Danse was one of the many who sent us a thought-provoking
piece about privacy-not about how it's important, but how we've already lost it, or shortly will. All those little memories we build up, living our lives and how they all, ultimately, betray us.
Slashdot Mirror
No urban legend, it was authorized by Clinton. I read it in the NY Times and other "reputable" places several times.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
While this is certainly true, it hasn't worked out in practice in decades -- certainly not consistently.
A constitution is intended not to "grant" anything to the people (as if our liberties are the government's to give us), but rather to be a leash upon the state: it is intended to restrict and define what exactly the government may do. The 9th and 10th Amendments more than make clear what is already implicit in the fact that a constitution was made: namely, that nothing in the constitution should in any way be interpreted to suggest that the liberties of the people are defined by or restricted to what is mentioned in it.
Nevertheless, our liberties are constantly stolen by our tyrannical government. Witness: the Endangered Species Act and the various "wetlands" acts, all of which absurdly restrict private property owners' right to control their land. Witness: property taxes. Try not paying them and you'll see who really owns your property (hint: it ain't you). Witness: gun control laws, which explicitly violate the 2nd Amendment.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
And besides, even if the police could see that your vehicle went through an intersection, there is no way they could tell if the light was red, or that you blew a stop sign, unless they where there to see it themselves; in which case they wouldn't need the Lo-Jack to nail ya.
You're assuming they are only interested in fining you. What if they want to follow you for other reasons? I would advise anyone with Lo-Jack to install a cutoff switch and use it whenever they are driving their car. Perhaps is a random 'feasability study' shows enough people doing that, at least Lo-Jack won't be abused (unless it's already being abused).
>The revolution will come when they start wanting you to register your computers... A la Cuba.
reasons not to buy a pentium iii.
i am amazed to see such flameless discussion.
So I guess you missed the whole "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches" went right over your head?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
>Aggitate, aggitate, aggitate??
Um, so, we should start with the various A&M schools? You might have something there, particularly where it comes to the sheep.
Definitely an easier job than agitating the citizenry. And a good source of folks familiar with shepherding.
Disclaimer: The above is not directed at the author of the targeted message, and should be considered an instinctive reaction to the convergence of misspelling and context.
What I find intriguing are the possiblities for marketing. OnStar is advertising itself as a hotel booking service, reservation-making service, etc. They must be building up quite an impressive database of _extrememly_ customized personal profiles. Think of what that list of profiles--of America's wealthier individuals--would be worth to a marketing company?
And, if--like you wondered--they could keep track of listening habits, etc., that would just make it even more valuable as something to sell.
Makes you think...
-awc
This is wha3t I'm worried about. There are some people these days saying some crazy things. And the scary thing is that Americans seem to like these views, hopefully in moderation but who knows what happens on election day. Look at what Gary Bauer(sp?) is saying. This guy wants to be president!
Just for an example of Gary Bauer: He was on Crossfire and one of the hosts was asking him to say good or bad to these changes(I'm trying to remember correctly but you'll get the idea):
Host: Teenage out of wedlock birth down
Gary: Not good if the people are killing their babies(that was his phrase)
Host: Teen abortion down
Gary: Not good if they're using condoms and birth control devices(it seems that he doesn't want people, or at least teens, to haev access to condoms at all)
Host: Teen pregnancy down
Gary: basically same answer as above
The other thing this guy is doing is going around the country saying that there is a war being waged between two halves of the country. One half is like Eric Harris and Dylan Kleibold(Columbine killers), and the other half is like this girl(can't remember her name), that was killed because she said she believed in God. And he says he can't believe that people can go around worshiping Nazis in school but they can't pray.
People like this make me so sick.
BTW, Pat Robertson is on Larry King Live today, I'll be watching.
The one-time pad, when implemented properly, is provably perfectly secure. Not even the space aliens from planet Zarbnulax with their advanced technology can attack it.
Properly implemented cryptography will not stop a dedicated attacker, true. It will make the attacker choose to get the information in some other way than attacking the crypto, though.
If you want a secure symmetric cipher, use 3DES. Nobody's even come close to making any kind of a real dent in it; odds are the spooks can't, either.
The illegal search and seizure thing was out the window as soon as they said they could stop you for looking suspicious. It's a shame. But hey, just to catch one bad guy, we decide that is ok if cops block our roads. Last time I checked this country was still a democracy, but in real life it's socialist. The government should have no right to determine what is good or bad for us. Crack should not be illegal. You should not be taxed more if you smoke. Pot should not be illegal, Nor should pornography of any kind. According to the constitution, we must have a separation of church and state. IMO I would like all of our money to quit saying "In God we Trust". Also according to that law, we should have complete anarchy. There is not a law in this country that is not based in some way off of religion. As far as getting sued for allowing access to some web pages, tough, if you don't like, don't look at it. If it makes fun of you, get over it. Did you sue the six grade bully that was always picking on you? I didn't think so. Ignorance is not an excuse for the law, but there are so many laws now, that no one can know them all.
