Slashdot Mirror
A History of Wiretapping
ChelleChelle writes "Wiretapping technology has grown increasingly sophisticated since the police first began to utilize it as a surveillance tool in the 1890s. What once entailed simply putting clips on wires has now evolved into building wiretapping capabilities directly into communications infrastructures (at the government's behest). In a modern society, where surveillance is often touted as a way of ensuring our safety, it is important to take into consideration the risks to our privacy and security that electronic eavesdropping presents. In this article, Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau examine these issues, attempting to answer the important question: does wiretapping actually make us more secure?"
Does warrantless wiretapping help anyone other than the statists who have wanted this power for a long time and now have a working excuse for it?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
When wiretapping is undertaken under the auspices of the ECPA and FISA, it does actually help protect citizens. When it is done outside of these Acts, then you have big problems. I was never a big fan of the lowering of the standard for electronic surveillance that the USA PATRIOT Act introduced, as I feel that it unbalanced the fine job that existing legislation was serving already.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
As much as I loathe the fact that the previous administration abused wiretapping, maybe it's a necessary evil? I don't know all of the history of wiretapping, but I imagine that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies used it to capture dangerous criminals in the past and are currently doing it in the present. As long as a warrant is obtained, I don't see why it would be illegal. Of course there will be abuse, but don't throw out a tool simply because it can be abused. Many things in life can be abused. Does that warrant their expulsion from society? Alcohol is abused, but should it be done away with? Probably a stretch of an analogy, but it works. Law enforcement, however, should not be allowed to wiretap without a warrant. Fighting terrorism, whether foreign against foreign or domestic, should not be an excuse for illegal wiretaps.
"Anyone who would give-up ESSENTIAL liberty for *temporary* security, deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin. Also while we may be able to trust a President Bush or President Obama with the ability to monitor our internet transactions, eventually there will arise a man like Julius Caesar or Nero or Napoleon who will use the ability of spying for his own enrichment and/or to eliminate enemies. Like Nixon did.
IMHO people who trust government are either fools, or they don't know history,
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
in the Katz decision, it finally recognized that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."
Don't worry sir, we are perfectly within our right to search and seize your house, but we won't go through your pockets or perform a cavity search.
Wiretapping makes the government more secure, not individuals.
Wiretapping constitutional? This absolutely makes our country less free and not a bit safer. Everything we do is monitored. Even the printer we use has a signature on it so it can be tracked to you. Can anyone be anonymous anymore in America? can we fly "under the radar?"
Web Design + SEO
VOIP users can obtain a public-key private-key pair. In my home I could have my voip phone encrypt my voice output with your public key when I am speaking with you. Only you can decrypt it because you control the your private key. There is not any wiretapping scheme that can defeat this system unless the government coerces your private key from you. If the government asked for my private key then I would simply exercise my right to remain silent.
I always find it amazing when Mafiosas are caught saying provocative stuff on the phone. They had to have known they were being wiretapped. If you know you're going to do something illegal, you don't do it any way that can be traced. No emails, no cell phones, nothing. Just voices in ears. Take the UNABOMBER. He wrote on a manual typewriter, made his bombs out of wood he himself took out of the forest. Every metal component in his bombs was made from scratch, not derived from some other source. So, every single one of those things were utterly untraceable. (He was only caught because his own brother recognized his writing style.)
From TFA: "Wiretapping was the perfect tool for investigating crimes such as these that lack victims who complain and give evidence to the police"
Yet another reason to rethink our war on drugs policy.
(and no, I don't want pot to be legal so I can use it, I just want them to stop wasting so much money on a faulty premise, as seen in prohibition)
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
Considering what Mark Klein http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrBapXsLcro and others have already told us, it's a little late for a wiretapping with warrant debate, as that case is already lost. The sooner everyone realizes that everything they type and say online and over the phone today is public to anyone with the technology to tap, the sooner groups could organize and take back the right to privacy through better technology and government policy. But honestly, isn't it already a lost cause? Seems like we have already embarked on a path to the dark side, with little light on the end of the privacy tunnel.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
Only at Slashdot would parent be marked "insightful".
You do realize, of course, that there are a wide variety of situations wherein a LEO is allowed by the law to enter a home without a warrant, I assume.
Probable cause, for one. If the police follow a person fleeing a crime into a residence - or virtually anywhere else, for that matter - they're acting well within their rights and duties and no warrant is needed.
