Slashdot Mirror
DHS Wants To Monitor the Web For Terrorists
clustro writes "Under the belief that terrorists are 'increasingly' recruiting US citizens, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano says that increased government monitoring of the Internet is necessary to thwart them. It is believed that Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hassan and attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad were inspired by radical Internet postings. Speaking at a meeting of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Napolitano said, 'We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where tradeoffs are inevitable.'"
hay stack, you don't need more hay. There were so many warnings about the Ft Hood shooter, the idea that more monitoring of the Internet would have prevented the tragedy is simply laughable.
We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
They'll eventually use this law to bust pot smoking Americans who upload themselves hitting the pipe on youtube.
First, you're full of crap.
Secondly, there are NO SITUATIONS in which that trade-off is acceptable. NONE. There is no such thing as, "We will abuse the rights of some, just a little bit, but it will work out net positive".
It's absolutely negative, fuck you, and get out of my country. You don't deserve to be here, YOU are a greater threat to my "American Way of Life" than that Fort Hood terrorist ever was, or could have been.
Ohhh, and Mrs... if you are reading this.. seriously fuck you. That's the most asinine and offensive statement towards my rights and liberties by a public official that I have heard in a long time.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Also: If we outlaw the visiting of radical websites, only outlaws will visit radical websites?
At this rate it wont be long before we have a convictions based on "pre-crime" behavior ala Minority Report.
Case-in-point: there were dozens of warning signs about the September 11 attacks, and that was without any additional Internet monitoring. The problem has nothing to do with detecting the communications of people who are planning an attack, but with correctly using that information.
Palm trees and 8
This is what they call theatrical security: No real outcome, no real benefit, just a stage to let people gradually abandon their rights of privacy. Nothing to see here, move along people... Reminds me of when people used to write all sorts of fake alerting messages on the internet to distort intelligence scanners and fill them with false positives. Like this: bomb terrorist Osama George Bush Saddam nuclear improvised explosive devices infidels
When the fox is guarding the hen house, is he really to blame for taking more and more liberties (pun intended)?
Or those who:
a) put the fox in the hen house in the first place
b) leave the fox there even after knowing it ain't no good
c) fail consistently to adequately protect themselves from the fox and his intrusive methods despite having the tools to do so?
Apparently the speech focused on one of those situations where "tradeoffs are inevitable." If Hassan and Shahzad were "inspired" by radical internet posts, I cannot conceive of any further investigative tradeoff that could have been made while still maintaining constitutionality. Even if they had made radical internet posts, they would have to be inciting imminent lawless action or alluding to their participation in criminal plots/conspiracies/etc. to justify a search warrant. The FBI is already on the lookout for people who post such things on public online forums.
Napolitano's comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.
I would hate to think that anyone liberal on civil rights would find these statements comforting...
"Her speech is sign of the maturing of the administration on this issue," said Stewart Baker, former undersecretary for policy with the Department of Homeland Security. "They now appreciate the risks and the trade-offs much more clearly than when they first arrived, and to their credit, they've adjusted their preconceptions."
Yes, I'm sure "liberals" will be relieved that Stewart Baker, former Assistant Secretary (nice research, AP) of the DHS for George W. Bush, approves of the Obama Administration's "security" policies. When Republican hawks talk about "mature" security policies, they mean the ones that Dick Cheney dreams about at night, the ones that Bush was trying to step back from in his final two years; they mean Obama's current policies.
This is all fine and good if it actually makes us safer, but it won't. Maj. Hasan was investigated by the FBI for his contacts with radical clerics well before he went on a shooting rampage, but he was still allowed to buy a gun because this information or even a flag was never placed into the instant background check database, and the terrorism task force that was watching him didn't receive notice that he bought a gun and a bunch of ammo. Here's an idea, make it so the FBI knows when a terrorist it's investigating is buying a bunch of guns and ammo. Why don't we start there?
Make love, not reality television.
If nothing else, this proves that a Democrat administration is no more concerned about individual rights than the previous Republican administration was.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Free speech sometimes encourages behaviour against the institution.
When I entered high school the internet exposed me to anti-Christian propaganda. This led me to think about my belief system in a more analytical way. I am sure there are some people in Utah who would like to have removed my access to all dissenting religious thought for the same reason.
People who want to limit your access to information are trying to control how you think and how you act. People should do what they feel is right, and most importantly their actions should be the result of a well informed thought process.
Surely Nadal's actions were not efficient. He did not change anything, but he made his choice. Now he's dead. But you can hardly say he was a child who was indoctrinated by some internet posting.