Here on slashdot we still have to worry about the repercussions of what we say, by legal means, and flaming means.
It's a really sad world, but none of us are fighting these laws, or government. We have the power as people to change things in this country.
The only problem, no one listens unless your rich or lucky.
Insurance should not be mandatory, it's like telling you that your guilty before you get into an accident.
Most things that are legally mandatory, or illegal, are that way because of some industry makes enough money to prevent the change.
Face it, your going to walk the way they tell you to walk, and think the way they want you to think.
Ohh, and don't think changing presidents is going to help, there almost as powerless as the rest of us, besides your vote doesn't count anyway, not as long as the electoral college exist.
Without computer security, there would be no hackers.
That sure looks to me like at least the SSA believes that businesses and other private entities can "require" your SSN.
The Social Security act actually DID prohibit any use of the SSN as an identification. That part of the act is routinly ignored by government and private institutions alike.
It seems that simply ignoring such protections and making the cost of forcing the issue too high for citizens is the latest rage within the government. It's a lot easier than passing legislation and risking a big stink.
When that fails, there's always creative re-interpretation of the Constitution to fall back on.
Could be that the easiest thing would be to change your vocabulary slightly.
Advocates of free love probably don't have the same problem with the word f*ck that some do, but when they're standing in front of the church lady they watch their words.
We get to choose when and what language is appropriate. Advocates of "geek pride" or "geek liberation" or whatever may disagree with me here, but tact does make life easier often enough.
As I have seen with in the past 3 years, i'm getting sick of being called an American, due the religous riech which we call a government. Look, like I have said before, we need get off our asses and stop them from pushing us down. They are taking away your right saying it's all for the kids, which basically means that is blocks the kids from everything. In this fact that the government is acting like that overlly protective religous bigot parent. Ever seen the kids that come from these homes. Never to know anything about real life and the come out to the real world? They haven't a clue on how to survive and deal with the reality of the cruel place this world is.
They are trying to make us sheep for their greedy lil' pockets. I like my privacy, I like my freedom think, say and do mostly anything I want with out having to worry about someone following my every move. I don't people to know what I talking about to other people on-line.
Face it people, we are getting screw and society has become so lazy as a whole that we don't care about what they do to us. What happened to standing up and fighting for your rights? Have we reduced our self this low, or have we become scared of what we built?
I would seriously thinking about getting together to correct this issue before the US of A has its own Nazi Germany.
I ate my tag line.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
The problem is not running red lights, but privacy. The Man doesn't need to know where I take my vacations, where I shop or where I take a piss.
Humanity goes in cycles, tho. Soon, some technology will swing the discussion in the other direction.
I hope I live to see that day.
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
Whizzmo
Whenever I purchase something online, or enter my name into a computer, I always embellish. Instead of plain "Michael Labbe", I enter something such as "Michael 'The Ninja In The Mist' Labbe". It's interesting to see when these things come back to me.
Such a case of information that I never leaked getting out is my E-Mail address. I'm an at home customer, and I've been getting spammed in a CC list of @home customers whose E-Mail addresses start with 's'. I've never given out my at home email address, as I prefer AtDot.
Echelon has been in the mainstream press recently. Here's an NY Times article (user/pw = cypherpunks):
w eb?getdoc+site+site+76922+0+wAAA+echelon
http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fast
Note: I tried to do this in HTML, but it always put a space in the URL...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
no privacy.
(first post!)
The last time I voted was in a presidential election. I voted for a third party candidate. My vote was not counted for 2 weeks. Literally. All non-Democrat/Republican votes were set aside and counted after they found out who won.
Meanwhile, they "normalized" the returns as they ran on TV. If you added up the percent that voted for D or R, it would always equal 100%. Even if 5% voted for something else.
A good book on the topic of voting is _Liberalism Against Populism_. He expands Arrow's Theorem (1963) and proves that ALL voting mechanisms violate some minimal criterion of fairness.
Here's my favorite example. Single-runoff elections violate the principle of monotonicity. That is to say, INCREASING support for a candidate should not result in LOWERING his final outcome.
Let's pretend we have three candidates, X, Y and Z. And assume four voting factions with the following preferences:
2 voters prefer Y>X>Z
6 voters prefer X>Y>Z
4 voters prefer Y>Z>X
5 voters prefer Z>X>Y
Assuming everyone always votes for their highest preference, the first election will result in:
6 votes for X
6 votes for Y
5 votes for Z, who is eliminated.
In the runoff election, you can only vote for X or Y. X gets 11 votes to Y's 6 and X wins.
