Slashdot Mirror
Police Want Fast Track To Get At Your Private Data
An anonymous reader writes "According to this story on CNET, police again are pushing for new laws requiring ISPs and webmail providers to store users' private data for five years and also want a new electronic way of speeding up subpoenas and search warrants via police-only encrypted portals at all ISPs and webmail providers."
As well as criminality. Can we see a pattern here? These measures don't seem to help at all. They are ethically wrong and have been empirically proven useless.
Have you heard about SoylentNews?
They think just because they can it's a good idea? Doesn't sabotage the principles of free and open societies at all?! Imagine if they did in real life half the things they already do online. I'd have already picked up a gun just because others already would have too.
Shh.
Aside from internal 1984 style abuse of this proposed system, the fundamental concept (and all existing implementations of it) introduces a new level of security risk and it is this exact interface that is said to be the weakness that was exploited in the Google China attack. From a computer security perspective, this is wrong on many different levels.
My work here is dung.
The police have to pay for the storage. Since the amount of online data is constantly increasing, I figure having to lay out funds for that many terrabytes of storage should bankrupt them, and then they can focus on doing the job they *should* be doing (picking up garbage), instead of the one they *want* to be doing (invading privacy without probable cause).
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Where is Kevin Mitnick when you need him?
Yo dawg we heard you like wire taps so we put a wire tap in your wire tap so we can hear while you hear.
A million internets to the first person to crack this system.
It's no great surprise the cops want this. But can you imagine the response of banks (and customers) if the police were to demand a special door in every bank so they could waltz in and search the safety deposit boxes at their convenience? Of homeowners if the cops were to demand a master key to every house to make search warrants easier to execute?
Unfortunately, when it comes to electronic records, lawmakers seem to think expanding the AT&T NSA rooms to access portals for every cop in the country is a great idea.
Hey, they can look at my data. It will bore them to death.
They'll find my four trillion digits of pi boring until they realize that every trillionth digit is the start of a datetime stamp followed by geographic coordinates indicating when and where I'm going to kill next. How many people have to die before they realize that it's GMT with no adjustments for daylight savings!?
Sincerely,
- Pi Killer
My work here is dung.
Police-only encrypted portals?
Hmmmm... sounds like a challenge.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
It's not just that they can look at your data now, but in future too. World and politics can change really fast, especially now that US is having economical problems.
And what about other governments? Would it be good for example Google and Microsoft have a police-backdoor in China?
And the fact is, they can already subpoena data from companies and companies already have to maintain data for long time. This is just expending it ever longer, which is really worrying, coupled with the police-backdoors (imagine the fun when one of those gets hacked).
Nobody knows how totalitarian their country will be in 5 years.
Best to assume the worst extrapolating from today's trajectory.
We need a revolution, that's all. Democracy isn't ruling the world -- politicians are. And politicians are nowhere near what we need.
Once again, we need a revolution. We need to take control. We must take control and save the world.
Have you heard about SoylentNews?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
It's not just that they can look at your data now, but in future too. World and politics can change really fast, especially now that US is having economical problems.
Exactly! Are you sure that any data that is available now will not violate any law they introduce in the future?
Like http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/04/extreme_images_net_suspension/ where a man is being charged for
something he did in Aug/Sept 08 but the law he broke came into being in Jan 2009.
e! That's irrational!
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"If you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear" is exactly backwards. If you've actually committed a crime, I don't care about your privacy. I only care about the privacy of people who haven't committed crimes. I think we should care about it so much that we protect the criminals, too.
Protected rights aren't supposed to be loopholes with which to "get away with stuff." That's just a side effect of the real purpose of protecting your rights.
Just because your data is boring to a law enforcement agent, does not mean that your data will be boring to everyone that subsequently has access to it, including people who are in addition to being LEOs also people who have an interest in you, personally.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I wouldn't even call this good intention, it's nothing but an attempt to bypass some paper work at the expense of privacy.
They argue that e-mailing a court order is too slow. Well no, e-mailing it is nearly instantaneous, it's the response that's slow. That's a problem that shouldn't require unfettered access to private data to fix. A simple piece of legislation stating ISP's must respond to legal requests by law enforcement within x days should do it.
As for data not being retained long enough, 20 years ago police departments didn't have any web data at all, and they still managed to do their jobs. I'm sure they'd like to have 5 years of retained data to mine, but considering the implications for privacy and security I don't think this convenience is worth it.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
Heil Palin.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
They want provisions to pay for all the extra storage and have provided a mechanism to verify a judge's sign-off and create a public record of the judicial process, right?
What are all those crickets doing in here?
I agree that until they have a very specific reason to be looking at my data, they have no business with my data. But I also acknowledge that, starting soon after 9/11, they started looking at my data despite laws that were supposed to prevent that.
And I also acknowledge that they will construe my information in ways that will put me at a disadvantage because I supported such-and-so politician, or because I looked into the side-effects of medication X. This manner of data-mining is already happening. Outlawing it is fruitless, but we can make laws that disclose who has looked at my data.