Flame me if you will.
There have been, and will continue to be, terrorist activities against governments, religions and 'peoples'. This includes the United States and 'our way of life' but isn't limited to the US by any stretch of the imagination. These acts of terror are committed by people of all nationalities and religions. It's evident that we all "just can't get along". The vast majority of these efforts aren't because of "perceived government eavesdropping on landlines, cellphones and e-mail" - they are because some extremist didn't get enough hugs from mommy, or someone of a nationality or religion other than theirs disrespected or harmed them or their way of life in some way (real or imaginary).
In the US this isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue. The Republicans tend to campaign on the 'national security' issue much more than the Democrats, and regularly use it in their talking points. When the Republicans are in power they advance this agenda openly (though we'll never be aware of most of the details). The Democrats tend to campaign on alliances and détente, though they don't use coordinated talking points effectively. When the Democrats are in power the also advance an agenda of national security, but do it quietly and "behind the scenes" (and we'll never be aware of most of the details). Both parties use & promote surveillance and other activities that attempt to skirt the limits of the Constitution and the laws. The Republicans take their flack for it up front and the Democrats take their flack for it when it exposes itself.
Quote:
"Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday."
She goes on to say that the TSA procedure to not retain copies of the pictures taken by airport scanners is "protecting our rights". If the argument is going to be made that not making copies is "good enough" let's ask Rolando Negrin, the TSA employee who was arrested and fired after beating the snot out of one of his co-workers for their cracks about the size of his genitals.
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/TSA-Fracas-After-Body-Scanner-Reveals-TMI-92971929.html
So, if someone only "publicly" derides your appearance, reading habits or porn preferences then your rights are violated. If the government gives unfettered access to the fine details of your private life to a select group it is a good thing?
The process is supposed to be based upon reasonable cause and suspicion. Evidence is to be presented to a judge who would issue a search warrant to give the government the temporary permission to snoop into the details of your private life to collect evidence of a crime. Homeland Security is quick to jump onto any opportunity to treat every American as a criminal "who just hasn't been caught yet".
Tisha Hayes
As an example, she noted the struggle to use full-body scanners at airports caused worries that they would invade people's privacy.
The scanners are useful in identifying explosives or other nonmetal weapons that ordinary metal-detectors might miss — such as the explosives that authorities said were successfully brought on board the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day by Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
First, they do invade privacy it's just that folks have given up in arguing with the Government or there's the folks who are stupid enough to believe that it's important - I know a couple of them.
Secondly, that Nigerian boarded the aircraft IN NIGERIA! How many of these scanners do you think are going to be in piss poor third world countries?! NONE. And that's were most of the threat is coming from.
In the meantime, our stupid Government is scanning us: me, you, them, the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of travelers who just want to fucking get to their destinations. Of course, those big shots making policy, they don't fly commercial! Congressmen fly on private jets -Have a look.
Security is just theater for us little people to follow and be inconvenienced by.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Considering that the issue of "terrorism" -- in the US, at least -- is no where near a level you could possibly consider epidemic, this is just a poor excuse for the government to spy on ALL its citizens.
And if the government doesn't like what you're doing, you'll wind up being labeled a "terrorist", and they will swoop down on you, kick your doors in, confiscate all of your computers and smartphones, and CDs/DVDs and anything else where you might be hiding "terrorist activities".
And where is Obama in opposing all of this crass nonsense? Hell, I bet he supports it!
Welcome to the new boss! Same as the old boss!
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
If by "monitoring" they mean "reading publically-available websites", then I have no civil-liberties problem with this. It might not be a good use of law enforcement resources (they'd benefit me, the taxpayer, more by finding the people who steal cars and break into houses), but there's nothing wrong with the DHS using publically-available information to do their job.
This, of course, is contingent upon them only using that information in an ethical way. If they want to subpoena my ISP and send the police to hassle me because I said "Fuck the police", then that's a problem. But that isn't directly related to the DHS' monitoring of the web.
Monitoring of private communication (email, IM, which websites I read) is a whole different ball game. Ethical arguments aside it is simply not practical -- the real "bad guys" can hide so deep behind cryptography and steganography that the only people turned up by this monitoring will be people who are a little too ardent (for their tastes) in saying "Fuck the police".
I'm visiting Italy, and they really do make it hard to get an internet connection that they can't investigate. I had to give my passport information to the hotel before they'd give me a damn wifi account (and they have accounts, on an authentication server that's always grossly overloaded, where in the US there'd just be a public AP). But of course anybody really up to no good would do their dirty work over Tor or through an anonymising proxy, while these sorts of "security" measures instead just make it hard for a bunch of scientists to check their experiments.
