US Wants Courts to OK Warrantless Email Snooping

Erris writes "The Register is reporting that the US government is seeking unprecedented access to private communications between citizens. 'On October 8, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati granted the government's request for a full-panel hearing in United States v. Warshak case centering on the right of privacy for stored electronic communications. ... the position that the United States government is taking if accepted, may mean that the government can read anybody's email at any time without a warrant. The most distressing argument the government makes in the Warshak case is that the government need not follow the Fourth Amendment in reading emails sent by or through most commercial ISPs. The terms of service (TOS) of many ISPs permit those ISPs to monitor user activities to prevent fraud, enforce the TOS, or protect the ISP or others, or to comply with legal process. If you use an ISP and the ISP may monitor what you do, then you have waived any and all constitutional privacy rights in any communications or other use of the ISP.'"

Comments

"Think about it"

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Anytime someone tells you to "think about it" and then proceeds to explain how one little point can be logically followed to some outrageous conclusion it means that they have no real proof and are relying on your credulity to fill in the gaps in their logic.

Think about it.

Re:"Think about it"

[Opportunist]

"Think about it" comes in the same jar as "obvious". Both have only one reason to exist, to make you look like a fool if you don't agree.

"Think about it" is usually the final sentence after a list of "proofs" that present the point of the one arguing. "Obviously" is used whenever he does not have any facts to support his theory. No facts needed, it's "obvious" and if you don't agree, you can't even see the obvious, dumbass!

Re:"Think about it"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty obvious, if you think about it.

Re:"Think about it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Like putting too much air in a ballon!

Re:"Think about it"

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Perhaps you and the GP should read TFA and become aware of some of the issues here.
Oh, and for the "it's the Register, pooh pooh" crowd, the original FA was frist psoted on Security Focus.

Re:"Think about it"

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The article by Mike Rasch is long on hyperbole and short on facts. The link to Picker's blog was more interesting, but his alarmist conclusion is not supported by his presented facts. In fact, he even says as much when he says that the pieces all seem to fit, but there is no final link outside of idle speculation.

If Mike Rasch's article is indicative of the quality of articles on SecurityFocus, then the followers of that site are dumber than the author himself.

Re:"Think about it"

[ShieldW0lf]

Human beings don't need proof to operate. We are intuitive computers, and are capable of seeing where trends overlap to produce synergistic effects. If we weren't, we would be incapable of making a decision to achieve effects larger than the span of our own lives, and yet we are.

Sometimes, "think about it" is an invitation to test your brain and see if it's broken before they write you off as an idiot who really is.

Obviously.

Re:"Think about it"

[ubrgeek]

Slightly off-topic, but a random quote I received today seems to be related: "I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle"

Re:"Think about it"

[ShieldW0lf]

Sounds like something a detective in a writer of detective fiction with a flair for the dramatic would say.

Of course, if you were to look for someone with experience being in a position of command, where who doesn't have the leisure to refuse to guess, a professional writer of fiction would probably be the absolute worst choice you could make. A housewife or a traffic cop would be better prepared.

It's very eloquent though.

Re:"Think about it"

[Yetihehe]

If everybody followed this quote, particle physics and some other sciences would not be where it is now. In those fields scientists sometimes make theories which predict something and then they make tests. Otherwise every theory would only explain data you have (like string theory) instead of making new exciting predictions (like quantum theory).

Re:"Think about it"

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Ugh, it's Monday morning... you already lost me at "synergistic." It's going to be a long week.

Re:"Think about it"

[Danathar]

That is SO good, I'm going to print it out and post it.

Re:"Think about it"

[Opportunist]

I'm a statistician (yes, the ways of the invisible pink unicorn are odd and I ended up in antivirus research). One of the things our department head at the university kept repeating over and over was to get your facts straight, verify your facts, test your facts and most of all, don't interpret them until you have at the very least thought of a way to interpret them to argue exactly in the opposite direction. If you can use them that way, toss your facts, your statistic and everything you want to argue for. They don't prove anything.

If there's one thing I learned during my courses there (I couldn't even do a halfway decent statistic anymore, to be honest), it's that facts aren't facts until you can prove they are. No matter how solid they look, even if netcraft confirms it (even if netcraft doesn't), make sure it's not just circle-jerk. If A postulates something and B's only confirmation is that A said it, B hasn't said anything at all.

Unfortunately, you're right in one thing: We don't need proof to operate. All we want is our prejudices being confirmed somehow. You can see it here, even. Make up a story of $evil_corp slaughtering baby squids for cheap ink and watch people jump on it.

Re:"Think about it"

[elmarkitse]

'Clearly,' you are onto something...

Re:"Think about it"

[OrangeTide]

I need to be told "think about it". Because otherwise I would forget and not think about it, due to me being a simpleton.

Doesn't that phrase just drip with arrogance?

Re:"Think about it"

[Opportunist]

There's a difference between postulating a theory as a theory, offer methods of testing the theory and make it open for discussion, and claiming something as fact and true, without a chance to disprove it. For reference, see science vs. religion.

Re:"Think about it"

[UnderDark]

You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:"Think about it"

[Anonymous Coward]

A housewife or a traffic cop would be better prepared. To taser or not to taser. That is the question. The answer, of course, is to just taser twice!

Re:"Think about it"

[digitig]

Slightly off-topic, but a random quote I received today seems to be related: "I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" Which would be why he spent the last couple of decades of his life believing in fairies and trying to contact the dead. Like everybody else, he wasn't really working with absolute proof. As soon as we make the jump from pure abstraction (logic and math) to the "real world", proof is no longer absolute.

Re:"Think about it"

[Fieryphoenix]

You realize of course that Sherlock Holmes was only such a keen investigator because he was written that way, and not because anything about him or his attitudes are necessarily effective, right?

Re:"Think about it"

[ajs]

Alarmist? Here's what he said:

What is important in this case is not the ultimate resolution of that narrow issue, but the position that the United States government is taking on the entire issue of electronic privacy. That position, if accepted, may mean that the government can read anybody's e-mail at any time without a warrant. This seems to be a fairly reasonable assessment of the situation. The assertion in this case is that electronic mail has no reasonable expectation of privacy. If that's upheld, then the 4th amendment doesn't apply.

Your comment about "followers" of Security Focus is way off base. Outside of the world of artificially constructed arguments on TV, people aren't "followers" of news outlets. We are readers or subscribers or viewers, but we're not "followers." You might want to re-evaluate how you select and scrutinize your news.

PS: I'll note that I've been saying for years that it's imperative for stand-alone personal MTAs to remain viable, and this is why. Routine, passive end-to-end encryption is the way that we make this impractical.

Re:"Think about it"

[Down_in_the_Park]

Sounds like something a detective in a writer of detective fiction with a flair for the dramatic would say.

I "guess" that also most scientist would say similar things, as you can start with a hypothesis and than by evaluating this generate some data. Once you have enough data you may want to build a theory on this and see whether future experiments support your theory. A theory without data is a bit like a fish without bones, quite slippery...and often dead.

Re:"Think about it"

[Zenaku]

If your electronic mail is not encrypted, then one might argue that it is unreasonable to expect privacy. It sucks, but there's some truth to the idea that we all know already that our ISP can monitor any unencrypted traffic we send, and that they reserve the right to. Knowing that, we don't really expect our communications to be private. . . instead we hope that our ISP will at least do us the courtesy of not handing them over to another party without a good reason.

But is that a reasonable expectation? Not if you have any ISP that I've ever dealt with -- it would be reasonable based on my experience with them to assume that they are assholes.

Yet another case for encrypting everything. Of course, I don't practice what I preach. If I did, only about 3 percent of my contacts would be able to read my messages to them.

Re:"Think about it"

[Down_in_the_Park]

If everybody followed this quote, particle physics and some other sciences would not be where it is now. In those fields scientists sometimes make theories which predict something and then they make tests. Otherwise every theory would only explain data you have (like string theory) instead of making new exciting predictions (like quantum theory). That would assume that these theories were born out of nothing, which is not true, they were developed to explain natural observed phenomena, like the decay of isotopes etc. Quantum theory didn't just jump out of nothing but evolved from hypothesis and experiments that have been made and by observations that couldn't be explained by the available theories at that time.

Re:"Think about it"

[Sancho]

PS: I'll note that I've been saying for years that it's imperative for stand-alone personal MTAs to remain viable, and this is why. Routine, passive end-to-end encryption is the way that we make this impractical. That only stops sniffing on the wire. What about reading it while it's in your inbox?

The MUAs need to be encrypting it, and that's much harder to get mom-and-pop to do.

Re:"Think about it"

[Opportunist]

You're hereby granted the nonexclusive right to use whatever content I created here.

Just to cover all bases, ya know, the times...

Re:"Think about it"

[cp.tar]

Even more so, Holmes was written that way because Doyle was actually quite gullible, and IIRC tried to use Sherlock's methods in real life, but failed.

I forgot who it was that Doyle based Holmes upon, but anyway.

Re:"Think about it"

[ShieldW0lf]

I "guess" that also most scientist would say similar things, as you can start with a hypothesis and than by evaluating this generate some data. Once you have enough data you may want to build a theory on this and see whether future experiments support your theory. A theory without data is a bit like a fish without bones, quite slippery...and often dead.

The study of humanity amount to deduction based on observation of dead societies. One human being is incapable of both conducting an experiment on the larger social scale and observing it. Conversely, some of the most important decisions about how our society operates amount to an experiment that will only be interpreted with anything approaching detachment by the great grandchildren of those of us who procreate and continue things along. So, who is the scientist in this field of endeavor, the observer, or the actor? Neither, according to most strict interpretations. This is where science and religion bang into each other, and why the capacity for effective non-scientific thought is important.

Think about it.

Re:"Think about it"

[Kadin2048]

Don't keep it in your local mailstore (your 'Inbox') unencrypted? When people talk about 'end to end' email security, they don't mean just securing the over-the-wire transmission (e.g. by using SSL); they mean user-to-user encryption.

Most decent MUAs that support encryption leave the messages encrypted, and only decrypt them for the purposes of viewing the message. When you move away from the message or close the window, the ephemeral decrypted copy is destroyed and the only thing on the disk is the encrypted version. (If you're really paranoid, you should probably make sure you have encrypted virtual memory turned on, and that you're using a Tempest-resistant font/display, etc. But even if you don't, you've significantly raised the bar for someone to snoop on you.)

Of course, if you're using an OS and/or software that you don't trust, then you have a problem, since it's entirely feasible that you could get rooted, or maybe the OS or MUA would just be backdoored. More reason for using software that, if it's not practical to actually review it yourself, is at least reviewed by people whose reputations you trust.

And then you have to think about hardware security -- would you know if someone came and swapped your keyboard for an identical model while you were away from your desk? If the answer to that question isn't a sure 'yes,' then you're screwed.

Re:"Think about it"

[MillionthMonkey]

If your electronic mail is not encrypted, then one might argue that it is unreasonable to expect privacy. It sucks, but there's some truth to the idea that we all know already that our ISP can monitor any unencrypted traffic we send, and that they reserve the right to.

I don't know where people get this notion that if it's possible for the government to do something, they have a right to do it. If I don't lock my door when I leave the house I'm not implicitly inviting the police into my house and surrendering my Fourth Amendment rights. If I make a call to my mother on the POTS network they can't simply listen in (recent fascist precedents notwithstanding) just because our voices are unencrypted.

There is a reasonable expectation of privacy that still applies to plaintext communications. Yes it's possible to do packet inspection on my emails, hold my mail up to the light, etc. and that might be relevant if we were talking about criminals doing these things. Not the government.

I'm getting sick of writing this post over and over and over again. If you had told me ten years ago that I would even have to make these arguments in my lifetime, I would have laughed in your face. Hopefully in 2008 someone sane will enter the White House, and we can look back on these threads and conversations and laugh. Unless this idiot holes himself up there and tries to pull off a Musharraf of his own which wouldn't surprise me at this point.

Re:"Think about it"

[PopeRatzo]

If your electronic mail is not encrypted, then one might argue that it is unreasonable to expect privacy.

Whoa there. Are you saying that just because the government has the capability to read my messages that I can no longer expect them NOT to? If that's where you're going to set the bar, then we can no longer expect privacy in any realm of communications.

I don't encrypt my conversation when I speak to my wife as we're walking down the street. If someone were hiding behind a tree, they might be able to hear what we are saying. If they had a parabolic microphone, they certainly could hear what we're saying. Now if we're speaking over the phone, our conversation is routed through AT&T equipment. It's trivial for them to tap our call. Does that mean I should not have an expectation of privacy in my phone calls? If the government employs lip-readers (and they do) with telephoto lenses, can I no longer expect anything I say not to be monitored?

There is equipment that can read mail through envelopes. Should I have an expectation that the government will not read my mail even though they don't have to open the envelope to do it? Or is that also "unreasonable"?

Here is the problem: Regular Americans now see the government as their adversary when the government is supposed to be us. My wife grew up in an Eastern Bloc country, and she felt the same way about her government most of the time (and she lived in one of the more "liberal" soviet satellites). When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's, there was not this sense of absolute dread about what the US government was doing (at least until Watergate). We saw our government as sometimes corrupt, sometimes ineffective, and sometimes even evil, but we believed we could do something about it come the next election.

That feeling is now gone. Which one of you feels like anything substantive is going to change regarding the secretive, snooping, no-habeas corpus, torturing, renditioning, Guantanamo mentality of our government no matter what the results of the election.? Or maybe the question is better put this way: who feels like the results of the next election will have anything to do with the votes that Americans will cast on their electronic voting machines? Instead of the officials being afraid of what we the voters will do, we are afraid of what the officials will do.

Soon, we will be asking if it's "unreasonable" to expect that our government not ask us for our citizenship papers when we're walking down the street or driving in our cars. Or whether it's "unreasonable" to expect that they not blow down our doors and search our houses and our persons when we are eating our dinner or helping our kids with their homework. After all, there's a war on terror going on. A war that is designed to give our "leaders" unlimited power. A war that is designed to last forever. A war on us.

Re:"Think about it"

[Zenaku]

Wow, you are reading the wrong sentiment into what I said. I was making an amusing (to me anyway) observation, not an argument.

To be clear, I'm dead set against the government reading my email, encrypted or not. All I was trying to say is that the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy," on which the legal test is currently based, is a shitty test, as what a reasonable person would "expect" the government to do is to violate you in any manner they can get away with.

In other words, this is an unconstitutional policy that is wrong, and that is exactly what I expect from my government and my ISP. I consider it reasonable of me to expect that, as they have demonstrated their disregard for civil liberties on numerous occasions.

In that sense, it is not reasonable to expect your email to be kept private -- it is still, however, reasonable to demand that it shouldbe kept private.

I was lamenting the present state of affairs, not making a case for them.

Re:"Think about it"

[MillionthMonkey]

I need to be told "think about it". Because otherwise I would forget and not think about it, due to me being a simpleton.

Doesn't that phrase just drip with arrogance?

It needs to drip with arrogance, because we are governed by simpletons.

... any expectation of privacy can be waived [citing case holding that a privacy disclaimer on a bulletin board "defeats claims to an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy."] Many employees are provided with e-mail and Internet services by their employers. Often, those employees are required to waive any expectation of privacy in their email each time they log on to their computers. [Court] orders directed to the email of employees who have waived any possible expectation of privacy do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

And that's your government there, arguing in a court brief that if your company reserves the right to read emails you send on their behalf, the government gets to read them too, so when you go home, the boss can't read your emails but the government still can. And if Slashdot puts up a "privacy statement", it replaces the Fourth Amendment with some sort of SlashAmendment that doesn't apply to the government, and if digg.com fails to put one up you don't get the Fourth Amendment OR the SlashAmendment because Slashdot's privacy statement somehow undermines privacy rights on digg in line with a precedent set by a stacked court.

Re:"Think about it"

[Mister Whirly]

"Are you saying that just because the government has the capability to read my messages that I can no longer expect them NOT to?"
I think that concept has been proven true over and over by the current administration's very loose interpretation of some of our privacy laws.

"I don't encrypt my conversation when I speak to my wife as we're walking down the street."
In public places, you really don't have a "reasonable expectation to privacy". If you want to say something you don't want anyone to hear, do it in a private place where you would have an expectation of some privacy. However just because you have an expectation to privacy doensn't in fact mean you actually have privacy.

"Does that mean I should not have an expectation of privacy in my phone calls?"
Private phone conversations are protected, and pre-Bush you DID need a warrant to listen in legally.

"Should I have an expectation that the government will not read my mail even though they don't have to open the envelope to do it? Or is that also "unreasonable"?"
No, expecting a sealed envelope to not be read when sent through the mail is perfectly reasonable. Unless someone accuses you of being a "terrorist". Then ALL bets are off.

"When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's, there was not this sense of absolute dread about what the US government was doing (at least until Watergate). We saw our government as sometimes corrupt, sometimes ineffective, and sometimes even evil, but we believed we could do something about it come the next election."
Ahhh, wasn't acid great? They only thing that has really changed is the false sense the people had that things could actually change. (Sucks to get old and jaded, er wiser, huh?)

"After all, there's a war on terror going on. A war that is designed to give our "leaders" unlimited power. A war that is designed to last forever. A war on us."
Amen brother, amen.

Re:"Think about it"

[Mister Whirly]

It is known through Doyle's own comments that Holmes is based on Dr. Joseph Bell, whose reputation at the Royal Infirmary in Edinburgh, Scotland was legendary. Dr. Bell amazed medical students, including a young Doyle in 1876, with his "miraculous" diagnostic abilities, often deducing a patient's ailment "as soon as they walked through the door, sometimes before they had opened their mouths ... He would tell them their symptoms and even give them details of their past life, and very seldom was he in error."
http://www.oneact.org/holmes/holmesinfopg.html

Also mentioned briefly in the Wikipedia article.

Re:"Think about it"

[Sancho]

Then perhaps the original poster mis-typed when he said:

PS: I'll note that I've been saying for years that it's imperative for stand-alone personal MTAs to remain viable, and this is why. Routine, passive end-to-end encryption is the way that we make this impractical. The MTA has nothing to do with user-to-user encryption. It does have something to do with passive encryption (as in the user doesn't have to be aware of the encryption if the MTA is encrypting) but if you're just encrypting between MTAs, you're not encrypting when it hits the mbox. Likewise, if you're encrypting in the MUA, you don't have to worry about MTA encryption for content (only for headers, and even then, it's only to avoid sniffing.)

Looking back at the post, in fact, it looks like the guy just has no clue what he's talking about and is throwing around words and fragmented ideas in order to get modded up.

Getting back to the discussion at hand, it's all pretty pointless anyway, since most people won't ever encrypt their mail. If I want to e-mail someone else, I'm going to have to do it plaintext 99% of the time, and 99% of the time, I won't be able to get my peers to encrypt messages to me. Webmail makes it even less likely that someone will encrypt messages to me.

Re:"Think about it"

[Kadin2048]

I think maybe he was confusing MUA and MTA, but I'm not sure.

The encryption really needs to happen at the MUA level, which theoretically could either be a desktop (traditional) MUA or a very smart web app, but I'm not aware of any web apps that will do encryption in the browser. (Not SSL, but actually load up a copy of GPG and encrypt the message.) I talked a little more about this in another post further down in this thread, but what I think the world needs is some sort of lightweight GPG implementation that could run as a Java or JS applet. That way you'd be able to use GPG even through a webmail interface. (You'd still need some sort of private-key management system, not sure how you'd do that. USB stick, maybe?)

But without that, using encrypted email basically means using a traditional MUA, or trusting that your webmail provider won't sell you out to the authorities (e.g. like Hushmail), if the encryption is being done on their server or via untrusted software.

Re:"Think about it"

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Hopefully in 2008 someone sane will enter the White House...

I have a strong suspicion that the next President, whoever she may be, will be briefed on all this stuff and will determine either that 1) the real threat is actually so great that the surveillance programs should continue, or 2) the conduct of the surveillance programs is actually more in keeping with accepted American principles than is commonly believed among the public. I predict that for at least the duration of the next presidential term, we will not hear of any surveillance program being shut down by order of the President.

Re:"Think about it"

[Ephemeriis]

The assertion in this case is that electronic mail has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Horrible as it may be to say so... This has always been my assumption. Email, unless you go to the trouble of encrypting it in some way, is sent as cleartext. The sending email address, the recipient, the servers it bounces through, the message itself...it's all plainly readable by anyone with a text editor. Worse, servers along the way may very well save a copy of your email in case delivery is delayed or fails. Worse still, there's really no way to ensure that nobody along the way has retained a copy of your email, or printed it out, or forwarded it along to dozens of other people, or even edited its content.

I was taught early on that email is no better than sending a postcard.

I'm not saying that the government should have the right/ability to snoop on our communications without warrant... They certainly ought to get a warrant for any wiretapping or surveillance... And I'd expect them to need a warrant to read any email I'm encrypting... But plain ol' email is completely and totally insecure. I can't believe anyone would actually expect privacy when it comes to email... That's like expecting privacy while having a conversation on a busy street in the middle of New York City.

Re:"Think about it"

[Harry Coin]

I have a strong suspicion that the next President, whoever she may be, will be briefed on all this stuff and will say, "God damn, unchecked power in a unitary executive branch is really useful! Give me voice transcripts from RNC headquarters for the last 72 hours and a small coffee." I predict that for at least the duration of life on Earth, we will not hear of any surveillance program being shut down by order of the President.

Re:"Think about it"

[arminw]

..... can I no longer expect anything I say not to be monitored?.....

Almost 2000 years ago a man named Jesus had this to say about the privacy of our speech and the use thereof in the ultimate court of the Universe:

"For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings out good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings out evil things. But I say to you that every idle word, whatever men may speak, they shall give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned." (Matt 12:34-37)

If a good person's utterances will stand up before the highest court of all, they will most likely pass muster in any earthly court also.

Many people of course do not believe Jesus, but that is a separate issue.

Re:"Think about it"

[znerk]

Unless someone accuses you of being a "terrorist". Then ALL bets are off.

Not reading the important stuff, eh? Anyone who breaks any law is a terrorist, according to the PATRIOT acts (yes, acts. plural. go read). If you are a suspected litterer, loiterer, or conspirator, you are a terrorist. Yes, conspiracy to commit conspiracy is a felony (This is *not* intended to be funny, this is a wake-up call... watch out who you say "talk to you later" to).

Re:"Think about it"

[E 99]

Alarmist? Here's what he said:

What is important in this case is not the ultimate resolution of that narrow issue, but the position that the United States government is taking on the entire issue of electronic privacy. That position, if accepted, may mean that the government can read anybody's e-mail at any time without a warrant.

This seems to be a fairly reasonable assessment of the situation.

Reasonable? The government is suggesting that email should be subject to subpoena. That means a court can read email pertinent to a case with a court order, just like a warrant but under a different legal standard. That's a pretty far cry from "the government can read anybody's e-mail at any time." This is just hyperbole. It would be like saying that warrants meant the end of the Constitution, because they would mean that "the government could read anybody's email at any time without a subpoena."

Re:"Think about it"

[Chris Burke]

1) the real threat is actually so great that the surveillance programs should continue

I assume the implication here is that the threat is much greater than we, the people, know, and that the surveillance has been more successful at stopping the threat than we know. Well that would be rather odd given that Bush's PR team takes every possible opportunity to play up the threats and their successes, rarely even waiting long enough to figure out whether their PR fluff will hold up once the facts are brought in court. If there was such a great threat, and we were so successful at stopping it, I'd think they could do better than half-assed prosecutions against people who are at best tangentially related to al Qaeda and which end up mostly falling apart as examples of how much we need them.

2) the conduct of the surveillance programs is actually more in keeping with accepted American principles than is commonly believed among the public.

If their conduct is "in keeping with accepted American principles", then why do they keep trying to acquire -- or exercise and justify post-facto -- extra-Constitutional powers? Unless the American Principles you're talking about are "apathy" and "a willingness to abandon their freedom at the first sign of danger", I'd say trying to weasel out of the 4th Amendment is not in any way, shape, and form "in keeping with American principles". Your suggestion that despite this public appearance of complete disregard for the Constitution, behind closed doors it's actually a program very respectful of American's rights, and that they're keeping this a secret to be rather hard to take.

Really. The government is clearly desperate for us to believe that the threat is great, they are the only ones who can save us, and that in doing so they are still protecting our rights. It's kind of silly to think that these things are true but nevertheless the government cannot -- not won't, can't, because they are clearly trying desperately to -- show these things to be true.

But then again, I was around when they were desperately trying to prove that Iraq had WMD and would jump on anything and everything they could that could support that idea, even if it fell apart after further investigation (Trailers of Mass Destruction, anyone?) This "take it on faith that the spooks know everything and just can't show us how awesome they are" thing is a horse that won't run anymore.

I predict that for at least the duration of the next presidential term, we will not hear of any surveillance program being shut down by order of the President

I agree, but not for any of the reasons you mention. The fact is that whoever takes up the mantle of President next is most likely going to be just as hungry for power as the current President. First sign: They want to be President. They don't actually mind Bush's huge power grab for the executive branch, because they're hoping that they will be the next ones to benefit. This is why the opposing party's response to these things is mock outrage and zero actual action.

Then again I lost my naivete on the "everything will be great once the other guys get power!" thing even before I lost it about the "oh don't worry your government has everything under control -- despite all appearances" thing.

Re:"Think about it"

[E 99]

If I don't lock my door when I leave the house I'm not implicitly inviting the police into my house and surrendering my Fourth Amendment rights. If I make a call to my mother on the POTS network they can't simply listen in (recent fascist precedents notwithstanding) just because our voices are unencrypted.

Yes, but if leave your curtains open and strangle your wife in front of your window, the government has every right to notice, and to enter your house and arrest you and try you for it.

The idea that the government does not have the right to notice what you say over the POTS network, whether a good idea or a bad one, is not a Constitutional idea. It is an idea of the Supreme Court, presented under the color of the 4th amendment. However, it goes against the spirit of what the 4th amendment is trying to say. The 4th amendment was written to protect the security of one's life, liberty and property, not privacy. There is nothing in it that would have prevented a magistrate in the day from peaking into a suspect's window on a hunch. However, if that suspect frosted all his windows for increased privacy, the government would have no recourse for finding more information, except for a warrant based on probable cause.

Re:"Think about it"

[fyngyrz]

Considerably more germane to how the US is supposed to work than a religious quote, the constitution has this to say:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice how a warrant has to be issued describing the "place" to be searched. The beginning of the amendment specifies "houses", but the rest is more general - the implication is that your shed, your place of business, someone else's coffee kiosk or bench or "mailbox of letters" or "container of packets", all are protected against unreasonable search. What is unreasonable in this context? It's right there, just read it: "right of the people to be secure" - that's unreasonable to violate. If you're not secure, you've been violated unless (a) they have probable cause and (b) they have a warrant and that warrant is supported by oath or affirmation.

With regard to communication modalities, at the time, what they had for remote communications was basically paper. Please note the explicit constitutional reference to the security of papers. You could write something down and send it elsewhere. This is where the idea that your mail should be secure comes from. Well, today, we have other mechanisms. Do you think that in ANY rational world, if the authors of the first amendment knew that you could send messages over wires or through the air, that they would have said, "Oh, well, in that case, you have no right to be secure? You can't base such an argument on how "easy" it is to read such communications, because there's nothing as easy to read as the mail is.

Those authors weren't trying to enumerate the "only" places you were to be secure, they were trying to say you should be secure PERIOD unless... oath, probable cause, warrant. I read the "persons, houses, papers and effects" as a general set of guidelines that is broadly inclusive; that reading is particularly supported by "effects", because that word is about as non-explicit as you can get in the language of the day.

