Slashdot Mirror
DoJ Mulls Tracking Picture Uploads
Dominus Suus passed us a link to a C|Net article about a disturbing threat to privacy from the Justice Department. According to the article, a private meeting was held Wednesday between Justice officials and telecom industry representatives. With individuals from companies such as AOL and Comcast looking on, the officials continued overtures to increase data retention by ISPs on American citizens. This week, they were specifically looking to have records kept of photo uploads. In this way, and 'in case police determine the content is illegal and choose to investigate,' an easy trail from A to Z will be available. The article provides a good deal of background on the Bush Administration's history with data retention, with ties to events even older than the Bush presidency. "The Justice Department's request for information about compliance costs echoes a decade-ago debate over wiretapping digital telephones, which led to the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. To reduce opposition by telephone companies, Congress set aside $500 million for reimbursement and the legislation easily cleared both chambers by voice votes. Once Internet providers come up with specific figures, privacy advocates worry, Congress will offer to write a generous check to cover all compliance costs and the process will repeat itself."
No problem man, they've got it covered. See, we'll outsource the service and hosting to India and borrow the money from China.
It's all good.
YouTube is for people who have a camera but lack talent. And where exactly does that leave slashdot? A place for people with a keyboard but no original thoughts?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I know, 4 days old, but still rather relevant,from eff.org (http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_02.php#0051 40):
"Washington, D.C. - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against the Department of Justice today, demanding records about secret new court orders that supposedly authorize the government's highly controversial electronic surveillance program that intercepts and analyzes millions of Americans' communications.
When press reports forced the White House to acknowledge the program in December of 2005, the administration claimed that the massive program could be conducted without warrants or judicial authorization of any kind. However, in January of this year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) had authorized collection of some communications and that the surveillance program would now operate under its approval. EFF's suit comes after the Department of Justice failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records concerning the purported changes in the program (...)"
Seriously.. I echo the former post; join the EFF. Changes are ONLY going to take place through efficient lobbying (but then it also works really well, Halliburton has proved that beyond doubt..)
A few thousands, or even tens of thousands, of motivated criminals (outside of the ones who "own" the country, of course) are of no real threat to the established order - they will almost always prey on the populace.
A few million, or tens of millions, of motivated citizens are absolutely a threat to rule by the few - which is why anything that allows the populace to realize their predicament and then organize to change it must absolutely be stopped.
There's free as in speech, free as in beer, and free as in range. Americans are free in the latter sense.
Corruption in Washington is nothing new. Over a century ago, the Grant Administration was plagued by a number of embezzlement schemes involving members of the cabinet, relatives of the president and his close associates. The parallels are striking when you compare Cheney's Halliburton with the Bristow (Secretary of the Treasury) Whisky Ring, the Belknap (Secretary of War) Trading Post incident, Jay Gould's and James Fisk' triggering of Black Friday, and the Sanborn Incident.
Every time accusations were made, the Republicans would "wave the bloody shirt," claiming that the southern Democrats were trying to destroy the government just as they had in the civil war (not unlike the call to national security and invoking the fear of terrorism we see in politics today).
Some things never change, and it seems like politics is just as partisan as it ever was. For an interesting take of the chaos of the Grant years and American society, I suggest reading Gore Vidal's 1876, while historical fiction, it attempts to adhere strictly to the facts of what was going on during that chaotic election year. The parallels to the 2000 Presidential Election are quite interesting as well; the only thing missing are hanging chads.
"Si vis pacem para bellum" -Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
Unfortunately the Supreme Court isn't going to help us.
We live in an authoritarian capito-fascistic state. You can choose to ignore it, you can tell yourself that it doesn't affect you personally (yet); but that won't change the fact. We have government that reinterprets laws and standards to mean what they decide they need to mean to fit their agenda at the mmoment (which usually, in all moments, is CONTROL), it's a system of institutionalized corruption.
Electing someone from the either large party isn't going to help us - I mean, there are a few exceptions in both major parties, but none of the big names really.
I think that the people are going to have to find a way to organize and save our constitution. The system will not save itself because it is compromised. It could be hacked or manipulated and forced to work for us should large groups of people be willing to stand up for their rights - but unfortunately that's not going to happen by voting or by any of the rigged or tilted mechanisms in place.
What people who say things like "I don't mind, I'm not doing anything illegal" fail to realize is that it doesn't matter - because once the entire system of surviellance and control is in place, once you have no privacy or anonimity it is too late - because then the definition of what is legal and what is illegal can be changed.
It's not like they ever give your rights or your expectations of personal liberty back once they have been taken away - even when these things are promised (like sunset provisions) at the time such legislation is proposed.
Aside from that, what if you were at one time in drug rehab - or are a member of a group like AA and all of these records are stored forever and then down the line the whole world can find out all of your private personal stuff.
The slippery slope is no more - we're almost in freefall.