Slashdot Mirror
China Wants UN To Help Trace Sources On Internet
An anonymous reader brings us a CNet story, which begins:
"A United Nations agency is quietly drafting technical standards, proposed by the Chinese government, to define methods of tracing the original source of Internet communications and potentially curbing the ability of users to remain anonymous. The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the 'IP Traceback' drafting group, named Q6/17, which is meeting next week in Geneva to work on the traceback proposal. Members of Q6/17 have declined to release key documents, and meetings are closed to the public. The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous, which is protected by law in the United States and recognized in international law by groups such as the Council of Europe, has alarmed some technologists and privacy advocates. Also affected may be services such as the Tor anonymizing network."
Wouldn't the ISPs have to be in on this? And there are always still proxies...
--
find my ip address
They are usually dog slow but at least they think your message comes from Argentina or South Africa.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
First po....wait someone at the door
It's only a right insofar as you're not committing any crimes. While there are definitely troubling implications to being able to identify people on the Internet (especially considering who's involved here.. China and the NSA..), being able to track down and prosecute scammers, spammers, and other criminals is a worthwhile goal.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Since the courts agreed it is:
"...numerous courts have upheld the right to anonymity online in similar contexts." -ACLU
The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous, which is protected by law in the United States and recognized in international law by groups such as the Council of Europe
try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
when the americans and the chinese have the same goals
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
If the tech community makes enough buzz about this, it's likely that we can put the pin back in this grenade. Nobody is going to want to support violating the sanctity of The Internet in an important U.S. election year!
There already exists a process for getting a name from an I.P. address, and that process thankfully requires court action / subpoena of ISP. Let's keep them in the loop, and make this tracing a relatively hard thing to get, with lots of human approvals needed.
Hopefully, this proposed short-circuiting of the judicial branch will just help the United Nations -- totally overstepping its proper bounds -- slide into further irrelevance. Even if the U.N. does serve a proper function in today's world, this certainly is way beyond its domain.
--
Hey code monkey, learn electronics! Microcontroller kits for the digital generation.
In the USA there are two types of rights: enumerated and reserved. The enumerated ones are spelled out in the Constitution. At the end of the Constitution, it says (paraphrased) 'and all rights not spelled out here is reserved by the people'. That leaves a lot of territory and so pretty much any activity can be called a 'right' under that broad statement. So the tricky part is getting those reserved rights codified somehow so you know exactly what you can and cannot get away with. 'Privacy', 'anonymity', etc, are all reserved rights. The most famous is probably 'privacy'. The SCOTUS has on several occasions ruled that it was a reasonable right people should expect and they've applied it to abortion and birth control cases. That's all another rant as to whether abortion is a privacy issue or its own thing; the main point is that if you're pissed off that everything is claimed as an intrinsic right then you're probably in a country that doesn't have a Constitution that open endedly reserves a tremendous amount of power to its citizens the way the US one does.
Guess somebody should have actually showed up for American History classes instead of smoking dope in the bathroom.
The United Stats (TFS:"The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the "IP Traceback" drafting group") and major western corporations (PDF linked from article) also support the proposal. What a surprise.
"What's distressing is that it doesn't appear that there's been any real consideration of how this type of capability could be misused," said Marc Rotenberg"
Wait... How can you correctly use this service? It seems like something only the clandestine agencies and major corporations of the world would like to see happen.
Anyways, according to TFS, this proposal would almost certainly have to modify existing protocols. Can't that be blocked by the CS/Engineering community members who sit on respective committees? Can international/national governments really force IETF to do something, as the article claims?
1. this article is about other countries as well, in which (shockingly) your laws are meaningless
2. your own government doesn't stick to the rules anyway
for me i consider privacy a right, but anonymity is purely dependant on the situation. should scammers have the right to post shit anonymously? of course they don't, hence it's not a "right".
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
1. As usual, some non-American is getting on a high horse despite my post clearly stating its my local view. The US is part of the whole world and in the absense of Happy Unity Total World Government, everyone can feel free to post their local interpretation. No, the UN is not a world government. And most member nations are NOT democracies. And as afraid to complain as the citizens of some countries are (see article for a place called 'China'), Americans are happy to complain loudly enough to make up the difference.
2. Each branch interprets its role according to the rules its own way. One branch complaining another branch is not following the rules needs the third to mediate, not automatic condemnation, regardless of what the news anchors and comedy show hosts may imply.
Okay, so what about a country like China that makes it a crime to be a dissident? *
Make no mistake, this is a bad, bad thing.
[setenv rant=ON]
* For example, those two old ladies that were sent to "re-education camp" during the Olympics because they had the temerity to go through the official application process required to use the official protest area set aside by the Chinese government for the specific purpose of allowing peaceful, nondisruptive demonstrations. They only made that area available to satisfy international concerns, (ie, to give the IOC a fig leaf to hide behind on rights issues), and then used it as a trap to catch any of their own citizens that might be lulled into thinking it was safe to speak.
China does not give a dusty rat turd about rights (of their own citizens, or anyone else's), as clearly demonstrated by their willingness to disingenuously double back on their promise of allowing protests. They gambled that the rest of the world would stand by and let it happen, instead of rightfully shaming the Chinese government for their actions, and judging by the international response (practically nil), they were right.
[setenv rant=OFF]
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Steve Bellovin (granddaddy of IP firewalling) gives his (strongly negative) opinion here. He points out that it would be in seeming contradiction to the UN Charter.
It is a US-hosted site with a majority of its users being americans. Of course he brought up the system we have in the US.
What did you expect? A dissertation on rights in every single country, state and municipality in the world? If you don't expect him to enumerate EVERY SINGLE system of rights on the planet, then you acknowledge that he has to choose what to talk about. If he has to choose what to talk about, wouldn't it make sense that he talks about what he is most knowledgable in?