An Arrest Warrant - No search warrant is needed if officers have an arrest warrant and the reasonable belief that the fugitive is inside. Even if they find evidence for crimes unrelated to the search warrant, the evidence is still admissible. See e.g. Gaskins v. U.S., 218 F.2d 47
Consent is another. If the homeowner has provided their consent, then the Police are well within their rights and duties.
The Open Fields Doctrine is another. If objects are left in plain view in an area not traditionally secured as private, the police are well within their rights to search these areas. See Oliver v. U.S.
And the list goes on. And on. And on. Contrary to what you saw on TV or what your high school civics teacher improperly told you, a search warrant isn't always necessary. In fact, interfering with the police in the above situations can easily get you arrested, but you'll at least give the judge a good laugh as he hears you argue the 4th Amendment as a defense.
And what if the search or wiretap is illegal? If you're truly a criminal, if you've truly done the things you are accused of doing, then you may have just hit the jackpot. Under the exclusionary rule (subject to its exceptions, of course), the evidence is tainted, the "fruit of a poisonous tree," and likely inadmissible as evidence against the target of the search in any case.
IANAL - just a 3L (and I haven't taken Crim Pro yet, so don't be cruel, but if you have an actual understanding of the law, please correct me where I am wrong). But of course we have internet lawyers here like parent who just love to make these ridiculous arguments.
Look, I'm not fond of cops. I can't think of anyone who has ever been to law school actually worked with attorneys and seen what the police often do could be fond of them. But following suggestions like parent's is foolishness indeed. Want to support your local public defenders in making illegal search arguments? Please do. chip in some cash, they could use the money. But don't run about harassing the police as parent suggests.
The corporations have won. The politicians are all in their pockets, and neighborhood watches and police informants are tricked into Gang Stalking any potential opposition at the street level, with the help of this 'program' Russ Tice refers to. It's an invisible holocaust which you won't believe in until you get sucked into it.
Jesus dude, put the tinfoil hat away. At no point during my training for neighborhood watch were we instructed to take the political leanings of anybody into account.
I have personal experience with what's really going on, but I can't talk about it, especially on this site full of technically sophisticated users
I call bullshit. If you really wanted to talk about it and weren't just engaged in tinfoil hat ranting you could easily post anything you wanted as AC via an anonymous (tor/cybercafe/etc) means.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes, unless you get caught.
Richard M. Nixon
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The neighborhood watch meetings don't operate that way. What will happen is someone trusted, an authority figure like a policeman or a fireman, maybe several such people, will show up and say something like: "This person is dangerous, we haven't caught him yet, we don't have the manpower to track him, so we want you to follow him everywhere. Let him know he's being followed." That last sentence falls under the category of conspicuous surveillance which is a deliberately engineered intimidation tactic.
The authority figure(s) may present convincing evidence, which is often fabricated or exaggerated. In addition, what the neighborhood watch members don't know is that the target is being covertly harassed by police informants, in an attempt to get him to act out, or to confirm what the police are saying. For example, if the police accuse the target of being a sex offender who hasn't gotten caught yet, female police informants will show up everywhere in the target's path dressed wildly inappropriately to get the target to look. The neighborhood watch member observing this will conclude there's something to the accusations.
It takes a lot of effort to build up the momentum for Gang Stalking of a single individual, a lot of setups like the one I just described. But it's possible because practically everyone involved (neighborhood watch members, police informants) have been tricked or manipulated into working for free. The neighborhood watch members are volunteers. The police informants have to do whatever their case officers tell them to, for free, or go to prison.
There's much more to the ground forces than this, but it's way off-topic for this story, so I'll save it for later.
As for the high tech component of the persecution and torture campaign, it's interesting that you mention tinfoil hats. That is the kind of comment I was warned about before deciding to post here. Just FYI, I'm quite sophisticated enough to know that tinfoil hats do very little to protect against the kinds of things targeted individuals are concerned about. People who have been targeted in the US are a cross-section of America, and unfortunately the majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate. However, don't make the mistake of placing me in that category.
This program is going to come out much sooner than Russ Tice would like, and it's going to be big, but it's probably not going to happen as a result of what I post today. There are people working behind the scenes to expose this; unfortunately you're not going to find accurate information about what's being done on the web. A lot of people who speak up about this are, as I've said, scientifically uninformed, and thus they post nonsense. I'm doing my part by trying to reduce the amount of nonsense out there.