Now assume that the 2 voters in the first faction above had changed their minds. They now prefer X>Y>Z (just like the second faction). The only difference is that they have RAISED the preference for X.
In the first election:
8 votes for X
4 votes for Y, who is now eliminated
5 votes for Z
In the runoff election, X gets 8 votes and Z gets 9 votes.
Those 2 voters who changed their minds and decided to vote for X resulted in X losing an election he would have won if they had not supported him.
Other voting schemes will violate other principles of fairness. Rogers Rules of Order, for example, can result in a final outcome that would be unanimously defeated by another outcome if each possible outcome were paired against each other.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
I can read, but there is a local ordinance against selling/lending this book.
Where do you live? I would like to avoid going there.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The Child Protection Act of 1996, in the name of tracking down deadbeat dads, is a registry of everyone who works, along with their salary, place of employment, position, address, and other vitals. Any social or payment worker, anywhere, can access it. Can you spell abuse?
Plans are underfoot to add a few fields for those nasty gun owners. Who could argue with that? A few more fields for militia members, maybe the more vocal members of the Christian Right, food hoarders (that is now a federal felony), and of course, we could fold the sex offenders into it.
All noble goals, and you can't argue with a single one.
We should have all seen this one coming. We watch movies like "Enemy of the State", and we think "Nahh, could never happen to us". Sure, it isnt the same level of privacy invasion, but it does happen.
/.'ers. We have to find ways to keep big brother from peeking over our shoulders.
Im sure this article is going to set off that paranoia alarm in a lot of
Anyone know anything about PGP and how it is regulated? I just might have to start using it since i Dont feel like having Big Sam reading my emails.
- "My name is Legion, for we are many" -Mark 5:9
Ken Starr tried to subpoena Monica Lewinsky's book purchases at a local book store. Just because the book store isn't the FBI doesn't mean that they won't cooperate.
I don't believe the book store owner cooperated, though.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
I don't know of a privacy howto. But there are
plenty of books out there about protecting your
privacy. Check out
Atomic Books. There's a ton of wacky stuff there, to
to the Privacy/New ID category.
I was wondering that, too.
Glasnost, perhaps?
p.s. Does your slashdot password start "/." too?
Posted by Justin:
;)
Anyone noticed the bit about 1984 at the bottom? It's quite frightening, especially for those of us whose bible is 1984
>This one isn't so obvious. Lets say.. if Rodney
>King didn't have a video tape to prove police
>abuse, he'd be a n*****r that Ferman saw fall
>down. Alot.
We hear this a lot, but it just plain isn't true. The CHP (California Highway Patrol) was already investigating the incident *that night*. A CHP officer was at the scene, wrote down badge numbers, and launched the probe.
Also, the clip shown on television was clipped--If you watch the whole thing, *especially* in slow motion, it just isn't the same event that caused the commotion. The initial use of massive force was necessary. When someone is still coming at the police after the *second* taser, the only reasonable conclusion is that he's on PCP. Tests showed this wasn't the case, but this information wasn't available to the officers at the scene. (I don't think it's been explained at all.) And he wasn't helpless on the ground; he was still fighting.
Unacceptable levels of force were used. It went on after he stopped fighting. But this wasn't the random beating that it's made out as in the mythology.
All this The government is out to get you stuff bugs me in a big way. Yea the govenerment is not perfect and they do a bit of stuff that I don't like, but plese the USA is not and never will be a facist state. But some how many of the folks who spread this dreck have a few minor points:
1) I don't have to pay my taxes.
2) There is a big conspericy invoving the Jews, the UN and probably the martians and the Knights Templar.
3) Lots of vuage acusations of loss of freedoms.
I think its mostly a lot of paranoid dreck
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Oh, we're all gonna die! We're all gonna die! (or at least we're all gonna live in a Zero Tolerance/State-Dominated/Privacy-Disabled Country).
Yawn. Sorry, but I'm getting so damned tired of cries of "the sky is falling". Also, the accusations of "if you don't care, you're just a sleep-drugged American zombie destined to be stomped by the state". It's all so over-dramatic.
100 of 137 indicators of "1984" have come to pass. Yeah, so what _exactly_ does that mean? I can still move where I want, work where I want, go to any church I want. I can write letters to the editor griping about the government. I can buy my own land and go out into the woods and dance naked if I want. Hell, if I want to go marry a homosexual lover and his sheepdog, then have his clone-child while living my life on welfare, Mr. "Blue Dress" is working hard to make that within my grasp, too.
Sure there are cases where authorities abuse their power, but (as a rule) these are reported and corrected. But let's fall back to the author's question: Everyone who's been abused by a policeman, raise your hands. Okay, everyone who's read about an incident, raise yours. What's the count? Get a reality check.
--Wake me up when Y2K is over. And that Notrodomos thing in July 1999...don't bother me with that either.