Now,
2. your own government doesn't stick to the rules anyway
I'll be the first to bash our government on our technology policy, but your quote, while factually accurate, is misleading. Yes, there is a big controversy over the government wiretapping without a warrant, but that doesn't change (what the article is talking about) the ability to be anonymous. We still have free internet cafes and other points we can get to the internet anonymously and post dissident material, which is a bedrock of our society. The court even struck down a state anti-spam law because it removed the right to anonymity.
for me i consider privacy a right, but anonymity is purely dependant on the situation. should scammers have the right to post shit anonymously? of course they don't, hence it's not a "right".
I don't know where you're from, but in a number of jurstictions (including, I would assume all democracies), the right to privacy _is_ a right. It is in the US, and it is in the UK/EU.
In fact, I think that the right to anonymity (in terms of speech) is a fundamental right in a free and open society.
-Bucky
If your friendly government has a tool that it says will "only be used against the bad guys". What to keep you from being a "bad guy" when an unfriendly government comes to power (either by force or by coercion)
-Bucky
You don't have a right to privacy, or to anonymity. You do have a right not to be forced to assist in your own surveillance.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
your own government doesn't stick to the rules anyway
All governments try to fuck over their citizens.
This is why the American concept of natural rights (derived from the Enlightenment) is so important. Rights are not something granted by government. They belong to all living beings and cannot be revoked by any government.
If the government is messing around with your rights too much it is your right and duty to fix it.
then its ok if they can find out who you are.
There's different kinds of anonynimity, there's the one where no-one truly knows who you are (eg you send an anonymous letter to a journalist), then there's the one where someone knows who you are but refuses to divulge that information (eg a journalist who has interviewed you and posts your story as an anonymous source).
Both provide you with the same anonymity, but the latter obviously carries more authority.
If the courts have decided that you have the right to anonymity online, then its surely ok for (say) your ISP to know who you are - they cannot reveal that information unless they get a court order allowing them to violate your legal right.
This latter form of anonyminity wouldn't apply to spammers, scammers, bullies and other malicious scum (ie the courts would grant a warrant everytime) and so might help to stop them and would make the internet an altogther better place to be.
Where are the government's rights to know who I am?
I've been to China and have nothing to do with it so it sure as hell doesn't have the right to nose in on my life.
Anyone who doesn't want to be caught already uses some form of obfuscation, and I don't see how adding "tracing" to the IP protocol (presumably some kind of unique signature in the packet which doesn't get stripped out in routing) could possibly stop even current techniques.
For example, how could they possibly defeat proxy servers? A proxy server rewrites the request totally, keeping no part of the original packet. Proxy servers are not perfect, they can be snooped locally or via timing attacks at say the national gateway level, but I can't see how this would work.
Also, just think about the glacial implementation pace of IPv6 - and I don't think there's any special "tracing" function in that. Now another protocol? Good luck with that.
So, an impossible-to-get-implemented new protocol which is easily defeated anyway. It's a bad idea, evil even IMO, but I'm not too worried about freedom of speech on the internet for the time being.
Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Maybe you shouldn't have the right to voice your opinion online? Taking that freedom away won't take food or housing away from you so you don't need it and to be quite honest once you're easily traced someone might just take the right away from you when you say something you don't like.
To be honest I think you'll deserve it but the rest of us don't. If you're so against anonymity then why not post your name and address here. Clearly you're for that so why not be a leader instead of a follower and start the trend to destroy anonymous internet surfing?
...why the little policeman at the edge of their screen is happy.
He knows where they live.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
hm... since 90% of internet traffic goes through US pipes and US computers, I'd say that US law has a lot of relevance here. As for your point about the US government not sticking to the law... that is debatable, and either way, corrections to abuses always happen in due time. That's why the US supreme court plays such an important role.
-- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
Free speech is a natural right. It is something anyone can do that can only be eliminated by state actions of the most oppressive and wasteful kinds. Nothing is more wasteful or oppressive than state efforts to identify and retaliate against people who say things the state does not like. Speech without anonymity is not free and states that make efforts to eliminate anonymity in speech are unAmerican.
Shame on the US for cooperating with China to eliminate free speech on the internet. Such a program would obviously violate the first amendment to the US Constition which bans all laws that infringe on freedom of speech and press.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What really irritates me is that just sending or receiving an e-mail from a particular address, or even general location, could be enough to get you well and truly screwed. Time for some kind of TwInternet...one that includes a whole bunch of off-shore infrastructure that scrubs stuff thoroughly on its way from A to B. One without a bunch of fascists in the driver's seat.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Maybe self-righteous trolls don't have a "right" to free speech, and ergo shouldn't be posting to /.?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Seems like people disagree
Knows everything about nothing and nothing about everything.
I'm not saying they're a represssive totalitarian obsolete regime bent on owning the world's raw resources.
I'm just saying in a game show the M.C. would say to China: "You are the biggest problem. Good bye."
Ehud
Just look at your POTS phone service. Here the government has been able to add laws and taxes for over half a century. And they have: Full traceback, full surveillance access as well as: Access tax, federal excist tax, state tax, local tax, Universal service tax, 911 tax, LNP tax and TRS tax.
Expect the internet to be worse than this over time.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Only if you don't spend it. And if you cannot spend it, why bother?
Well, that bothers me, too. One should just remember that anonymous Swiss account were created to protect Jews from Nazi prosecution. But, still, the police has plenty of ways to investigate suspicious fortunes without intruding into bank accounts. Like, let's say, check the IRS returns for that guy with the Rolls Royce, Ferrari, and yacht who's building that big house over there. Any big transaction is bound to become public by other means than snooping into people's private lives.
... and no abuse will ever take place ...
Actually, I do have a right to privacy.
If you live in the US like I do, the only time I don't have rights is when it is explicitly stated so by the Constitution. Does the US Constitution say that I don't have a right to privacy? The answer is no.
On the converse, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly state I have said right, I STILL HAVE it. The Constitution does say that any right not listed is in the domain of the people, not the government. Therefore, I have the right, and just because you decide to give up yours doesn't mean I have to.