I'm not concerned about posting anonymously. I've already been targeted. What are they going to do... double-target me? My concern is about stepping into the public eye before the time is right.
Are you kidding?
Many crimes can be stopped in the conspiracy phase rather than the "real world". Would you rather have bombers or armed robbers stopped before or after they commit the crime?
Wiretapping is against the law and should not be allowed on your line without a warrant. I quote from the fourth amendment "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."
You think it's fun listening to some euro jackass telling his bitches to get work because he needs a new gold tooth?
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
The answer is obviously "yes" but you ignore the corollary question:
Would you rather have liberty, or would you rather have government officials harassing you at every turn? I'd rather have liberty even if that means a few crooks sometimes succeed in holding-up banks. Being harassed would make me feel like I was a child again, rather than a freeman.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>I have personal experience with what's really going on, but I can't talk about it, especially on this site full of technically sophisticated users
Your nose is growing long Pinocchio.
Stop making-up stories.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>female police informants will show up everywhere in the target's path dressed wildly inappropriately to get the target to look. The neighborhood watch member observing this will conclude there's something to the accusations.
>>>
Stop reading Tom Clancy and/or watching 24. It's just fiction. In the real world the police are imbeciles and wouldn't hatch such elaborate plots. Just look at how they mangled the Michael Jackson suspected-murder case, which will probably be thrown-out now to do police incompetence.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You're telling everyone else to do that because you'll be hiding behind the couch.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Asking for a key != asking for permission.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We should allow terrorists to fly planes into buildings so that you can feel like you're in the wild west?
You're not the only one who can make a non sequitur.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm not getting this from the media. I'm getting it from real life - my life.
This stuff is happening here in America, and it has historical precedent in East Germany's Stasi, who used police informants and citizen's watch groups for Gang Stalking, as well as covert microwaves for torturing and killing targets. In addition, similar tactics were used and exposed in America decades ago - read up on COINTELPRO. Wikipedia has an executive summary in its COINTELPRO page in the "methods" section.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to pull this stuff off. The tactics come from a big book that most targeted individuals that I've communicated with are highly familiar with. Many policemen are also being manipulated, unwittingly, in this program. Again, read up on COINTELPRO, the tactic I mentioned in passing is only one of many the FBI used in that decades old program, and they've gotten more advanced in their tactics since then.
But this is off-topic for this article, anyway, since the topic is warrantless wiretapping, not Stasi-like Gang Stalking. However, there is a new high tech component to the Gang Stalking that didn't exist in East Germany, it's the stuff I was saying above that Slashdotters wouldn't be able to comprehend. It's something I can't talk about yet in the presence of non-targeted individuals (*especially* young techies who think they know everything), but it's going to come out a lot sooner than these guys think.
If your government turned into a dictatorship, would there be an announcement to that effect in the papers or on TV? Why would they do that, when it is so much more effective to convince everyone they're still free, and get their enthusiastic cooperation for free? The handful (actually more than a handful) of dissidents and other troublemakers who want true freedom can be targeted.
If there were armed soldiers following your politicians everywhere they went with guns to their heads as they signed papers, you'd immediately recognize it as a military dictatorship. But what if the guns are several hundred or thousand miles away, and the gunshot is invisible? What if heart attacks or strokes can be induced electronically at will, and the only consideration is whether the target will comply with the implied threat, and if not, whether the target can be killed with deniability? Would that fit your definition of a military dictatorship?
When Dick Cheney had his well publicized heart problems in office, maybe you should revisit what message was really being sent. Maybe the people who order Dick Cheney around like an errand boy were telling the world, "If Dick died on the operating table, nobody would question it. His life is in our hands. We own him."
Maybe the government doesn't work the way you think it does. Maybe your leaders aren't in control and can't possibly be in control. Maybe the smart ones understand this, and decide to make the best of a bad situation by selling out.
That's all I'm prepared to say today. There's a lot more to the high tech persecution/torture/blackmail/murder angle than I've alluded to here.
Podcast #22 The Peter B Collins Show Tue 04 Aug 2009 02:15:59 PM PDT audio/mpeg: 33018Kb NSA whistleblower Russell D. Tice, who was the first to report that journalists were targeted by illegal domestic wiretapping and surveillance, joins us for the second installment of the Boiling Frogs interview series, co-hosted by Sibel Edmonds. Tice tells us he was briefed on more than 200 "black" programs over his 20+ years in US intelligence, and expresses deep concern that Bush-era surveillance may have compromised many of our political leaders. ..
http://www.peterbcollins.com/ and for loads of fun perusing redacted documents.. http://nsarchive.org/
do people seriously believe that only Governments do 'wiretaps' ? that commercial and criminal elements of the community do not?