Privacy is the social boundary that the citizens agree shall not be crossed. Closed doors shall be knocked upon; locked or not. Skirts shall not be looked up, short or long. Envelopes shall not be opened, unless addressed to you. Diaries shall not be read except by explicit permission from the author. These things are all important cornerstones of how society works. Not a one of them carries the addendum "unless it is easy" because it is obvious to each and every one of us that the existence of such boundaries is what makes life as an individual reasonable.

To the extent that the government argues that "because it can", it should be allowed to, we are faced with an intrusion that is both antisocial and constitutionally wrongheaded, as well as, I would argue, constitutionally anticipated and explicitly forbidden.

Re:"Think about it"

[genner]

So it's worse than we thought.
The government thinks it's god....

Re:"Think about it"

[moxley]

Hmm...it was funny AND insightful....I mod you: +5 FUNSIGHTFUL.

Re:"Think about it"

[fyngyrz]

The 4th amendment was written to protect the security of one's life, liberty and property, not privacy.

Yes? Then how do you explain that the constitution explicitly says you are to be secure in your papers? Do you somehow think this means that the content of the papers is not covered, but the paper itself is to be secure from... what, fire? Mold? Confiscation by a paper envelope manufacturer? It is very clear that even if it is easy to do, the government may not search your communications. The generalization to telephone communications is both natural and appropriate, as is the generalization to electronic communications. Email isn't very useful any longer due to the pathological neglect of the government, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered by the same blanket as your physical mail and your other papers are, regardless if the "paper' is vellum, papyrus, pressed wood pulp, stone tablets, or packets. Look here: The only thing that makes "papers" valuable, gives them a need to be secure, is what is on them. Your thoughts, ideas, messages, financial state, etc. We're not talking about unused Kleenex here. We're talking about what is on the paper when we say papers, not just the paper itself.

Easy does not mean OK. Until any free person understands that, they're literally dangerous to this society.

Constitutional limits were placed on government because it was the authors experience that governments without limits had a dependable history of abusing the citizens. These limits do indeed make it more difficult for the government to do the legitimate jobs that are assigned to it; this was known right up front. If course it'd be easier to apprehend criminals if we knew everything about everybody. But that also opens the door to other problems, and the authors of the constitution took care to explicitly prevent this. Or so they thought. They didn't anticipate the legal system as it stands today, I think that's safe to say. Nor the arguments put forth by those who think it is the government's job to protect/forbid them from everything ranging from failure to use a seatbelt to enemies that are not even known to specifically exist, no matter what the cost might be in liberty.

Re:"Think about it"

[fyngyrz]

To taser or not to taser. That is the question.

Yes... in the eye.

Re:"Think about it"

[dgatwood]

Doubt it. God considers intent. The courts of this world generally do not. Further, God judges our sins in the context of everything we have done. The courts of this world are absolute. You screw up, you're doing jail time.

There's a reason that private communication must remain private. We have that right to privacy because, quite frankly, everybody has done or said something at some point that he/she is ashamed of. If all of those communications suddenly became part of your permanent record that could be held against you at any time, suddenly somebody who spouted off in anger once about how much he hated [insert group, company, or member of government here] could become a primary suspect for some terrorist act in the absence of any actual evidence. Worse, juries are so gullible that they frequently convict on circumstantial evidence alone, despite the fact that this is not supposed to ever occur.

I have a feeling things are going to get a whole lot uglier before they get better. The only question in my mind is whether it will even start getting better before we begin colonizing another planet and tell the leaders of this world to F off.

Re:"Think about it"

[dgatwood]

Sorry, it's hard to find the actual context of my post now that I see it on the actual page. I was replying to the quote "If a good person's utterances will stand up before the highest court of all, they will most likely pass muster in any earthly court also."

Re:"Think about it"

[Sancho]

Yeah, it was probably MUA/MTA confusion.

As for GPG in the browser, you can take a look at FireGPG (http://firegpg.tuxfamily.org/) which purports to do this for GMail. Unfortunately, it requires that you install GnuPG, so it's not precisely what you were looking for. I think that someone could probably package the two together in an installer and make it a bit easier for people.

Of course, doing this removes one of the big advantages of using Gmail--the fantastic search options.

Re:"Think about it"

[ajs]

If your electronic mail is not encrypted, then one might argue that it is unreasonable to expect privacy. Ah, but if the ISPs succeed in excluding non-ISP mail traffic in the name of preventing spam, and don't do TLS encryption because it presents more load to their servers, then you're forced into a world where that expectation of privacy is stripped from you.

I don't take extraordinary measures to hide my mail. I just put it in an envelope which anyone could open, but the feds still need a warrant to open it. My phone voice traffic is routed over IP unencrypted, but it's still against the law to tap it without a warrant.

What makes email unique?

Re:"Think about it"

[StalinsNotDead]

GOD = Government Observation Division

Re:"Think about it"

[Mister Whirly]

That was my point exactly. You have rights and protection under the law, unless the government considers you a "terrorist" (notice the quotation marks, signifying you may really not be a terrorist to be labeled one), in which case you have none. And BTW, just for you pointing this fact out, you are now on the "watch" list for "suspected terrorists". Watch your back.

Re:"Think about it"

[davidsyes]

This is probably a trial balloon, considering the number of people who expose their lives on social networking sites. If it is not a trial balloon, then it may be to bolster "the government's" "right" to use tool like Visual Analytics, Friend Sets, Friend Wheel, etc, to combine them with reading private email of even those not accustomed to exposing their lives in social networking sites.

For corrupt governments, this can be an IDEAL way to trawl for victims or patsies when certain cases needing a fall guy are useful in shutting down pains in "the government's" collective fat asses.

(ducks, for fear he is already being monitored...)

Re:"Think about it"

[davidsyes]

"Closed doors shall be knocked upon; locked or not. Skirts shall not be looked up, short or long."

Mwo? (Huh?/What?) I can't knock up a door? Skirts cannot be looked up in a directory?

Just kidding. I know what you mean.

However, I think this current cadge/cabal in office (most of the were and will be) will just call the Constitution and Bill of Rights "Constit-tuition, Rev 1.0a" and "Bill of Writes, 1.0a" just to let us know amendments will be easier to sail through.

By the logic of certain cretins in power (or in power but having their strings pulled), swatting a hornet's nest is their RIGHT, and then when stung for doing so, they can go not only after every HIVE they see or suspect, but every hive keeper, too. Heck, for that matter, go after the owner of the land and any migrant or tenant workers and any person ON it or NEAR it, near being defined by the convenience of the moment...

Re:"Think about it"

[davidsyes]

In some companies, night crews (contracted) will install microphones and cameras directly over desks, and move them when org changes necessitate moving the target to another cubicle or building.

So, if you suspect your employer is watching you this way, you can keep doing what you're doing, or do something the ONLY the camera will see, and make them play their card.

-- Fake gun, fake grenade (made of chocolate or hard-baked bread)

-- shit in foil (or painted potato?)

-- inflatable doll in the locking desk drawer

-- long, interesting list of phone numbers...

Or, just pop the ceiling tiles/panels or move them. Don't actually go up IN there, just sweep the cubicle and "oops" bump the tile. Wait, the camera could be two tiles/panels away, in which case you're gonna garner some curious stares.

Hell, just bring in your own "bug sweeper" (fake or real) and stir up alarm and distrust.

Anyway, as for the keyboards, in IT I've seen some nasty-ass GRUNGY keyboards, and for ANY reason they should be taken away. The shit in them probably constitutes an EPA violation. That's enough to make most office workers "ter'rists". Some of them actually smell quite horrid, miasma-like. Such people should be told in their hire packages: "You're getting a clean mouse and keyboard. KEEP them that way. Or else..." I came to have nothing short of CONTEMPT for such people. MY IT director even felt similarly-- whenever we got a new hire, standing rule was to replace grungy keyboards; don't waste time cleaning them. If they dirty them later, that's their problem. Clean the other hardware, but if the mouse is erratic, replace it. Not just because time was money, but because it was go give the new hire a sense of pride in the company.

But, if you want to virtually legally ire an employer you think is sniffing you, unplug the keyboard and mouse at night, or put a shielded box over them (not the display or computer, just the mouse and keyboard.) Just do stuff to make them THINK you THINK they are snooping on you.

Or, if you want to get a general ban on bringing in guests, bring in one to sweep your cubicle and then "get caught". Boy, EVERYbody will wonder if the employer is participating in a court-ordered monitoring program.

Have FUN, but don't be illegal!

Re:"Think about it"

[Anonymous Coward]

E-mail already is subject to subpoena, as is every form of communication that can be recorded for later presentation in court. That is not what they are asking for.

Re:"Think about it"

[znerk]

I already assume my communications are monitored, thank you. I am aware that I live in a police state, and I am aware that I am powerless to do anything about it. The best I can hope for is to be unnoticed... although, as you say, I have now been noticed. Let's hope that pointing at public documents and decrying their obvious ramifications is only a small offense, and I end up somewhere on the opposite end of the "bad guys" list from the Al-Queda. I am not fearful, but I won't be surprised, either. C'est la vie.

With the new laws in place, if I am a big enough fish for them to bother netting, they don't have to try very hard to come up with a reason to snatch me up and take me away... we have so many ludicrous laws, I am bound to break one sooner or later... and when I do, I can be labelled a terrorist. As can any other citizen, should the forces of law take an interest in their activities. I will politely refrain from pointing out who holds the government's (purse) strings, and similarly, I will decline to opine about who has been purchased by whom, and for what purposes.

United States citizens live in a broken nation, like citizens in many other nations. It has occurred to me that the entire idea of nations is a bit outdated, in today's world of nearly instantaneous communications (unless someone jams you for being a jerk on a cellphone in the movie theatre, haha). In addition, the ubiquity of speedy travel has increased the transparency of physical distance in business and interpersonal relations. It's only a matter of time before we have a drastic and global shift in governmental systems, the only question is whether it will be for better or ill, and for how many. There's a reason the peasants revolted against the nobles, and it had very little to do with cake.

--
America will not fall as did Rome.
Rome was an empire, and a great cultural hub.

Re:"Think about it"

[spun]

I have no idea if you think of yourself as a Christian, but I don't think your theology matches mainstream Christianity. First off, God doesn't care what you've done as long as you accept Christ as your personal savior. Good works won't get you into heaven. Second, God's judgment is absolute in a way mere mortals' never can be. Forgot to ask Christ's forgiveness, even though you've led an exemplary life? You are going to hell FOREVER. Infinite punishment for finite sin is pretty damn absolute.

As for privacy, it is only needed because some people have more power to gather and act on information than others. No one has a right to be able to hide their embarrassment, they have a right not to do embarrassing things. If we could all see what everyone was doing, including what everyone was doing about what everyone else was doing, then no one could abuse the information they gathered, because everyone would know they had abused it. Privacy is a stopgap measure.

Re:"Think about it"

[Anonymous Coward]

"The assertion in this case is that electronic mail has no reasonable expectation of privacy."

Isn't this why people are warned to never send passwords or credit card #'s via email or chat?
I ALWAYS assume any email I write has the possibility to be viewed by those I may not want to.

Re:"Think about it"

[Kadin2048]

After I wrote the last post above in the thread, I did a little research on JavaScript implementations of GPG. It turns out that people have gone there before, and there are several working examples.

I wrote a post about it on my blog, but I'll save you and anyone else who might be interested the click and give you the two best examples:

This one is one-way (encrypt only) but is quite fast. It's made for the submission of forms (e.g. "Contact me" on websites) using insecure CGI-to-mail gateways. You can view all the code in your browser, and there are no remote binaries or anything.

That version is based, I believe, on this more general implementation by John Walker (the AutoDesk guy), which does both encryption and decryption of OpenPGP messages right in the browser. Also licensed pretty broadly, I think.

So basically, you could take that JavaScript, and build it into a webmail system: as long as the user had a JS-capable browser, they'd be able to work with encrypted messages without sending any unencrypted data to the server. This is a much more secure model than what I think is used by Hushmail (where the plaintext gets to and from the user via an SSL pipe, but only gets packaged up into a GPG message on the server side). Also, it allows you to keep all your stored messages (Sent Mail, Received Mail, etc.) kept on the server, encrypted to yourself, so that your ISP can't sell you down the river, but you get the convenience of using IMAP.

All you'd need to do, as a user, would be to carry around your private key. Alternately I suppose you could keep an encrypted copy of your private key on the server and then unlock/decrypt it in the browser with a passphrase, but that's much less secure.

There are still a lot of possible attack vectors against such a system (Walker gets into them on his page; basically you constantly have to worry about whether the JS applet has been changed and isn't what you think it is), but it's a hell of a lot better than plaintext or plaintext+SSL.

Re:"Think about it"

[arminw]

.....Privacy is the social boundary that the citizens agree shall not be crossed.......

Privacy and locks are needed, to protect the honest persons of integrity from those who are not as honorable, whether in government or elsewhere. Persons who are honest and obey the golden rule do not need privacy from one another, but they do need to protect themselves from others who do not. That is the only reason privacy is necessary and needs to be protected. So yes, we need privacy because evil is very real in this world.

Re:"Think about it"

[anagama]

All I was trying to say is that the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy," on which the legal test is currently based, is a shitty test, as what a reasonable person would "expect" the government to do is to violate you in any manner they can get away with.

It's really sad that our nation has come to this point, where our expectation is that the government will do all manner of shady things. It's been a little slow in coming but bit by bit over the last 50 years, we have eroded our core principles down to little nubs of what they used to be. All we're left with is "America -- Fuck Yeah" sentiment, a hollow constitution, and the looming demise of our empire -- maybe not in my lifetime, but soon enough -- especially if we keep undermining what America was meant to be right here at home. We don't need terrorists to ensure our destruction, we've got our own government doing the best it can to destroy us.

Re:"Think about it"

[anagama]

Wish I had mod points -- nice job ripping parent-idiot a new one and pouring in some logic.

Re:"Think about it"

[arminw]

......Forgot to ask Christ's forgiveness, even though you've led an exemplary life? .....

The rule of God's justice is simple: "The soul that sins, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4) It's been that way since the beginning. "....for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:17)

The only one that never sinned, even once was Jesus. None of us can stand before a God of perfect justice. We have all broken His rules many times. However, God invites us to mercy because Jesus suffered the justice of God on our behalf. So now every person can have mercy based on a request for that mercy from Jesus. Those who REFUSE perfect mercy, for whatever reason, mostly disbelief, can then only get what's left, namely perfect justice.

Privacy is needed only because there is evil. People who obey the law of love, need no privacy to protect them from one another. However they do need privacy from those in and out of government who do not obey the law of love. Increasingly, it seems, it is those uncaring and unloving people, who are trampling roughshod over that necessary right, despite what the founding fathers wrote into the constitution.

Re:"Think about it"

[Anonymous Coward]

If your electronic mail is not encrypted, then one might argue that it is unreasonable to expect privacy

If your electronic mail is not encrypted enough that a government agency is able to decode it, then one might argue that it is unreasonable to expect privacy.

Either way, it takes the government some effort to look at either unencrypted or encrypted mail.

Re:"Think about it"

[arminw]

.... God judges our sins in the context of everything we have done......

as weighed by the rules he laid down in the very beginning there in the Garden. These are summed up by the Golden Rule -- Love your neighbor like yourself.

(.....could become a primary suspect for some terrorist act in the absence of any actual evidence......)

Privacy is fundamental, because there are those everywhere, but especially in government, who don't care even a little about justice, but only about power and wealth. It's a manifestation of basic human selfishness we all share from childhood onward.

(....I have a feeling things are going to get a whole lot uglier before they get better....)

That feeling of yours is in line with a prediction that Jesus made. He said, it'll get so bad, that He will be forced to return to take over the World's Government, before humanity succeeds of wiping themselves and all life from His planet. Mankind has the WMDs to do this even now. After He takes over, it well get better, much better on THIS planet than it has ever been before.

Re:"Think about it"

[fyngyrz]

Privacy is entirely separate from locks.

Privacy is erected by the mutual knowledge of a boundary. That's all it takes to create it. You can violate it just as easily; if you're properly socialized, you won't, though. Society is rife with such boundaries.

What a lock, or bars, or encryption, or a threatening sign represents is hardening of a boundary. This doesn't make it any more or less of a boundary in terms of privacy, it just attempts to make it slightly more difficult for the poorly socialized - those who will not respect the boundaries the rest of us will - to cross. Doesn't always work, either.

There's an old saying, "locks are for honest people" that pays homage to the idea that a lock isn't by any means sufficient to secure a boundary. This is a clear warning that if you indeed wish to maintain your privacy, your family's private isolation from people who would not respect their health, safety, domicile, possessions - you had best be prepared to implement safeguards a great deal more potent than a lock.

That is why the constitution's 2nd amendment exists; in the case where the government fails to obey the boundaries laid out on paper in the constitution itself and refuses to change its ways, the idea is that the citizens won't just have more copies of the constitution to wave around - they'll have guns. The security of the free state, the entire collection of individuals, depends upon the government behaving properly. The state is all the people. The government is just some of the people. For the same reason that the security of the individual depends upon people not invading their persons, houses, papers, and effects, the security of the state as a whole depends on the government not doing it, either. There are boundaries; when they are crossed, there must be remedies.

Re:"Think about it"

[fyngyrz]

Thank you. I consider your comment considerably more worthwhile than a mod point, frankly.

Re:"Think about it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are they even bothering to mention it? They've probably been doing it for years and will "signing statement" away any legislation that says they can't.

Let's transfer the army to Supreme Court control and have them train their nukes on the White house.

Same shit as the guy who asked how many troops the Pope could field to stop him from doing something. So let's give the SC some muscle to enforce court decisions.

Re:"Think about it"

[Johann Lau]

before we begin colonizing another planet and tell the leaders of this world to F off.

Who is this "we" you speak about? Multinational corporations? They told the leaders of this world to F off a long time ago.

Re:"Think about it"

[JimFive]

If I don't lock my door when I leave the house I'm not implicitly inviting the police into my house and surrendering my Fourth Amendment rights. However, if you leave your door open you are doing just that.

If I make a call to my mother on the POTS network they can't simply listen in (recent fascist precedents notwithstanding) just because our voices are unencrypted. If you're in the mall on a cell phone using that stupid walkie-talkie feature they can.

I realize that my scenarios are slightly less private than yours. I just wanted to indicate the fairly slight differences in the situations. At what point does the policeman have the obligation to be suspicious and enter your house? At what point is your phone call no longer private?

While I accept that in public my conversations could be overheard, I think the government should still be required to have a warrant to make a permanent record of my interactions. There is a difference between being overheard by some random stranger at a coffeeshop and being investigated by a government official. My actions at a televised sporting event are much less private than my actions at the local high school track meet.

To bring this back to email. Certainly, most people have an "expectation of privacy" in their personal emails. Whether that expectation is well-founded is debatable, but the expectation is still there. We think of email just like regular mail. The access that the ISPs or intermediate servers have is incidental. It is the same access that the postal worker has. We expect them to not read it and to just do their job and deliver it.

If the governments arguement is accepted then suddenly we have a need for end to end encryption of traffic through the ISPs server. Maybe an SSL tunnel to an anonymizing site that also hosts unmanaged web-based email accounts?

--
JimFive

Re:"Think about it"

[PopeRatzo]

znerk, I agree with everything you say, but it makes me sad to hear a tone of resignation.

This whole system relies on us producing and consuming. The things we produce and consume make the people who seek to imprison us richer and more powerful, but if we are wise about how we produce and consume, we can take away their power.

Plus we have to organize. I know it's corny and I sound like a 1930's labor union pinko, but it's the truth. The rulers take for granted that we are isolated enough to never stand together.

Re:"Think about it"

[znerk]

The rulers take for granted that we are isolated enough to never stand together.

There's a reason they take it for granted... We *are* isolated from one another, and we *don't* stand together.

"We" spend too much time arguing over pointless things; which OS/distro is the best, what hardware is the best bang for the buck, who's going to win the world series... It all comes down to a basic apathy about things that "don't impact us personally". The general populace is willing to let someone drive us to extinction, because we don't care enough about our fellow humans. (I added quotes to the term "we", as "we" wouldn't recognize each other if we bumped into each other in the parking lot.)

We're willing to spend hours arguing over the best way to secure our networks, days griping at each other in distro flamewars, weeks obsessing over the latest pc game... but none of us spends even minutes doing anything about the political situation. We don't even leave our houses (and soon, we may not be *able* to leave our houses... do a web search for "microwave crowd control" and "puke ray"). Why would they think we would even *consider* standing together?

Apathy towards others destroys more freedoms than terrorists, the "Bush League", or anything else that we bitch about.

--
"First, they came for the..."

Re:"Think about it"

[arminw]

....the citizens won't just have more copies of the constitution to wave around - they'll have guns.......

The sad thing is that the more citizens turn to unloving and violent ways, including the USE of, not the possession of guns, the more incarcerated or even dead citizens we'll have. The US has one of the highest percentages of people in prison, of any nation on the planet. We pile law on top of law, yet more and more people are not keeping the ten simple laws the supreme Government of the Universe, God Himself, handed personally to humanity. These ten are condensed into one law of love with two inseparable components; one, to love God and two, to love each other.

The state and the Government can never be more than a reflector of the sum total of the individuals therein. In a democracy, the leaders are elected from that pool and also reflect the degree to which people respect and honor God and each other. The people who founded this nations honored and respected God and therefore each other. They wrote the guidelines down in foundational documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the US. The writers of the Declaration of Independence, which came before the Constitution, clearly recognized that God, the Creator is the giver of inalienable human rights, not some Government. The authors of the Constitution had this in mind, then the spelled out some of the details this entailed. They also knew the human predisposition to selfish behavior and did a pretty good job in spelling out the boundaries this selfishness must not cross, particularly as applied to government. If people will not abide by God's law of love, then the law of the gun will take over. No piece of paper can change that.

Re:"Think about it"

[Sancho]

Interesting links, and definitely something I'll have to check out. Thanks!

Re:"Think about it"

[fyngyrz]

I'm not going to discuss your superstitions with you. It just encourages them to spread.

"Land of the Free"

[FyRE666]

So much for that slogan - The US and China (or even cold war Russia) are not really that different. Total government control over communications, news media under govt control, corruption (although to be fair that's standard operating practice for any govt...)

Re:"Land of the Free"

[rvw]

"The government".... Does that mean Bush and his mates can monitor all Democratic email traffic? That would be handy for the upcoming elections!

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Opportunist]

I bet Nixon feels really stupid now. I mean, with a bit of planning...

Re:"Land of the Free"

[arevos]

The US and China (or even cold war Russia) are not really that different. When trying to convince people of the dangers of government control, hyperbole like this doesn't help. A US citizen still has considerably more rights than a Chinese citizen.

Also, you can't reasonably expect any privacy in email unless you encrypt its contents.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[jamar0303]

Depends on what you do in your day-to-day life. Quite a few times I feel more free in China than I do than America (particularly when it comes to cellphones- carrier locking? Even the CDMA carrier here has open phones, and if it's locked, the locals will find a way to unlock it- with a couple of exceptions- not the iPhone).

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Kelz]

Well, if the government doesn't need a warrant... does it apply to the public as well? I'd personally love to see some of the RNC's email, especially some juicy Rove memos.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be OK if, by intercepting and decoding an encrypted email sent between New York and some MidEast country, the Feds were able to defeat a conspiracy to detonate a suitcase Nuke in New York? Or release of a BWMD? Or poison your water supply?

Or, are you and your friends and family courageous enough to accept the full meaning of the Bill of Rights and be responsible for your own protection? In exchange for keeping the 1st and 4th Amendments you'll use the 2nd to defend yourself and your family against such threats? Assuming, or course, you have the technical ability or planted covert agents that can inform you in advance of such plots.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

Having lived for the majority of my life in the USA and the past 5 years (and currently) in the ex-soviet state Estonia, I can tell you that you have no idea what it was like in Soviet Russia. The USA is not perfect, nor am I defending such actions, but the USA is still defiantly a beacon of freedom in comparison. Once we start mass deporting the Mexicans and Muslims to the middle of Arizona desert via cattle car with hardly and food or water and put them in a forced labour camp, where they are mostly killed off, then we can be compared to the Soviet Union. Until then, you still have some power via your vote so start using it instead of making up baseless analogies.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Monoliath]

Also, you can't reasonably expect any privacy in email unless you encrypt its contents. Amen to that. I've advocated this for years to my friends and family.

I will admit though, that this attempt by 'The Bushidiots' is grotesque, and nothing but another attempt to suppress free speech.

It cracks me up how much Bush can hate Castro, yet...his administration makes requests such as these?

This coming election could not come any SOONER, and I am refusing to vote by electronic ballot. Paper only. Period.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[kc2keo]

If you host your own email server that uses encryption aren't you in a much better position than using services like gmail or yahoo?

Re:"Land of the Free"

[mi]

The US and China (or even cold war Russia) are not really that different.

Yep... 20 mln citizens have already gone to labor camps and hundreds of thousands executed, while deliberately-induced starvation is killing millions more on conquered lands. No private property can legally exist — all enterprises belong to the State (of Workers and Peasants). It is illegal for peasants to leave their village without the headmaster's Ok (he is the one issuing them passports), and for all others to leave the country. Those suspected of subversion are tried by secret courts — either for the actual subversion, or (in the later stages of the Cold War) for "drug dealing", "gun possession", or homosexuality. It is illegal to own "xerox" machines and other "publishing" equipment.

Hot water is a luxury available in cities, and even the running cold water (where available) could be out for days and weeks at a time. Wait for for an apartment is counted in years (and decades), as is the wait for telephone connection. Cars are small, unreliable, polluting, expensive, but you can't get them anyway. Same is true of electronics and most other manufactured things.

Yes. America is not that different at all...

Total government control over communications

Patently false — the government is seeking access to one particular method of communication — unencrypted e-mails. Whether they get it or not, you are a fool, if you expected privacy of that to begin with...

... news media

Except the Register, right? Phew...

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have any more rights than a Chinese citizen. 'Freedom' in the US has become an illusion. Free speech zones, tapping phones, email, no fly lists, etc. All because of terrorism. Well maybe we have a few more rights like govt isn't blocking foreign internet content.. yet anyway.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Shakrai]

I bet Nixon feels really stupid now. I mean, with a bit of planning...

If the President does it, then it's not illegal.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Felix Da Rat]

When trying to convince people of the dangers of government control, hyperbole like this doesn't help. A US citizen still has considerably more rights than a Chinese citizen.

Also, you can't reasonably expect any privacy in email unless you encrypt its contents. As you didn't provide any more information regarding those rights for the U.S. Citizen, you are doing the same thing as the Parent Poster. I believe the original post was making the argument that the US Citizen, by actions like this is losing those rights. Or at least in danger of doing so.

On privacy, while it is possible to read an unencrypted e-mail, that is not the same as an invitation to do so. It is possible to read my documents in my locked file cabinet, it just requires access and a pull hammer. Does that mean that those can be reviewed by the government? My phone line can be tapped by pretty much anyone, but does that mean it is okay for everyone to do so?

I don't disagree, I think that encryption is a fine thing, and should be used more often. However, I do not believe that my right to privacy exists regardless of the technological possibilities to interfere with it.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[ThirdPrize]

Correct me if i'm wrong but you can actually vote a new leader into power can't you? Whether or not it makes much difference is beside the point, you have the power. And how many /. accounts are now dormant as the US government has made the user 'disappear'? Not that many.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Opportunist]

Really? Man, if Dick hears that he'll rotate in his grave. He could've gotten off the hook so easily.

Why didn't anyone tell him?