That doesn't mean the government can't change their mind and write it in ... but it hasn't happened yet.
It would seem that a lot of people would like to find out the information about users BEHIND the great firewall...
What struck me about this, is the fact that such things always seem to be designed by committee. I'm currently in the process of designing network hardware, and every time I look at IPv4 I can't help thinking: there's 8 too many bytes in the IPv4 header. One should have source and destination addresses, a length, a ttl and sub-protocol number. Everything else is just design-by-committee candy. That leads to two conclusions (for me at least): if you want to make a good spec, you should keep things simple, and 2) if you want to stop this kind of invasive nonsense, you should also keep things simple. It's nice when 'good' and 'non-invasive' seem to go hand in hand so well. I hope that the (much more influential than me) people who design the stuff that we all have to live with for years to come, take this to heart.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
The UN Human Rights Council was recently taken over by extremist Islamic states, who redefined the role of the council as protecting the world from "abuses" of free speech.
So China now has an ally in the UN.
In a few years, "unislamic" content providers will start to feel the heat.
A person makes an intelligent point and you post something like 'Score -2 stupid American?
I am an American. IMO, we should pull out of the UN. It is a failed idea, corrupted by dictators and tyrants. It seeks to form the world into a single government... and that government would NOT be a democracy.
So how about a Mod down to Troll for this A-Hole.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
Free speech is a natural right.
No! Free speech is not a natural right. We just live in a country where we have free speech.
If you are publicly doing something, you don't have any right not to be observed. You don't even have a right to prevent someone observing you from trying to determine your identity. Even if you take steps to hide your identity, you still don't have a right to prevent anyone from using whatever information they can observe.
But don't underestimate my second point - that you have a right not to be forced to assist your own surveillance. I'll add to that that you have a right not to have your property used without your consent, i.e., no breaking and entering, etc. Those two combined provide powerful protections for privacy, but the responsibility is still on you to protect yourself, and you have a right to take any of those measures you deem necessary.
Think about it, almost all surveillance techniques now require your participation in order to be effective. Red light cameras only work because you are required to have an identifying plate attached in a specific visible location on your car. Banking surveillance only works because you, and your bank, are required to provide identifying documents and transaction records when you open and use an account. This law would be the same thing, you, and your ISP, would be required to use a communications protocol that does you no good, but provides a way to trace your activity.
The only reason there is a need for a made up right to privacy is that the requirements to participate in surveillance are so ubiquitous that we forget they're even there, until the results get used in a way we don't like. But that misuse is not the problem, the problem is that the information is forced to be provided in the first place. Privacy rights, as discussed today, are just a bandage, they don't address the core problem.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
Um.. no.. look at the final medal count. China only won the gold medal count, and that was because of a lot of the standard 'home field advantage' that happens in EVERY Olympics. The US 'won' the Olympics with total medal count of 110 vs China's 100. Plus we have Micheal Phelps. That guy should have been in every sport with water... water polo, synchronized swimming.. you name it.
No.. we blame China because it is an oppressive regime who doesn't give a crap about human rights.
Any government who engages in 're-education' should be destroyed by any means necessary. So yes, I blame China for a lot of things, the deserve it. And just for the record, since someone with take things I have said and apply them wrong. I am not refering the to the Chinese people. I have a great respect for Chinese history and culture prior to the 'cultural revolution'. No.. it is the Chinese government I can not stand. I would gladly line them all up and put a bullet in there collective heads (that includes all tyrants like Putin, Chavez, Kim Jong-il, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, and so many more. Heck.. I will even pull the trigger AND pay for the bullets.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
Ya, cant let our citizens speak out without being identifiable by the government.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well thats easy: By definition, governments don't like unabated anonymous speech.
The ability to ( effectively ) hide is what scares the government the most about the internet.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
(For our chineese brothers and sisters - who will have true freedom of speach one day)
Use Case
1.5 Proxy "Safe harbor" A political opponent to a government publishes articles putting the government in an unfavorable light. The government, having a law against any opposition, tries to identify the source of the negative articles but the articles having been published via a proxy server, is unable to do so protecting the anonymity of the author.
... prohibits all secrecy with regard to laws, or the development processes for all laws.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
A person makes an intelligent point and you post something like 'Score -2 stupid American?
I am an American. IMO, we should pull out of the UN. It is a failed idea, corrupted by dictators and tyrants. It seeks to form the world into a single government... and that government would NOT be a democracy.
So how about a Mod down to Troll for this A-Hole.
Score -3: Even Stupider Fox-American.
The UN is useless. The only reason it hasn't gone the way of the League of Nations is because of nuclear weapons. Mutually assured destruction has done more to prevent another World War than the UN ever did.
It depends on your agenda. if you are trying to slowly move to a one world government situation with each country losing its sovereignty and all laws dropping to the lowest common denominator, then you are still on track for that goal to be successful.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I don't know where you're from, but in a number of jurstictions (including, I would assume all democracies), the right to privacy _is_ a right. It is in the US, and it is in the UK/EU.
In fact, I think that the right to anonymity (in terms of speech) is a fundamental right in a free and open society.
IANAL, but my impression was slightly different than your +5 Insightful comment would indicate.
Links?
-Matt
> Um.. no.. look at the final medal count. China only won the gold medal count, and that was because of a lot of the standard 'home field advantage' that happens in EVERY Olympics
Funny how the US is the only country to order the table that way (as far as I looked). The rest of the world sort by gold, then silver, then bronze, and they think you're pathetic for ordering it any other way.
The US is best at losing, that's all. I best the US would be best if you counted all the other positions too. Heck, what happens if you include all the Paralympics into consideration too. Oh, it seems that the US loses on total too, if you do that.
I stand by my 'thrashed' statement.
Max.