We can have all the discussions we want about whether there is a fundamental right to private anonymous communication, but the technological reality is that anyone who wants it enough will have it regardless. Monitoring etc. is just going to make /b/ load slowly because everyone has to load it over Tor.
all this will do is make people more paranoid, furthering the "state of fear"
Bring our troops home. Pull them out of the 100+ countries they are stationed in. End the war already. Close Guantanamo Bay already, and return that land to the Cubans. And stop supporting Israel so damned much!!!
Once the US starts minding its own business in the world, it'll see much less of this so-called "terrorism threat".
Meanwhile, China is laughing at the US. Whilst the US weakens itself by chasing paper tigers, China is building itself up economically. Notice how they DID NOT go into negative growth during the economic downturn, while the US did. Hello. Is anyone paying attention?
Growing your Military Industrial Complex destroys wealth. Building up your manufacturing and production to meet the civilian market grows your wealth. It's that simple. And something the United States is totally lost on.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
I keep hearing on policies that are winding us down toward a Totalitarian Government. In response to these policies, I hear complaints, but never action.
I believe we need to band together and work toward informing the general public of what is going on. From that, we need to show our representatives that if they wish to stay in office, they need to start opposing these sort of laws.
I am not calling for any form of violent action. I ask of from all of you, these things.
1. Do some searching on the internet. There are plenty of reports of the abuse of these anti-privacy laws.
2. Go out and talk to those that live near you, show them what you found.
3. Ask the people you talk to to talk to everyone they know about what you have talked about.
Perhaps, in time organize protests.
If we sit back and unhappily watch as we are stripped of our rights, we apparently don't care about them as much as we say we do.
The youngest ocelets climb low up the yellow hitech house. Will they trudge ton to Sama binded or laden with sand? Some to the r southern astygmatics lambbast ardsley want to offer help. We can canvass ass in a teflon pan. They govern mentalists with an iron hand.
** Waits for the Feebs **
while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
We should be more concerned about monitoring the DHS for internal threats against our own lives and property.
This is not dogma, it's truth and history: Every time security is embraced, liberty IS sacrificed.
No no no, this is all wrong. Liberty IS security. Every bit of liberty we lose decreases our security against tyrannical goverment.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Indeed!
I'll go you one better.
TOM CLANCY warned the hell out of us, and we Luved it! (At least the bestseller book list sez so.) It's Executive Orders from ... 1995!!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
This is slightly off-topic, but is anyone here familiar with Cory Doctorow? He wrote a book I just finished called Little Brother where this same thing happened (except a little more localized and extreme) and he shows how pointless it really is. The book can be found here for download and it's under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license. If I was in Marcus's position right now (the book's main character), I'd be scared and facepalming at the same time. I wouldn't be scared of terrorists; I'd be scared of my own government! And to think we always shoot down the very ideas of some foreign governments that "don't respect freedom" when we're doing the very things we hate. It just doesn't make sense.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
It's really quite simple, just follow these simple steps:
1. <insert creepy government entity> wants to <insert generalized ability of impossible complexity>
2. Oh noze!
Here are some examples:
-The Pentagon wants to monitor your sweat glands
-DARPA wants to grow future armies from lunch meat
-Joe Lieberman wants to quarantine fat people
Did you know that the "enabling act" (which gave Hitler total power over germany in 1933) was a misbalanced anti-terror law?
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
The best encryption will slow the NSA down but it wont stop them. PGP's key length is not large enough that it cannot be cracked. It's large enough that it would take weeks to do it. So in general the use of encryption while secure enough to keep them from simply sniffing the data up, it wont stop them from putting a gun to your head and torturing the data out of you.
So if you use encryption and they suspect you are a terrorist, you'll be kidnapped and tortured, and this could last anywhere from minutes to years, or even for the rest of your life if they put you in a Supermax prison. The point is if you do use encryption it doesn't stop the rubber hose cryptoanalyst.
Dude, welcome to 2001. People already fight anything that doesn't perfectly align with their hollywood interpretation of a normal life.
When people are scared of an unseen boogeyman, they become paralyzed. Rational thought goes out the window and they become highly susceptible to "soothing" thought control, which is how one morphs a supposed democracy into the current plutocracy. Fear makes society malleable, the greater and more ominous the scare, the less people notice when you crank up the oppression.
-Billco, Fnarg.com