cards and loans with someone else's snn, unless their credit isn't good to begin with.

Which is also a good way to defend yourself against identity theft- keep your credit score *below* 555 and deal in cash instead of sinful credit.

And if it is bad they aren't as able to get credit for say a mortage. If they are able to get one then they will pay more for the loan as loan points and interest on the load is partially determined by credit worthiness. The better a person's FICA credit score is the less they pay on loans.

True- which should tell you not to buy on loans.

But once their credit is messed up by someone stealing their id it takes years and years to get it straightened out as well as a lot of money. Innocent people have even been arrested because someone stole and used their id. I try to keep as much info about me private as possible so as to not make it any easier for someone to steal my id. I used to markout and rip up or burn credit card offers and everything else that gave someone else the possibility of gaining access to my credit but I plan on getting a paper shredder instead.

Hint- if you're getting credit card offers, you're too late already- they send out credit card offers based on the information FICA sells.

Agreed, it cuts both ways and I wouldn't want to work for anyone who would look for info with these tactics. However some don't know what they do online is there permanently and that employers look for it, and not everyone may have a choice. Who knows, I may end up without a choice myself. I'm on disability and haven't worked in years but I want to start working as soon as I can, but I won't have much of a choice as to what I'll be able to do.

Look at the name- the correct way around this is to work for the government. Find a job that your disability doesn't impair, and then apply for a boss who has other cares than the bottom line.

No abortions that I know of are done in a public place. Most happen on private property, which is no different than say a mall. The mall is private property and the owners can ask or requeast that you leave the property and if you don't they can have the police forcibly remove you or arrest you if you resist. Simply a public place is a place that is owned by the public, which usually means the government.

Actually, if a business is open to the public, then what happens there is public information, like it or not. Like I said before, this is reality vs the law- the law is in fantasy land on this one.

Though I don't like it and it's short sighted for the near term it's more profitable for insurance to do this, their expenses are lower. However if they think about the long term then they'll realize that baby may become a paying client and pay more than what insurance paid.

And that baby is just as likely to become a paying client of the competition. That's the entire problem with profit margin economics, aka capitalism. It's also the reason why FICA scores are so screwed up as to be rather useless.

Yea, Larry Elison, ceo of Oracle, years ago said there is no privacy. Obviously it's in his interest to say that as he leads a database company and if someone wants to save electronic communications and have them easily searchable then they need a database. There is privacy but only as much as a person is willing to work to keep their privacy and stay ho

Re:public or private

[falconwolf]

Got news for you- all they have to do is simply invent an SSN. All of the credit reporting agencies now know those are non-unique. As for stolen ID, if they want to do that all they need to do is work for a business that does credit applications.

I'm careful about who I give my id, ssn, or anything else that can be used to gain access to my credit. For instance though I love movies I refuse to "join" movie rental businesses like BlockBuster that asks for and requires your ssn to join. And I haven't applied for any credit cards or loans in years, the last one was 7 years ago when I bought a new car.

True- which should tell you not to buy on loans.

And how are you supposed to buy a home if you don't get a mortgage? You rent and all you are doing is paying someone else's mortgage and enriching them. Rent goes up but unless you get an arm, adjustable rate mortgage, the interest remains the same. Ninteen years later and it's the same, however with rent you may very well being paying two or three tymes tymes as much.

Now as for other loans, it depends. You should be able to pay cash for something but if it's something like a car it may be better to get a loan for it, even if you have the money. If you do have the money, with the exception of six months living expenses you should have the money invested and in a good economy the return of the investments will be better than the interest rate on a loan.

Of course you can avoid all of this if you want to live day to day, I don't know about you but I don't want to live that way. Instead I want to do things and try to plan ahead for it.

Hint- if you're getting credit card offers, you're too late already- they send out credit card offers based on the information FICA sells.

They do but they don't have access to your entire credit report. They get full access when you apply for credit. That's true even for those credit card offers that "guarantied" aceptance, read the small print, they say they still have to approve your credit once they get your report.

Actually, if a business is open to the public, then what happens there is public information, like it or not. Like I said before, this is reality vs the law- the law is in fantasy land on this one.

Tell that to the mall security personell who stopped me in the mall and called the police. Someone "reported" that I accosted them in the mall and when I was stopped security asked for my id but I refused to hand it over. When the police arrived they again asked for it and said if I don't hand it over they would ask the police to arrest me and file charges against me, so I asked the officers that came if they would arrest me or not if I still refused and they said security could request they arrest me. So I finally handed over my id and after security recorded everything the police escorted me off the property after under threat I signed a statement I would not enter the mall for a month.

Wish I had had a cellphone then as I would of called my brother-in-law who's a lawschool grad and asked him about it. After leaving I went to see him and he said if I had been arrested I would of had grounds to sue for false arrest.

I did this- works well. I did it mainly for the technical challenge (turned out not to be very challenging).

Do you use X10? In part I want the challenge but I also love travelling and would like to access the home system while away, say be able to turn ac or heating on before arriving home when I've been gone for weeks or months. Or check the webcams and what have you for security. Or even to check the status of the electrical system, I want to build off the grid and have a hybrid electrical power generation system, with solar and wind gennies charging a battery bank.

Falcon

X10

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I think the rest of the conversation is over; we understand each other's position well, but I wanted to respond to this:

Do you use X10? In part I want the challenge but I also love travelling and would like to access the home system while away, say be able to turn ac or heating on before arriving home when I've been gone for weeks or months. Or check the webcams and what have you for security. Or even to check the status of the electrical system, I want to build off the grid and have a hybrid electrical power generation system, with solar and wind gennies charging a battery bank.

I use a combination of X10, A10, and more traditional wired alarm. When the alarm goes off, it triggers a universal module, which notified Homeseer, and sends an e-mail to my cell phone. Right now the web portion of the system is down due to being on an old Win98 machine that doesn't like my DHCP server, that will change next spring when I get the money to buy the newer version of Homeseer (that runs on XP) and a USB interface to the X10 system (currently running on serial, which is why it's still on a Win98 system). If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably use Linux and Mr. House instead, but I've got several hours of VBS programming on my Homeseer system, so I'm reluctant to change.