I know, I know — America's NSA is "in on it" too (and most will, no doubt, suspect, that their participation is due to the worst intentions). But, at least, they are our spies — subject to our laws, responsible to our lawmakers.
Any increase of control over the Internet by the UN automatically means increase of control by China, Russia, et al. "The world", which, for example, is still unsure, who did 9/11 talks about being "multipolar" — they should be careful, what they wish for...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
The more they try to control it, the more people will revolt and go against it.
... then it will just be hacked by spammers and the origin will be forged.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
It seeks to form the world into a single government... and that government would NOT be a democracy.
Ummm... not really. In fact, not at all. I'd only start worrying about that when the UN gets a genuine army rather than a bunch of "peacekeepers" donated by member states.
But it's definitely a failed idea corrupted by tyrants and dictators. Oh, and the democracies being addicted to the natural resources supplied by the dictators and tyrants.
I find it incredibly backwards that China is asking for this. It is practically impossible to get any kind of justice from China, which is why a large number of hosts treat Chinese IPs as hostile. If you get scammed by someone within the great firewall, there is no legal recourse.
If China wants to play with the rest of the world, they need to start playing by our rules. I'm sure we all want to tap into their demographic, but until we can do that in a safe and controller manner, I don't see any reason why we should grant them any privileges.
With privilege comes responsibility.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous...
There is no such right.
You don't own the internet, and you don't have any rights, other then perhaps consumer rights from your ISP (minimum level of acceptable service, etc).
Its like suggesting we have a right to force power companies to supply power to anonymous homes. Theres no such thing. You can ask to remain anonymous to your power company, but thats upto the power companies to decide, otherwise they can decline (which they almost always would)
Being anonymous on the internet isn't a right, its not even a privildge, its simply how the internet works.
If the internet changes so that you can no longer be anonymous, your rights haven't been effected. Your options for anonymous outlets have been been reduced.
The only rights people have (unless they own a telecommuntion company that might be affected by this) are the rights of a consumer.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
AC troll = success
(troll rubs hands with glee as it counts outraged replies, regards its diminutive and all-too-short-lived stiffy with wonder, knows in its heart of hearts that it would never get another if people would stop feeding trolls, plots next troll with renewed sense of purpose)
No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
It's been a longstanding chronic misinterpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to conclude that anything in those documents attempts to define anonymity as a "right". No one has a right to be anonymous. You might get away with remaining somewhat anonymous in this or that context - say, the Internet - for a period of time, but it's not a right. "No man is an island"... ever heard that cliche? What it means is that what you do has an effect on others around you, unless you actually live alone on an island Crusoe-like. You don't, do you? As a consequence, those other people have a right to know who the hell you are and what the hell you're up to, because your actions might very well involve or affect them.
This is exactly why so many people hate(d) small towns: the small-town paradigm, where everybody knows everyone else and what they're up to, is exactly the sort of ethical underpinning that is required. Yank people out of those small towns and drop them into a big impersonal metropolis, where people can often get away with a considerable degree of anonymity, and they tend to behave in ways they wouldn't have dared in the small town.
We need the small-town paradigm and its absence of anonymity, if we hope to preserve any shred of our ethical heritage. Jefferson and the Founders never had this in mind. Britain is actually attempting to solve this problem, amidst all the whining about Big Brother. Personally I think they could easily deflect that criticism by making all the cameras available via feeds on the 'Net, so that any citizen can watch them and report on what they see... a sort of Neighborhood Watch, rather than Big Brother.
Depends upon where you are. In the United States, everything is an intrinsic right, except those few that are reserved for the Federal Government. That government has been treading on our rights for some time now, and this is just the latest extension.
People make the mistake of assuming that the Constitution enumerates all the rights that we citizens have, and that the rest are privileges granted by the Government. The exact opposite is true, and we've been remiss in reminding our elected leaders of that fact.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
and Obama (who worships at the altar of the U.N.) is seen leading the cheers. If you think your rights are in danger from Bush and conservatives, just wait until the lefties have their way. The left was responsible for millions of deaths in the last century. Now they are going for a new record in this century.
Abolishing anonymity (read: total impunity) for criminals and troublemakers on the Internet can only be a good thing.
I know that this POV would be highly unfashionable amongst the long-haired anarchist libertoons that infest Slashdot and the FOSS community in general, but I completely fail to see why 'privacy' should always trump the rule of law.
If you don't like the way things work in your country, then you can either exercise your right to vote for somebody who agrees with you, or in countries where you can't you can employ more direct methods. If you're hell bent on fighting the Man, anonymity on the Internet won't buy you much. If you want to be a martyr or revolutionary, the mere existence of the Internet is not going to obviate the need to spill your own blood to maintain your freedom.
All anonymity and privacy on the Internet buys us, is the situation we have now: total anarchy and impunity for every shade of grifter, fraudster, racketeer and con artist out there. There's a very good reason why every criminal piece of shit on the planet is flocking to cybercrime in droves: the chances of being held to account for one's actions (especially if you're determined) are infinitesimally small.
The problem is so bad, that cybercrime now makes more money than the drugs trade. And the idiot libertoon bedroom freedom fighters amongst you are partly to blame.
I'd only start worrying about that when the UN gets a genuine army rather than a bunch of "peacekeepers" donated by member states.
Unlikely. The U.N. is not self-sustaining: if they tried anything like that they'd find themselves without funding the very next day.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
OK, redo the table. Include the paralympics too, and device the number of medals by population.
That would be interesting...I'll bet that the USA doesn't come anywhere near top.
Max.
No. The difference between these two types of anonymity is that the former actually protects you against a tyrant, while the latter only protects you against a nice, law-abiding, touchy-feely tyrant who'd never torture your name out of the journalist.
No, that is not okay, not if you're doing anything actually important with your anonymity. It wouldn't be okay even if the ISP's and everyone else involved could actually be trusted to obey the laws - which they can't, as the whole telcom wiretap issue and following retroactive immunity proves.