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Watch out! I'm a ham radio operator and a CERT member. I'm keeping my eye on you!
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
I guess this is another one of those techie witticisms I was warned about before I posted here.
I do have good news for a few people on this thread. The targeting isn't random. It either happens to you because you cross the wrong person - and that doesn't happen when you spend 24/7 futzing with computers at work or at home and eating cheetos - or because you're ex-military and you get selected for experimentation, or because you're beholden to no one and unusually gifted.
I've been browsing selected comment histories and I think I can safely say, you're not going to be targeted under this program as it's being run right now.
So go back to sleep.
That works well only in movies!
I just meant I think you are a guy sitting in a basement and making-up shit. I used to know a fellow like you, who came onto 80s BBSes and claimed to have all kinds of secret knowledge about the government...... and then I found out he was just a janitor. He was just spouting fiction.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Yes I'd rather have one of those RARE once-in-200-years events, than to have cameras in my house, or wiretaps on my PC, constantly spying on everything I do. And it's not non-sequitor... it's already happening in the UK where it's justified as crime prevention.
Sorry but I'd rather have the right to privacy even if that meant another WTC was attacked in the year 2200. The former is more important to me than the latter.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>I'm getting it from my life.
What life? Janitorial duties? Last guy I met online who spoke like that, claiming to have secret knowledge about government procedures, was just an elementary school janitor. He was making shit up.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Imagine for a moment that you are a senator or congressman in opposition to the party in power. Imagine also that you have a girlfriend / boyfriend "on the side".
Now, imagine you are at home asleep at 3am and the phone rings and you pick it up and a recording plays of a conversation you had with your significant secret other.
The message would be clear, wouldn't it? Back off or be outed.
If you don't believe that such things are possible, you are naive. If it's possible, it's happening.
Ask Me About... The 80's!
The neighborhood watch meetings don't operate that way. What will happen is someone trusted, an authority figure like a policeman or a fireman, maybe several such people, will show up and say something like: "This person is dangerous, we haven't caught him yet, we don't have the manpower to track him, so we want you to follow him everywhere. Let him know he's being followed." That last sentence falls under the category of conspicuous surveillance which is a deliberately engineered intimidation tactic.
Yes, that can happen I suppose. It can also happen that the people in the neighborhood watch meeting see through this sham and refuse to be co-opted in such a manner. For every person that joined the stasi or gestapo there was at least one or more people who refused to go along with it. I wouldn't go along with it. You think I'm the only one?
I'm not concerned about posting anonymously. I've already been targeted. What are they going to do... double-target me?
I guess you aren't paranoid if everybody is really out to get you. Is that a knock at your door? ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I don't have secret knowledge about the government. I just have personal experience with stuff that most people don't believe exists. And there are quite a few others in my boat. This experience is a form of 'secret knowledge', perhaps, but unlike secret knowledge it can't be transfered because until you share my experiences, you can't really understand it.
Patiently trying to explain to you and other readers, who haven't experienced what I and others like me have experienced, what's really going on... well, that'll blow what tiny scraps of credibility I've managed to accumulate in this thread.
There will be developments in the coming months that will be cause for me to post more information about this program, because the public's awareness will be broadened. Slashdot hasn't seen the last of me. (Is that a threat, or a promise? Cue the Slashdot laugh track...)
Seems you don't read the news much lately. There was another plot to blow up planes recently broken up in England. It is not a once every 200 year event. There is no "essential liberty" involved in plotting to kill people.
I am also not talking about the world class events. What about the plot to hold up a bank? Would you like to be the police officer telling the wife of a dead guard "We knew they were planning a robbery but we couldn't listen to their phone conversations and had no idea which bank they would hit or when. I am sorry your husband was killed".
The main flaw in your argument is the premise that we either watch everything or we watch nothing. I agree that cameras in one's house and blind wiretapping is going too far. On the other hand when there is credible evidence that something illegal is going on and a warrant is issued then go ahead and watch.
And even if it were I doubt that someone can legally give consent on behalf of a neighbor.