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt you'd get ahold of Rove emails. The government does not use commercial ISPs they use their own. The way the article synopsis reads at least, Anyone/thing large enough or rich enough to be able to arrange for a private ISP is exempt. It sounds like encryption is going to become the order of the day I am afraid.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[cbiltcliffe]

Well maybe we have a few more rights like govt isn't blocking foreign internet content.. yet anyway.

That you know of. Not that I seriously think they are...it's just a little too tinfoil-hattish for me. But really, if they did a good job at it (yes, I realize this is the US government we're talking about, here...) how would you know? At least, for the 98% (FPOOMA) or whatever of Americans who either never go abroad, or never get any serious Internet use while they're there. The only people who'd notice would be computer geeks, or the occasional researcher, and they'd be taken for tinfoil hat types when they got home and told someone about it.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah there is just no way that America (5 years ago) is like Estonia now. Wait till you get home dude.

This isnt the place you left.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. Sorry but it's true. Especially if you live in China (as I do) you really have no excuse for thinking the government's actions are on the same scale of repressive as cell phone lock-in. Anyway both China and the US give people the option of using or not using locked cell-phone contracts. It's just more prevalent in the US.

And you can get iPhones in China - they just don't do Chinese support, so it would be silly to.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think Freedom is about whether or not your cell phone is locked into a specific carrier, you need to seriously rethink the issue.

Freedom is being able to have as many kids as you can afford, or not to have any.
Freedom is living where you can afford and want to live.
Freedom is saying what you want without fear of being sent to a re-education camp.
Freedom is being able to protest without being run over by a tank.
Freedom is being able travel from place to place as you please.
Freedom is being able to defend yourself with your own firearm.
Freedom is being able to vote for who you want to run the government.

To name just a few.

Sure, all these freedoms need to be exercised responsibly and sometimes the implementation is flawed, a point that many people use to argue that these really do not exist. But those people are perennial complainers who are probably sympathetic to anarchism.

Whether or not the government reads your email, which is probably already read by your ISP, is a fairly trivial concern when compared to many other things the government could do. And if it bothers you, there is a process (if you can convince enough people) to end the practice which is to change the government by voting.

But to stand up and shout Nazi, Fascism, Dictatorship, and/or make comparisons to other nations that are patently not free whenever the government does something you don't like, makes you look like a left wing, tin foil hat, nut case.

Of course, you are free to do that too.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Also, you can't reasonably expect any privacy in email unless you encrypt its contents.

Technically, that's true, of course. But it most certainly is reasonable to expect my government not to waste time and money passing and using laws to read them without good reason, all in my name and funded by my taxes.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S.A incarceration rate: 701 per 100,000
China incarceration rate: 117 per 100,000

Which one's the land of the free, again?

Re:"Land of the Free"

[neoform]

Without laws like this however, any unencrypted emails you send out can't result in you going to prison.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[arevos]

As you didn't provide any more information regarding those rights for the U.S. Citizen, you are doing the same thing as the Parent Poster. I believe the original post was making the argument that the US Citizen, by actions like this is losing those rights. Or at least in danger of doing so. To quote the original post:

"Land of the Free"

So much for that slogan - The US and China (or even cold war Russia) are not really that different. Whilst there is a dangerous erosion of freedom in the US, it has not ceased to be a democracy, and the First Amendment has not been repealed. One could argue that the US government frequently oversteps its bounds, but at least those bounds still exist. The Chinese government has no such restrictions upon its actions.

Furthermore, the US has yet to ship millions of its citizens to remote gulags, so the original poster's comparison to the USSR is even worse exaggeration.

I don't disagree, I think that encryption is a fine thing, and should be used more often. However, I do not believe that my right to privacy exists regardless of the technological possibilities to interfere with it. You make a good point. Perhaps it is unwise to rely only on technological solutions without also enforcing legal limits. If the government happens upon some way to crack public key encryption, we'd certainly want restrictions on government data-mining in place.

That said, if someone does produce an algorithm that can crack strong encryption in a feasible time frame, I suspect that government snooping of emails would be the least of our worries.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[iminplaya]

Well I hope he heard it. He said it and believed it. As our sitting president does today.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[vertinox]

A US citizen still has considerably more rights than a Chinese citizen.

Two things. Rights are not given. They are inherit and the same for all people.

A Chinese citizen has the same rights as a US citizen, it is just that the Chinese government doesn't recognize this. This was the whole deal about the Bill of Rights to force government to recognize key rights but also acknowledge that these rights were already there including those not specifically listed in the bill of rights.

Secondly, since habeas corpus has been suspended, in theory you are getting less due process than the Chinese if the US government so desires to ignore the rights.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Tablizer]

"The government".... Does that mean Bush and his mates can monitor all Democratic email traffic? That would be handy for the upcoming elections!

I personally know about law-enforcement individuals who used databases to find info on girls they wanted to flirt with. Don't underestimate the power of human nature to abuse technology to achieve their wants and desires. Look what Cheney's buddies did with Vallery Plame, or Nixon with his rivals.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[clickety6]

A US citizen still has considerably more rights than a Chinese citizen.

Unfortunately, China appears to be improving its record (albeit slowly) whilst the US is definitely moving in the opposite direction (imprisonment without representation, torture, death penalty, police brutality,...)

I don't think the fact that your eroding civil rights are still greater than the average Chinese peasant is anything to be boasting about...

What about comparing your rights to those of your Northern neighbour or some European countries. Shoulnd't you be shouting that you don't have as many rights as those people rather than the fact that you're not as badly off as those in a developing nation?

Re:"Land of the Free"

[mgpeter]

Does that mean Bush and his mates can monitor all Democratic email traffic?

The question here is not Democrats vs. Republicans, they are both evil and against a free society. For instance: Pres. Clinton authorized un-constitutional Phone Taps during his presidency.

The "American Political" system is not about choice, it does not matter if a "Republican" or a "Democrat" is in office, the result is the same. It is simply smoke and mirrors to portray to the American People that we are a free society that elects its officials - nothing could be further from the truth.

Stop being a good Democrat - Stop be a good Republican - Start being a good American

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst there is a dangerous erosion of freedom in the US, it has not ceased to be a democracy, and the First Amendment has not been repealed.

Its status as a democracy has ceased to be meaningful. One person's vote makes no difference. The First Amendment hasn't been repealed, but the right it protects has been eroded, in the name of protecting the children, stopping terrorism, stopping copyright violation, etc. The US Justice Department has asserted that "instruction" (not computer programs, but teaching of persons by other persons) is conduct not protected by the First Amendment, and so far they haven't been slapped down by the courts.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[justthinkit]

Consider yourself corrected.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[jamar0303]

You misunderstood. I meant that iPhones were not an exception to the "locals will find a way to unlock it". For that matter, you've haven't been around Shanghai, have you? Unlocked iPhones iwth Chinese are everywhere, even some of the Apple resellers.

This is probably mostly because I'm "only" a teenager. That's the most I worry about right now. And the government's action on the internet? My school works around that the "local" way- apparently the telecom companies have the discretion to route certain lines around the Great Firewall given enough "motivation".

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because they just execute you in China.

"Which one's the land of the free, again?"

That would still be the US.

And really, you trust the Chinese numbers? You're that naive?

Re:"Land of the Free"

[jamar0303]

I've lived in both China and America (currently live in the former and am a citizen of the latter) and I'm just commenting on what my everyday life feels like. I can talk political all I want at school and with friends. That's not been taken away from me when I left America. For me freedom is being able to toss my current carrier when they're crap, to be able to walk the streets at night without being harassed by cops, (for my friends, not so much for me) to be able to go clubbing without being denied just because they're a little young. That's what matters to me as a teenager right now. Oh, and about half that list woud be valid and half not- I can go anywhere I want without problems, I can live where I want without problems, and... I don't have kids, but I have had friends who have come close to (one girl at my school is known for having multiple abortions- that's also a freedom that's in danger in America, due to pro-life groups, that's not in China).

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god. Your private school aimed entirely at the kids of rich foreigners has a special non-firewalled connection to the internet, and so you think the Chinese government gives more freedom than the US? And that the vaguely wider availability of cell phones without a contract is a good example of this?

How naive do you have to be? Read up on China's government or modern history a little. It's amazing that you can live in China but are obviously so completely ignorant about anything outside of your little foreigner bubble world.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Hatta]

An email server that uses encryption generally just does it for the login. The plain text email is still stored and transferred. What you want is something like GPG that provides end to end encryption. That way it doesn't matter who sees it, the information can only be read by its intended recipient.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[T.E.D.]

When trying to convince people of the dangers of government control, hyperbole like this doesn't help. A US citizen still has considerably more rights than a Chinese citizen.

Are you serious? The best you can do is compare us to the People's Republic of China and say we aren't less free than them yet?

I'm actually more depressed about this than I was before I read your post. Thanks a lot. :-(

Re:"Land of the Free"

[UncleTogie]

I don't have kids, but I have had friends who have come close to (one girl at my school is known for having multiple abortions- that's also a freedom that's in danger in America, due to pro-life groups, that's not in China).

No, China goes the other way and forces abortions and sterilizations. Yeah, that's freedom. :P

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Stanislav_J]

Furthermore, the US has yet to ship millions of its citizens to remote gulags, so the original poster's comparison to the USSR is even worse exaggeration.

Operative word = "yet." Be patient -- it takes time to build those gulags.....

Re:"Land of the Free"

[canUbeleiveIT]

Yes exactly. <sarcasm>When "we" do it, it's because it has to be done to save lives, children, democracy, etc. But when "they" do it, it's a power grab and a cessation of freedoms. </sarcasm> Since it looks like the Democrats will probably be in control of the Congress and the White House, let's see if they will restore these lost freedoms or merely continue to exploit them for their own gain and for the gain of their cronies.

Somehow, I thnk it will just be business as usual, with moneyed special interests to whom the politicians are beholden getting the preferential treatment, while we get the shaft -->0.

Partisan hacks (on both sides) will be the death of us all.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[sumdumass]

Why would Bush want to monitor the democrat's email? He isn't running for office again.

What are the bush basher going to do when Bush is out of office? Are they going to continue to blame everything they see as bad on him for years to come in a way that somehow absolved everyone else who have a part in the play?

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does that mean Bush and his mates can monitor all Democratic email traffic?"

Not only are they able to, but looking at their conduct the past years and their total disregard for the most basic ethical and democratic principles it doesn't sound very far-fetched if they really did it. Since the Watergate fiasco they might have learned how to cover their tracks a bit better too..

Just have a look at the track record: lying about a supposed Saddam-Al Quaeda connection, pumping billions of tax money into mercenaries to fight a dirty war, selling out a top spy for political payback.. just to name a few. All this just makes me believe that they will do anything they can get away with.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Tim C]

Also, you can't reasonably expect any privacy in email unless you encrypt its contents.

I disagree, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect privacy from your email. Just because someone *could* intercept and read it doesn't mean that they *should*. As others have pointed out, email really isn't like a postcard, you can't just accidentally glimpse the contents as you handle it as part of your job. You have to make a special effort to copy the email in transit, which to my mind is an unreasonable action (workplace policies not withstanding).

Re:"Land of the Free"

[benneja1]

U.S.A incarceration rate: 701 per 100,000 China incarceration rate: 117 per 100,000 Which one's the land of the free, again? This may have something to do with that number... Six countries (China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the United States) account for 91 percent of the reported world total number of executions. Of 1,591 confirmed executions in 25 countries worldwide, at least 1,010 people were executed in China during 2006.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China-Wikipedia If the USA killed off as many criminals I would assume there would be less criminal activity. Also, in US prisons you get 3 meals, TV, education, books, etc; so long as you stay out of "federal pound me in the ass" prison, you'll live better than those in poverty.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[N3WBI3]

"The US and China (or even cold war Russia) are not really that different."

Captain hyperbole to the rescue! Yes a nation where they run over student protesters with tanks and black out the media with it, where the actively filter news information and words like 'democracy' is really on par with the US.

Ive been to China and I have seen the pear in peoples eyes when a soldier is near if they are street vending without permission. and I've been to Minneapolis where people once a week take to different intersections around the city to protest Bush and the war (tough Ive never seen tanks).

"Total government control over news media"

You mean like slashdot? democraticunderground? freerepublic? indimedia? seriously do you see a lack of vocal displeasure with the government being shut down..

"Total government control over communications"

They are moving that way but nearly to the level china does it, I can still encrypt my communications, The internet is still pretty free and open if you use an anonymozer.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[N3WBI3]

"Quite a few times I feel more free in China than I do than America"

Go to a popular public park with a megaphone and a placard that says 'over throw the government' in China, Ill do the same in the US and well get together tonight to see who got harassed *less* by the authorities..

"particularly when it comes to cellphones- carrier locking?"

Carrier locking is about a business owner making a contract, its called private property rights. See in china if you started a business you would not have such rights.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[N3WBI3]

"I'm just commenti"ng on what my everyday life feels like."

Right your big concern in life is cell phone carrier locking and you think somehow this is relevant?

"I can talk political all I want at school and with friends. That's not been taken away from me when I left America."

Go do it with a megaphone in a public park, denounce communism as an oppressive system..

"to be able to go clubbing without being denied just because they're a little young."

Holy crap they've got a younger legal drinking age and they dont enforce it... That cinches it..

"I can go anywhere I want without problems"

Unless you're carrying a Bible out in the open

"one girl at my school is known for having multiple abortions- that's also a freedom that's in danger in America, due to pro-life groups, that's not in China"

Whats more evil.. Me saying that an unborn is a human being so they have rights and freedoms or a government saying *I dont care if you think the unborn is alive, you live in Tibet and youre having an abortion!*

You're a foolish kid concerned with drinking, partying, and techno gadgets.. When you up and decide to fight for something in life thats substantial lets see your opinion of Chinese freedom then.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[N3WBI3]

China incarceration rate: 117 per 100,000

If the us used the death penalty as easily or often as the Chinese (e.g. shot all drug dealers) our rates would be lower than theirs..

Actually China is proof that the death penelty at least has *some* merit as a deterrent..

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Jason Levine]

Not to mention that today's "strongly encrypted message" is tomorrow's "barely encrypted message."

Suppose I send a message today via encryption method X which is nearly impossible to break. Now 5 years down the line, progression in computer technology means that X is pretty easy to break. Would that make my message, sent 5 years prior, fair game for a warrantless wiretap? What if I used method Y today, believing it was strong encryption, when in fact it was barely more protection than ROT13? Should users be required to know all of the current forms of encryption, which are strong, and which aren't in order to have their Constitutional Rights? I don't think that should be the case.

Yes, you should never send sensitive information via an e-mail. Yes, it's like sending it via snail-mail on a postcard. But, no, that doesn't mean that that e-mail should be fair game to the government without a warrant.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[jtn]

It seems reasonable; the whole "buh-buh-but Clinton!" argument used by many conservatives to blame the last president on things that happened YEARS after his end of term is STILL in strong effect in many circles, including several conservative news outlets and media-sponsored talking heads.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[paradoja]

Carrier locking is about a business owner making a contract, its called private property rights. See in china if you started a business you would not have such rights.

Sooo... if a business takes your liberty away, it's right, if a government does the same it's bad... mmmmfff...

Re:"Land of the Free"

[E 99]

So much for that slogan - The US and China (or even cold war Russia) are not really that different. Total government control over communications, news media under govt control, corruption (although to be fair that's standard operating practice for any govt...)

Don't be dense. Listening to communications and control over communications are completely different concepts. A lack of freedom, or control over communications, would mean that people are restricted in how they communicate, what forms of communications they use, if they encrypt their conversations, etc. None of these things are even remotely the case in the US, nor are they likely to be. People who use hyperbole to turn every instance of government investigation into some "police state" rhetoric, make it possible to talk about freedom rationally.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[N3WBI3]

Sooo... if a business takes your liberty away, it's right, if a government does the same it's bad... mmmmfff...

Uggg The right to use X provider is not a liberty. The provider, the person who sells you the phone, and you all have rights in the transaction and just like anywhere else in life *none* of them are absolute. There is nothing illegal or even morally wrong with me selling you something with a condition (so long as the condition does not void any of your God given rights). You are free to abstain from the transaction. I dont like carrier locking but I also have not invested my life in a business that sells phones..

But because you have asked: In the US you actually *do* have the right to setup your phone on whatever cell network you wish. There is an exemption in the DCMA for just that http://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/1201_recommendation.pdf

You have the right to mod your phone so you can use it on whatever network youwish (your property)

Just don't expect the providers of hardware to support a modded system why should they have to? Should not their property (being their business) have some protection as well?

Re:"Land of the Free"

[operagost]

So Clinton didn't commit perjury? And he didn't fail miserably at catching bin Laden?

Re:"Land of the Free"

[E 99]

Well, if the government doesn't need a warrant... does it apply to the public as well? I'd personally love to see some of the RNC's email, especially some juicy Rove memos.

Yes, it applies to all parties in a lawsuit, government or otherwise. So if you have a lawsuit against Mr. Rove, you can request that the judge issue a subpoena for any of his emails that include the phrase, "I am evil, and am going to take over the world." Good luck with that.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Russ Nelson]

Also, you can't reasonably expect any privacy in email unless you encrypt its contents.

And if you come into my house without my permission, I'll fucking kill you, even if my door is unlocked. And indeed, the courts support the use of deadly force against home invaders. Just like Hollywood supports the use of deadly force against space invaders.

No, you can't read my email even if I haven't encrypted it. Even if you're the *recipient* of my email, you can't disclose its contents further than I've spread it.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

The top bit, no, we're not there yet. But the rest? We've got the frog in the pot, we're just bringing up the heat now.

It is illegal for peasants to leave their village without the headmaster's Ok (he is the one issuing them passports), and for all others to leave the country.

Hmmm, this water's a little warm.

Those suspected of subversion are tried by secret courts -- either for the actual subversion, or (in the later stages of the Cold War) for "drug dealing", "gun possession", or homosexuality.

Say what? We don't have secret courts for those suspected of subversive behavior? Not only do we have those, we have an entire secret government that we can't even feign participation in.

It is illegal to own "xerox" machines and other "publishing" equipment.

It may not be illegal to own publishing equipment, but the publicly accessible airwaves here are growing thin. As an example, while we continually pour money in to a losing war, we pull literally only days worth of war funding from PBS and NPR. Who needs anything other than corporate sponsored news anyway? At least that's what the lobbyists tell the politicians. If you centralize the ownership of the major media channels in close, strictly profit-driven friends of yours, it's a lot easier to crank down censorship when you like.

Cars are small, unreliable, polluting, expensive, but you can't get them anyway. Same is true of electronics and most other manufactured things.

Yes, because big dependable expensive polluting cars are much better. Just ask any of the morons continuing to purchase SUVs as we head in to a gas crisis of epic proportions. Why the hell is any vehicle capable of under 20mpg even *sold*? Much less at a $40k+ pricetag?

Patently false -- the government is seeking access to one particular method of communication -- unencrypted e-mails. Whether they get it or not, you are a fool, if you expected privacy of that to begin with...

*Bubble bubble* How's that pot Mr. Frog?

Sitting back and just saying "It's all good! We're not China quite yet!" as your reasoning for why to tolerate current government behaviors is being ridiculously obtuse. The state of privacy and government influence were FINE when this country started, and have been corrupted by leaps and bounds in the past century. In the wake of 9/11, privacy of the individual citizen has eroded at a ludicrously breakneck pace.

It's not China yet, but if you don't stop it before it is, then you won't have the rights left to fix it.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Araxen]

Well the US Citizen's did vote in Al Gore but somehow we got George Bush(via the EC), so much for the actual citizen's having the power to vote in who they want!

Re:"Land of the Free"

[N3WBI3]

Lets talk about freedom...

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10868

Beijing, Nov 2, 2007 / 02:18 pm (CNA).- Organizes of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing have published a list of "prohibited objects" in the Olympic village where athletes will stay. To the surprise of many, Bibles are among the objects that will not be allowed.

According to the Italian daily La Gazzetta dello Sport, organizers have cited "security reasons" and have prohibited athletes from bearing any kind of religious symbol at Olympic facilities.

Other objects on the list include video cameras and cups.

The Spanish daily La Razon said the rule was one of a number of "signs of censure and intolerance" towards religious objects, particularly those used by Christians in China. Currently in China five bishops and fifteen priests are in prison for opposing the official Church.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Total government control over communications

WTF? Are you suggesting that the US Government has total control over all communications? If so, you are suggesting that the US Government is personally listening to (i.e. not just recording) every phone call. You are suggesting that they open every letter, that they read every near-unreadable forum post. Hell, your blanket statement even suggests that they are listening and potentially censoring (hey, it wouldn't be control without censorship, right?) every word that comes out of a US citizen's mouth, speech being another form of communication.

Control is expensive. Even if the US government could control communications, the cost benefits ratio is too disproportionate. Why bother at all with controlling communications, when they can just do their job? Seriously, it isn't that hard. Just find out what the people want, and promise to do it. Of course, it is a little more complicated, but sure as hell simpler and cheaper than going for total control of communications. Why do you think that so many US citizens are considered apathetic? Because they're satisfied with their governments. Nothing has happened that has been enough to stir them into looking for alternative governments. They have what they need, they have what they want, and the strong US economy is keeping them relatively rich, and that's enough. That's the best way of quashing political dissent.

Same goes for controlling the media. I don't know what the hell corruption has to do with this though. I can't even tell exactly what you mean by corruption, especially since you're saying that this particular brand of corruption is "standard operating practice" for all governments worldwide.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Paracelcus]

Use one of the many open source e-mail encryption programs to protect your privacy.
Set up your own mail server at home and encrypt the filesystem.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[jamar0303]

I think I'll enjoy my adolescence just a little longer, thanks (and return to America for college).

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Cally]

Whilst you're right that China is a lot less free that the US, still, you've over-stated the "grim socialist" aspect -- you may not have noticed but in the last 20 years they've let the market economy rip, with spectacular results. This bit:

Hot water is a luxury available in cities, and even the running cold water (where available) could be out for days and weeks at a time. Wait for for an apartment is counted in years (and decades), as is the wait for telephone connection. Cars are small, unreliable, polluting, expensive, but you can't get them anyway. Same is true of electronics and most other manufactured things. ... slightly over-eggs the pudding, I'm afraid, certainly as far as the huge industrial cities and conurbations go.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[jamar0303]

On to the ad hominem attacks, are we? Anyway, I only wish I was a foreigner to China. I'm a US citizen, sure, but that doesn't make me white and it sure doesn't make me rich. "Foreigner bubble world"? I think, at the very least, I've seen more of Shanghai's underside than the kind of person you think I am would.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly there are huge differences between the USA and China, cold war Russia, Nazi germany etc. The degree of civil rights abuse perpetrated by the US government is probably only a tiny drop in the ocean to many other nations.
However, if we look at the severity of what each nation is capable of, it seems a bit like there is more of a difference of scale than a difference in the nature of the abuse.
But then again, I think probably almost every country's government has, at some point, sanctioned murder, torture, spying, theft (property seizure), etc.
So all in all, maybe it's a bit of a vacuous point. Unless you happen to live in America and want to live somewhere you can be proud of (hint: move north).

Re:"Land of the Free"

[kamapuaa]

This would be an excellent post if only it had been posted 30 years ago. As it it, pretty much your entire post is no longer true. I live in China and hate the government as much as everyone else does, but it's time to update your assumptions.

Holodomor was not a Chinese thing. Blaming the Chinese pseudo-Communist government for the USSR's mistakes is really a stretch.

Leaving the village is everyday practice. Traveling on trains does not require a written permission slip from the village leader. That is silly.

Machines that make copies can very easily be bought in China, in cash if you want - perhaps at Best Buy.

Hot water is in every single Chinese city. That is totally ridiculous. Of course there's gas bills and it's not free, but basically every single person in a city will have enough money to afford hot water, and I'd guess that's true in the village but I don't fucking go to Chinese villages.

If you have the money, you can just buy an apartment. There's no years-long wait. I get advertisements in my mail almost every day. Real-estate agents are all over the place, including American real-estate companies.

My home telephone connection took a few hours to set up. Every street has a person selling SIM cards for a cellular phone for about $3 US. You don't even need an ID to purchase one, they can be completely anonymous.

The most popular car model in China is GM. The 2nd most popular is Volkwagen. Any motherfucker with cash can buy a car. If I had a bag full of money, I could go to a car dealership and purchase one tonight.

Electronics are easily available.

I recommend you learn a little about the country of China, it is absolutely nothing like the 60's era anti-Russian propaganda you seem to have so thoroughly absorbed.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[Anonymous Coward]

In fairness, I didn't say you were white (you did), and yes it does mean that your family is rich, do you know how much your annual tuition is? Christ. About 5 year's worth of average salary in China. These private schools, and foreign companies, are afforded special liberties that are obviously not available to most people in China.

Really, your takes on the country are so obviously incorrect, it's difficult not to partake in ad hominem attacks.

Anyway while it's totally possible to use your Chinese quad-band cell-phone in the US, or to get a non-contract phone in the US, keep on raging against the US cell-phone machine!

Re:"Land of the Free"

[jamar0303]

I have to concede the first point. You called me a foreigner, I drew upon the definition of foreigner that I use, that is, European/African. And on the school- I did look at the tuitions recently. I will concede that also (the tuitions are high, but touring the school you'd wonder "where the hell is all the money going?" and no amount of student petitioning and activism has changed that- guess the administration's taken some lessons from the local government).

I will also concede the rest of my statements due to the fact that I am merely an adolescent, and not really a political person. I'm enjoying high school, worrying about college, not living a working life, and as such shouldn't really have run my mouth off like that.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[mi]

Holodomor was not a Chinese thing. Blaming the Chinese pseudo-Communist government for the USSR's mistakes is really a stretch.

Yes. China had its own thing. It may not have been deliberately murderous, but it lead to significant devastation (and loss of life) anyway. Whether Mao was a "pseudo-" or a real Communist is really unimportant...

[...] Leaving the village is everyday practice. Traveling on trains does not require a written permission slip from the village leader. That is silly. [...]

I come from the ex-USSR and most of the details in my post were from either my experience or knowledge of the recent history. The GGP-post claimed, USA is "not that different" from "cold-war Russia", which made my response applicable.

Re:"Land of the Free"

[arevos]

Not to mention that today's "strongly encrypted message" is tomorrow's "barely encrypted message." Not really. There have been algorithms that have been flawed, or key sizes that were naively small, but there haven't been any quantum leaps in decryption. RSA has lasted over 30 years, and is still no closer to being broken.

Postcard/envelope analogy

[lobiusmoop]

Using a snail-mail analogy, I can understand this. If I send a postcard out (plain email), I don't expect the message on the card to remain private, as anyone in the delivery chain can read it without any tampering. When I do want privacy, I can put my message in a sealed envelope instead (PGP encryption for email) to ensure only the recipient can read it. Seems fair to me. The general populous need to be more aware that plain email is more like a postcard than a message in a sealed envelope though.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun fact: What you write on a post card can't be used against you in a court of law.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Fun fact: What you write on a post card can't be used against you in a court of law.

Really? I suggest you write "I'm gonna fly a plane into the Sears Tower" on a postcard and see how much hilarity ensues.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

And PGP is so infrequently used for general email correspondence that simply putting your missive in that PGP envelope may be enough to flag your mailbox "interesting".