The problem is: what happens when the malicious scum is the accuser, rather than the accused ?
"Accountability" sure sounds nice, until you realize just who you're be accountable for.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
If only the autorities spent as much energy doing something REAL about burglars (house breakers), muggers, rapists and all the other low-lifes that make everyday law abiding people's lives a f-ing misery.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Yes, there is a big controversy over the government wiretapping without a warrant, but that doesn't change (what the article is talking about) the ability to be anonymous. We still have free internet cafes and other points we can get to the internet anonymously and post dissident material, which is a bedrock of our society. The court even struck down a state anti-spam law because it removed the right to anonymity.
for me i consider privacy a right, but anonymity is purely dependant on the situation. should scammers have the right to post shit anonymously? of course they don't, hence it's not a "right".
I don't know where you're from, but in a number of jurstictions (including, I would assume all democracies), the right to privacy _is_ a right. It is in the US, and it is in the UK/EU.
In fact, I think that the right to anonymity (in terms of speech) is a fundamental right in a free and open society.
Unfortunately in Italy you cannot anonymously go into an internet caffee. At least according to the law, you need to show an ID. Besides being police-state bullshit, this has lots of annoying practical implications. For instance a cafee or hotel cannot simply leave an open wireless access point in it's premises for it's customer's convenience, it needs to have individual authentication for each user, and ID them all (which isn't big news for hotels, since you can't even check in at a hotel in Italy, without an ID!)
While I, as a citizen of the U.S., find it somewhat alarming that a member of the NSA would be involved in the group that is working on this proposal, I admit that's a knee-jerk reaction. Things may have gone pretty far south in this country because of the last eight years or so of administrations, but we haven't had the First Admendment repealed either -- not that some haven't wished for it or tried (reference: G.W. Bush saying the Constitution is "only a piece of paper"). Still having a measure of belief that what the U.S. was originally founded on hasn't been (completely) destroyed, I'll foster the hope that the NSA's involvement in this is more likely largely to keep an eye on what China has brewing -- at best to keep it in check, at worst to at least see what's coming.
Something that occurred to me while I was reading TFA: Wouldn't IPv6 be an intrinsic part of a traceback technology? We certainly all believe that IPv4 address space is rapidly running out, and that ostensibly IPv6 is going to "save us", and we've all heard that everyone on the planet could be issued an IPv6 address that personally identifies them. After reading TFA, it's more than possible that IPv6 was created in part with traceback in mind. Will this sort of technology be forced down the world's throat by the U.N.? Extremely unlikely. The U.S., for one, (as stated in TFA) would not go along with it, as it does fly in the face of the First Amendment -- although admittedly, the intelligence community, in collusion with American ISPs, already can track and trace individual's activities on the internet (or at least the less adept and less wary users). Technologies like Secure SHell, proxies, and Tor (among others) currently provide layers of protection that, I think, are adequate, and well-known to the more technically-savvy. Aside from the U.S., there are enough countries in the world that will object to this sort of technology and will not stand idly by and watch the rest of the world potentially infringe on the rights of their citizens.
So far as I'm concerned, China can do whatever they want within their own borders. So far as I'm concerned, things like this will only increase the level of unrest with Chinese citizens and increase the possibility of uprising.
All China and the NSA has to do is host the nodes people connect to when becoming anonymous.
What I don't understand is why the UN, the NSA and China are working together. It does not seem to serve the strategic interests of any one of these groups because they all want to crack down on anonymous communication domestically while promoting it in foreign countries.
How exactly can you have human rights if you don't have freedom of speech? And if you don't have freedom of speech how can you have freedom of thought?
Governments will be able to censor the mere idea of human rights by simply tracking down the sources that produce those ideas, and suddenly there are no more human rights anywhere because nobody will be able to think about the concept.
I'm paranoid because I want to maximise my anonymity and by maximising my anonymity I'm indestructable because I'm untraceable. By being untraceable and censorship-resistent, no one can harm me which results in a 100% fullfilment of the human rights in that having the "right to life, liberty and security" (as stated in article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), not "[being] held in slavery" (as stated in article 4 of the UDHR), not "[being] subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (article 5, UDHR), not "[being subjeted to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (article 9, UDHR), not "[being] subjected to arbitrary interference with [my] privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon [my] honour and reputation", "[having] the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" (article 18, UDHR), "[having] the right of freedom of opinion and expression" (article 19, UDHR), "[having] the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association" (article 20.1, UDHR), "[having] the right to freely to participate in the cultural life of the community" (article 27.1, UDHR).
"Okay, so what about a country like China..." who keeps getting bounced by my firewall.
Will this new law allow me to identify the people behind 60.172.219.6's repeated attempts to penetrate my systems?
Somehow, I think NOT!
Oh, wait -- uniformed people, with firearms, are knocking on my door with some kind of warrant about crimes against the state.
I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
Yeah, goodluckwiththat assholes.
And it was generally seen as a Good Thing. How times change, huh?
I'm glad I'm not the only one to see a link between this effort and IPv6. Tracing back to a device becomes much easier when dynamic IP addressing is no longer necessary. I imagine that, at some point, much like digital TV broadcast, IPv6 will be thrust upon us. As far as I'm concerned it is much easier to abandon television, than any of the potentially networked devices of tomorrow.
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
So yes, I can see them doing this too.
You think they have full traceback? Ever looked at how skypeout works? Or how dialout on a ISDN PRI works?
You don't get valid caller ID. You have to be in the loop to see the real time SS7 information, and then still have to get someone to translate the IP Address to a physical location. Oops, its a coffee house WiFi network. Sorry, we don't know who called.
And that is just in the U.S. What about international calls? Think caller ID is reliable there?
If they get what they want for the Internet, it will be far more than they have now for telephones.