If I could read, I'd read 1984. Doesn't it
have two way television? And isn't two way
television bad? I can't wait to get my own
cable modem!
Could somebody post a shorter version of that
story. Just way to much to read.
Want people to think you are really crazy?
Tell them that the reconstructed TWA 800 isn't
the same plane that crashed. Then back it up
with lots of documentation. They will think you
are "way gone man".
Want to know what makes me upset about all this?
The newcomers!
Have a great day kids!
Now go back to sleep.
... is that information wants to be free. The best way to keep secrets is not to have any secrets at all. It's one thing to want to keep Big Brother from watching you on the shower; but while only Big Brother has an interest in knowing your shower habits, anything that is potentially dangerous or important about your persona is interesting for many other entities. Thus, the privacy that the article claims we've already lost may not even be that important in the first place if there isn't a Big Brother from which it's imperative to keep information. What I'm trying to say is that, if there's a system in which all have something to gain from other people's information, but on the other hand they all have something to lose from their own information, then there's nothing to be afraid of. The big problem is that the Government and the big corporations disrupt this equilibrium.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
It was really just a case of dyslexia on the part of the "framers of the constitutions."
The right to arm bears has just never been very popular so only PETA and a few other special interest groups even bring it up.
And this doesn't even breach the subject of the people who demand their right to suntanned arms.
If you allow for Tempest scanners, physical attacks on your machine, attacks on any third party that might happen to have your key, and the all-too-typical easy passphrases that most people use, then it is not entirely incorrect to say that in many cases a PGP encrypted message can be cracked in a matter of hours by someone who really wants to.
Just tell 'em it ain't encrypted. "Hey, just because you can't figure out how to pronounce %(H8%^&)RTHBNuirt5e057832@^%$%)__|H_)KKUCRU GIUI*jç_\*T+á68íoÑ_9M_\÷±+¦+-9(&)YNB%%%%%%%% doesn't mean it's not a word!"
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
It's not too uncommon to pick one or two at random and just run those. I know it's done since I was once pulled over for 'parole violation'. Turns out the cop shouldn't type and drive at the same time. He had the wrong car and driver. It is not pleasant to see a cop approching your car with his gun drawn! To cover his gaffe, he then claimed my insurance had lapsed (he was reading the effective data as the expiration date), did the flashlight search for empty beer and liquor bottles. He was briefly excited when he saw the IBC bottle (ibc is a non-alcoholic root beer sold in a brown bottle which strongly resembles a beer bottle). And fanally settled on warning me about a cracked tail light! (It wasn't).
That was the '80s. I'm sure they have better tech available now.
Even if they did only bother once they pulled a car over for some reason, there is still the risk of 'padding' the violation based on the driver fitting a profile that rarely contests padded violations in court. That is already done based on out of state plates, do we really want to improve that sort of profiling?
Seriously, there's no privacy in the United States. Especially now. Your only hope is to become a citizen of the European Union, which will fight for your rights of free speech, privacy, and unreasonable search and seizure.
If you're an American, you have none of those rights. You think you have them, but you don't.
Me, my whole life was public before I was 10 yo, so it just doesn't matter. You can either rail against the fact you live in a fishbowl filled with barracudas, or like Ben or Casey and enjoy the ride. Or you can go my way and just be notorious.
But the only way you'll get privacy will be when the EU sues the US and we get it by indirection. Until then, forget it.
Will in Seattle
who's glad most people can't spell
Will in Seattle
What do they arm the bears with? Pasta?
Will in Seattle
leave your guns in Redmond
Will in Seattle
This is going to get me labeled as an anti-gun liberal, again, but the question is serious. How are an untrained band of people armed with knock-off Kalishnakov's going to stop a battalion of M1 tanks? Say what you want about Vietnam, but those poor unarmed rebels, and their allies, had access to some serious hardware, like mortars, artillery, MiG's, etc. Aren't we better served by trying to change the system, in a loud and if need be obnoxious manner, than depending on ol' Bessy to take down an AH-64?
And then of course they run it through their Ultra-Advanced Natural Language Parser to determine if you're actually talking "bad".
Funny that you say that, because it has happened to me. When I moved to Seattle to go to school, I called the phone company to get the service hooked up. They required my SSN and I gave it to her. She asked for it again. I repeated it... she asked yet again, and I repeated it number by number... Finally I had to have my roomate sign up for the phone because my SSN didn't match my name!! She said that when she entered in my number, it came up with a 65 year old man in another state! I haven't had any other problems since, but that sure did scare the crap out of me!
Aha, are you by any chance American? :)
:)
In the UK, we do have this 'Data Protection Act' and if folks really want to, they can demand a company reveals all the data stored about them, not necessarily immediately and maybe at microscopic charge. It can also be legally required to be accurate as well.