Until we have a sort of reciprocity wrt searching data, until we know who has been doing it, we will be at a disadvantage. The searching is already happening. But who is watching the watch-birds? That's what I want to know.
Best regards.
Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- You can't get fooled again.
We're a Democratic Republic here in the US. Politicians aren't running the country, special interests are. Except you're probably all for special interests when the are in your favor, but not for them when they aren't.
We can solve this problem simply and easily. A person can donate as much money to any candidate they can vote for, otherwise it is strictly forbidden.
I'd also increase the number of House members to 1000, each state getting at least two, but they only serve six months (by lottery) at a time. And cut their pay in 1/2.
I'd also make sure that EVERYONE over 18 had to write a check out to the IRS, for some amount, say $25 (or so) "person" tax. The reason for this is because people who don't pay ANY taxes (now about 50% of the population) don't care about how government spends other people's money.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What the US need is an equivalent to the Norwegian Data Inspectorate, see English webpage at http://www.datatilsynet.no/templates/Page____194.aspx
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
You want the keys to the kingdom? Prove you can be trusted
1.) All police officers, all employees of all police forces that may have any kind access to confidential data and any contractors or consultants
must submit to annual interviews including polygraphs regarding their activities, private and professional, past and present.
The Canadian Mounties have a process like this for applicants but I don't think it's done once you become a constable.
2.) No question is off-limits; all questions must be answered.
3.) Failure to submit or answer a question will result in dismissal.
4.) All interviews are to be observed by a panel of witnesses of which several are private citizens
5.) All (unedited) interviews will be available to the public upon request.
If those conditions are met, then I'll gladly comply with your requests for private data.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I see 3 major issues:
* the desire for electronic-speed/non-paper efficiency from the police point of view
* the desire not to have records be routinely destroyed between the receipt of a police request and the time the record is scheduled for destruction, i.e. "almost immediate" data-freezing
* (not stated, but probably desired) the desire to have historical information available for years.
Traditional phone companies already keep records of what phone called what phone for 2 years, which IMHO is about 22 months too long. I'm sure the police would love similar transaction records of who emailed whom and who chatted with whom going back that far, and they would salivate over having the actual content of the communications for that long.
As a taxpayer, I'm all for increased efficiency as long as it doesn't increase the "efficiency" of illegal or barely-legal-but-inappropriate records requests. It also makes sense that data-retention requests should be honored as soon as practical, not "oops, we just now got around to processing your request from yesterday, the data you want was purged last night, sorry."
However, transaction records and other records should not be kept any longer than necessary for billing and other internal processes. For most services which aren't billed a la carte or per-bit or per-transaction, we are talking days, max, for individual records. For billed services, they need to be kept until the billing=dispute deadline has passed or until all billing disputes are finalized, or the normal "few days," whichever is later.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Totalitarianism is one group being given absolute authority over all aspects of its citizens lives. This country's law enforcement can't even figure out how to cooperate with each other. It's the same in the military, the different branches of government... well, pretty much everywhere you look. I don't see a "totalitarian" government springing up anytime soon.
You're imposing an absurdly high standard for what constitutes "totalitarian" here. Nazi Germany and the USSR were both characterized by a plethora of government agencies, law enforcement and otherwise, which never managed to cooperate with each other, and which often fought each other at every opportunity. Never at their worst did they achieve "absolute authority over all aspects" of ... well, anything, really. And yet they are, with good reason, the canonical modern examples of totalitarian states.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
You have already committed a crime, guaranteed. The sheer number of laws already in place in the US neatly assures that you have committed at least some sort of crime. It is merely a question of whether or not you are charged with something.
so does the European Convention on Human Rights (and, by incorporation, the Human Rights Act 1998), and general common law principle. It won't stop the government trying to do it, and it won't always stop them getting away with it either.
FGD 135
Just because the Constitution says something doesn't mean it's true. After all, our government has been happily ignoring the Constitution for decades now.
The "true power" is with the Federal Government, in a de facto fashion. The States are a joke, and would never stand up to the Federal gov. And the people are just sheep. They're not going to stand up to the government either.
We can solve this problem simply and easily. A person can donate as much money to any candidate they can vote for, otherwise it is strictly forbidden.
I'd also increase the number of House members to 1000, each state getting at least two, but they only serve six months (by lottery) at a time. And cut their pay in 1/2.
I'd also make sure that EVERYONE over 18 had to write a check out to the IRS, for some amount, say $25 (or so) "person" tax. The reason for this is because people who don't pay ANY taxes (now about 50% of the population) don't care about how government spends other people's money.
That wouldn't do squat. The problem is that it takes an incredible amount of money to win national campaigns, so the only voices that matter to politicians are very wealthy individuals or very big business. And the supreme court ruling allowing corporations (considered a person) to pay for as many advertisements about politicians or issues as they want (money to this court = speech and people have free speech), has effectively drowned out an averages citizen's ability to be heard.