Sadly, your comments could be applied with equal validity to most of the replies in this thread. I do wonder whether the people posting to discussions like this have ever stopped to think about the implications of allowing total anonymity and complete privacy, or whether they just parrot lots of stuff about "rights" and "freedoms" because it makes them feel like they're sticking it to the man. It would be interesting to know how many of these people, come election time, still vote for major political parties who will continue to run the same sort of system.
Privacy and anonymity have a valuable role to play, and should certainly be the default, but they cannot be an excuse to put people above the law in a civilised society. Anonymity separates freedom from responsibility, and that can be just as dangerous to the well-being of a society as having no freedom in the first place.
If a society's political system or legal framework are sufficiently screwed up that a reasonable balance is impossible, on-line anonymity is hardly their biggest problem, nor their salvation. This is my objection to the whole "Chinese dissidents", "American revolution" brigade: they seem to ignore the fact that the relative anonymity of the Internet today hasn't stopped the abuse by corrupt regimes, while at the same time ignoring all the illegal activities that nasty people are getting away with under cover of anonymity in more democratic societies.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If anonymity is to be sacrificed then liability for Identity Theft should become a real recourse. Compromising someone's anonymity is the first logical step in compromising their identity. All arguments about free speech aside, I think anonymity is something that has protected the vast majority of internet users from the lax security standards of most organisations that collect identity information.
I mean once an organization a users identity, it's easy to make the argument to track their usual IP location, their mobile device and any trace back data that might come in handy - if it's available. Surely having all this data collected in various places would increase the vectors for attack and validation and make it much easier for identity theft to occur.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Texas uses lethal injection not the firing squad. And as governor of Texas Bush signed 152 death warrants, he even signed one for a mentally retarded person.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
i could have the exact same argument with money that financials should be private.
And it should be private.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
since when is being anonymous a right. frankly the way people try to term everything as some kind of intrinsic right pisses me off
It is a right, at least here in the US. More than one US Supreme Court has ruled that anonymity is a right. Here's some of what the USSC said in one case. I don't recall what year but one ruling was in the early 1800s when the court ruled that if a person doesn't have the right to anonymity then they don't have the right of free speech. If what a person says can be used against them then that person is not free to speak as they wish. Secrete ballots are secrete for the same reason.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Can we just depower government somehow so we don't have to keep preventing them from doing stupid things all the time? I think Ron Paul was right. We need to constitutionally limit all government and then we won't have to watch them so closely and we can get back to doing things that matter.
You don't have a right to privacy, or to anonymity. You do have a right not to be forced to assist in your own surveillance.
Yes I do.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Supreme Court gives you rights, eh? Fine. Then don't complain when they take them away. As I said above, you have other rights that provide for your ability to remain private, and those don't come from the Supreme Court.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
The arguments about abuse by governments are fundamentally flawed:
So CointelPro wasn't real? Neither was Watergate. And J Edgar Hoover never had secret files? That's just recently in the US never mind other tymes and places.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No, the Supreme Court does not give rights.
Then don't complain when they take them away.
I will complain when they take my rights away. I'm sure if you don't want them the Dear Leader would love to take them away from you.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous...
There is no such right.
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. As do some of the USA's Founding Fathers, otherwise they would have signed their names on the Federalist Papers.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Proxies won't be a problem in sourcing IP's -- the proxy owner is the source. Do that enough and the "proxy problem" will go away... ;~!
I see. Is this the official Chinese description of what happened? I'm willing to admit that I might be less than fully informed, but I'm reluctant to give credibility to what the Chinese government says. Two elderly women could face a year of "reeducation through labor" because they applied for permits to demonstrate during the Olympics, according to one of the would-be protesters.
The Chinese government speaks not just though its state-controlled press, but through its actions as well, and their actions speak louder to me than their words. Members of the press from abroad have been intimidated and had pictures of protests confiscated by the Chinese government.
- How many requests for permission to protest were made? My latest sources say about 77.
- Of those, how many were granted permission to protest during the Games?
- Of those, how many actually protested during the Games?
- Learning Chinese would be great, but is more than I can do right now. What reliable and trustworthy (ie, non-government related) sources of information are there for an English-speaker like myself?
It seems that Beijing has gone out of its way to squash free speech, intimidate critics, and to imprison dissidents. Are all these sources willfully libeling China?
To the original topic: If it were in my power to grant or withhold, I would never entrust China (or any government - even my own) with tools that would help it roll back the shield of anonymity that protects the natural right of people to speak freely.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Hmm. I apologize if anything I've said is off the mark. I suppose "sentenced" would have been more accurate than "sent", since apparently they were set free after initially being sentenced to camp.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Except the republocrate will just vote themselves more power again. The system of checks and ballances work nice in that no branch of the government really get's much power over another, but it doesn't stop the growth of power, scope, and invasiveness of the government on the people.
PS. The man suggestion for republocrates in spell checker is Hippocrates. I thought it was funny.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Sorry, old chap, I don't think it would work that way. Not in China's best interest, you see.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Absolutely. Freedom of speech is not ingrained in human societies. And there are good reasons why the idea took roots in progressive cultures.
Freedom of speech has to be understood. People have to understand what it is, why it is important, then want it, fight for it, and guard against losing it.
Otherwise, it will be Galileo all over again.
I see. Is this the official Chinese description of what happened? I'm willing to admit that I might be less than fully informed, but I'm reluctant to give credibility to what the Chinese government says.
So what? The USA govt, sponsored and largely run by corporate interests (of which media corporations are subsidiary) isn't any more credible.
The USA establishment is pushing the lie that Russia was the aggressor against Georgia (which Russia was policing S. Ossetia by international agreement when they were attacked), and Presidential candidates are using that story as a call to arms against Russia!
Even the Tiananmen Square "Massacre" is a myth.
The Chinese government speaks not just though its state-controlled press, but through its actions as well, and their actions speak louder to me than their words. Members of the press from abroad have been intimidated and had pictures of protests confiscated by the Chinese government.
- How many requests for permission to protest were made? My latest sources say about 77.