As far as national identity cards go, I'm all for removing the demand for having quite so much plastic in pocket, as long as it can be done securely (well, SSL-based online ordering beats handing a credit card to a waiter any day; if the replacement plastic supports a suitable encryption mechanism I'd be happy), I don't mind having things making life easier.
What is the problem even if data is sold on to others? More people know a bit about me and I get slightly less thick salespeople calling me...
It's not as though I have anything to hide that I can't PGP-encrypt!
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
When the South (States) revolted from the union, they got more than a bit of the union's military as well. The rebels just might have the pre-revolution rank of general, sergeant, admiral, etc..., along with the tanks and planes.
Shafik, you beat me to it. So I'll just add that for those 240 million sheep out there, it might be an easier intro to Chomsky to watch the documentary ``Manufacturing Consent.'' Check out this for some online info about the film. If ten people read this message and see the film, I'll be very happy. (If a million do, I'll consider that proof that the time of rapture is near)
I believe another point made in 1984 is that a large part of the way the system works is to insure that the Power does not change hands again. The use of mass media to keep people focused on supposed "evils" abroad, attacks by foreign nations, and the prevention of the creation of martyrs prevents the general populace from ever harboring a desire for revolution
"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson
Cecil Adams of the Straight Dope dealt with this in one of his books. http://www.straightdope.com , though I couldn't find it online.
1 6/cyberhaven00/002-7348674-6106650
I recall someone's taking over an abandoned off-shore oil platform and starting his own country.
Anyway, the real source for the info is:
How to Start Your Own Country
by Erwin S. Strauss
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/09151790
"Start your own country? Yes! This book tells the story of dozens of new country projects and
explains the options available to those who want to start a country of their own. Covers diplomacy,
national defense, sovereignty, raising funds, recruiting settlers, and more, including names and
addresses of current projects. Over 100 pages of fascinating case histories illustrated with dozens of rare photos."
1984, 5 1/2 x 8 1/2, 174pp, illustrated, soft cover.
It happened. The _thirteen_ states that did it were invaded and crushed. FYI, that was over 100 years ago.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
-jwb
While it is a little difficult to read, there are some important ideas in there. My personal favorite, though, occurs when Washington warns the government to cherish the public credit, and only use taxes in times of war. Guess the government hasn't followed that recommendation very carefully!
Here is the unabridged version of Washington's Farewell Address
"Here you are free to do what you choose
Free to wipe tables and shine shoes"
(WestSide Story)
"But freedom without justice is a freedom for a few
Who have bought the right to tell us that their freedom lie is true
Oh freedom without justice grows up into slavery
Unless you're a Barclaycard carrying member of the free"
(Fat & Frantic)
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
I take it that you already know about the Social Insurance Number:SIN (or Social Security Number:SSN for the American folk :) making one voluteer to pay income tax. ;-)
i.e. without a SIN/SSN one is not eligible to pay
You wouldn't happen to have any more information on the Canadian money system? i.e. where did it orginate? etc...
you can email me at mpohores@REMOVE_SPAMsfu.ca
I have some interesting "Sovereignty" links for you.
Cheers
It was included, in part, so that the state would have to actually produce evidence to convict a person of a crime. With compulsary self-incrimination and rubber hoses, it would be far too easy for an ambitious DA wrongly convict innocent people. (Who needs evidence when you have a confession?) This, incidently, is one of the most compelling arguments against pre-trial asset forfeiture. Such forfeiture often prevents a meaningful defense and a ruthless DA can dramatically improve his "conviction rate" by simply seizing any assets which could be used to mount a defense. Then, once the person is "convicted" the asset forfeiture is "validated."
More importantly, this right was included so the state couldn't charge you with a minor crime and then force you to confess to a more serious charge.
Even today, there are many legal activities which meet with social disapproval. What if you were in a strip joint when your boss thought you were on a sales call? What if you were in bed with a woman other than your wife (and she with a man other than her husband)... and her husband happens to be the very prosecutor asking you this question?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Why does everyone think that people who speak out against the law have something to hide?
Besides, if things like oral sex weren't against the law you wouldn't have to hide them.
Screw privacy, you want it, make it.
As soon as you play follow the leader, your privacy is determined by that leader.
Without computer security, there would be no hackers.
The People's Almanac #2 (David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace, 1978) is a bit outdated, so this may no longer be true (more info, anyone?), but on page 77 we read:
"There is a 1500 square-mile section of northern Colorado, west of Denver, not owned by the U.S. three days a year. According to the records of the General Land Office, this territory "was acquired neither through the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the Texas annexation of 1845, nor by treaties with the Utes who apparently never claimed it." This un-American region--its residents possibly not U.S. citizens-- included the town of Breckenridge. To check this further, in 1977 the Almanac editors called the Colorado Bureau of Land Management, who admitted the quesstionable area "was blank" on their maps, showing no admission date to the U.S. According to the Colorado Historical Society, a strip of land 90 miles long and 30 miles wide in the Breckenridge area had been a no-man's land due to an early surveyor's error, but was officially made part of the U.S. on Aug 8, 1936, with a special proviso that the area retain "the right to be a free and independent kingdom three days each year." Since then, a "No Man's Land" fesitval has been held annually in August. However, part of the region may still not be U.S. territory."