Here is what commoncause.org says is important to reform:
1. Create a modern campaign finance system that enables federal candidates who swear off special interest money to run vigorous campaigns on a blend of small donor and public funds.
2. Ban lobbyists contributions, bundling and fundraising for federal candidates.
3. End internal fundraising quotas on Capitol Hill that essentially require members of Congress to buy their way into key committee posts and foster a corrosive dependence on K Street for cash.
4. Close loopholes that allow candidates to evade contribution limits by soliciting amounts up to 3,000 percent of those limits for “joint fundraising committees” and unlimited amounts for national party conventions.
5. Increase transparency by requiring electronic filing of campaign finance reports for the U.S. Senate (already in place for the House), and full disclosure of bundlers who raise, or help raise, $50,000 or more for congressional and presidential candidates.
6. Replace the moribund Federal Elections Commissions with a new nonpartisan enforcement agency.
I personally think it needs to go further.
1. Declare corporations as property, not persons. Re-enable rights needed for them to function as a secure business by expressly declaring them, not granting them personhood.
2. Expressly deny corporations from spending on any campaign issue or promoting any candidates. If the employees or members of the corporation want to ban together in their off time and combine their (small) individually allowed donations, or fund a commercial, go for it.
3. Limit the amount any citizen can donate to any candidate, and limit the amount any citizen can contribute to ads of a political nature. It must be small enough so that the average american has some weight.
4. Set up term limits for all members of congress. Maybe 12 or 16 years as a senator. I don't know the ideal length, but forever as it is now.
5. Expand libel and slander laws to include political bills/legislation and scientific ideas/theories. For instance, if Fox or MSNBC, or anyone for that matter, says something blatantly untrue, over and over, about a bill or theory, any group, or any person, can sue that organization or person for libel or slander. If a jury of their peers agree that what was said was damaging to society, malicious in intent, and easily proven false, then Fox or MSNBC are found guilty and have to pay damages to whatever group was affected. (I don't know if this is the best way to restore some level of truth in news and our society, but biased crappy reporting, made up scandals, and misinformation is at an all time high and getting progressively worse).
6. Open the doors to 3rd parties. Allow anyone who gains enough signatures to put themselves on the ballot for a race. Want to run for the senate as the flying spaghetti monster candidate?
Yes, that's all true. But a new government here in the USA is going to look pretty much exactly like the current one, because this is the government the voters want.
Republics only work well when the voters are smart enough to make decent choices. Our citizens are so uneducated and lacking in critical thought that they can't do this.
In my opinion, the best thing the USA could do to have fewer problems and have a government that more closely follows the will of the people is for it to break up into smaller countries. Large countries don't work well as republics; they're too big and diverse, and no one can agree on anything. Notice how Europeans don't complain too much about their governments; it's because people in France don't have to come up with agreements on every little thing with people from Italy, Germany, or Kosovo (such as the headscarves/burqa issue that's in the news lately); they live separately, and only cooperate on monetary policy and trade. We should be more like Europe: separate into smaller countries or regions (like northwest, southwest, southeast, northeast, and midwest), and then only have an economic union like the EU so we can share a currency and have free trade between the members. Then, the people in the southeast and southwest can have lax gun laws while the people in the northeast can ban them all, some parts can have lots of welfare and high taxes while other parts have less welfare and lower taxes, some parts have no regulation of banks and have mortgage meltdowns while other parts have more regulation and a steadier economy, etc.
I must admit I only scanned the list rather than read it in full, but there is an easier way to reform Washington involving just two bills, both proposed by DownsizeDC: the Read The Bills Act and the One Subject at a Time Act.
RTBA would make it mandatory for both houses of Congress to post complete bills in their final form online fully 7 days prior to a vote for the public to review. This means that no matter who pays for a congressman, anything shady he tries to slip into a bill will see the light of day before it's made law, and every congressman can be pressured to vote based on the public's informed opinion. You may recall Candidate Obama's campaign promise to put bills online for 5 days for public review, one of his most practical and meaningful promises and one that remains unfulfilled.
Another provision in it calls for a full floor reading before the vote, a measure that certainly fits the agenda of shrinking Washington but one I see as unduly burdensome. A third section calls for any congressman voting for (but not against) a bill to certify that he has read it in full, so we would no longer hear "I was unaware of Unpopular Provision X when I voted for the Ponies For Everyone! Act of 2009" as an excuse.
OSTA is just what it sounds like: each bill must stand or fall on its own merit, and its name must reflect its contents. That means bills can't be weighed down with tons of riders, attached usually either for pet projects to gain a rep's vote or to pass unpopular legislation by hiding it in otherwise innocuous, possibly PATRIOTically named bills.
I have spoken about these acts to many people and only one person disliked OSTA, while RTBA has been universally supported (save my own concerns about the floor reading). If enough of the public were to hear about these bills and call their congressmen in support of them, Congress would be forced to pass them and bring about the real reformation we need: making our so-called representatives actually represent us.
Your brain is not a computer.