- Of those, how many were granted permission to protest during the Games?
- Of those, how many actually protested during the Games?
- Learning Chinese would be great, but is more than I can do right now. What reliable and trustworthy (ie, non-government related) sources of information are there for an English-speaker like myself?
It seems that Beijing has gone out of its way to squash free speech, intimidate critics, and to imprison dissidents. Are all these sources willfully libeling China?
Have you paid attention to what's been done with protesters at the DNC and RNC events? The cops even arrested Amy Goodman and her staff; journalists from Salon.com were also threatened. Police surrounded protesters homes (no warrants, you see) and later charged them with intent to throw feces at convention-goers because they owned composting toilets; or that they were planning to make bombs because protesters had "chemicals" which turned out to be common cleaning and gardening products in their homes.
To the original topic: If it were in my power to grant or withhold, I would never entrust China (or any government - even my own) with tools that would help it roll back the shield of anonymity that protects the natural right of people to speak freely.
I can certainly agree with that.
OK. I'll bite.
Nope not Chinese, I am however one of the owners of a small ISP. Personally I think the so called "right to be anonymous" is a bunch of crap. This was and always has been a mistake and the result is a lot of things like harassment, Spam and network attacks. All of which could be reduced in huge amounts simply by people online being able to be identified.
For the sake of human progress, it's worth it.
If freedom means nothing to you pack your stuff and move to China. Otherwise, shut up already.
The government IS constitutionally limited, the problem is those limits are being ignored.
I've said it before and I'll say it again;"Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the U.N."
But this time I'll add "and stay out!" for added emphasis.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
The Chinese proposed a method they want to use for tracing things such as Free Tibet traffic. I don't suppose that what they proposed would include methods for tracing attacks Chinese attacks against US computers, would it? No way they'd forget to include anything for which they had already developed a work around. The up side is, if the proposal gets accepted, it means the US already capable of tracing said traffic, which is almost certainly the case. Chinese hack attacks are characterized by incredible hubris -- they're into doing it far more than in doing it well.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
So what? The USA govt, sponsored and largely run by corporate interests (of which media corporations are subsidiary) isn't any more credible.
I don't think any government's words should be taken at face value, but I also don't believe for a moment that the Chinese government is on par with the US government in credibility and transparency. there are shades of gray, and I see the US and China in much different areas of the spectrum. The fact is that the press, including foreign press, is more free to report things *here* than *there*. However, my point above was not whether the US government is more credible than the Chinese government. I'm glad we agree on the fact that there are legitimate reasons why people across the world, including in the US, have a right and a need for privacy, and that right is threatened by the tracing tools these governments seek.
Even the Tiananmen Square "Massacre" is a myth.
The Tiananmen Square massacre is historical fact. If you want to dispute the particulars, such as how many died, where they died, etc., fine. I give greater weight to the Red Cross's casualty estimates than to the Chinese government. Gregory Clark does not seem impartial, nor does he seem to have fully read the US government documents he is quoting, since on the whole they contradict his core assertion, ie, that the massacre didn't happen. He seems to have cherry-picked the parts that suit him best, while ignoring other relevant content. He claims that they show that "They confirm that there was no massacre in the square", which is a cheap attempt at deception, since he then goes on to admit that much of the killing appears to have been just outside the square. He attempts to minimize the event by ignoring important parts of the story, such as at least one tank crushing protesters, and troops with fixed bayonets firing metal bullets directly into crowds of unarmed civilians, and then tries to diminish the importance of the event by comparing it to other atrocities, as if that made it somehow more acceptable.
I think that if he had confined his assertion to stating that the massacre as it happened and the massacre as the news media reported it appear to be different, he would be on more accurate.
I find it interesting that in arguing that the US govt is not trustworthy, you quote a source who himself quotes US govt documents, referring to them as "a source whose sober impartiality cannot possibly be doubted".
Have you paid attention to what's been done with protesters at the DNC and RNC events?
Some. I'll make no apologies or excuses for heavy-handed police action, whether it is here or over there, but the difference between the RNC / DNC protests and Tiananmen Square is mind-boggling. This article talks about Amy Goodman's arrest, and I think makes an interesting point about journalists, the events they cover, and the law. I have read that most protesters were peaceful, and were left alone by police. The tear gas didn't come out and the arrests didn't happen until some (a very small minority) protesters got violent and started trashing property. It appears that Amy got caught up in that. As for the warrantess poo preemption, I don't know about that incident. However, before getting up in arms about the lack of warrants, I have to ask did the event meet these requirements? "Reasonable grounds" and "exigent circumstances" seem to be the key.
To the original topic: If it were in my power to grant or withhold, I would never entrust China (or any government - even my own) with tools that would help it roll back the shield of anonymity that protects the natural right of people to speak freely.
I can certainly agree with that.
Amen, brother.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
You seem to be sharing the general delusion that torture is some magic truth wand. It is not. It's a magic "tell me what I want to hear" wand. If you live in a country that uses it, then anyone who that poor journalist knows the name of will get hauled in, not just the "guilty" party. This is exactly how one innocent Canadian got hauled off by the CIA and tortured. A guy they were torturing before him happened to know his name, and said it in hopes of getting the torture to stop for a bit.
If they keep at it, anyone those people know by name will get hauled in too. Your only defences in such a place are to keep to yourself, not talk to *anyone* at all radical (even by association), and turn the other guy in before he does the same to you.
no. not troll or anything. just make a list of the adverse effects we have seen from chinese sources up to this date. not to mention repressing their own citizens.
and not surprisingly, another sh@t is in on this too, 'homeland security' -> the agency which defies u.s. constitution even by its own nature.
it will fail.
Read radical news here
So what? The USA govt, sponsored and largely run by corporate interests (of which media corporations are subsidiary) isn't any more credible.
I don't think any government's words should be taken at face value, but I also don't believe for a moment that the Chinese government is on par with the US government in credibility and transparency. there are shades of gray, and I see the US and China in much different areas of the spectrum.