What's so annoying about this is that if an interested agency CAN collect the data and it doesn't cost them anything to do so, they WILL. More data to mine. This would mean I can pretty much count on every message I receive (through an ISP mailbox) being warehoused somewhere.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[cenonce]

In the end, however, I think your sealed envelope is more like plain e-mail. If your envelope is ripped, damaged, held up to the light or whatever and the Postal Service (or anybody) looks at the contents and sees what they believe is illegal activity, a warrant based on that info is not going to get tossed. Same as if some sysadmin, script kiddie or whoever is looking at packets as your e-mail goes through the system and somehow catches you are doing something illegal. If script kiddie gets a momentary conscience and sends your info to the police, there is no 4th amendment issue, though you may have a civil remedy (big deal once you are in jail!).

GPG or PGP are really closer to hand delivery (assuming these encryptions methods can remain ahead of the technology trying to break them).

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Mathinker]

> Fun fact: What you write on a post card can't be used against you in a court of law.

Let's see you test this. Take your fingers and make nice clear prints on a postcard, then write a death threat to the president on it and send it from your neighborhood post office to the White House. Repeat this action once every month.

Please let us know what happens (find a Slashdot-enabled lawyer before you start the experiment, please).

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[aichpvee]

Everyone knows by now that they don't resort "courts" or "laws" in those kind of cases.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Send a death threat to the president? And you think the post office is what's going to get me in trouble?

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Null Nihils]

The general populous need to be more aware that plain email is more like a postcard than a message in a sealed envelope though.

Which is funny, because the canonical user interface icon for e-mail is... a sealed envelope. Even ISPs will present their e-mail services with such an image.

In other words, the snagging point is the definition of "expectation of privacy" -- but the situation is really quite simple: The average user simply expects privacy, but the government is trying to force them to abandon that expectation, so they can then go and install ubiquitous e-mail surveillance without violating the letter of the US Constitution. The government is trying to win by arguing semantics, so what I find hardest to believe is that anyone is taking all this blatant skullduggery seriously. I've seen better weaseling from schoolkids trying to avoid homework assignments.

E-mail is electronic, so the message is NOT viewable in transit without making an effort to intercept and decode it, even if the encoding is just ASCII. It's not like mailing a postcard, it's like sending an electrically encoded text message over a packet-switched data network where the only expected viewing point is at the intended recipient's terminal; this is how the e-mail protocol was designed to work. Sure, a malicious party can read it because it's not encrypted, but someone can easily slice open a postal mail envelope and read the contents of that, too.

The bottom line is, since a non-trivial effort has to be made to read the contents, and since the service has always been presented as a "sealed letter", the average user is not unreasonable in expecting privacy.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[A beautiful mind]

One guy who I know from IRC sent a postcard when he was visiting the USA, to his german friend. The post was delivered by the german police to his friend. Funny eh.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Kelz]

IANAL, but it seems the government has a bit of a conundrum. Half the time people want the internet to be free/anonymous, and half the time they want it to be private information. Truthfully it can't be both, and I don't see unencrypted emails going through public ISPs as ever being called private, no matter if they are treated as such by the sender. People can look at them if they put the time in.

Now though, following with the the governments policy on encryption via the DMCA (as I understand it, once again IANAL and I have only a rudimentary understanding of these things): If the sender uses ANY sort of encryption in the email (hell, maybe even the protocols?), it becomes protected and therefore private information?

Mods, I'm sorry there isn't a (Score: -1, Wrong), so just mod me as flamebait if I'm going nowhere with this.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

better yet, write "I'm gonna fly a plane into the Twin Towers" on a postcard and fake the postmark as early 2001. next thing you know the government would be using it as evidence as to why postcards should be banned

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I suggest you write "I'm gonna fly a plane into the Sears Tower" on a postcard and see how much hilarity ensues.

It would probably go unnoticed.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[DrFruit]

Here is another point I miss in the e-mail/postcard analogy. Even if you accept that e-mail is more like a postcard than a sealed envelope (which I agree is a false analogy and used as an excuse to erode our expectations of privacy), how does that justify routinely reading messages? Post office workers may read the occasional postcard for a laugh, but who would expect a government (or any other organisation) to routinely copy every postcard and scan it for illegal or suspect content?

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[hummassa]

why?

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[tkw954]

[Email is] like sending an electrically encoded text message over a packet-switched data network...

Where's Bad Analogy Guy when you need him?

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[EriDay]

These pinheads have no understanding of blowback. This will cause the small amount of communications being encrypted in the past to become the majority of communications being encrypted in the future. Yesterday they could look at the profile on a user and encrypted email might set off alarms. Next year every user will encrypt all email, they may try to prevent this domestically, but the international community will lead the way to 100% strong encryption on email seamlessly integrated into the client.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you'd have to understand german to get it, but basically it's over-the-top 60s-stereotype spy-talk in german (and squiggles that look chinese or japanese, but I can't read them). "The eggs are in the nest. One, two, three and a cuckoo egg. Ahmed says hello."

(the middle part rhymes in german).

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Constantine XVI]

Not to rain on the AC's parade, but does someone have a source for this?

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[n3tcat]

He used up all his clever thoughts for this thread in the first post.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Constantine XVI]

The way I see it is that we want knowledge (head wounds are lethal) to be free, but communication (Dick, want to go hunting this weekend?) to be private. I believe it's reasonable to be able to talk to people in private without having the {government|RIAA|MPAA|ATT} watching our every move.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Heian-794]

The Asian-looking squiggles are made in imitation of Chinese and have no meaning at all.

I wonder if, had he made them look like faux-Arabic, the police would have caught the joke a little sooner.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[mpe]

E-mail is electronic, so the message is NOT viewable in transit without making an effort to intercept and decode it, even if the encoding is just ASCII. It's not like mailing a postcard, it's like sending an electrically encoded text message over a packet-switched data network where the only expected viewing point is at the intended recipient's terminal; this is how the e-mail protocol was designed to work.

With many modern postal systems there is a lot of automation. So even a real postcard may not be seen by too many people. (Unless the address is incomplete or cannot be read by OCR.)

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[mdwh2]

Let's see you test this. Take your fingers and make nice clear prints on a postcard, then write a death threat to the president on it and send it from your neighborhood post office to the White House. Repeat this action once every month.

But in that case, sending the postcard itself constitutes a crime, in that you're making a threat. I presume he meant the information obtained by the authorities reading a postcard whilst it's sent through the post. A better experiment would be to send it to someone else, detailing your plans.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[internic]

Obviously it's true that no technological measure has been taken in email to prevent anyone from reading it, so it is, in some sense, more similar to a postcard than a message in a sealed envelope. The argument that one is, therefore, entitled to no privacy seems to fall down, though, for the following reason: No technological measure is taken to protect the contents of a phone conversation, which also goes through networks owned by various different companies. Its contents are no more protected than those of an ordinary conversation. And yet, we do treat a phone conversation as private, and its contents are protected by the 4th amendment (leaving aside the issue of international calls). By analogy, it seems only appropriate that 4th amendment protections should apply to email. It's certainly the case that people using email, by and large, have the expectation of privacy, as evidenced by the sort of things people put in emails.

The other point is that, while I'm in favor of using encryption, it's not really a choice one can make unilaterally, because both sides must be using (and must understand how to use) encryption. I doubt I could get all my friends and family to use encryption on their email correspondence with me, and even if I could there'd still be communications with political groups, businesses, etc. that I might, in principle, want to keep private.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Anne_Nonymous]

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGP 8.1 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

qANQR1DBwU4D2gHbwgcYhg8QB/9t2NHiHqmvix7XpFu8/Y4NUxwmFEmBqKhai3U/
wWoWyIVHLOIO4LGoWpvUz/YIw65fbLqenPLLa7gM/aiuLyPlJ+icBxi2CP9kMMVk
sCi9AGPQbUZN//SyGavTXKRptq7WURoxBb5wyYD/+DQ==alQx

-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

That wouldn't get you in a court of law. It would however get you in a kangaroo court or in gitmo or extraordinarily rendited.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[skeeto]

E-mail is electronic, so the message is NOT viewable in transit without making an effort to intercept and decode it, [...]

If your computer is connected to a hub or an unsecured wireless network, you are sharing a communication medium with other computers where everyone can read your packets. So, in these cases, sending an e-mail is like having a conversation in a crowded room where only one person can speak at a time. Reading your e-mail here is trivial unless your connection to the server is secured, like with web-mail using https.

Of course, this is even the case in some "secured" networks (i.e. WEP).

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Stanislav_J]

Next year every user will encrypt all email, they may try to prevent this domestically, but the international community will lead the way to 100% strong encryption on email seamlessly integrated into the client.

"Next year" is more than optimistic -- it's pollyannaish. PGP and its ilk are great inventions that appeal to a very small handful of geeks and the most anal of privacy advocates. (Not an insult, BTW -- I'm one of those...) PGP does no good unless all or most of your e-mail contacts, from the daily to the occasional, have it as well. And most casual e-mail users lack the incentive or understanding to download a standalone piece of software, make it work with their mail program, and then remember to use it. But, oh yeah, even if they do, it still means that most of THEIR correspondents can't or won't, so again it is of little value.

The key is in the last phrase of your sentence: "seamlessly integrated into the client." Until such encryption is routinely built-in to all e-mail software (end user, client, ISP, servers, etc.) BY DEFAULT and works automatically without the end users having to do much more than turn it on, encryption as a tool against government snooping will have little effect. (And long before the tide turns, the guvmint will probably make using encryption illegal anyway. I'm ready for a new bumper sticker: "If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will use encryption.")

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Threni]

> And most casual e-mail users lack the incentive or understanding to download a standalone piece of software, make it work with their mail program,
> and then remember to use it. But, oh yeah, even if they do, it still means that most of THEIR correspondents can't or won't, so again it is of
> little value.

I always hoped that encryption would be used as a default option in email apps, as a way of thwarting spam. You'd need to encrypt your email to the recepients public key. This would allow both regular `whitelist` style emails without the bother of having to use a whitelist, whilst still allowing emails to arrive from people who've not emailed you before (and who therefore wouldn't be on your whitelist). But I guess this isn't going to happen.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[vrmlguy]

Well, I was going to ask about your public key, but I've run into a roadblock of sorts. Like many sites, /. lets you post personal information about yourself, such as AIM info, ICQ UIN, Yahoo! ID, Jaber, a public Calendar, a Mobile Text Address, and a Public Key. Some of it, such as Jabber info, is displayed on my user page. However, I can't seem to figure out how to view anyone's public key. Before I dive into the source, anyone got a clue? Thanks!

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the fact that accessing your email requires a password pretty well demonstrates that email really is a "sealed envelope" and not a public postcard.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Another point where the postcard analogy breaks down is the point of intercept. If people are reading through your inbox, the message is essentially in your "house" as it were. Your own password protected account, and I'm pretty sure the Govt. needs a warrant to ready ANYTHING in your house, postcard or not.

Re:Postcard/envelope analogy

[Cervantes]

Fun fact: What you write on a post card can't be used against you in a court of law.

Really? I suggest you write "I'm gonna fly a plane into the Sears Tower" on a postcard and see how much hilarity ensues. I'd be quite amused by the report, issued months later, entitled "$RANDOMLUSER determined to strike within the United States"
In fact, I believe that's part of Bush's reelection plan...

While this is an affront...

[Null Nihils]

to any citizen who believes in a free and open society, I'll be EXTRA worried when they outlaw encryption...

Re:While this is an affront...

[rucs_hack]

They can't outlaw encryption, since that will affect business badly. Nor can they outlaw encrypted emails, same reason. All they can do is make it so they can have the keys on asking, which I imagine is already the case. Mind you under this totalitarianist approach, the mere act of using encryption as a private citizen places you under suspicion.

So, how is it there in the land of the free? Good still?

Re:While this is an affront...

[sayfawa]

Almost there.

Doesn't matter anyway...

[xheliox]

It's not like the Bush administration cares what a court says. They'd do it regardless. It's a matter of national security, you know?

Re:Doesn't matter anyway...

[dkleinsc]

No, it does matter: What they're trying to do is ensure that any administration that comes after them can't prosecute them for what they've done.

Re:Doesn't matter anyway...

[ePhil_One]

No, it does matter: What they're trying to do is ensure that any administration that comes after them can't prosecute them for what they've done.

Not a huge need, I'm sure one of Bush's last acts as President will be to pardon all members of his administration for any acts committed in the name of fighting terrorism. And I'm sure Scooter Libby will finally get his pardon to. A president's power to pardon is pretty much w/o limit, charges don't even need to be brought

Re:Doesn't matter anyway...

[E 99]

Prosecute them? How exactly have the Left-wingers actually managed to convince one another that not toeing the Democratic party line is a punishable crime? This is a powerful demonstration of that fact that if a lie is repeated enough ends up as the truth.

Re:Doesn't matter anyway...

[dkleinsc]

I'm assuming you're not a troll, but someone who truly believes that no crime has been committed.

You are correct that currently no criminal activity has been proven. This is largely because all the details, including what judicial oversight exists, who's getting monitored, etc, is classified. Every court case and congressional inquiry into this issue has been held up by the inability to study the facts for "national security reasons". What evidence is publicly available suggests that there is wiretapping going on without judicial oversight, which is illegal under FISA. I for one also consider it no accident that what the "Left-wingers" think might be going on bears a striking resemblance to the Total Information Awareness project that was stopped by Congress in 2004 (under Republican control).

Is there necessarily a crime here? No. Is there good reason to think that there's a crime being committed? Absolutely. This is especially true in light of recent efforts by the Bush administration to try to get Congress to retroactively make the sort of wiretapping that appears to be going on legal and to get judicial precedent saying that it's legal. In other words, it looks like their trying to cover their asses before someone else becomes president.

In other words...

[Opportunist]

It's only fair and understandable that I use GPG and onion routing for even the most trivial matters, since now it's public knowledge that whatever I send via the internet can and will be read by anyone wanting to do so.

Using any kind of encryption is thus quite normal behaviour and can never be seen as any kind of sign that I could possibly be discussing the whereabouts of Ozzy.

Re:In other words...

[blackest_k]

Perhaps your right, more of us should use encryption by default.
Pidgin has encryption plugins which you can use fairly transparently on a one to one basis. Talking to friends with encryption on is effortless.

So what about email how easy is it to default to encrypted and not make it awkward for the recipients to read the content?

Any recommendations?

incidentally it might have a side benefit of making encrypted mail easy to white list. would spammers have your public key ...

Re:In other words...

[Constantine XVI]

The enigmail plugin for Thunderbird does a pretty good job of handling PGP'd mails semi-transparently (you have to put in your passphrase, naturally). It sets up really easily on Linux, not 100% sure about Windows though

Re:In other words...

[cbiltcliffe]

I'm running it on Windows, too. Fairly painless, as long as you remember to set up key management in Enigmail, as well as PGP. Otherwise it fails on send with some cryptic error.

Then it's got all the same options the Linux version does. Import of public keys sent as attachments to email, per-recipient rules for encryption/signing, etc.etc.

Re:In other words...

[Hatta]

It will never happen. Pidgin's encryption works because it uses session keys that it can generate and manage itself. Once the session is over, the keys are destroyed and that encrypted data is effectively lost. Of course this won't work for an asynchronous protocol like email. Which is why we have to generate our own keys, remember the passphrases, upload them to keyservers, sign the keys of our friends to ensure a web of trust.. etc. No, key management is far too complex a task to expect the general public to handle.

My solution? I just don't use email except for the most trivial purposes.

abusive clause

[pitu]

then you have waived any and all constitutional privacy rights in any communications or other use of the ISP.'" you agreeing on an abusive clause does not mean they have the right to spy on you... i hope so

Re:abusive clause

[element-o.p.]

Wish I had mod points -- you are right on the money.

IANAL, so do your own research, but the courts have upheld time and again that you cannot waive your rights in a contract. If I cannot waive my rights by signing a contract, then the fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure is granted to me regardless of my ISP's TOS contract.

Right..

[Morky]

Because, of course, terrorists are using unencrypted email to plan their misdeeds.

Re:Right..

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

Terrorists are not known for their computer savvy. I remember a couple years ago Al-Qaeada's supposed head of computing was arrested and he was running windows with his entire hard drive (which was full of evidence) was entirely unencrypted. Apparently they have done some things possibly with freenet that have been fairly anonymous but I would not be surprised to learn that a lot of plaintext e-mail about sensitive matters gets tossed around, like in any organization.

Re:Right..

[BadAnalogyGuy]

from: 4114hox3nfr33@aqhq.co.af
to: aq-all@aqhq.co.af
date: Nov 5, 2007 5:00 PM
subject: ne1 up 4 ultimate tonight?

<eom>

Re:Right..

[JasonEngel]

Naturally. And it then follows that only terrorists would ever use encryption. It's that whole "you have no reason to hide it if you aren't doing anything wrong" argument that police love so much. Funny how the land of the free home of the brave is defended most strongly against it's own citizens by the people who are typically the most patriotic (and the patriotic people are so willing to trample the rights that hypothetically make this a great country).

Because I do not support the police state, I tend to believe that I'm not doing anything wrong so they shouldn't be watching me. That is the America I believe in, but that's not the America that exists anymore. The terrorists won, and they are working for the government.

Re:Right..

[aadvancedGIR]

Even if I totally agree, I would have phrased your last sentence the other way. But I onestly don't know which way would scare me the most.

Re:Right..

[elrous0]

These are people who sincerely believe that a sky god is going to give them a bunch of virgins if they will walk into a crowd and detonate a bomb. They're not exactly the most sophisticated guys in the room, particularly at the lower levels.

Re:Right..

[pla]

Because, of course, terrorists are using unencrypted email to plan their misdeeds.

Some do. The stupid ones that keep getting caught do.

The rest (including the successful ones) either don't use email at all, or they use all the best privacy-protecting tools available.

Re:Right..

[TapeCutter]

...crackle...the BAG has landed...crackle...

Re:Right..

[KlomDark]

As in "The government has won, and they are working for the terrorists."?

Re:Right..

[dpilot]

I have this pet hypothesis that they're really using "spread spectrum" communications with spam. Hide a few, or even one, character per message in spam, and send it to the botnet. Everyone in the world gets the message, but without knowing that it's really secret communication, and without knowing how to grab the few (or one) significant characters and reassemble them, everyone but the knowing recipients deletes the stuff.

Re:Right..

[E 99]

No, if you read the case, apparently perpetrators of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering are using unencrypted email to plan their misdeeds.

What privacy?

[cenonce]

ISPs are not government entities, though I get that in the digital age, the line of who is a state actor and what is a state action is less clear. So there is no 4th amendment protection against what the ISPs do with your data (though there may be some statutory or common law tort theories for privacy violations). ISPs can provide you service under any terms they see fit, and you certainly don't have a constitutional right to broadband internet access.

The far more impacting (and interesting) legal question is how the courts are going to view the 4th amendment (and others) in light of the way communications are stored for eternity on the internet. A traditional approach seems unwise, since the way ISPs word their terms of service make it so your data practically falls under the "open fields" doctrine for purposes of search and seizure. On the other end of the spectrum, I don't want police investigations entirely shut down just because we want heightened protections for data that we keep in essentially insecure methods.

If you are that worried about privacy, use PGP or GPG.

Re:What privacy?

[Opportunist]

How should it affect police investigations?

Those who do have criminal activities in mind will, or do already. Do you really think those Al Quaida guys don't know how to use PGP? Do you really think they send any kind of crap unencrypted anymore? If at all, that is?

Imagine you know what you're doing is against the law. Do you do it where you can be seen and snooped, especially after hearing so much about it being used? How hard do you think it is for them to use halfway decent encryption that thwarts such snooping attempts?

So please tell me how NOT mining data would disrupt police investigations? If anything this snooping does just that. It's like adding another cubic kilometer of dung on the haystick you're sifting through to find a needle.

Re:What privacy?

[cenonce]

Well, first you make an assumption that all criminals, and all members of al-quaida are sophisticated enough to use encryption. In light of the crap I have seen posted on myspace, youtube, facebook and the like, that is clearly not the case.

Second, I was really making a comment on the interpreting the 4th amendment in the digital age. One of the ways that privacy, though not necessarily 4th amendment protected privacy, is "violated" is by snooping. The question is, where does the 4th amendment kick in? In light of the fact that the Internet is truly public, are we really getting it all wrong with analogizing Internet communications like regular mail.... perhaps they are more like cell phones, where any third-rate jerk who spend $50 on some technology can snoop?

Supposed the government grabs all communications as they leave your ISP? Do they need a warrant for that? Is it even a protected 4th amendment interest? I'd like to think that it is, but I don't know if it really all that much matters what the Terms of Use of your ISP are. The real question is how we are going to overall define what class of communications e-mail and the like fall into. I'd hope that we would err on the side of caution and make the government work to have access, but I see the arguments on the other side as well, some of which (i.e., don't all criminals use PGP anyway?), you have already cited.

Re:What privacy?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

ISPs are not government entities...

Yes, they are.

ISPs, Power companies, major Airlines, Defense contractors, Major automobile manufacturers, etc, etc... These are all officially private companies, and indeed, they do have a large degree of independence. But in reality, they are off the books branches of government, who carry out the will of whoever is in power. Phone tapping, passenger screening, weapons sales. Government gives big contracts and favors, and companies need to keep them sweet. Hence, mass compliance among big business to dubious and even outright illegal Government requests.

You want an analogy? Think of the government as Al Swearengen in the first series of Deadwood. He runs the town, and everyone knows it. He's in every shady deal, but also in some sense organises the town. Big business, is like Wu, the top man in the Chinese camp. Wu conducts his own affairs and business, largely without Swearengen caring very much.

Wu needs Swearengen's continued support to keep operating in the camp, and so must keep him sweet. When Wu has problems, he takes his grievances to Swearengen, who will try to sort them out if it suits him. And often, when Swearengen needs a dirty job done, he calls on Wu services, e.g. body disposal. The two are largely out of each others hair, and on the surface, there would seem little connection. However, the two are "hang-dai" in Wu's own words, i.e. partners and comrades in all manner of shady dealing.

So remember. Big Business. Government. Hang-dai.

Re:What privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with this ... they guy at the top of SBC before it forcfully boughtout AT&T (for a rediculously low sum i may add) a few years ago, spent the first year in the Whitehouse with bush. I wonder why his title when at SBC was Vice President of External Affairs..
He is even so proud to admit he was in the WH with bush on his image for the company.

Re:What privacy?

[Opportunist]

Remember that the 4th amendment was written before the onset of widespread real time communication. It lists that your "papers" are not to be searched without due process. Now, who would have thought back then of electrons as the means to transfer information? Information sharing included using a pen and said paper. IIRC not even the telegraph was invented back then.

The internet is also not truely public. Else, how can someone require me to pay to access his site? If it was public and all information residing on any server on the net being public, this would most certainly violate some kind of law.

This could also be why snooping on cells is illegal in most countries. I don't know about the US, but if it's not I'd call it a loophole, not the way it's supposed to be.

Re:What privacy?

[cenonce]

Maybe in Deadwood (which I never watched), ISPs are state actors, but not in the U.S.

I do however see the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately, I don't think the line is so easily draw with ISPs as to when they may be doing "state action" and when they are private companies asserting their position of strength over the consumer. At least, the world has come a long way since Marsh v. Alabama.

Re:What privacy?

[cenonce]

I get what you are saying and being a part-time defense attorney, I agree with you. I tend to fall on the side of making the government work for its convictions. There are also, however, exceptions to the warrant rule... exigent circumstances being the most obvious. I am not saying that such exceptions apply to a blanket form of snooping, but the (Bush) government has tried to work around the warrant requirement and the courts have had to interpret these concepts in a digital context.

Snooping may be illegal, but there is little difference between the guy with a handheld gadget snooping your wi-fi connection and Verizon or Comcast doing it as it flies out your router (especially in light of their terms of use). Either way, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle if it is the thief or a Comcast employee who does something "illegal" and discovers you are planning a terrorist attack (or cheating on your wife) and discloses the information to authorities. Damage done is damage done.

I don't necessarily agree that the internet isn't public simply because you have to pay for it to gain access (in your home). You can go to the library to have access for free and with the number of open wi-fi points in Panera, Starbucks or whatever, there are other places as well to get free access.

Re:What privacy?

[elrous0]

I would also remind you that you don't have a constitutional right to telephone service or snail mail either (particularly since the USPS was privatized). So the same argument could be used there. You could also extend it to your landlord's right to enter your apartment or allow others to do so. Doesn't take following this argument very far to render the 4th amendment completely meaningless.

Re:What privacy?

[Wylfing]

ISPs can provide you service under any terms they see fit, and you certainly don't have a constitutional right to broadband internet access.

BZZZT. Once again this fallacy rears its head.

The U.S. Constitution is NOT a positive enumeration of citizens' rights. You have a right to do everything except what is specifically forbidden (by laws that we consent to live under). In addition, the Constitution isn't even about you, Mr. Citizen. The Constitution is about what We the People will permit government to do and not do. In other words, we (the people) already have all the rights in the universe*. A few of those we will consent to give for the purpose of living more-or-less harmoniously, and a few of those we will permit to the government. All else we reserve for ourselves and for the individual States in which we consent to live.

* So yes, I do have a Constitutional right to broadband Internet access.

Re:What privacy?

[Opportunist]

Payment isn't the issue that makes internet private or public. Just because you use a public access point does not make your complete conversation public and no reason for warrantless wiretapping.

The question is, and as a part time lawyer you will be able to answer me that one, does the 4th amendment to the US constitution cover mail correspondence (the old fashion one, with letters in envelopes and such)? If it does, I'd like to hear the difference between this kind of correspondence and information exchange via telephone or internet.

Re:What privacy?

[BoberFett]

Flamebait? Why? Because he's right? Huge corporations and huge government are symbiotic organisms, feeding off each other to get what they want: more money for corporations, more power for governments.

Re:What privacy?

[dpilot]

You're absolutely right, and in the Constitution it explicitly states that rights are "not restricted to those herein enumerated," yet somehow "strict constructionists" keep saying, "That right is not specifically stated in the Constitution, therefore it does not exist."

Re:What privacy?

[cenonce]

BZZZT. Once again this fallacy rears its head.

"Rights" are not "freedoms", but they are easy to confuse in light of the Constitutions reference to "rights". You have a right to nothing. You are certainly free to do lots of things: bake bread, drive to work, build a house. For most things, however, you are doing them at the whim of the government. The government can restrict how and when you make bread, the government can require you to get a driver's license before you use the road (and take it away), the government can force you to build your house a certain way or tax the land that it is on. The government limits your freedom every day under the Commerce Clause. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided the legislature broad latitude to restrict your freedoms providing the freedoms being restricted are not fundamental rights. That is called rational basis, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of "rational basis" is anything but rational in my mind since it allows the government to make any argument in order to meet the standard of review. The government would have been perfectly justified in keeping the internet a DoD project. What fundamental right would have been involved? First Amendment? Hardly! You can exercise your right to free speech with the telephone, the post office, the TV and the newspaper.

Your "right" to broadband internet access is subject to the contract you signed with your ISP. You don't agree, you don't have service. Ask the government to step in on that one...

Re:What privacy?

[Rohan427]

ISPs are not government entities, though I get that in the digital age, the line of who is a state actor and what is a state action is less clear. So there is no 4th amendment protection against what the ISPs do with your data (though there may be some statutory or common law tort theories for privacy violations). ISPs can provide you service under any terms they see fit, and you certainly don't have a constitutional right to broadband internet access.

Once an ISP begins providing the government information (or other services) without a warrant through some deal with the government, they become an agent of the government. At that point they are subject to upholding the Constitution. If this were not so, then government could hire any agency - Blackwater - to do anything they'd like - police US citizens - and that agency would have no obligation under the Constitution to not abuse our rights. It doesn't take a rocket scientisi to figure out where that would go, and it doesn't take one to figure out the intent of the 4th Amendment (or the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution).

Though with the abuses we've seen in the past 8 years, maybe it does?