More info, anyone?
The authors of the Constitution meant something when they wrote it. It is illegitimate to pretend that that intent is "irrelevant", or that other so-called "interpretations" are "just as valid." To do this generally is to destroy communication. To do this with the Constitution is to destroy it as the law of the land, in favor of...something else (which is very likely to be less respectful of our rights).
So the real question is: what did the writers of the Constitution intend? What did they intend, for example, with the 2nd Amendment? Even minimal historical research on your part would reveal that Madison, Washington, and the rest were firm and unwavering advocates of Citizens having guns. Your concept of a militia (as the national guard or army) did not exist for quite some time after the ratification of the Constitution; the army that fought the Revolutionary War was not a standing army at all. It was the people. Citizens.
Secondly, the principle purpose of the amendment was to ensure that the people could protect themselves against tyrannical rulers. It was NOT for simple self-defense against criminals. Again, a little reading on your part could verify this.
With respect to the Supreme Court: their job is not -- nor has it ever been -- to interpret the Constitution however they wish. THEY have no more power than you, me, or Congress to just unilaterally decide that they are going to make the Constitution say whatever they wish. They are bound by it like all our rulers -- at least in theory. The sad fact is that the Court rarely acts as though it acknowledges this. It is not the Court's prerogative to "give" us rights! It has none to offer.
Lastly, I am "nitpicking" (as you put it) because the system we have is broken. I AM advocating a better system: the one we were originally given by the Constitution. It is this that we no longer have. It is this that we need to get back, or there is going to come a time when we will all wish we still had the right to own guns.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
There is no such thing as 100% security. You can get the code for the compiler, compile a copy, and compare to the orrigional. A self-replicating back door in the system would eventually be noticed by someone.
Also, since there is such a diversity of systems, any back-door virus would have to adapt to each and every new situation. Change a few lines of code and the virus will break the application. The virus would have to have access to a database of applications, with instructions on how to subvert each one.
On a related note: Back Orifice 2000 has been released, and is NT compatable.
---------------
Vote Libertarian.
If we can't ask the Vietnamese, what about the Afghans?
BTW, I don't think anyone seriously thinks that small arms, alone, could hold off the entire US military. But as others have pointed out, most people in the military are honorable and would have a hard time using the heavy weapons against lightly armed civilian "rebels" who had a valid grievance. (Racist nutcakes do not have a valid grievance. Randy Weaver *does* have one, but only because of the government's own actions.)
As for the rest, guerilla arms aren't that hard to produce. The DoD weapons are expensive because they are stored for years, must be usable anywhere from the Iraqi desert to northern Europe, and must often travel long distances on their own. Guerilla arms can be produced for immediate, local use. Think any American government can ban all basement metalworking shops?
Finally, I've heard the current (1945?) definition of "militia" used far more commonly than the 1792 one. IIRC, it's everyone subject to compulsary military service: abled-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45(?). Some countries (e.g., Switzerland) require such men to undergo formal training, maintain weapons in their home and regularly demonstrate proficiency. In the US, we simply have the option of buying civilian-equivalent guns (e.g., the standard sidearm is(was?) a Beretta FS-92; my Centurion is nearly identical to the military version) and training on our own. The life we save may be our own, if the US gets in a war and we're drafted into the military!
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I do worry about privacy and my rights, but i also agree that the task of collecting all data and filtering it for relevance is absolutely monumental. the kind of hardware, software and human resources that are needed to be effective at any level would surely make any such system incredibly expensive.
now, the obvious question is why anyone would want to spend this kind of money. not to catch a few drug-takers or thieves, that's for sure. the key motivation for international espionage is surely money. governments doing each other out of arms deals, agents double-crossing and making huge amounts of money out of it. espionage is a multi-billion-dollar industry, not a law and order issue.
so i suppose what i'm saying is, yes, let's send as many encrypted nonsense emails around as possible, etc,etc, but at the end of the day, i've got a feeling pc plod will only be knocking on my door if i'm caught hacking government weapons research centres, and then only to offer me a job.
I agree with rjh...thank you for including the excellent, yet still fairly succinct version of PKI. I will also back his challenge with an additional $ 500 bucks if they can crack the message in a week. Project Bovine ( http://www.distributed.net) has been trying to crack RC-5-64 for 624 days now, and their odds are still only 1 in 2,529 of cracking it in 24 hours.