I have to disagree these days. They are both sick in their own right, but for whatever reason the Chinese press would not attempt to provoke wars on an almost bi-annual basis the way the USA press has done. I don't think its possible to surpass that level of nefarious activity.
You haven't read those Tiananmen reports very closely. The unrest occurring outside the square was unrelated to the students. It was also reported that Chinese troops were attacked first. Who am I supposed to believe: the nakedly state-run media (with national prestige on the line) and some eye witnesses, or a surreptitious state-running media known for an unsurpassed bloodthirst?
The USA conglomerates and their media divisions not only promote wars abroad, but have wantonly fueled the explosion of the country's prison industry with hysteria and worse. Now one out of one hundred Americans is currently behind bars, with about 17% of the adult population having been put through the penal system. No other country comes close to those miserable statistics.
The country's institutions are obsessed with exacting punishment at home and abroad.
Some. I'll make no apologies or excuses for heavy-handed police action, whether it is here or over there, but the difference between the RNC / DNC protests and Tiananmen Square is mind-boggling.
I didn't compare the convention protests with Tiananmen Sq. I meant to compare them with the treatment of protesters outside the olympics.
"Reasonable grounds" and "exigent circumstances" seem to be the key.
Which seems to be a catch-all excuse for the political and legal class when confronting some of their worst fears about the man off the street's ability to form a crowd with an agenda.
Hmm. Most of the US press I have read/heard/watched has been stridently anti-war pretty much since the war in Iraq started.
You haven't read those Tiananmen reports very closely. The unrest occurring outside the square was unrelated to the students.
From the first paragraph of document 30, referred to by Mr. Clark: "[name redacted] University student who spent the night of Jun 3-4 in Tiananmen Square described on June 20 events and deaths he had witnessed, including an early morning incident during which 11 students [emphasis mine] were crushed to death by a PLA tank at the intersection of Liubukou and Changanjie."
Students were certainly involved, and the PLA was hunting them down with live ammo over at least an hour:
"The students believed that when the troops came to take the square, they would fire rubber bullets. Consequently, many of the students in the first line of barricades on the east and west sides of Changanjie held up padded coats to protect themselves from the projectiles. However, the first lines of students fell after the troops opened fire. The student said he had also been convinced that rubber bullets would be used. He had a sickening feeling when he noticed the bullets striking sparks off the pavement near his feet. He said that he saw many students fall during the ensuing hour."
There is evidence that non-student protesters were involved, and that there was violence perpetrated against PLA soldiers. However, it is also noted that the violence was vastly one-sided against the students and other protesters. Also, it appears true that most of the slaughter happened on the streets just outside the square, rather than immediately in it. Quibbling over the exact location solves nothing and only obscures the real issue, which is that you called the massacre a myth, when in fact the estimates in those documents (quoted by the author you referenced), and by the Chinese Red Cross, indicate that likely upwards of 2000 people were killed, although the true numbers will never be known because of the Chinese cover-up.
Who am I supposed to believe: the nakedly state-run media (with national prestige on the line)
Are you joking? Certainly not.
or a surreptitious state-running media known for an unsurpassed bloodthirst?
The USA conglomerates and their media divisions not only promote wars abroad, but have wantonly fueled the explosion of the country's prison industry with hysteria and worse. Now one out of one hundred Americans is currently behind bars, with about 17% of the adult population having been put through the penal system. No other country comes close to those miserable statistics.
Okay, you lose me here with the conspiracy theory. First, your numbers are wrong. There is a prison population of ~2.3 million, with a national population of ~305 million. Your estimate is about 1 out of 100, which equals a little over 3 million. You are off by several hundred thousand people, or close to 40% of the real number. I didn't do the math on your other number, but I'm skeptical of it. Second, you seem to skip from unfounded "media ... promote wars abroad" to "fueling ... prison industry". Are you honestly blaming prisoners' incarceration on the media? Are you saying that the media causes people to commit crime? Would there be less crime if there were no media in the US? Does this include all the media, including Salon.com and Amy Goodman? Or do you make an exception for them?
I didn't compare the convention protests with Tiananmen Sq. I meant to compare them with the treatment of protesters outside the olympics.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Hmm. Most of the US press I have read/heard/watched has been stridently anti-war pretty much since the war in Iraq started.
Even the NY Times was roundly criticized in the international press for contributing to war fever. I suggest you read up on reporter Judith Miller in particular.
None of the major USA media outlets criticized the "evidence" that was presented, despite the fact that major news bureaus in Europe and elsewhere had reported on the falsity of Bush's and Blair's claims. From the aluminum tubes to the forged yellowcake documents to the supposed WMD factories, it was all known to be false 3 months before the invasion of Iraq.
The USA media did not allow these facts to be reported until they got their embedding windfall and a reason to keep viewers hanging on their every word. Then, like Hillary Clinton and the rest, they grew big puppy-dog eyes and said "we were lied to".
I suppose when we are at war with Russia and/or Iran, they'll do the same.
You need to ask yourself right now, why aren't the USA networks reporting that Russia was attacked first when they were stationed in S. Ossetia by international agreement? Why don't they challenge McCain or Palin when the latter claim Russia was "unprovoked", and that we may get involved militarily?
Oh.. you mean like Russia did to Georgia, or China has been doing to Tibet for the last 50 years?
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
True enough I suppose ... control of linguistic expression is the first step in any totalitarian program. Okay, "the government has been systematically eliminating our Constitutionally-protected rights for some time now." Is that better?
... there are others) and many (ahem!) "non-governmental" organizations kill people (they're just not legally sanctioned.) You can't stop people from murdering each other by simply passing laws: for many, the threat of retribution by the legal system is an inadequate deterrent.
Also, government does not hold a unique right to employ deadly force. Matter of fact, at least in the U.S. all of us are allowed to employ deadly force in certain circumstances (self-defense, for one
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.