PGA

Re:What privacy?

[Reziac]

I've noticed that. It's as if they took seriously the old Soviet jape, "All things not compulsory are forbidden."

It doesn't state that we have a right to breathe in the Constitution either, so maybe they should stop breathing...

Re:What privacy?

[E 99]

BZZZT. Once again this fallacy rears its head.

The U.S. Constitution is NOT a positive enumeration of citizens' rights. You have a right to do everything except what is specifically forbidden (by laws that we consent to live under). In addition, the Constitution isn't even about you, Mr. Citizen. The Constitution is about what We the People will permit government to do and not do. In other words, we (the people) already have all the rights in the universe*. A few of those we will consent to give for the purpose of living more-or-less harmoniously, and a few of those we will permit to the government. All else we reserve for ourselves and for the individual States in which we consent to live.

* So yes, I do have a Constitutional right to broadband Internet access.

Hold on, you're getting me excited now! Apparently I have a Constitutional right to have sex with Jessica Alba!

Re:What privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I miss a memo? When did the USPS become privatized? It is still a federal agency. The positions of power are president appointed and senate confirmed. It is a part of the executive branch (read 39 USC 201). Yeah, the USPS is VERY privatized. (Oh, can you feel the sarcasm?) Think before you speak next time.

Re:What privacy?

[elrous0]

Obviously, you weren't around for the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970.

Re:What privacy?

[jc42]

Maybe in Deadwood (which I never watched), ISPs are state actors, but not in the U.S.

This is a frequent claim here, but the courts are highly likely to decide otherwise. A simple explanation is that recent legislation such as the PATRIOT Act effectively make all comm companies agents of the US government. Such "private" corporations are legally required to collect data for the US government and hand it over to government agencies on demand. And they are also required to keep these actions secret from their customers. It's hard to argue that they are not acting explicitly as agents of the government agencies for which they are collecting data. Yes, we can argue such here on /., but most judges would just snicker if you tried that line in their courtroom. Then they'd fine you for frivolous misuse of the court's time.

An interesting side issue that some companies seem to have figured out: The 13th Amendment outlaws "involuntary servitude". Whatever this means, it certainly means that the government can't require people to work for it without reasonable payment. So, while the main intent of the 13th Amendment may have been to outlaw slavery, and the "involuntary servitude" was included to outlaw hiding behind alternate terminology for what is really slavery, one of its effects is to guarantee that companies will be paid for anything mandated by the government. This rarely makes it into the courts, of course, because everyone involved understands what the result would be. So they just "come to an agreement", the data is collected and delivered, and payment is made. I suppose this is a Good Thing in general, since it mostly prevents the government from bandrupting a firm with unpaid mandates. But it's hard to be enthusiastic when you know that what a company is being paid for is spying on you for the government.

Re:What privacy?

[NoOneInParticular]

Once my ISP states clearly, in bold letter, as the first paragraph of the license agreement something like

WARNING: everyting transmitted through this medium is subject to warrentless inspection and subject to the US government's whim.Use at your own risk. This medium is monitored.

I could certainly live with this.

Re:What privacy?

[cenonce]

That is an interesting thought regarding the 13th amendment. I have never thought of that and certainly want to read more on it.

Thanks,

AJT

Re:What privacy?

[jc42]

Yeah; I've read of a few cases where people reportedly used this against government agencies that were demanding something of a company that would have cost a lot of money. The company lawyers just threaten to show up in court with the 13th Amendment defense, and offer an alternative: The agency can pay the company what it costs, plus 10%, and the company will do it. The government guys apply for the funding, they're now a bigger, more expensive agency, and everyone's happy.

Dunno how you'd go about finding the details, though. What I've seen amount to insider "leaks", for obvious reasons, mostly told as semi-jokes ("ha, ha, only serious") about how the government really works. But I think you just sorta have to stumble across such stories, and decide for yourself how much to believe.

It can be useful having a national law saying that you can't be forced to work for nothing (except as punishment for a crime of which you've been duly convicted).

Re:What privacy?

[Joey Vegetables]

You do indeed . . . IF she is willing to allow it.

Every person has the right to do anything consistent with the rights of others.

PGP might not be dead

[LM741N]

It might take something like this to put PGP and the like into the mainstream.

Re:PGP might not be dead

[Seraphim_72]

It might take something like this to put PGP and the like into being illegal. Fixed that for you.

"By the people ... for the people..."

[Opportunist]

Maybe I have some funny concepts what the difference between a company and a government is supposed to be, but a company should first and foremost have its shareholders and owners in mind, a government its people (who're, technically, its owners).

Is it me or is that difference not quite clear here? That an ISP snoops on its users is not a good thing, but considering that its customers are just the necessary evil to get the money for its owners, they're not their main concern. The people, on the other hand, should be the main concern of a government.

It's the governments only excuse to exist at all!

Re:"By the people ... for the people..."

[Danathar]

What if there are no shareholders (private company)

Re:"By the people ... for the people..."

[Opportunist]

There's still an owner. Basically, he replaces the shareholders in the example presented, everything else is just the same.

Re:"By the people ... for the people..."

[Anonymous Coward]

The people, on the other hand, should be the main concern of a government.

Is that "Common Sense" ?

Unprecedented is seriously inaccurate

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Unprecedented in the US, yes. Just about anywhere else, no. China, morocco, iran, Russia and the Netherlands are all 4 running much worse programs. (like constant monitoring for keywords for example).

And we're not even going to "really" oppressive countries like north korea or pakistan.

If you speak dutch, read http://www.onderwereldblog.nl/?page_id=64 for example.

Re:Unprecedented is seriously inaccurate

[TheJasper]

What you say about the Dutch may be true, but email here does legally fall under protected communication. Email or Letter or Phone Conversation it doens't matter.

Now I will admit that Dutch security agency have always had more legal access to such communications. I would go so far as to say that the Americans have more privacy/security/freedom in theory. The Dutch have more invasive laws, however in practice I think we actually have more in the netherlands. At the very least I don't expect either police or prosecution to throw due process out the window. What it comes down to is that Americans seem to have come to believe that the ends justify the means, while the duthc believe that rules must always be obeyed. This meanse the Americans ignore just laws in a misguided pursuit of justice while the Duthc obey wrong laws in a misguided pursuit of...law following.

Ah well, when somebody founds the perfect society please have them give me a call.

Re:Unprecedented is seriously inaccurate

[Cyberax]

Actually, Russian laws require law enforcement to get a court order to wiretap anything.

Of course, I don't think the law is being followed to the letter...

Re:Unprecedented is seriously inaccurate

[Constantine XVI]

The guy in the next room on the verge of dying from cancer doesn't mean the doctors should ignore your common cold.

Re:Unprecedented is seriously inaccurate

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You know I actually live here. So you can tell me as much as you like how "At the very least I don't expect either police or prosecution to throw due process out the window". I know better. Sure in easy normal cases (ie not involving manifestations, sports events, or anything controversial, or anything involving too much money, or anything involving the queen) this may be mostly true. But there are MANY exceptions. And let's not go ANYWHERE near religion, especially the one where a prophet asks people to hit women and generally be racists towards anyone else, not that "reformed" people are much better, but they are better, and they're still monsters.

So please ... don't tell me how dutch people always follow due process. They don't. And you and I both know it. They have a big idea about themselves being perfect, as you so aptly illustrate, in claiming their perfection. They are, however, not perfect at all.

That said, nothing beats a vacation with a few dutchies, a barbecue, lots of open space, and a few bicycles.

Re:Unprecedented is seriously inaccurate

[TheJasper]

I don't believe I was implying that we were perfect. In fact I was saying that we follow rules. Which we do. This doesn't mean that we always follow every rule, but having lived in the states and here, having friends in various countries accross the world, I feel confident in saying that we do follow rules. The problem is that rules tend to be followed because rules have to be followed. This can mean following bad rules knowingly just because they are the rules.

I still maintain that the netherlands is a healthier society on the whole. This doesn't mean I don't like America or anywhere else. However corruption, crime, violence, things most people consider bad aren't as bad here as in the States.

Re:Unprecedented is seriously inaccurate

[TheJasper]

Actually you are a good example of your own criticism of the dutch:

"They have a big idea about themselves being perfect"

or else they like to believe they have it so bad. We actually have it pretty damn great.

oblig xkcd

[RuBLed]

A'la'ih Do'neh'lini

Where is there left to go?

[rmoehring]

Are there any countries out there without horrible internet policies? Do I have to move to Christmas Island or something?

I wonder if somehow there'll be exemptions...

[backbyter]

Sounds like this could be an electronic Watergate opportunity for whichever party is in power, unless there are exemptions made.

In addition, imagine the blackmail that could take place:

"Senator X, here's copies of your email from your AOL account to Ms/Mr Y. We'd *really* appreciate your vote for our PATRIOT IX bill. And by the way, want to know what your opponents strategy is in the next election?"

Outrageous conclusion?

[voss]

This is the same administration...

1) Staged faked news conferences and failed to tell the real reporters
2) Cant decide whether waterboarding is torture

These people will do anything they are allowed to until they are told no and
sometimes even after they are told no.

There is a way around this, if a court says the ISP agreement is what creates
or does not create a reasonable expectation of privacy then the day after
the court rules as such then I will tell my ISP either they change their ISP
agreement to say that my emails are private and will only be disclosed upon a valid
court order or I will find a new ISP that will do so.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[rikkards]

Here is a better alternative http://www.gnupg.org/

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the current administration is responsible for the exponential growth of the US government over the past 200 years, in both revenue and power over the people, then you haven't been paying attention to history.

There's a reason why every year we are subject to more laws than the year before. There's a reason why every year government spends more than the year before. There's a reason why every year power is concentrated further into the hands of the few. There's a reason why every year you are less free than the year before.

What could the reason be? Here's a hint: It ain't because making government bigger is unprofitable for the people in the business of government.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

either they change their ISP agreement to say that my emails are private and will only be disclosed upon a valid court order, or I will find a new ISP that will do so.

Good luck with step 2.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[morgan_greywolf]

Bingo! Phil Zimmerman saw this coming way back in the early 90s and wrote PGP. The original version was free as in beer and was spread far and wide. Today we have GNU Privacy Guard, based, in part, on Zimmerman's original specifications. I remember when PGP made the CIA and the NSA nervous -- they couldn't crack 1024-bit public key encryption back then and so they filed suit against Zimmerman in 93 to block export of his encryption tool.

Why worry about it? Plaintext email is already not private. Anyone could grab it enroute if they knew what they were doing. But with encryption tools and sufficiently strong encryption, the government can subpoena all they want from your ISP -- and they'll get back nothing but gibberish. Maybe they can crack it, but I'm betting they can't.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[AvitarX]

It probably isn't to hard to find a rpovider of email that will do such a thing and offers SSL connections. I know it is easy enough with news groups.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of a quote from Benjamin Franklin.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[munrom]

Why should you care if the government knows your username, unless you have something to hide:)

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[mdwh2]

Maybe they can crack it, but I'm betting they can't.

The UK Government already have this covered, by making it a criminal offence not to hand over your keys. Don't worry, I'm sure the US will catch up soon, as obviously only criminals have something to hide...

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[AusIV]

The UK Government already have this covered, by making it a criminal offence not to hand over your keys. Don't worry, I'm sure the US will catch up soon, as obviously only criminals have something to hide...

I'm sure you can be subpoenaed for the keys in the US now, but the NSA can't just show up at your door and demand them, they'd need a court order first. Let's hope it stays that way.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[PixelScuba]

3.) Warrantless Wiretapping back before 9/11
4.) Warrantless Domestic Spying
5.) Paying columnists to say positive things about their initiatives (NCLB)
6.) Outting Undercover CIA Operatives
7.) Commuting the sentence of administration members covering up that investigation
8.) No Bid contracts to Haliburton, company the VP was formerly head of
9.) Gutting Environmental Policy, allowing business to run roughshod over the Environment
10.) Firing US attorneys for Partisan, political reasons
11.) Failed invasion of a sovereign nation, failing to take proper precautions/listen to military advice
12.) Appointing members to high office who are unqualified for the job (FEMA, DOJ)
13.) ??
14.) Profit
15.) Isolation from Long time allies/lack of diplomatic initiatives
16.) Squandering positive world goodwill after 9/11
17.) NO DOMESTIC INITIATIVES
18.) Fighting Science when it conflicts with faith/business

OK, I can't do this anymore, I just keep getting angrier the more I write.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[mackpaul]

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

This is not a Quote from Benjamin Franklin. Please get your Quotes right.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

I will tell my ISP either they change their ISP
agreement to say that my emails are private and will only be disclosed upon a valid
court order or I will find a new ISP that will do so.

... and they will sadly part with your $1.00/day contribution to their revenue stream, whilst continuing to grow fat on the fees collected from the willfully ignorant masses who do not join your protest. This is America, Land of TV and the home of the depraved. Most people, here, do not know and do not care.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[Lepton68]

And when no other ISP will do so? (Which is likely)

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[djasbestos]

Well, if the fate of FISA is any indicator, I wouldn't put money on any other communications medium remaining sacrosanct.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[paanta]

I don't that's the only reason government expands. As someone who has worked in a few bureaucracies, here's what I have seen:
Every small group withing a large organization has a budget and an area of responsibility. If that group does its job well AND manages its political capital well, it gets more money next year. Its area of responsibility grows. It branches out in new directions. If it's really successful, in a few years it looks very little like the original group. Multiply this effect by ten thousand and you understand why the federal government continues to grow. Now, in a smaller government (cities, counties, universities, etc) eventually you run into a budget crunch and things get cut back. Corporate intervention isn't necessary for government bloating.

Now, one thing I'd be interested in whether or not our government is really bigger than it was a hundred years ago, as a percent of GDP. I suspect that our federal government doesn't cost all that much more than it did then. In terms of the actual number of individuals responsible for administration of the law (ie, take out medicare/military spending) I bet we're way more efficient now than ever before.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3521&type=0 says Gov't/GDP only went up 3% from 1950 to 2000.

And if you want to talk about how our personal freedom changes over time, you should read your history books. I'd start with the chapters on the various sedition acts. Or maybe the Japanese internment. McCarthyism? Slavery? Sure, this is a dark period, but things _have_ been worse.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[Maxo-Texas]

As an AC, you may not get this but...

I'd say "close enough" for slashdot (but definately not good enough for a formal slashdot)

From the wiki

"Thoe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchae a little Temporary Safety, deerve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

I suppose you could have said, "To Paraphrase Ben Franklin...Any blah blah blah".
I myself view slashdot more like a good conversation over wine where the emotional truths are more important than the data details. Unless of course you are just making it all up as you go along.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[kalirion]

2) Cant decide whether waterboarding is torture

Oh, for crying out loud, they have decided it. They just can't tell you because it would jeopardize National Security.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[ke_da_wei]

Yeah, and if you don't have anything to hide, why shouldn't policemen be able to search your house at anytime without a warrant?

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[foobsr]

definately Did you mean: definitely site:slashdot.org

Close enough?

CC.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[The Angry Mick]

Here is a better alternative http://www.gnupg.org/

Perfect only if coupled with a lovely image-based signature file from "goatse.cx". If they want to snoop, make them earn the privilege.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you think the current administration is responsible for the exponential growth of the US government over the past 200 years, in both revenue and power over the people, then you haven't been paying attention to history."

Well, they didn't exactly invent it, but they sure have been perfecting it.

"Cox News Service reports that two separate studies show that Bush, more than any president in history, has invoked the "state secrets privilege" to block lawsuits that supposedly would harm national security.

He used it, for instance, to block a suit by the American Civil Liberties Union against the National Security Agency's eavesdropping on Americans' telephone calls.

Between 1953 and 2001, the privilege was invoked 55 times. As far as we know, the Bush administration has invoked the privilege at least 24 times."

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[wilder_card]

Actually, I'm pretty sure turning over encryption keys should be covered by the Fifth Amendment. It's self-incrimination. Not that we're paying much attention to the Constitution these days. After all, we're at war, right? Wait, the Constitution says Congress has to declare that...

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[Maxo-Texas]

It's copied text from the wiki. But I wouldn't focus on spelling over point.

Heck, I even have loost interest in arguing losely with the looooosey folks.

Re:Outrageous conclusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a flying rat's ass who said it? It's still true.

No worries for me

[William Robinson]

01001001 00100000 01100001 01101100 01110111 01100001 01111001 01110011 00100000 01110011 01100101 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101001 01101100 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01100111 01101001 01110010 01101100 01100110 01110010 01101001 01100101 01101110 01100100 01110011 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001.

Re:No worries for me

[OnslaughtQ]

46 75 6e 6e 79 2c 20 49 20 61 6c 77 61 79 73 20 73 65 6e 64 20 65 6d 61 69 6c 73 20 74 6f 20 79 6f 75 72 20 67 69 72 6c 66 72 69 65 6e 64 73 20 69 6e 20 68 65 78.

Re:No worries for me

[varmittang]

What did you say about my mother!!! Oh, it says "fock". That doesn't make any sense?

Re:No worries for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I always send sex to your girlfriend in email When decoding goes terribly wrong.

Re:No worries for me

[Anonymous Coward]

01101101 01111001 00100000 01100111 01101001 01110010 01101100 01100110 01110010 01101001 01100101 01101110 01100100 01110011

01001000 01100001 01101000 00101100 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01001001 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100110 01100001 01101011 01100101 00100001

Re:No worries for me

[forsonic]

Good for you, the feds can read binary just like I can though.

Re:No worries for me

[techpawn]

You have a girlfriend and she reads binary? I'm impressed...

P2P Email is the answer

[CodeOnCoffee]

All we need is a decentralized name resolver and then the rest of the email can be purely peer to peer.

Re:P2P Email is the answer

[SpaceLifeForm]

Bingo. Dialup would be an issue, but not that much.

Let them read... my headers.

[hacker]

No problem... let them snoop. Now I'll just be twiddling the "Encrypt and sign all outgoing email" box on my MUA, and finally start using GPG full-time for all of my incoming and outgoing email, instead of with just my friends and close colleagues.

There are plugins for Evolution, pine, mutt, Thunderbird and just about every other Mail User Agent you can find out there.

Another great benefit, is that I can automatically block/quarantine/delete any and all email that does not contain a gpg-signed component (i.e. 99.999% of all email out there, mostly spam). dspam does an amazing job, but being able to just reject it at the MTA level would be great.

And for those that wish to converse with me, please make sure to use my GPG key to do so (also available here with detailed instructions).

Re:Let them read... my headers.

[Tony Hoyle]

All of it? That's gonna work well when you post random encrypted crap onto a mailing list and all the outlook users go 'wha..?'

The problem with encrypted email is there are at least two competing major standards, and 99% of users don't have mail packages that understand either.. so you can't send it unless by prior agreement with your close friends. In practice this ends up as almost never.

Re:Let them read... my headers.

[hacker]

I could care less about my public mailing list messages, it's the other email that matters.

Is DHS going to really put me on a watch list because of my contributions to Project Gutenberg, Plucker, the core Mediawiki code or dozens of my other contributions? Not likely.

Are they going to put me on a watch list because of my political affiliations? My emails pointing out the egregious flaws in our administration? The methods people can use to personally protect themselves from an oppressive government? You bet. (I'm already on that list, no-doubt).

And if there are two standards, and users want secure email, they decide on the one with the broadest penetration... and that is GPG (i.e. works on all platforms, plugins for all clients, freely available, fully OSS, etc.)

Re:Let them read... my headers.

[Constantine XVI]

It so happens that this package (http://www.gpg4win.org/) has an Outlook plugin for those so inclined.

Re:Let them read... my headers.

[CronoCloud]

Don't Thunderbird and Outlook have S/MIME support built right in?

Re:Let them read... my headers.

[dpilot]

Actually, the biggest problem with encrypted email is the number of people who now use webmail. How many people READ the service terms for webmail? Once your email remains on someone else's server, your privacy expectations become much less than even when it simply passes through. I fetch my email regularly, delete it from the server, and place it on my own IMAP server. In order to read my email, an intercept/duplicate decision has to be made prior to my fetching and deleting. With any mail it can be readily monitored during the "resident time" on the server, it's just that with webmail that residence time is much longer. This presumes of course that ISPs are motivated to be DASD (and dollar) efficient by truly deleting your email when you tell them to.

IMHO the way out of this problem is for banks to issue security documents like certificates and keys. To begin with, they're in the security and trust business, in a very fundamental way. Next, they *know* who you are, in a very government-like way. They could also act as an escrow agency assuming the legitimate government need to execute a warrant, and banks would treat this the same as their other financial dealings with you - not available without warrant. Finally, most people deal with banks, and moving their "computer security documents" into the bank would help to properly calibrate their treatment of their keys and/or certificates.

The downside is that it presents too powerful a target for malware writers to ignore, because it would potentially grant even greater access than is available today.

"Home of the brave"

[taskiss]

I guess we're not "Home of the brave" then, either. Given your exame, we're the "home of those who over-exaggerate"

I guess you and an idiot aren't really that different. And.. "to be fair"?!? You stretch reality to include US, China and the Soviet Union in the same class when talking freedom and privacy?

You troll. Get thee behind me.

Not so fast

[bryanp]

Whenever someone screams "They're violating our First Amendment rights!" about some private company being restrictive, I'm one of the first to explain that the 1st protects our right of free expression from Government interference. Converseley, lets say for the sake of argument that I have waived my 4th Amendment rights to my ISP in exchange for using their email service. This doesn't mean the .gov gets to abuse them. Hopefully a half sensible judge will toss this out.

In the meantime I'll just be happy that while my ISP is in the US I don't use their email service. Good luck convincing the service I pay to use out of Norway to give up my email. ;)

Re:Not so fast

[Anonymous Coward]

That e-mail in Norway is eventually coming to you via your ISP... I'd be worried about them looking at that.

Honestly, as a Canadian who's company relies entirely on rented data center space. We've chosen not to put any of our services in the US because we're afraid of your Government. It seems every other day they've got a new reason why they need to look at even more data belonging to anyone they want.

Re:Not so fast

[Anonymous Coward]

What is more interesting is the idea that you somehow can waive your contitutionally protected rights away merely by signing (or not signing, as the case may be) a mere contract.

According to that theory, you just need to sign on with a service contract that in the fine print says you waive your right not to be a slave and well, game over man.

Seriously, constitutional rights, the law of the land, all trump contracts.

If not, those rights wouldn't have any teeth to them, and you would see them waived regularly by people desperate for cheaper housing or a chance at a better job (the way Mexican laborers do).

Re:Not so fast

[matt_king]

Correct, last time I checked you cannot "waive away" your constitutional rights. The only thing that can "trump" the constitution I believe are international treaties.

Re:Not so fast

[Sloppy]

last time I checked you cannot "waive away" your constitutional rights.

You can effectively (i.e. defacto) waive them away. I always liked this quotation, written (coincidentally enough) by PRZ's lawyer when celebrating the dropping of charges against PRZ (last paragraph):

There are forces at work that will, if unresisted, take from us our liberties. There always will be. But at least in the United States, our rights are not so much stolen from us as they are simply lost by us. The price of freedom is not only vigilance but also participation.

In some sense, the constitution really is "just a piece of paper." If the people don't really believe in it, don't hold it to be truly representative of their values, and don't participate in defending it, then it is not the law. It isn't in force; it's just ink on a page, part of a fairy tale.

I see signs that a shockingly high fraction of Americans really don't feel any reverence for the rights asserted by the constitution. They think the law is wrong, and that it is unjust and undesirable that police are hampered by court oversight. A society where police have to get warrants, isn't the society they want, and it's probably not going to be one they vote for.

If the constitution asserts rights that people believe do not really exist, and public policy does not recognize those rights, then those rights are not protected. They've been waived.

Re:Not so fast

[matt_king]

interesting points, I was referring more towards the legal system in that you can't waive your constitutional rights and have that be admissable in court, though ianal :-)

Re:Not so fast

[Paco103]

Most definitely. Government was never included in the TOS I signed up with. Now if my ISP sees me doing illegal things and informs the police, then that is all well and good, I gave the ISP that right. I did NOT give the police that right, and without a warrent, they do not have it. Government does not get to piggy back on any right anyone might have.

If you're married, you gave your significant other the right to your stuff when you die and the right to make certain decisions on your behalf (say if you were in a coma). That does NOT give the government the right to the same things.

Foreign emails too?

[Peeloo]

Does it mean that if I use an US mail server, like gmail, from a foreign country, these mails can be wiretap too?

Re:Foreign emails too?

[Attila Dimedici]

Does it mean that if I use an US mail server, like gmail, from a foreign country, these mails can be wiretap too? In that case they don't even need this ruling, communications between individuals outside of the US may be legally intercepted by the US Government at any time the Federal Government believes there is national interest at stake and has the ability to do so. The whole NSA wiretapping scandal arose from the Bush Administration's interpretation that this legal authority extended to communications between individuals outside the US and individuals inside the US. I have not looked at this closely, but some of the articles I have seen suggest that the Bush Administration interpretation was also the Clinton Administration interpretation as well (and possibly going further back).

Re:Foreign emails too?

[aadvancedGIR]

That is one reason why many clever CIO of european corps banned the blackberry for their senior executives since they always route mails through their US-based servers.

Re:Foreign emails too?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

In that case they don't even need this ruling, communications between individuals outside of the US may be legally intercepted by the US Government at any time the Federal Government believes there is national interest at stake and has the ability to do so.

Sure they can... under US law.

<sigh> And people wonder why the rest of the world thinks having things like the Internet so heavily tied to US interests is a bad idea.

Re:Foreign emails too?

[Iridium_Hack]

True. As I understand it, that interpretation does go back quite a ways when in reference to phone calls. Perhaps as far as Reagan or Carter. As long as half of the communication is from a foreign source outside the country they can tap the call. But they are only supposed to be able to use the half that comes from the foreign source. If they want to use the other side of the call, they have to get a subpoena.

Re:Foreign emails too?

[Petaris]

From my understanding that is only so if the server or communications relay in the US is routing (relaying) traffic that does not originate from or is destined to the US. For example, if a person was calling from London to Mexico and it happened to go through a relay in the US its fair game. This is not the case (as I understand it) when one or other of the party communicating is in the US (and is a citizen?). For example, if I (a US citizen living in the US) call my finance who is Japanese (and lives in Japan) our call can NOT be wiretapped with out a court order as they (the government) would be violating my constitutional right to privacy. Thus our calls are off limits with out a warrant, even though she is not a US citizen or residing within the US.

I could be wrong but that is what I have understood from my research into the matter. I also believe that people genuinely expect that email is a confidential and private form of communication, otherwise no business would touch it for private communication with other businesses and customers (think on-line bill paying, purchasing, etc.)

Just my two cents,

Re:Foreign emails too?

[E 99]

It's not a wiretap, or any other type of surveillance. It's a subpoena of the email for evidence in a trial.

Re:Foreign emails too?

[Attila Dimedici]

From my understanding that is only so if the server or communications relay in the US is routing (relaying) traffic that does not originate from or is destined to the US. For example, if a person was calling from London to Mexico and it happened to go through a relay in the US its fair game. This is not the case (as I understand it) when one or other of the party communicating is in the US (and is a citizen?). For example, if I (a US citizen living in the US) call my finance who is Japanese (and lives in Japan) our call can NOT be wiretapped with out a court order as they (the government) would be violating my constitutional right to privacy. Thus our calls are off limits with out a warrant, even though she is not a US citizen or residing within the US.