Ich suche die Leidenschaft, die keine Leiden schafft.
My point was once it was sold, it is useless to call the company to have them "remove" the data - it's already multiplied out to whereabouts unknown. And good luck trying to do it in the courts; if yours are 1/2 as slow as ours, you'll be long dead before you get any relief that way! :-)
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,
Because he was an religious unlicensed gun nut.
Since when does the ATF go hunting for unlicensed gun owners? If you think that's why they were after him, you need to do some reading.
So becuase New York police are violent... um, what does this have to do with privacy again?
It has to do with people's rights. If they don't even respect people's basic human rights, what makes you think they will respect your privacy which is not explicitly spelled out in the constitution in so many words? Most U.S. citizens consider privacy to be a right. I believe most government officials consider it to be a right as well. We all want our privacy, but some groups want to be able to violate that privacy on a whim.
Packet Storm was broght down becuase it voilated the TOS of its Host, maybe the threat of legal action helped this along, but that is irrelavant.
It is not irrelevant. The school had no problem with him until some guy decides he doesn't like what the website says and decides to threaten to sue. Now, the school doesn't want to have this show up in the news, so it caves in and shuts the site down. It doesn't matter to the school whether he actually said anything wrong or not. They are just afraid of the guy taking legal action that might get them some bad press. It shows that simply by threatening legal action, you can interfere with someone's right to free speech. You don't even have to prove a thing in court.
How about AOL giving out user information to the Navy without any authorisation, either from a court or from the user, whatsoever? How about the fact that someone can have your identity revealed just by alleging that you have said something libelous in an anonymous post? It doesn't matter whether it was legal or not. They will know who you are. How about the fact that most people can't even afford to defend their rights in court? It costs money to exercise your rights. What a country.
Again, NYC can fall into the ocean for all I care.
Great argument. You can't just explain it away, so you decide to ignore it. Too bad there are so many people like you.
Probably, if the public defender had gotten 12 more juriors who had the intellegence of the common carrot.
Let's see. The better attorney will likely be the one who has more experience, a better track record, and can demand a higher rate of pay. The public defender is often not as experienced and certainly not as well paid, even though he/she probably has a bigger case-load. I wonder who will be able to offer the better defense? Since both attorneys have a say in picking the jury, it's not just up to the public defender to get a better jury. Would you go with a public defender if you could afford a more expensive attorney who specializes in your type of case? I doubt it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
So people are going to know stuff about what you do. So what? In my wallet right now I have: three bank cards, three supermarket loyalty cards, my university matriculation card, my blood donor card, my national insurance card, and membership cards for several clubs. These all represent organisations that hold data on me. And you know, I quite like it that way. I quite like the fact that the supermarkets know to give me money-off offers on fruit and not on beer. I quite like the fact that if I get knocked down in the street, the hospital will know what blood group I am.
Of course, any time I like I can tell these people to delete my data from their database. But why should I want to, when their having my data is to my advantage?
SHA was created by the NSA. SHA-1 wasn't. The original SHA had a potentially exploitable problem which was found pretty quickly once SHA's algorithm was opened up to the civilian cryptographic community. The fix, SHA-1, is the most heavily scrutinized and peer-reviewed algorithm out there. If there's a back door in SHA-1 which permits "eccentric" behavior like what you're proposing, then the back door is in public view and it's only a matter of time until it's discovered and the NSA is embarassed.
Besides that open-source argument, there's also a pragmatic one: the NSA has no interest in forging hashes. The CIA would, but the NSA is a signals intelligence operation. It's actually in the NSA's best interests, from a signals-intelligence perspective, for secure hash algorithms to exist.
Remember: the NSA is not necessarily the enemy. Every now and again the NSA's goals coincide nicely with our goals, and when that happens, you'll find them to be some of the best friends a cryptofreak can have.
Remember how I've been going on about 3DES, how it's been examined for two decades without any successful attacks against it? It's based on DES, which is widely considered to be just about the Holy Grail of algorithm design[1]. Who designed DES (and by extension, 3DES)? IBM, with a lot of assistance from the NSA's cryptographers.
[1] DES's design is elegant, secure, and in many ways a thing of beauty. It can be cracked, but only by brute force. Good design != unbreakable.
1) Congress shall make NO LAW...
Okay. What does this mean? This means, that no matter HOW much the PEOPLE beg, scream, kick, and yell at their representatives, they CAN NOT make a law abridiging various freedoms. (Hey, I'm not American. I don't have them memorized.)
It doens't just mean 'the government shouldn't do these things', it means they DO NOT HAVE THE POWER to do these things.
Or, as one of my favourite authors once put (paraphrased), "A new society must be careful when creating laws in haste."
Almost any law we create can come back to haunt us in many unforseen ways.