That is what the debate is about. It is not clear from any laws, or from court precedent that your understanding is correct. What little research I have done on the subject seems to indicate that before George W. Bush's political opponents brought this to the attention of the general populace, it was generally accepted that if one of the parties was identified as a security threat and one of the parties was outside the US it was ok to monitor the communication.
It would have been nice to have the discussion over the appropriateness before 9/11, rather than in the politically charged atmosphere that was present when people who had known about this practice for years decided to make the general populace aware of it.

What?

[ScrewMaster]

How do you "waive a Constitutional right?", without anyone at least asking you if you mind waiving it?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

For that matter, how can you waive a constitutionally-guaranteed right at all? I always was under the impression that the US constitution recognises existing inherent rights rather than granting them; but how can they be inherent if you can waive them? They're not something that you possess as an (abstract) entity and that you can give away; they're a concept that applies to you no matter whether you want to or not, and no matter whether anyone else wants to or not.

Re:What?

[Zigurd]

Even the question is nonsense. You don't actually have "constitutional rights." At least not with the way the U.S. Constitution is worded. The founding principle of the U.S. government is that you simply have rights. The constitution of the federal government "fences in" that government to keep it from infringing your rights. It lists all the things government is legitimately allowed to do, and specifically prohibits a few things (The Bill of Rights). But it says right in the BoR that your rights are not enumerated, and the rights that are mentioned in the BoR have no higher standing than any other rights.

The Founders also never meant to make the Constitution a crutch. You have a right to privacy. God, or nature, or mathematicians - as you prefer - gave you the ability to encrypt and store and securely pass deniable messages. That's privacy. That's what a "natural right" looks like.

Re:What?

[jbeaupre]

Are you praying, assembled in a group, holding a gun, and drinking right now? If so, you might want to waive at least one of those rights (temporarily) or seek professional help. Otherwise you may at one point be asked to waive a different right and confess to your actions.

Re:What?

[Nimey]

The canonical example is for a defendant in a criminal trial to waive (or is it just "not invoke"?) his Fifth Amendment right to not testify against himself.

Re:What?

[evilmousse]

eg:

you waive your right to vote when you commit a felony and are convicted.

basically, your actions can have ramifications you didn't intend, including subverting your own rights.

Its nuttin' but spam anyway...

[crovira]

Why, I'll even forward it to any address they want.

The perfect time to discover enigmail

[Chemisor]

Today is the perfect time to discover enigmail!

The next step...

[Anonymous Coward]

Historical precedent for this is the only privileged communication was between a lawyer and client. And the adage, "Two people can keep a secret-- if one of them is dead."

The next step in this line of thinking is to argue conveying *any* information to *anyone* waives expectation of privacy. After all, you told someone.

The next step is mere existence waives any privacy expectation.

Ironically...

[mrjb]

...if they're going to try to monitor all email, they will have to weed through 95% of spam *first*.

Re:Ironically...

[Opportunist]

Hey, they could do us a service while they're at it and enact some spiffy spam filters, too.

Or ... maybe better not. I guess they might have a different definition of "unwanted messages".

Monitor Democratic e-mails?

[twoallbeefpatties]

Here's the ironic side of this - the Democrats are pretty much in a lock to have the next White House, barring another extreme disaster that sends people running back to Big Brother again. All of these broad, sweeping changes for the power of the White House will only be partially in effect for Bush's term... and fully in effect for Obama or Clinton's term. The Democrats would like to thank the Republicans for giving them such broad power. (Not that I support either of them having it, mind you.)

Re:Monitor Democratic e-mails?

[justthinkit]

the Democrats are pretty much in a lock to have the next White House

You must not have seen Hacking Democracy.

Re:Monitor Democratic e-mails?

[bdjacobson]

I would prefer Ron Paul. He has a track record of voting against these things. The democrats? They could be doing things now but they're not.

Re:Monitor Democratic e-mails?

[E 99]

Here's the ironic side of this - the Democrats are pretty much in a lock to have the next White House, barring another extreme disaster that sends people running back to Big Brother again. All of these broad, sweeping changes for the power of the White House will only be partially in effect for Bush's term... and fully in effect for Obama or Clinton's term. The Democrats would like to thank the Republicans for giving them such broad power. (Not that I support either of them having it, mind you.)

First of all, if you're really stupid enough to think it's a lock for the Democrats to win the presidency, go make a fortune on intrade.com. Second of all, go take a remedial civics class. Only courts can order subpoenas. Courts are part of the judicial branch of government. The white house is part of the executive branch of government.

Re:Monitor Democratic e-mails?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the Democrats are pretty much in a lock to have the next White House...and fully in effect for Obama or Clinton's term." So funny.

Hey guy - Clinton can't win. Maybe you are too young to remember the absolute hatred millions of Americans had for her in the 90s, but it hasn't went away. And she is the Democratic frontrunner. B. Hussein Obama has no chance at all of even winning the primary. The Clintons are not to be trifled with in primaries.

But since Hill can't really win the election, barring cheating, that means its likely to be Rudy. (*shudder*). That is, unless more people climb on board the Ron Paul express.

Re:Monitor Democratic e-mails?

[cayenne8]

"Here's the ironic side of this - the Democrats are pretty much in a lock to have the next White House, barring another extreme disaster that sends people running back to Big Brother again."

Do you really believe that? I think it is MUCH more up in the air at this moment. I mean, congress is at an all time low. The Dems got in, and pretty much have failed to do ANYTHING they said they were gonna do if voted in over the Reps. War? Still going on. Privacy matters? Nah...they gave in on the recent chance to put FISA back into effect in a manner positive towards the citizens of the US. Immigration? Nope...nothing on that front.

So, I'd say no one is happy with congress...what are they, like 23% or so favorable rating?

And the Dems seem to have Hillary as the front runner. Do you know how many people in the US would rather vote in a bag of potato chips to the office of president, rather than her? I'm one of them.

I wish the Dems could get a reasonable candidate....I think Biden really has the clearest head on his shoulders on their side, but, he's too "boring" for the masses unfortunately. The Reps haven't really put out anyone that garners excitment or much merit.

All the front runners are just doing and saying anything to get in....heck, the ones I actually respect the most are Kucinich, and Paul on either side...both are WAY too far out on either end, but, I respect the fact they lay it out there as to what they believe, they don't flip flop, and they don't evade questions in fear they might offend some niche special interest.

Right now, IMHO...two of the 'best' candidates that would garner my attention and seem the most realistic, are Biden and Huckabee, for the Dems and Reps respectively. But, I don't think they have a chance....money, spin, and complete lack or any kind of 'soul' seem to be the factors that get one into the white house these days.

But, back to the point, no with what I mentioned at first...I don't think the Dems. are a shoe-in for either the executive office, nor large majority in congress.

This is how liberty dies...

[ZeroExistenZ]

...with a lengthy bill, a large cheque and a monkey in the office.

Re:This is how liberty dies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it started dying when the justice system decided it didn't have to listen to complaints about the violation of rights unless the complainer could personally demonstrate that their rights were personally being violated.

First they came for the Communists, but I was not allowed to speak out because I was not a Communist and my rights were not being infringed.
Then they came for the Socialists, but I was not allowed to speak out because I was not a Socialist and my rights were not being infringed.
Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not allowed to speak out because I was not a trade unionist and my rights were not being infringed.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not allowed to speak out because I was not a Jew and my rights were not being infringed.
Then they came for me, and I was not allowed to speak out because my rights had been infringed.

--Anonymous

Re:This is how liberty dies...

[evil_aar0n]

Hey, don't insult all of those otherwise nice, poo-flinging monkeys, you insensitive clod.

They could and get a positive answer.

[iknownuttin]

How do you "waive a Constitutional right?", without anyone at least asking you if you mind waiving it?

If they did ask, I bet that most of the US population would just go along with it. Because, Civil Liberties is for "criminals to hide behind", "pinko hippies", "gays", "folks who don't want God anywhere", and any other issue that the ACLU and their sister organizations have taken up.

Why, law abiding citizens do not need Civil Rights!

This country and her Constitution is in trouble my friend.

Re:They could and get a positive answer.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This country and her Constitution is in trouble my friend." Aye, and its the 2nd Amendment thats in the most trouble. Too bad the founded-by-Communists ACLU doesn't like that one.

Armed citizens are the best (and only) hedge against tyranny. (I mean real tyranny, not made-up sissy crap or known terrorists having their overseas-originated phonecalls tapped).

I find it amusing that all the big-face-on-screen Orwellian wet dreams and jack booted thugs always get painted as being a part of some ultra right wing fascism. The right wingers in this country *want* you to have arms! Who is it that wants to take them away from you? To keep you a weak, mewling little automaton who has no power against their leftist totalitarianism.

Blatantly unconstitutional

[tjstork]

The Constitution does not grant the Congress or the President the power to read email, so therefor, it is unconstitutional to do so. The 4th amendment affirms the rights of the people, and is not a limitation of them.

Re:Blatantly unconstitutional

[rucs_hack]

the constitution does not mention email....

I believe the point has been made several times of late that the constitution may need either replacing or significant updating. Things have changed too much. For one thing when it was written 70-80% of the US population were farmers.

How that would go in this age of corporate and special interest lobbyists is something to contemplate.

Re:Blatantly unconstitutional

[cbiltcliffe]

the constitution does not mention email....

Since the constitution enumerates the government's rights, then the fact that the constitution doesn't mention email means that the government has no right to fsck with email.

Re:Blatantly unconstitutional

[rucs_hack]

then that, or some provision that means it, must be added to the constitution.

Re:Blatantly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already there. It's called the 10th Amendment.

Re:Blatantly unconstitutional

[srmalloy]

Since the constitution enumerates the government's rights, then the fact that the constitution doesn't mention email means that the government has no right to fsck with email.

Just a nitpick. The government has no rights; it has authority delegated to it by the people within the limits of the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Re:Blatantly unconstitutional

[tjstork]

How that would go in this age of corporate and special interest lobbyists is something to contemplate

It is for this reason that we have to oppose any Constitutional convention. The Constitution was designed to gives us a very limited government that's been abused through the centuries, and a new Constitution could only give us a less limited government, subject to the same abuse, and we would wind up with no rights at all.

Re:Blatantly unconstitutional

[notamisfit]

Besides, the lobbyists are really just a sign of the Constitution's abuse anyways. The only reason their political pull exists is because government believes that it has the right to grant the things the interest groups want. If life, liberty, and property were truly respected, and there were no more handouts of stolen money, eminent domain, or "regulation", where would these lobbyists be? Not in Washington, that's for damn sure.

Re:Blatantly unconstitutional

[cbiltcliffe]

Ok...so I'm not a US citizen, I don't live in the US, and I never have, but I still know more about the general gist of the US constitution than most US citizens do.

How's that for sad?

Encrypt or die.

[urcreepyneighbor]

http://www.gnupg.org/

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

[giafly]

If you've ever agreed a typical EUA, seems to me you've waived at least two of these.

Re:Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

[evil_aar0n]

I think as it relates to private party agreements, that's Ok; you're free to say No. But as it relates to the government, it's a different ballgame altogether.

Postcard/envelope analogy difference

[tjstork]

The difference is, when you send out a letter, it takes a deliberate act of intrustion to read the contents, just as it takes a deliberate act of intrusion to read someone's email. If you get a postcard on your hand, sure, then read it. But, that's really more like someone sending you an email by mistake.

The system that works

[Matt867]

I think we all know they are going to do what the music industry does when they win a case. They'll just hunt down a group of people who are ridiculously tech-unsavvy and get them to rule on it

Hell No.

[HellYeahAutomaton]

Stop pissing on the very few liberties we have left!

Google?;

[stevedmc]

Isn't our online activity already being monitored by Google?

Where's the news on this?

[eebra82]

The scary part is that this news is not on any major American news network, or at least with so small printing that I can't even find it. Why does it take a company from the UK to inform us that our own government is bullshitting us again?

Re:Where's the news on this?

[nomessages]

Too busy with coverage about our all-important celeb overlords.

Re:Where's the news on this?

[evil_aar0n]

I noticed something along these lines last week with the Iraqi war protest marches in various cities across the country. If I hadn't seen it on msn.com, I wouldn't have known about it. Neither cnn.com nor fox.com had anything about it. Convenient little "oversights" like this _are_ scary. What _else_ aren't we being told? And so much for "liberal media."

Postcard/email analogy...

[Anonymous Coward]

We have often used the "when you send an email, it is like sending a postcard...anyone in the stream can read the message on the back". It is worth noting, perhaps, that for a *law enforcment officer* to read that postcard, they would need a warrant.

The real issue, however, is wheather you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and, for better or worse, you really don't with email. Unless you are using encryption (which is an entirely different matter), no "reasonable (wo)man" can expect email to be "private". Encryption is a good thing...

Re:Postcard/email analogy...

[conlaw]

The Sixth Circuit panel that decided the case did not agree with your view that one does not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with regard to email being stored by the ISP.

It is true ... that by sharing communications with someone else, the speaker or writer assumes the risk that it could be revealed to the government by that person, or obtained through a subpoena directed to that person. ... The same does not necessarily apply, however, to an intermediary that merely has the ability to access the information sought by the government. Otherwise phone conversations would never be protected, merely because the telehone company can access them; letters would never be protected, by virtue of the Postal Service's ability to access them; the contents of shared safe deposit boxes or storage lockers would never be protected, by virtue of the bank or storage company's ability to access them.

The entire opinion can be found at http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/warshak_v_usa/6th_circuit_decision_upholding_injunction.pdf

So we'll switch to blog posting then

[gelfling]

I mean if was going be a turrist and such I'd probably not keep my emails, sent or received. But this is really to go after people for any other reason - tax evasion, child support and the ever popular catch up 'gang related activities'.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again.

[thatskinnyguy]

If you really want privacy on the internets, unplug your computer from it and stop using it. The assumption that you have privacy online is probably the most common falsity.

Anything that goes beyond the walls of my house/workplace is really out of my control. If someone is determined enough they could hack my mailbox, hack my web server, defeat any sort of encrypted transmissions I send etc.

Welcome

[Pazy]

Welcome to 1984. I live in the US so this dosent affect me, but indirectly it could. It may make the UK govermant want the same thing. I doubt it will be democratically decided though.

Re:Welcome

[Pazy]

*live in the UK. Sorry.

Apple logo and Turing.

[TapeCutter]

"to any citizen who believes in a free and open society, I'll be EXTRA worried when they outlaw encryption..."

Oddly enough until recently it was standard practice for western governments to "outlaw encryption". Before public key encryption came along some of the 'founding farthers' of computer science had worked out how to crack most types of encryption with relative ease and on the side they built computers with meccano sets that calculated trajectory tables.

As a direct result of the German and Japaneese "enigma" machines that they reverse engineered the allies were able to manipulate submarines into surfacing where they wanted thus keeping the Atlantic open for the merchant navy, the icing on the cake came when they used the same methods to put the Japanese fleet in the desired position for the allied ambush at the battle of Midway.

The tragedy is that after the war href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing">Alan Turing was hounded by his own goverment because he was homosexual to the extent of being chemically castrated by order of the court, officially he suicided but it is also possible he was murdered or accidently poisioned himself (like any self respecting geek he kept chemicals in the kitchen fridge).

Encryption technology was (still is?) regarded as a "munition", you could (still can?) be charged with treason here in Australia and the US/UK had (have?) similar rules. Exporting encryption software from the US was a big deal in the early 90's, the guy who came up with PGP had plenty of hassles in this area and there was mass confusion by MS and others about the strength of the encryption that could be exported (IBM had been working with spooks for decades and did not seem to be as confused). First you were not allowed to export anything, then it was restiricted to 48bit, then it was 128bit, I lost track after 1028bit because the government basically gave up trying to control it in the mid nineties, it was simply too usefull to banks in particular and bussiness in general.

IMHO the PGP guy deserves some of the credit for bringing the issue to light but it was inevitable that governments would lose interest in "outlawing" encryption since with modern encryption methods, having access to the algorithm does not help you to decrypt the text without the private key, and the public key only allows you to encryt text - it's a whole other kind of "enigma" to the ones solved at Betchly Park and elsewhere. Once you have the algorithim you can make the bit strength anything you like and IIRC the algorithim has been public knowledge since the 70's. Probably the last vestige of these laws that is noticable today is reflected in the difficulty and often illeaglity of encrypting voice communications without some sort of government key escrow.

To sum up: Freedom is a state of mind, everything else is constrained by the shackles and barbs of society.

Trivia: It has been speculated that the apple logo is a tribute to Turing because he died from eating an apple contaminated with cyanide.

Re:Apple logo and Turing.

[MrKaos]

Encryption technology was (still is?) regarded as a "munition", you could (still can?) be charged with treason here in Australia and the US/UK had (have?) similar rules.

It would be an interesting combination considering that amendments to the Anti-tewworism laws in Australia gave the Federal Pol ice, A S I O and A S I S has had the power to examine email, sms and voicemail messages since 2004. Previously the act of intercepting any of these articles required a "inter ception warrant" which was harder to get than a normal warrant.

In some cases it seems to me that these items extreme law are being tested in Australia. Case in point was the original Anti-tewworism laws which seemed to be an exact pre-cursor to British and American A-T legislation. I read the Australian A-T laws and then aspects of the P A T R I O T act and they were frighteningly similar. I guess the test will be whether these proposed laws for the US includes the capabilities to tap sms and voicemail and by-pass the need for a American style "inter ception warrant".

The only difference is that here in Australia (as opposed to the US and UK) is we don't have a bill of rights, we no longer have access to firearms and our own army has the legal framework available that allows them to point and fire their weapons on legal assemblies of people in australia. All this legislation that seriously eroded the token freedom that Australians possesed were introduced by Dubya.Howard a man who appears to take many of his ideas from Hitler's career. He lies to Aussies so much and has attacked many of the weaker members of our community for his political benefit and I wouldn't be surprised if his relationship with Dubya.Bush is bearing fruit on both sides of the relationship.

Re:Apple logo and Turing.

[TapeCutter]

Yep Blair, Bush & Howard thought they could rule the world for a while, but the best way to fight that in our system is not with a gun but with humour, eg: the chasers stunt at APEC, or the way that Pauline Hanson's hatred and ignorance was practically laughed out of parliment.

OTOH: We could apply our shinny new sedition laws even-handedly, ie: forget about the Indian doctors who just happen to be related to failed terrorists and lock up Alan Jones for inciting the race riots in Cronulla.

But my biggest beef with Howard is the treatment of Hicks, Hicks for those of you who are not Australian is our only (known) political prisoner. I am not as government ministers like to put it "a Hicks supporter", Hicks actually strikes me as a bit of a dickhead, however I do support the rule of law and if Howard and Ruddock can ignore the law to enact a political vendetta against one citizen then they are free to do it to the rest of us.

Re:Apple logo and Turing.

[MrKaos]

but with humour, eg: the chasers stunt at

Makes you wonder how long they will last if Johnny boy gets in again, considering what happened to "The Glasshouse" (an extemely hilarious political satire for our us and uk friends, that was "removed" by our government), he wouldn't try it now as I think it would be the nail in this governments coffin.

lock up Alan Jones for inciting the race riots in Cronulla.

Bring it on!! That guys talks the talk, but he balks the walk.

I do support the rule of law and if Howard and Ruddock can ignore the law to enact a political vendetta against one citizen then they are free to do it to the rest of us.

I wonder if the average Aussie even realises this? It's hard to imagine UK or US citizens being treated this way. In essence it's the federal governments way of saying "Fuck you if you don't be a complacent moron, your country won't protect you with the values you were brought up with - even if you are just a dickhead", look at the way the Bali 9 were arrested, the AFP actually called the Indonesian customs police to let them know what was happening instead of letting them arrive in australia and arresting and charging them here. Now they face the death penalty ( I even hear that the parents were the ones that advised the AFP - bet they take sleeping pills now), I mean WTF???, it was stupid what they did, but thats all, young and dumb. In comparison to the harm the organisers of the drug trade do it begs the question of what impact will this make beyond a political statement?

It certainly appears that mean spirited little Johnny wants to make australia a model for the neo-cons at the expense of the Australian People, perhaps he is just Un-Australian ;-)

Thanks for your well considered comments.

Re:Apple logo and Turing.

[TapeCutter]

Yes, I didn't forget about the Bali 9 since there has been so much shit happening - for an added twist of cruelty the AFP was told about the drugs by the father of one of the boys, he was hoping to protect him from the Indonesian firing squad. Instead of arresting the boys as they got on the plane they let them travel to Indonesia and have now basically ENSURED the kid will be propped up against the wall and shot.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is standard fare for politicians, but this sort of facisim (and the propoganda that goes with it) has got to stop!

The Glasshouse was a great show, putting the staff/journalist representatives back on to the board of the ABC would be a good start to rectifying the ethical rot in that institution. I also noticed a drop in the quality of SBS news around the same time, not sure if it's the reason for Mary Kostokitis quitting?

Unfortunately the vast majority of the Australian public do not see this shit happening in front of their own face, they rarely watch ABC and think that SBS is for Italians or something - it took five years for the public to "get" was the Hick's thing was all about and I still think many people are clueless about what exactly he plead guilty too ( a retrospective law enacted by a different nation! ).

At least the house of lords in the UK demanded (and got) their citizens back as soon as the SCOTUS decision came down against Bush & Gitmo. I have been a permenant resident for 45yrs and still have my UK passport and citizenship, I was contemplating getting naturalised until the Hicks thing, should I do something stupid I would rather my fate be dermined by the house of lords than by that evil slug Ruddock.

Non-ISP email

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Does this mean that they wouldn't be allowed to read your email if you are using something like Yahoo or Gmail?

Oh, wait. That's a stupid question. The Bush administration is not allowed to do something only until they decide that they are.

Controversial

[beakburke]

Actually, I'd say anything that takes place in public, or over a public network, the governement has a right to observe. I'd even say that wiretapping shouldn't have been given 4th ammendment protection. Now keystroke loggers and spyware constitue an intrusion on your effects, your computer, just like searching your car. These things aren't in plain sight. I'd say anything encrypted or sealed to the outside should require a warrant for parties inside the US, but the internet/phone network are really a public network and frankly no one should expect privacy for things that are done in public. The illusion of privacy on the phone is due to automation, not the lack of the public nature of the medium. Just because no one is likely to look (like in a dark alley in a small town at 4am) doesn't mean you have a legal expectation of privacy. Unlikely to see isn't the same as private.

Re:Controversial

[Dunbal]

Actually, I'd say anything that takes place in public, or over a public network, the governement has a right to observe.

      So you're fine with the idea of being randomly stopped on the street and searched by the police, right? Empty your pockets, son, and pop the trunk. Why? Well if you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing to worry about...

Re:Controversial

[acvh]

Well, no. The telephone network is a circuit switched network. By making a call I am requesting that a private, one to one, circuit be established between my phone and the recipient's phone. Nothing public about it.

On the topic at hand (e-mail), while I am aware that there are multiple points in email transmission that can provide an opportunity for someone to see the contents of my mail, I do not, have not, and indeed quite possibly can not, waive my right to be protected from government surveillance without a warrant.

My wife knows my login password for our home computer. Does that mean that I have relinquished my right to keep the government from logging in to my computer to see my files?

Re:Controversial

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid you are confusing things like "public" and "in public".

And yes, you should be able to expect a modicum of privacy in even public places. If you do not get it you have a case of stalking.

For the record : "public" does not mean "to be used by an(y )other party in any way he likes".

As for "the ISP claims this right over you, so now we (the gouverment) allso have this right" ? Its ludicrous. Firstly, Although an ISP can put anything in its EULA any rule that claims rights above or beyond our rights is null-and-void. Secondly, data gathered by a company to protect that company is subject to the countries law too : it cannot just snoop into communication without just cause (although they do want you to believe they do have that right).

By the way : if that "if given to someone, than its given to everyone" rule really sticks the RIAA will have a hard case : given to, sold or heard by "the public" means everyone in the public may look/listen to it. :D

By the way : Funny that that same gouverment tries to out-law Spamming. You know, sending advertisements to an address they got from a company you gave it to ...

Re:Controversial

[beakburke]

The phone network used to be entirely switched, but the reality is that much of the backbone is/will become packet based. Given this, and the fact that a conversation is taking place traveling over equipment that you do not control; it would be reasonable to conclude that you do not have a right to expect the contents of that conversation to be private. OTOH, I'm not sure the government should be allowed to record everything that happens in public, just that I don't think it's unconstitutional on its face.

Re:Controversial

[beakburke]

So you're fine with the idea of being randomly stopped on the street and searched by the police, right?

NO, and if you'd have read my whole post instead of launching with a knee-jerk response, you'd know that. I don't think they can search me without cause, but if I'm having a conversation in a public place (ie outside of my house or car or other private property) or do something illegal that can be clearly observed from a public place, then that's clearly different. I'm arguing that a phone call is transmitted over a public space. If you want privacy, then you have to use an envelope instead of a postcard, fold your letter up and put it in your pocket instead of carrying it unfolded in your hand, or encrypt your call instead of sending it in the clear. If you take steps to keep your message/property concealed, then the authorities need a warrant and they need cause to search. I even think that sobriety check points are illegal because you are asked to test without cause that you cannot refuse. This fundamentally violates the right against both self incrimination (compelling testimony against ones self) and an illegal search. Heck, I think the TSA search should be illegal too (though I think the airlines have every right to require it) excepting flights that are entering or leaving the country. The fundamental disagreement is that I think that phone conversations are akin to a conversation in a public place, I'll be it one that is usually remove. It's security through obscurity, not reality. Just because you are unlikely to be overhead doesn't mean you have an expectation of privacy.

encryption is not privacy

[Comboman]

Also, you can't reasonably expect any privacy in email unless you encrypt its contents.

Applying a technical solution to social/political problem should always be the last resort. Besides, it can backfire on you. Encrypted emails are likely to be flagged as suspicious; and if you think the government can't break garden-variety public-key encryption, you're just fooling yourself.

Re:encryption is not privacy

[russotto]

Applying a technical solution to social/political problem should always be the last resort.

Why? I'm a geek. Technical solutions are what I do. I don't have social or political solutions, nor (if I had such) am I in any position to implement them. If I can't implement a technical solution, I probably can't solve the problem.

Nobody should be OK with this...

[Deathnutz]

Why do people insist that it is OK for our government to have unlimited power? Our founding fathers came to this country to escape a powerful government... that ultimately fell. Our government is getting way to big and is becoming, if it isn't already, an Empire... that will fall. The more you let the government stick their foot into your home, they more they try to come in and take over.

Re:Nobody should be OK with this...

[pclminion]

Our founding fathers came to this country to escape a powerful government... that ultimately fell.

With total ignorance of our country's history such as this, it's no wonder things are going to shit. Here's a fucking hint: Our "Founding Fathers" were BORN here, they did not come here. They did not fight to ESCAPE anything, they fought to EXPEL a corrupt government. And that government didn't fall, it just LEFT.

I can't fucking believe I have to say any of this.

No Dissent. Evil Past and Worse Future.

[Erris]

They can spy on Democrats, their own people and anyone's and that's why this is more important than firefly diatribes. Without privacy in communications anyone who would bother to stand up for your rights can be identified and punished. Targeting can start in school, before the victim understands the issues or can defend themselves. Anyone who would encourage or aid the dissenter can also be punished. What the current administration is asking for is a tool more complete than Orwell was able to imagine in a paper world.

Imagine, for example, that Martin Luther King Jr. had been identified when he was a Morehouse College, instead of 1961. Do you think he would have been able to withstand such early and sustained attention as he suffered later? As late as the 1980's some asshole decided to prove that King did not deserve his PhD. If a smear campaign had been launched while King was at Morehouse, he would never have made it in to Boston or Crozer. Would it have been possible to recognize a pattern or would society have simply been robbed of a charismatic champion?

It's cases like King's that created the outrage that outlawed domestic spying. We should remember those foul deeds and start the pendulum swinging back towards privacy. What we find today may be worse than what we know about King because technology has made things so much easier to identify, smear and harass.

alternative?

[jefu]

Here is a better alternative http://www.gnupg.org/

Only as long as it remains legal to encrypt your mail.

Re:alternative?

[Crayon Kid]

In the UK that's already been "taken care of". Hand over your encryption keys when asked by the police or face up to 5 years in jail.

The ironic bit is that the people this is theoretically aimed at (terrorists, paedophiles) would much rather take 5 years for not disclosing a key then whatever they were due for what they were really doing.

Re:alternative?

[N3WBI3]

"The ironic bit is that the people this is theoretically aimed at (terrorists, paedophiles) would much rather take 5 years for not disclosing a key then whatever they were due for what they were really doing."

There is always water boarding...

pardon?

[jefu]

I do wonder though if Bush can pardon himself. Since the power of the pardon seems pretty sweeping, I suppose so, but it just seems even more wrong than blanket pardons for every ass-kissing loyalist in the administration.

Re:pardon?

[mbone]

I do wonder though if Bush can pardon himself.

No, he can't. Nor can he pardon anyone else "in cases of impeachment." From Aricle II, Section 2 :

...and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Note that it doesn't say anywhere that impeachment cannot be done after the end of an administration.

Nor, in practice, can he pardon war crimes, as they are globally enforceable. It's the war crimes charges that will eventually put these clowns in jail.

Re:pardon?

[CronoCloud]

Naah, see what he'll do is issue the pardons, and then resign a a couple of hours before he would normally leave office, thus letting Vice-President Cheney become acting President, who will then pardon Bush. Not that I really expect that to happen.

Time to think about SSL/TLS and GPG

[Anonymous Coward]

A few months ago I enabled SMTP Auth on my outbound mailserver. Because my Auth database is LDAP I also had to add SSL/TLS to secure the contents of the email in transit. If I understand correctly this means that communications between my mailserver and another server that can do SSL/TLS will be automatically encrypted in transit. This isn't a complete solution but it does make it difficult/impossible to capture email transmissions over the wire. Gpg completes the picture.

Between the problem of spam and the governments propensity to monitor communications I'm thinking that this the way most mailservers should be configured going forward. I believe that Americans still have a right to privacy but obviously the government differs so we must guarantee that right for ourselves.

You Don't Understand At All.

[Erris]

The general populous need to be more aware that plain email is more like a postcard than a message in a sealed envelope though.

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" arguments mask the true cost of tyranny and the public should object to all forms of domestic spying. The right emails do not just fall from the sky onto FBI agent desks so that criminals can be prosecuted. It costs money to read and sort email. It's outrageous to waste tax money on things like that because criminals know how to hide and the machinery will be abused for political purposes. One way to protect the public from that kind of waste and abuse is to demand government obtain search warrents for email snooping. This is what the fourth amendment is all about.

Land of the free!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I'm getting so tired of this nonsense. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they saw how other nations have more rights and freedoms than people in ours.

lol, the word in the image for me is "wiretaps"

Your Privacy and Freedom of Press.

[Erris]

ISPs are not government entities

I'll believe that when the spectrum is free and anyone can lay lines in the public servitude. Until then, ISPs all enjoy government monopolies and have public obligations. Because public networks gain their value from public participation, it might be argued that no public network can ever be privately owned. The value of any public network, like any other press, is always maximized by public freedom. If you think of public networks as the modern press, there's are constitutional imperatives for those networks to be free. Of course it's hard to expect an administration that's busy tearing up the fourth amendment to have any respect for the first.

I find this funny.

[darkcmd]

I find it funny that all these people would let the feds read their email. The internet may be a public network but that doesn't mean they have the right to snoop your email. For example would you want some person going into your mailbox at home and reading all of your personal email, I bet all of you would feel that you privacy had been violated, what's the difference between e-mail? It's the same exact idea as regular mail only in an electronic form. If people keep letting the government step on their feet and get more and more power to violate your rights then eventually they will systematically eliminate little freedoms one by one. These are little freedoms so many people won't notice at first or think its a big deal, but every freedom eliminated puts the Bush administration one step closer to being able to control the people. Bush is like a spoiled little rich kid that whines when he doesn't get what he wants, and will break the law to get it.

Re:I find this funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

These are little freedoms so many people won't notice at first or think its a big deal, but every freedom eliminated puts the Bush administration one step closer to being able to control the people. Bush is like a spoiled little rich kid that whines when he doesn't get what he wants, and will break the law to get it. It's not Bush so much as Cheney and he does this out of the belief that Presidential power has been seriously eroded since Nixon was run out of the White House in 1972. Eventually we will get a modern showdown that delineates the division of power between Congress and the President but I fear that it will happen later rather than sooner. Don't expect it until at least after the Iraq war is over. Furthermore, if there is a Democrat in the White House as of Jan 2009 expect the Republican argument to change from "He's the President, he can do no wrong." to "He's the President but he's subject to the restrictions of the Congress." The Democratic Congress is no better in this regard. The only reason that they don't make that argument now is because to do so would look unpatriotic and thus would seriously harm their chances of winning the White House in the election.

Nor can the president ride in cars.

[glrotate]

It's not in the Constitution.

Re:Nor can the president ride in cars.

[tjstork]

Riding in a car does not cause an intrusion of the rights of the people, so the President is allowed to ride in cars. However, the President would not be allowed to ride his or her car across my land without my consent.

Bush's "farewell" press conference...

[TapeCutter]

..."Opps, pardon me!"

This is 2007, why isn't all email encrypted?

[Joce640k]

Now that email is a standard tool for business communication, etc. it should all be encrypted. Does anybody know a single good reason why it isn't? I'm not buying the "too lazy" argument so the only thing left is conspiracy, along with the "M" word.

Mandatory Encryption

[nurb432]

Do we need yet another reason to encrypt *everything* ? At least make them work for their data.

Re:No Dissent. Evil Past and Worse Future.

[Detritus]

Anyone who is a public figure can expect their past to be closely scrutinized. Why should King get a free pass for a PhD thesis that had large sections that were plagiarized from other people's work? I thought plagiarism was supposed to be a mortal sin in academia.

Unless..

[jbeaupre]

Unless he believes my cold is cancer because the guy next door has it. Then I'll kindly ignore the quack and go find someone who knows the difference.

Do you know what this will do? MORE SPAM!

[ibsteve2u]

I can see it now - people who are otherwise not malicious at all will see this for being what it is - yet another attack on the Constitution - and a whole new generation of spambots will hit the web that don't do anything but generate email messages containing whatever their author's best guess is that a terrorist would say.

Retaliate with Encryption

[RonBurk]

Some org with bucks should retaliate by threatening to start a campaign to get users to use strong encryption on all email. If everybody's email client was encrypting the payload, Big Brother would be worse off than they are now. Whether they would see the logic of that or not, is questionable, but it might at least raise the debate among the Washington intellegentsia: stick to warrants before you push everybody into using software that will render the warrants much harder to execute.

Spam as a weapon?

[LcdAngel]

To this point, we have seen nothing but viagra ads and prescription pills. I hope we don't enter a generation where the spammers start throwing in words like

• bomb

• plane

• blow up

• Osama

and other terrorist related words. if the government starts monitoring, spam could be a way to try and get someone arrested. On the other hand i could be like the RIAA, the government starts accusing enough people and the program goes to hell.

subpoena keys vs key escrow

[chihowa]

The UK Government already have this covered, by making it a criminal offence not to hand over your keys. Don't worry, I'm sure the US will catch up soon, as obviously only criminals have something to hide...

That actually sounds like a reasonable solution. As long as they don't require you to give them your keys from the very beginning (before you've been accused of a crime), taking them during legal process seems fair. If you're keeping secrets from the court during your own trial, you'd better be hiding your guilt.

If they want a database of all of the citizenry's keys, so they can sift through email at their leisure, that's too far. Getting keys during a trial is just as reasonable as asking for safe combinations and such. IIRC, refusing to hand over the combination to a safe during your trial (if it's relevant) is a criminal offense too. ("I don't remember" may be in a gray area, though)

It's okay...

[etherlad]

I don't care if the Feds can read my email. I don't use Email anymore. I upgraded to Gmail. That's, like, two versions better, right? I hope so; I think I missed the release of Fmail.

Corrected

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct. I have the power -nay, the privilege, to vote a "new" leader into power. It makes much difference-not. I have not disappeared. Like Winston Smith, I am left to serve as an example for others who might choose the wrong path of thoughtcrime.

how about an opt in system

[cryptozoologist]

in this system, all email is cc'd to president@whitehouse.gov
you know, for all the people who have nothing to hide.

WTF does permission matter any more?

[GodfatherofSoul]

The telecoms will just give the government whatever permissions they want in illegal backroom deals. If they get busted, they'll just run to Congress and get retroactive legal cover. Welcome to the Amerika, comrades.

Two words

[pedestrian crossing]

Key exchange

ISP that block port 25, blocks privacy

[tvlinux]

I run my own mail server, I have been running for years. I do not trust ISP on privacy, some do not support encrypted pop or imap, some don't support TLS or ESMTP.

I have to get special ISP and service to support my mail server, Verizon blocks port 25 on their FIOS, except for business account, which cost much more, and requires "Their equipment" on your site.

If you want secure mail, run your own server. If your ISP blocks port 25, so you can't get mail, They are destroying your privacy.

shaun

PGP/GPG sucks, use S/MIME

[Anonymous Coward]

PGP is not a standard and I hate those idiots using that proprietary crap which requires me to install a bunch of software just to read a mail message. Use S/MIME, it's a real standard and supported by all the major mail readers, even some web based readers. Plus there are many smartcard and other security token based S/MIME systems.

Imagine if secure web sites required you to install some PGP shit just to view their site. Nobody would stand for that.

Re:PGP/GPG sucks, use S/MIME

[HeroreV]

PGP is not a standard RFC 2440 - OpenPGP Message Format
RFC 4880 - OpenPGP Message Format

I hate those idiots using that proprietary crap GnuPG

Can someone please explain....

[JustNiz]

I'm English so don't understand the US system. I always thought that the US constitution was the very foundation of US law. So please can someone explain:
How is it that the US government can choose to violate the constitution? Isn't the whole point of the constitution that they are obliged to conform to it?

Re:Can someone please explain....

[freedom_india]

Dude, welcome to the REAL US of A.
If it is done by the president, then it is legal. Because in our presidential form of government, the president is above the law and constitution.

I guess you are British: We don't have a Magna Carta here.
Prety much the president (aka from 2000 onwards) is the King, dictator etc.

Where the president warantless wiretapping which is specifically prohibited by law, the congress and senate will fall head over heels to make sure they provide immunity to all concerned parties plus throw tax payers money to the companies for continuing to do so.

Didn'y you know? The original constitution which is supposed to be in washington was replaced by one of the copies they sell for $14.00. The original obviously was used by the president to wipe his Golden Ass when he ran out of toilet paper.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[bogjobber]

First off, IANAL, so this won't be entirely correct but here's the basic idea. The 4th amendment to the constitution say this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How that has been interpreted is firstly that your own personal home and belongings are safe from government interference without a warrant. That one's pretty obvious. Other court rulings have extended that into the public sphere for communications. For example, if you make a phone call on a public phone system, you have a right to the government not listening on that line without a warrant, even though it's not directly addressed by the language of the 4th amendment.

What that doesn't cover is public speech. For example, if you are talking to your friend in the street so that others can overhear or shouting from a bullhorn, the government has every right to listen to that. What the Bush administration is doing is trying to get a federal court to rule that since most email is unencrypted and passed through different servers indiscriminantly, that the person sending it is has no expectation of privacy and that email is basically public speech. That would mean the government could legally monitor email traffic. It's pretty obviously a privacy breach, but legally it's not as ridiculous a claim as it seems on the surface.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[LukeCage]

The Constitution is only a piece of paper. When the people stop believing that it has power, it doesn't. And then things are going to get really bad.

If you want to know how many people simply don't believe in the Constitution, just take a poll of the President's approval rating. The man wipes his ass with the rule of law, and yet 30 percent of the American population approves of him, or about 90 million people. Why? Some of them are the exact kind of cowards that Ben Franklin spoke of when he said, "He that would trade liberty for security will receive neither." Some of them are Team Republicans, who will support Bush no matter what he does because they view being a Republican like being a sports fan, and you support your "team" no matter what they do. Some of them are Christianists, who believe that we will see the (fictional) Rapture in our life time or that America is a debauched sinful nation who has strayed from it's (fictional) Christian roots and that Bush is a "good man" because he believes in the same God they do. Those are the sorts of people that don't believe in the principles of America or of the Constitution.

And they are facilitated by an uncritical press that is owned by rich white dudes who don't want to rock the boat of the party that traditionally lets them keep more of their money, and also want to keep you interested in watching by manufacturing or highlighting "entertaining" news stories instead of real news. And those 90 million also facilitate each other by sending around emails full of falsehoods and smears in order to keep their ridiculous "America is under siege, watch out!" culture alive and keep themselves in a perpetual frenzy of faux outrage. They are Fox News viewers and anti-intellectuals from all walks of life, who see the world as a fucking comic book where America (or them personally) is the Good Guy regardless of what is done, and that the world works like "24" or "Sodom and Gamorah" or some other simplistic, good guy/bad guy duality.

(Either that or they are rich, rich, rich (or THINK they will be) and just want tax cuts no matter how inappropriate they are, like oh say during a war).

This ended up being an unfun screed and I apologize for that. I just get so depressed thinking about how much damage has been done to the core values of our country in the last 6 years.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole system is corrupted now, maybe not to the core, maybe not so far that it cant be fixed on next election. It is possible that things will change, that there will be such a huge turn over politician are going to go read the constitution and realize the very first line says:

we the people....

not we the government

USA should not tolerate this, i cannot go to my job and tell my boss that i am going to look through his e-mails cause i suspect he is corrupted. We employee the government, that is the very idea behind our nation. If you want to change, vote different, look at the person your voting for, did they vote for the retroactive on ISP? do they support the patriot act? do they hide behind terriorsim. I am sick of hearing 9-11, if the politician even mentions 9-11 for what ever reason to get himself votes, dont vote for him. we lost alot of people that day and it shouldnt be used as a circus for politician to try and swing votes.

Dont buy into the illusion that they are protecting us, they are not...they use this as a execuse for power and who doesnt love power? It is all for control, for now we can discuss this on the internet, but the USA has had the road to a police state paved and ready, all we half to do is walk down it. Dont allow this, change our goverment, dont fall for the bullshit or the lies, remove these assholes from power.

another thing, as things get worse in our , we are allowing it, for now we have the right to speak out but nobody does. speak out, before even that is taken away.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[Anonymous Coward]

The title "US Wants Courts to OK Warrantless Email Snooping" is inane.

You are correct, so don't waste your time going any further in the article.

The US government has 3 branches...executive (president), legislative (congress), and judicial (courts). The three branches act as a "checks-and-balances" system so none gets too powerful.

To say "US Wants" is meaningless in this context.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[notamisfit]

6 years? Try the last hundred or so. We've been eroding individual rights and limited government pretty much since the rise of Teddy Roosevelt and his fellow "progressives". Left, Right, Democrat, Republican, it doesn't really matter, since the result's the same in the end.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[Unlikely_Hero]

wow...this hurts.
Ya...the constitution is supposed to be the foundation of US law, except that in the past 200 or so years more supreme court rulings have chipped away at rights rather than building them up. The 9th and 10th amendments, which are two of the most important, are essentially dead, the 2nd amendment (which some of us still hold protects the rest in the end) is weakened, the first amendment is injured gravely, the 4th is non-existent. The only amendment that we really have going anymore is the 5th, and that's essentially so government employees and officials can cover their asses with it. As for the rest of the constitution (ie, not the bill of rights) apparently all it takes is a poorly thought out legal memo that doesn't have to be released to "fix" that.

To put it bluntly, the constitution has ceased to matter, it seems, because people have ceased to defend it with teeth bared and are content to fade into the background in despair. It seems to me that people want to stand up and say "what the fuck are you doing?!?!" but are desperately afraid of standing up to find that everyone else is staring at them blankly.

It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up for what's right when you have to face the possibility that you'll end up standing alone.
I fear it may already be too late for the united states to ever truly recover.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[LukeCage]

Oh yes, that evil big government Teddy Roosevelt, what with his "Federal Food and Drug Administration" to keep people from eating meat filled with mercury! Remember when he threw out Habeas Corpus? Remember in the last 100 years how we sent people to other countries to be tortured? Oh wait...we didn't.

I was baffled at your reply until I read your sig. Let me guess: libertarian, Ayn Rand reader, Ron Paul voter...that's all I need to know. I am not one for big government but returning us to the Gilded Age is an even worse idea.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[moogle001]

Not to be a douche, but what are you referring to? Your question is rather broad. If you're referring to this article, the government is arguing before a court that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for most email. Since the Constitution only protects reasonable expectations of privacy, if the government's argument is upheld then there is no violation of the Constitution by going through one's email. Note that if the courts uphold precedent, which they generally do, the government's argument will probably be struck down because most people expect their email to be private. Now then, if you're referring to other things this administration has been accused of doing, it must be noted that it is the firm belief of Cheney and others in his circle that the US Constitution grants president nigh-unrestrained authority in regards to protecting the state. This is a legal theory that is widely disputed but has not been put to any true legal test, and likely won't be, at least not before this administration is out of office.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[MobyDisk]

IMHO, here's why.

Suppose I snuck into AT&T's data centers (or made a deal with the CEO) and installed a device to record phone conversations and have them sent to me. Once I was discovered, I would be arrested, charged with various crimes, and sent to prison. So would the relevant persons at AT&T. However, if the president does this, then he is censured, criticized, and the Senate threatens to hold hearings on the matter.

The problem is that the law and the constitution don't apply to the president. They are supposed to, and we all pretend they do, but that requires someone to have the guts to walk into the white house with a police officer, read the president his Miranda rights, and place him in handcuffs. But that doesn't happen.

It seems like there is a sort of unwritten law between the 3 branches of government that you are not supposed to actually violate the law or the constitution, because that messes up the balance of power. But this president called everyone's bluff. And now the legislature has realized that they are too scared or weak to actually take the next step and arrest the guy or impeach him. So really, they gave away their power. Bush is now dictator.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[evil_aar0n]

It's simple: consequences.

Right now, there aren't any; our Congress has its collective head up its arse and a spine made of Jell-O, so Bush & Co. are pretty much free to use the Constitution as toilet paper. And, if you look at it from his point of view, why not? After all, it's "just a G-D piece of paper."

Re:Can someone please explain....

[Anonymous Coward]

"our Congress has its collective head up its arse"?

Certainly you aren't referring to the US Congress, because Americans don't use the word "arse".

You, sir, are a lying ass.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[evil_aar0n]

I am referring to _our_ US Congress, and I _do_ use the word "arse," if I'm replying to an Englishman.

And while I don't lie, cheat or steal, I won't argue the "ass" part. Yep, I admit it.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[freedom_india]

Its not the senate is weak. Its because they are unwilling.
For 2 reasons: The Dems need the same power when their president takes charge. Removing that now by impeaching Bush will prevent a Dem president from enacting the same powers.
If they complain and let go, their Dem president would do exactly the same and these spineless, corporate groveling cretins can then blame the previous president for lighting the way.
Which is why Ron paul seriously needs to be the president.

The corporate media is doing as much as it can to prevent his campaign, and republican party, steeped in corporate money would not dare even consider Ron paul because he stands against it.

Hillary is useless She is the Yin of Bush's Yang. So she would be the same selfish, tough president that Bush was and commit more violations.

Obama is like Kennedy. Too new and too fresh. We don't have the flower power generation to elect Obama.

McCain is an old fart who refuses to lie down.

Giuliani's candidature would be defeated by firemen and ex-cops of NYC.

That leaves Ron Paul. Now we have raised enough money.
It is time we pushed his name to ballot.

Re:Can someone please explain....

[BranMan]

What you need to understand is that the US Government is
1) Made up of people who seek out power.
2) Made up of, to a large part, lawyers.

      Those who seek out power want to USE that power. Lawyers are trained for years in ways to weasle, confound, or reverse statements, judgements, and statutes. The US Government trying to weasle around parts of the Constitution? I would be surprised not to see it. Not that they should get away with it, but it is definitely expected.

      The judge in the case should make three statements: 1) Lawyers and clients sometimes confer by email. 2) There is no way to know if any particular email is between a lawyer and a client. 3) All communications between lawyer and client are priveleged and NO ONE is allowed to look at them, for any reason.
      Therefor, NO, you cannot read any email without a warrent.

      Isn't that simple?

Re:Can someone please explain....

[JustNiz]

Thanks for the clarification.
So does that mean that if you encrypt your email (or even put 'PRIVATE' in the subject line) then it pretty obviously isn't intended to be public, so they still can't read or attempt to decrypt it without a warrant?

Expectation of Privacy

[Chris Burke]

Also, you can't reasonably expect any privacy in email unless you encrypt its contents.

In the sense that you mean it, no, you can't. However it is important to remember that this is not the sense meant by the term "expectation of privacy" when determining if the 4th Amendment (the privacy amendment) applies.

Expectation of privacy does not mean that you expect that nobody CAN violate your privacy, it means that you can reasonably expect that they WON'T. The ease with which your privacy can be violated is, generally, immaterial. For example your average snail-mail letter is trivial to read simply by holding the sealed envelope up to a light. However this does not give either the postman or the policeman the right to do this, because you do have a basic expectation of privacy with your mail.

Yet there are still special envelopes which make it difficult or impossible to read the letter inside. You use these to try to ensure your privacy, and you do it not because doing so is the only way that one can expect privacy, you do it because you don't want the kind of unscrupulous people who have no respect for your privacy to be able to see the check or money order or whatever important thing is in your letter and possibly steal it.

This is similar to email and encryption. Email is a private communication, between the sender and the listed recipients. You should be able to expect privacy even for unencrypted emails, you should be able to expect that no scrupulous person or law-abiding law-enforcement officer would read it whenever they choose. If the contents of the mail are important enough that you can't trust people to be law-abiding, or you are simply paranoid (not that there's anything wrong with that), then you encrypt to try to guarantee privacy even against those who would violate it. Because that's what reading your mail is, even without encryption: violating your privacy. How easy it is to do this is immaterial.

I think this distinction is important, because this is exactly the kind of play-on-words logic they are using to try to erode our right to privacy. They use "expect" as it is meant in privacy court decisions in one sentence, then use it the way you did when talking about whether you can "expect" your email to be private. In this case they are saying that because you authorized in a legal contract a specific exception that allows the ISPs to read your mail, that you no longer 'expect' that nobody will read your mail, therefore the expectation of privacy no longer applies and now it's law enforcement who can read your mail at will. You never authorized anyone but your ISP to intrude on your privacy, but that single exception has through this word-play logic been generalized to mean that you are effectively authorizing anyone to read your email.

You could use the same logic to argue that because someone left a key for the contractor working on their house to enter, this means they have no expectation of privacy in their home and the police can enter and search the place top to bottom without a warrant.

That logic is ridiculous, and I hope the court sees through such shenanigans.

Re:Expectation of Privacy

[Sloppy]

Apparently "expectation of" has become a very technical term, basically meaning "desired."

I wonder if I see things differently simply because of background. Long ago, maybe Fidonet days(?), I remember the software itself warning users that email was going to pass through many unaccountable strangers' systems, and that privacy should not be expected ("expected" in the sense of "predicted" rather than "desired"). In other words, someone reading your email was perhaps a violation, but it was also something you knew may very well happen.

I think we need a new legal term: "unrealistic fantasy of privacy."

Without cryptography, it's too easy for lots of people to be reading your email, and it'll happen without you ever knowing it happened. Likewise, it's so incredibly easy to use crypto, that refraining from doing so, is almost like .. well... giving consent. I know it's not, not really. But it's sort of like you put a sign in front of your house, saying, "This house is unlocked. Gee, I hope none of my stuff disappears. *wink* *wink*" How many years must be PGP be out, before people realize they're implying those "winks" at the end of their sign?

Is privacy a right that, unlike all other rights, really can just be taken for granted, without anyone ever having to defend it? The obvious defense is right there to be used, and we just say, "Nah, it's not important enough."

Re:Expectation of Privacy

[Chris Burke]

Apparently "expectation of" has become a very technical term, basically meaning "desired."

Well yes it IS a technical term because we're talking about Constitutional Law here. The fact that it is expressed in English, where words can have multiple meanings, should not be taken to mean that any definition you like is the one that applies. The meaning of the phrase is put down in case law, not the Oxford English Dictionary.

And no, it doesn't just mean "desired", it means that it was the intent to be private, and that one could reasonably expect that privacy to be respected. So having a conversation in a public park has no "expectation of privacy" because no reasonable person would expect that others would not hear them -- they couldn't help but hear as they are walking past. Whereas having a conversation in a private house does have an expectation of privacy, even though it is fairly trivial to listen in (put an ear to the window).

Without cryptography, it's too easy for lots of people to be reading your email, and it'll happen without you ever knowing it happened.

I repeat: It has nothing to do with how easy it is. It has nothing to do with what unscrupulous people performing illegal actions could do.

Your mail is trivial to read by holding it up to the light. Your conversations in your home are trivial to listen to by holding a glass up to the door. Hell, I could read the contents of your phone conversations, or the contents of your computer screen, without ever physically coming into contact with the phone lines or your computer. So... for none of these things should you have an "expectation of privacy"? Law enforcement should be able to spy on these things at will without a warrant?

Likewise, it's so incredibly easy to use crypto, that refraining from doing so, is almost like .. well... giving consent.

So easy eh? So how do you exchange keys with the one you are communicating with? You seem to be proposing the theory that if it is trivial to violate your privacy, then you never had any expectation of privacy at all. Well guess what? It is trivial to modify the unencrypted packets used to exchange public keys such that they are the public keys of a 3rd party, who can then act as a man-in-the-middle reading all the unencrypted communications with neither side the wiser.

Would you say, then, that your encrypted emails should carry no expectation of privacy? After all, it's so easy to get around this problem (always exchange keys with the intended recipient in person using a physical medium for the data) that you're basically giving consent by not doing it, right?

I know it's not, not really. But it's sort of like you put a sign in front of your house, saying, "This house is unlocked. Gee, I hope none of my stuff disappears. *wink* *wink*"

But we're not talking about what an unscrupulous criminal could do. We're talking about what a law abiding government agent should do to remain in compliance with the law. Does leaving your door unlocked imply that it should be legal for a cop to enter your house and search through your stuff for something incriminating (like your mp3 collection)? Of course not, and you know it's not.

Again, if it's not clear enough, let me try to make it so: The issue here is about the 4th Amendment and the requirement for a warrant before conducting a search. It is about what law enforcement and government intelligence agencies are allowed to do legally to read citizen's communications. It has nothing to do with what someone - law enforcement or otherwise - is physically capable of doing if they have no regard for the law.

Is privacy a right that, unlike all other rights, really can just be taken for granted, without anyone ever having to defend it? The obvious defense is right there to be used, and we just say, "Nah, it's not important enough."

Yes

Re:Expectation of Privacy

[Sloppy]

And no, it [expectation] doesn't just mean "desired", it means that it was the intent to be private, and that one could reasonably expect that privacy to be respected.

It can't mean something involving the verb "expect." Or rather, I really hope it doesn't, or else the judge will crash. ;-)

As for "intent to be private," do you you really think that's realistic, when talking about the Internet? I can intend to not shoot my foot, but if I point a gun at my foot and fire, my intent was ridiculous.

So having a conversation in a public park has no "expectation of privacy" because no reasonable person would expect that others would not hear them -- they couldn't help but hear as they are walking past. Whereas having a conversation in a private house does have an expectation of privacy, even though it is fairly trivial to listen in (put an ear to the window).

I get that, but putting an ear to the window is still a pretty active step. Someone who does that is probably looking for trouble, they have to get pretty close to your house, etc.

But isn't using plaintext on the Internet, a whole lot closer to the public park scenario? You're relying on countless (literally; you often really don't know how many there are) strangers, who have no accountability to either party, to relay a message. They don't have to do anything sneaky (like put their ear up to your window) to hear. They just have to look at what you gave them.

Back before (all? most?) the cable companies start using PPPoE, every packet their customers sent, was literally sent into all their neighbors homes, visible just by having a NIC in promiscuous mode. And nowdays, a lot of people are using 802.11: that's literally radio broadcast. Is it unscrupulous or criminal to pay attention to broadcast traffic? Maybe. But it's not anywhere close to entering someone's lot, hoping you're not seen, and putting your ear up to someone's window.

Internet traffic is too "broadcasty" to be comparable to talking inside your home. It's more like talking on a CB radio, and expecting lots of people to have the good manners to not pay attention to what you sent to them. Sure, maybe you have the intent to have a private conversion, but I just can't apply the word "reasonable" to that. If it has some wacky technical case law definition, ok, but it is utterly contrary to any layman's interpretation.

Does leaving your door unlocked imply that it should be legal for a cop to enter your house and search through your stuff for something incriminating (like your mp3 collection)?

No, but leave your crackpipe in plain view from the sidewalk -- no, actually copied onto the sidewalk -- and I bet a cop can safely take action on it.

It is trivial to modify the unencrypted packets used to exchange public keys such that they are the public keys of a 3rd party, who can then act as a man-in-the-middle reading all the unencrypted communications with neither side the wiser.

I guess I have the naive idea that people don't exchange public keys that way. I've been linking to biglumber for years (a directory for finding people to securely exchange with; use multiple paths through that WoT for introduction, and it would require a difficult (i.e. large) conspiracy to subvert, even in situations where people don't securely exchange keys). And 99% of my emails are with people I have personally met, where secure exchange is really quite possible. Damn, for most email, OTP should be the norm instead of PK. But for some weird reason, the tools don't support that yet.

And I don't encrypt any of them, because they think privacy isn't important. :(

But I don't "reasonably expect" (in layman's terms, not by the legal technical meaning) that a

Re:Expectation of Privacy

[Chris Burke]

As for "intent to be private," do you you really think that's realistic, when talking about the Internet? I can intend to not shoot my foot, but if I point a gun at my foot and fire, my intent was ridiculous.

The "and that one could reasonably expect that privacy to be respected." is not an optional part, it is a necessary condition.

I get that, but putting an ear to the window is still a pretty active step. Someone who does that is probably looking for trouble, they have to get pretty close to your house, etc.

I'm glad you have recognized the importance of taking active steps. This is quite relavent. This is why you have no expectation of privacy for your conversations in a public park -- people hear whether they want to or not -- versus your expectation of privacy for your undergarments when wearing a skirt in a public part -- generally requires active steps to look up, though not much. The "not much" part isn't important.

And you keep seeming to lose track of what this is about. If the legal theory being posed here were to be ruled valid, then a police officer wouldn't be "looking for trouble" because if you caught them in the act you wouldn't be able to do anything since it would be completely legal for them to listen to you. I know you're concerned with stopping them from listening to you even if they break the law, but making it so that it isn't breaking the law only means that they can try all the harder to get around your protections, again with no penalty should they be caught because it's legal.

But isn't using plaintext on the Internet, a whole lot closer to the public park scenario? You're relying on countless (literally; you often really don't know how many there are) strangers, who have no accountability to either party, to relay a message.

Do a traceroute to Slashdot.org. That's the number of servers responsible for relaying your message (and granted an unknown number of sysadmins, but then again you don't how many postal workers handle your mail in the various post offices your mail goes through). That's hardly "countless". And it's also hardly a given that any of them must see the contents of your data packets. They would have to take steps to go retrieve the data off the servers to view, an active step like we were just discussing.

Back before (all? most?) the cable companies start using PPPoE, every packet their customers sent, was literally sent into all their neighbors homes, visible just by having a NIC in promiscuous mode. And nowdays, a lot of people are using 802.11: that's literally radio broadcast. Is it unscrupulous or criminal to pay attention to broadcast traffic? Maybe. But it's not anywhere close to entering someone's lot, hoping you're not seen, and putting your ear up to someone's window.

Yes it was easier to listen to your data before they upgraded the cable network protocols. Unencrypted wi-fi is vulnerable, though it has a limited range and is hardly some ridiculous number of people, it basically includes the people down the street. If you encrypt your wi-fi then encrypting your email is redundant for the people on your street. A number of people, by the way, not much different than those that could hear your conversations with a good parabolic mic, because your voice is also broadcast in the vicinity.

Internet traffic is too "broadcasty" to be comparable to talking inside your home. It's more like talking on a CB radio, and expecting lots of people to have the good manners to not pay attention to what you sent to them. Sure, maybe you have the intent to have a private conversion, but I just can't apply the word "reasonable" to that. If it has some wacky technical case law definition, ok, but it is utterly contrary to any layman's interpretation.

The internet as a whole is not "broadcasty" at all. While it supports the concept, Internet Protocol is essentially a point-to-point communication protocol more remeniscient of the phone network o

Re:Expectation of Privacy

[Sloppy]

I find it funny that you suggest that the internet is "broadcasty" and that anyone can easily listen to your packets, but you've never considered the problem of getting encryption keys safely without having encryption keys. It doesn't require a conspiracy, it requires one server near you to be compromised and pretend to be the key server to you and give you a false key, then transform your future packets so that the external world sees you using the correct key, with nobody being able to tell what has happened. This man-in-the-middle attack is exactly why it is impossible -- and I mean literally impossible -- to securely transfer keys over an insecure data network which is what the internet is.

But fingerprints don't go through any computers, except the endpoints themselves. A person hands a physical piece of paper, containing the fingerprint, to a person. If the key is MitMed, its fingerprint will be wrong (unless someone has defeated the hashing algorithm), the key won't be certified, and the receiver is now tipped off that someone just attempted a MitM attack.

I'm not sure what you mean by "never considered the problem of getting encryption keys safely without having encryption keys." Solving that problem is the entire purpose of key certification.

The "conspiracy" that is required, is that if you have not made a secure exchange with someone, but use the WoT to trust a key's identity instead, then either the key is genuine, or else every pathway through the WoT has been compromised (and by the same entity). e.g. I don't ever meet you in person, but two people who I have met (Joe and Bob) say they've met you, securely exchanged keys, and that this key is yours. It's either yours, or Joe and Bob are both trying to trick me by giving me the same bogus key.

Re:Expectation of Privacy

[Sloppy]

I know you're concerned with stopping them from listening to you even if they break the law, but making it so that it isn't breaking the law only means that they can try all the harder to get around your protections, again with no penalty should they be caught because it's legal.

BTW, I think you totally misinterpreted what I'm arguing. I'm not saying it should be legalized; I'm just saying that thing being violated should not be called a "reasonable expectation of privacy" because it just plain isn't. Most types of privacy violation require the spy to betray trust (e.g. a postal employee opening your letters), and/or take active steps that tend to expose the spy to detection (e.g. what was that noise outside the window?). Interception of plaintext on the Internet often isn't like that: the interceptor may very well not have any direct obligation to the participants, and he can read without anyone ever having a clue that he did so.

They exist

[Kadin2048]

In the past I would have recommended Hushmail (http://www.hushmail.com/), but apparently they've cowed to U.S. law enforcement (due to Canadian law) lately, too. Although I wonder whether by cooperating with the Feds they turned over just the encrypted messages, or the actual plaintext? I can't seem to find any details on exactly what level of cooperation they offer.

Really, what you need to find is a web-based service where the encryption/decryption is performed in the user's browser via a JS or Java applet, and thus no unencrypted information is ever transferred to the server. With nothing to turn over, they could happily cooperate. However, I'm not sure this is how Hushmail works -- it sounds like they may do the actual GPG encryption on their server, which of course ruins the entire security model.

The GPG binary is 4MB, so it's a bit large to be using in an applet directly, but I wonder if you couldn't reimplement it in Java or pare it down somehow so that you could embed it?

One of the problems with email is that, to get real security, you want to push the encryption as far out to the edges as possible. But for convenience, people are actually moving towards heavily centralized systems (Gmail, etc.) so that they can access their mail from anywhere. I think the only way you can have both is if you put the encryption engine in the browser somehow.

Re:They exist

[cayenne8]

"Really, what you need to find is a web-based service where the encryption/decryption is performed in the user's browser via a JS or Java applet, and thus no unencrypted information is ever transferred to the server. "

Well, you can install GnuPG on your own machine, and if you want to use webmail...you can use firefox and the add on ...seems to work decently.

I find it best to run your own email server...and try to set your friends up with GnuPG keys and show them how to encrypt stuff...

Sigh.

[localman]

It's a bit depressing but I don't even know how we're supposed to fight this kind of thing. Protesting seems useless. So I throw money at the only candidate who seems vociferously against this whenever I can

It's very creepy to me that the only candidates the media takes seriously are the ones who will give us more of the same. It's creepier still that so many people are okay with that. And there's such a predetermined mindset about the elections they almost seem beside the point.

Is it possible for a popular outsider like Ron Paul to be taken seriously by the media or the country? Is there any room for actual change?

Like I said, I put my money on it, but is there anything else a person can do?

Support Ron Paul and stop illegal wiretapping

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal, waranntless, e-mail spying by Homeland Security, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like from America Deceived (book) Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country. As an aside, today is Ron Paul's MASS DONATION DAY. He raised nearly $2 million by noon. Support the Revolution and stop the gov't wiretapping.

Seriously

[HeavyDevelopment]

The Bush Administration should just take the Bill of Rights out into the street and light it on fire. Because in a proverbial sense, that is exactly what they are doing.

Re:No Dissent. Evil Past and Worse Future.

[hypnagogue]

I think you've just invented retroactive conspiracy -- and simultaneously, the retroactive conspiracy nutjob.

Like you didnt expect this? America Sucks.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

This kind of stuff is becoming typical of our America isnt it? :)

clearly obvious when you think about it

[drDugan]

subject humor aside, it is understandable that the US would come to this. Fear of terrorism, and tech ability (stripped of morals) lead to the "if they can, they will" conclusion.

Given that the system that transports email does so to any address, anywhere, that system could easily be argued that it has more in common with "public space" than private space. Independent of the obvious fallacy that private companies run it -- the line between companies and govt. blurs as the US head more down the line of fascism. Shouting your message on the street corner in public affords one no expectation of privacy, so, people would argue, neither does throwing unencrypted text out into a public data exchange ether. This is not an argument I agree with, but I can see how it will (has) come to that.

For that reason, I've been hosting my own mail server since 1995, and (when possible) getting service from an ISP facility with owners I know and trust. It's a pain and time consuming - I've now learned and administered sendmail, postfix, qmail, and exim... and I read my mail on the server over an encrypted ssh connection.

I'm just saying

[ThirdPrize]

I am just saying that the problem isn't really a lack of freedom in the US and more a case of sour grapes on the original posters behalf that his team lost the election.

Re:No Dissent. Evil Past and Worse Future.

[dedazo]

As late as the 1980's some asshole decided to prove that King did not deserve his PhD

Seems to me that the issue is sufficiently documented. Why exactly do you use the term "assholes" in this context? Because they dared question something?

I don't think it makes a difference either way. MLK would have been the same person whether he plagiarized his thesis work or not. But at least there was an "asshole" who bothered to find out the truth, uncomfortable as it might be. I don't see that as being a "smear campaign" as you seem to imply.

Stealing Keys Silently vs. Notifying You

[billstewart]

There are many different issues here, but one of them is whether they can get the keys without you knowing about it. If you're the only one who has your keys, then it doesn't bother them that they need a court order to force you to hand them over, because you're going to know about it anyway. But if your ISP has access to the keys, they can give your ISP a subpoena or warrant and a gag order, and you'll never hear about it.

It's also possible for the spooks to black-bag your computer - put in keylogger software, or a camera in your ceiling, or keylogger hardware into your keyboard. IIRC, the FBI has done something like this on Mafia suspects. It's very much the kind of thing that even if they have to get a court to rubber-stamp it, as opposed to doing it warrantless, you're never going to hear about it until they've hauled you into court for whatever you're accused of doing.

Does this apply to meatspace as well?

[eaolson]

The most distressing argument the government makes in the Warshak case is that the government need not follow the Fourth Amendment in reading emails sent by or through most commercial ISPs. The terms of service (TOS) of many ISPs permit those ISPs to monitor user activities to prevent fraud, enforce the TOS, or protect the ISP or others, or to comply with legal process. If you use an ISP and the ISP may monitor what you do, then you have waived any and all constitutional privacy rights in any communications or other use of the ISP.

I live in an apartment. My apartment management can enter my apartment to perform maintenance, spray for bugs, etc. Does this mean I have no rights stopping the federal government or even just the local cops from searching my apartment sans warrant at any time they choose?

Signature Keys vs. Ephemeral Message Keys, OTR

[billstewart]

There's a difference between signature keys and message keys. In some cases, it may be reasonable (or at least useful) for a government or mafia to demand that you give them the keys used to encrypt a given message, if you have them. It's never reasonable for a government to demand signature-only private keys, since those can only be used to impersonate you, not to reveal information. (Mafias don't care if it's reasonable, but they do care about useful, or at least fun, so they might rubber-hose you into revealing them anyway.) That doesn't mean that a government won't force you to reveal your signature-only private keys, but that only compromises future conversations, not past ones, and you can at least argue about the issue in court.

So if you need privacy in a UK reveal-your-keys environment, you need a cryptosystem where you don't keep the encryption keys for a given session that they might have eavesdropped on. (They can still demand that you give them the keys for files you've saved on your disk drive, if they can find your disk drive, but you don't have to save incriminating files.) Diffie-Hellman is the standard crypto protocol for generating session keys, and you can reinforce it with signature keys if you want to be sure who you're talking to. It's used in IPSEC session setup, and there are other crypto applications that can use it.

Off-The-Record Messaging is Ian, Nikita, and Eric's protocol for an ephemeral-key session tool that can integrate with applications like Gaim. It has authentication built into it, so you can be sure that you're talking to the person you think you're talking to, but doesn't save message keys in a way that lets anybody decrypt messages later or prove who you were talking to. By contrast, PGP / GPG lets you encrypt email messages, but anybody who intercepts them can force you to decrypt them later, because the message key is fairly persistent (you might change it yearly, but you're not going to change it every day.)

Sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

The next president will be slow to change anything laid out by this current administration, no matter what the public wants and how anti-American / moronic said law / policy is. This is the current problem with the democratic congress. People voted overwhelmingly for "change" with this past election but what really had changed? Arguably nothing at all.

Congress and the next president - democrat or republican - despite their belief that the current administrations policies are un-American, will be afraid of appearing weak and won't do a damn thing.

Re:Sad but true

[Scratch-O-Matic]

That's a very interesting (and reasonable) point of view, but it makes me wonder: if the President and the Congress, and presumably the public, from the way these things are reported, think that these policies are so bad, then to whom would the President (elected to office by that same public) be afraid of appearing weak? I thought the current President was out there on his own on this?

You're right

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost as if the Democrats and Republicans are both controlled by the same group of criminals.

welcome to fascism

[DragonTHC]

look at the facts: most legislation is now written by industry trade groups. Congressheep usually pass them without reading them. The U.S. Congress chooses the corporate group over the people group. Our government has instilled fear in the people and used that fear to take away civil liberties. Our government has gone to war and given billions of dollars in contracts to companies our public officials were formerly associated with. Our government has suspended various clauses of the Constitution without oversight or repercussion.

according to the marxist encyclopaedia the nine hallmarks of fascism are:

1. Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc - in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.

2. Nationalism: Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicious of foreigners.

3. Hierarchy: Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of society - every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat - and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy (e.g. Communism) is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed.

4. Anti-equality: Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example.

5. Religious: Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Nearly all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches.

6. Capitalist: Fascism does not require revolution to exist in captialist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficient and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed.

7. War: Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wrecking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.

8. Voluntarist Ideology: Fascism adopts a certain kind of "voluntarism;" they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist.

9. Anti-Modern: Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimis

Re:No Dissent. Evil Past and Worse Future.

[E 99]

WTF does subpoenaing have to do with spying? And WTF does either subpoenaing or spying have to do with harassing MLK when he was in college instead of when he was a public figure?

Your rights are not up to your ISP (or government)

[He Who Waits]

Nope.

While there are certain differences of meaning between the terms "self-evident", "natural", and "inalienable" with respect to your rights, all three boil down to the same basic principle: You can't waive your rights, either accidentally or purposely.

Yeesh! I'm just a Canadian and even I know that!

Gov't program to wipe our asses

[wardk]

it's coming. come on, do you want terrorists wiping your ass? I didn't think so, that's why we need W to come over and do it. he's got clearance.

The More Things Change...

[coaxial]

In war, the law falls silent.

                                -- Cicero.

The fact that GWOT is a complete political fabrication is besides the point. It's the justification.

Re:No Dissent. Evil Past and Worse Future.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are some nice logic leaps you have going on there. Tinfoil hat on too tight?

Then renters lose all 4th amendment rights.

[darkonc]

If this arguments works, then --
If renters sign a form that says that the landord can enter in the case of emergency, etc. to inspect the suite, fix a major problem, etc., then the police can piggy-back on that and simply 'ask' the landlord to 'do an inspection' and let them in .. There goes your 4th amendment rights. QED.

It would also imply that phone calls are no longer sacrosant, and necessary to get a subpoena, because all you have to do is (similarly) piggy-back on the repair crew's occasional need to listen in to (sometimes) semi-random lines to either find a given line or ensure that quality is up to snuff.

two sides of the coin?

[3seas]

For personal email it would be against the constitution of Americas privacy issues.
There are reasons for protecting such privacies, such as protection against unfair advantages of business information, personal relationship medeling, etc...

Private means private,

The other side of the coin is if they intend to track spam and scam responses, however thios could also easily step over the line as to what is allowed in the constitution.

Overall it seems to me that we have been getting to many politician and other government employed people that don't seem to know what it is they are supposed to be standing for.

I bet if you gave illegal immigrants the opportunity to become citizens by knowing what the country is supposed to be about, they would be far more knowledgeable then most americans.

Re:No Dissent. Evil Past and Worse Future.

[Anonymous Coward]

Further, the rationale they're using is so broad that sending any form of message via any privately owned intermediary automatically waives constitutional rights. The ramifications of this kind of thinking as precedent--in the hands of this administration in particular--are extraordinarily troubling.

Re:IF you didn't vote Libertarian You ASKED FOR TH

[notamisfit]

If you think *any* political movement can solve the philosophical failings in the American people, you're asking for it just as much.

A little ditty

[Unlikely_Hero]

When the executive branch becomes frightful,
and your privacy was oh so delightful,
when your scared to talk comfortably
gpg! gpg! gpg!

Privatizing the Surveillance State

[handy_vandal]

I predict that for at least the duration of life on Earth, we will not hear of any surveillance program being shut down by order of the President.

I predict that we will hear about surveillance programs being shut down -- and that what we hear will be untrue.

-kgj

Full text of the 4th ammendment

[davidwr]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I hope the reason they took the case was so they could send a message by voting unanimously in favor of the Constitution.

On the expectation of privacy

[sjames]

I think it is time to recognize an additional aspect to the expectation of privacy.

We have the conventional and well understood expectation that in my own house with doors, windows and curtains closed, I can expect not to have outsiders listening in or peeping under the door.

The other form that is not so recognized is what you might call New York City privacy. That is, even though in a very public place, I am just another indistinct face in the crowd and nobody gives a crap what I'm doing as long as I don't have a gun (perhaps only if I fire it!) In 5 minutes, nobody will even remember I was there. Should I sit down and have a quiet conversation, I may reasonably expect that nobody cares and nobody is listening (possibly even the person I'm talking to). Use of highly tuned shotgun mikes, telephoto lenses and lipreaders, and lasers picking my voice up from a nearby window are a violation of reasonable expectation. That's not to say those are strictly forbidden to police, only that a warrant should be required first.

Similarly, my 2k email or web transaction is just a spit in the ocean as far as the internet is concerned. Special monitoring of my particular traffic is like using the various spy gear above. It should require a warrant.

Well said

[SiChemist]

I never seem to have mod points when I need them, so I have awarded you a +1 insightful wish-I-had-modpoints award.

Re:Well said

[fyngyrz]

Thank you.

Often, I'd rather have an actual *comment* than a rating; witness the fact that the post has already received an "overrated" mod. Doesn't do to get too excited about slash moderation, at least until, or unless, they take the broken part (the anonymous part) away. When people are accountable, they're a lot less likely to act stupidly.

Re:No Dissent. Evil Past and Worse Future.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Why exactly do you use the term "assholes" in this context? Because they dared question something?

I thought the same thing! It seems to me that there are two possible scenarios. One, the GP thinks that you're an asshole if you dissent, but society is evil if no-one does, or two, the GP only likes certain subjects to be dissented.

Actually, I think the GP's whole argument is bogus. As I was saying further up the thread*, total control over people is ludicrously expensive. It's far easier and cheaper to keep citizens satisfied by doing a decent job at running the country. Modern US citizens have pretty much everything they want, and the prospects of new governments don't really excite them. In short, the most efficient and effective way to quash dissent is to stop it at its source.

* it won't be modded up, knowing the moderators who prowl these YRO articles

MOD DOWN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods... as usual... allow me to counsel you on something. The parent post is not funny. That's just our dear little Stevie thinking that he's going to get some karma.

And are we going to let that happen? Hell no. The whole point here, as it has been for the last ten years, is to shit all over everything that Stevie does. So mod him down. Look at his comment history. Hardly a single one over the last two months has gone without us being able to add some repulsive and inflammatory shit to it. Whenever his karma gets above terrible we we hit him with three more troll mods. Look at his comment history. See those three troll mods? That's US. WE did that. There is nothing that poor little Stevie can do about it. It doesn't matter where he goes, it doesn't matter how long he's homeless, it doesn't matter what he does.

WE WILL BE THERE TO SHIT ON IT.

Mod him down mods. Let's get the entire world together to pound on him. Send him one clear message,"The only thing left for you in life, Stevie, you poor pathetic piece of shit, is to KILL YOURSELF!"

This is what happens when you piss us off, Stevie. This is what happens when you won't let us run your life and tell you where to go, and what to do, and how to do it, whenever we want. We have more money than you. We have more social connections than you. We know more sysadmins than you do. We have access to more VPNs and more routers and more switches and more logs than you do. You have no chance you pathetic little homeless cock-whore.

KILL YOURSELF!

It doesn't even matter if you eventually get a job. We have sysadmins everywhere. We can find you, we can find your IP address, we can find where you live, we have your resume, we WILL call wherever you work, and we will play your parole officer, or your counselor, or your psychologist, or even your fucking mother... and we will tell them that you're a child molester, that you're a pedophile, that you're a anarchist terrorist. Your life will be shit until you KILL YOURSELF.

Difference between US and PRC

[Anonymous Coward]

The circumstances you've been kind enough to outline bear a STRIKING resemblance to US reservation policy up to as recently as the 1990's. Think there's a big difference with China? Maybe you'd better ask an American Indian about it, the answer might be ....educational.

internation legal issues

[mr_musan]

I do wonder how they propose to tackle the issue of opening up emails that just happen to be passing though the states ?

I mean in most of the free world one still requires an court order to access personal information, so if the states was to access this information wouldn't they be violating that countries law ?

well not that the government nor the people of the middle country in north america ever cared about any one else, but dam it i don't want my freedoms squised by them !

Solution

[mycin17]

http://www.bigstring.com/

As Jon Stewert asked

[Bo'Bob'O]

Why are the republicans so determined to make Hillery the most powerful president ever?

Re:As Jon Stewert asked

[gr8scot]

But, that's easy. Because she's one of them. She makes plenty of noise about being generous with taxpayer money, but when was the last time she ever risked $0.10 of political capital for personal liberty?

She's no liberal.

You're going down, little man.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those authors weren't trying to enumerate the "only" places you were to be secure, they were trying to say you should be secure PERIOD unless... oath, probable cause, warrant. I read the "persons, houses, papers and effects" as a general set of guidelines that is broadly inclusive; that reading is particularly supported by "effects", because that word is about as non-explicit as you can get in the language of the day."

In this connection, it's worth looking at the ninth amendment, which states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The thinking is pretty clear -- we know some lawyer is going to try to twist this language around to say that our description of the people's rights serves to limit their rights; but it does not. The people are endowed by their Creator with *at least* the rights that the Constitution describes -- and then some.

There's no reason to doubt that the people who wrote and ratified our Bill of Rights intended us -- their heirs -- to live free and to have our privacy. They didn't expect or intend that advancing technology would make our rights obsolete. So now we have to wonder, what are those few who now want to deprive us of this legacy up to? What is in their twisted little minds that they want the power to read all our email? Or, to put it another way -- why do some people hate America's freedoms?

I feel sorry for them. But not enough to want to save them from their inevitable fate. These haters are going down. The handwriting is in the tube.

Waiving my Freak Flag - not.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't waive a constitutional right. You can't sell it. You're stuck with it. That's what "unalienable" means, in the case of rights.

As to whether people would consent to give up their rights, maybe try asking them about one of the other ones, like freedom of religion. Hey, there, Lubbock Texas dudez, to save you from Al Qaeda I haz decidered that you all haz to be Jews now and git sorghum-sized. Or else you kin chooz to be Hindooz because I has secret Preznit acchernobyl intelligences.

Or perhaps you would like to volunteer for the involuntary servitude program?

I don't think so. Not gonna happen, dog.

The fallacy of "private company" = no constitution

[plasmacutter]

If a company has blatantly racist policies, people can sue them for violating their constitutional rights.

Private postage companies must still obey anti-snooping laws for mail.

electronic communications over the internet between private parties is directly equivalent to snail mail, and needs to be treated as such.

private companies and privately owned apartment complexes provide "po boxes", but the government is not allowed to search them despite the boxes location in a "public", privately owned location.

as for TOS.. internet providers are like highway, water, or sewage providers, they should not be allowed period to impose such unreasonable contract terms.

If I don't post again...

[Palpitations]

Assume I'm being tortured overseas.

In response to this, I used one of the domain names I've had for a while and not used to inform my friends about what is going on. I link to information regarding personal security, advise my friends to switch to Linux + TrueCrypt, give links to GnuPG, and reference this article (as well as the standard "use Firefox/Adblock+/NoScript/FilterSet.G" advice) as my email sig...

I'm not a conspiracy nut... When I was born I was very thankful to be born in America. I remember, as a child, hearing "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - and even at 5 years old I knew it was an event that shook the foundations of the world. I can remember where I was when the Bush 41 election results were being reported - seeing state after state light up red on the TV. Not bad for someone who is just 25 years old.

I have had my eye on politics since I was very young... And in my lifetime, I have never been more scared for my country, and for the world, than I am now. We have people in the administration who are guilty of treason on multiple counts - and very few people are willing to call them out.

Before I ramble too much, let me just say that everyone is guilty of something. The poor get punished severely for the smallest of crimes, the rich get, at most, a few months in what is essentially a luxury resort. It's time for everyone to hide every activity they have - from the most benign to the questionable. And it's time we rise up and reject the system as it stands.