Example:
Copyright was originally intended to foster creativity. Now it can stifle it at times.
The Drivers License used to be a 'license to drive', now it is a universal ID, something that can be revoked for OTHER infractions, unrelated to driving.
In Canadian law, the first line of the Income Tax Act clearly states "Whereas the paying of Income Tax is on a purely voluntary basis"...
It also never received Royal Assent (as all acts brought into law must have). Yet it is commonly accepted that we MUST pay tax, as it has always been!
What about the federal reserve? Our respective governments (in other words, the people), have GIVEN UP the right to print our own cash. It is now in the hands of the Bank of Canda (not government) and the Federal Reserve (not federal, not a reserve)
The banking system controls money, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
Last time I checked, all the politicians were too concerned with kissing the butts of the special interest groups and big business
This is a dumb argument. Politicians listen to whoever makes the most noise. With voter turnouts in the sub-30% range, we voters certainly aren't making much. On the other hand, the SIG's have people beating down the doors of our representatives every day trying to influence congressional votes. Given this situation, it's only NATURAL that the special interests get more attention. If the US people would get off their arses and VOTE, if they would pay attention to politics and CONTACT their congresspeople with their opinions, the system can change. The problem today is that we have 100 Million people whining about the futility of voting, and complaining that their opinions don't count. The system is NOT broken, it's just badly neglected.
And FYI, I vote in every election (local, state, and federal). I have also written my congressional representatives many times, over many issues, and I have ALWAYS recieved a personal reply from them. As long as your letters are well written, contain supporting information, and AREN'T flames, they DO pay attention to them.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
i'm working on an open source chat program (ala aim, icq) and plan to implement crypto enveloping of messages in the us version. This project is still somewhere in alpha though so it may be a while
Three good responses, but there is still a disconnect to my way of thinking. I work with the millitary every day and I have found them to be decent men and women who I believe would honor the oath to defend the Constitution above the orders of any commander, including the CiC. So why do we need the hardware, to fend off the FBI? That sounds flippant, and yes I know that the FBI can get out of control, but I can't see another way to phrase the point. If we are to stock arms and train against potential tyrany, which I do believe could happen here, but we are also to assume that the military, or much of it, would be on our side, who is the enemy?
The fall of democracy in this country, if it happens, will be with a wimper. The majority will decide that elections and decisions are just too hard and why can't someone simply see that things get done. Voter turnout rates point in this direction. Yes, most people don't vote because they are happy with the status quo, not because they are totally apathetic, but how great a step is the last? We are raising people who have no sense of civic responsibility and think even the most basic demands of free government are an imposition. Asimov wrote a story about this, the title of which escapes me. In his future computer monitored opinion polls decided the elections with the imput of one person to represent the variables not accounted for in the other methods. That is the sort of place I see us heading toward, and armed resistance will only speed up the fall. Look how ready people were to enact draconian laws after Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center bombings. If it keeps us safe who cares about the lose of liberty?
We have the very unglorious task of not manning the trenches. Somehow people have to be convinced to become vigorous participants in our government, to stop with the ballot and reasoned action the excesses that are carried out in the name of the body politic. The very idea that armed action may be needed will only frighten the masses further into the easy sloth of a Madison Avenue dictatorship. The only way we can win this fight is by preventing the fall, not reacting to the tyrant.
Just ask any big rig truck drivers. Anything that can be used to document location is used in auditing speed and distance/time driving. That's a whole different debate. I'm not so sure I mind a little intrusion if it protects me or my family. I think the average geek is going to have more pain and suffering being mugged/burglarized/or smacked by a drunk driver than being targeted by the government. Next debate...gun control. Enjoying the posts..(so dont get on me.)
Shadowze
--- Join my team at www.dcypher.net $10,000 to the winning computer #147 "Homebuilt Computer Users"
SirSlud wrote:
.... The Fifth was written as a reaction against British "Star Chambers" [no Kenneth jokes please] where victims were forced to "confess" often-invented "crimes". In other words, the amendment protects us from the state changing the laws to incriminate you, or taking your own words and twisting them into a confession. It's a bulwark against the overwhelming power of the government, and as such has proven to be a fundamental building-block of American-style democracy.
But that amendment confuses the hell out of me at any rate: if you're doing something wrong, shouldn't you be working to change the law that makes it wrong rather than trying to uphold the amendment which keeps you from incriminating yourself for it?
I think the way to look at it is through the other end of the lens, Slud
The two most-famous examples in recent history would be the McCarthyist witch-hunts for Communists in government, industry, and even Hollywood ("are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?"). Here a majority in Congress abused the power of the subpoena to intimidate citizens who had violated no laws in order to persecute people in an extra-legal way (by for instance ending their careers); the Fifth was the only defense left to the victims of HUAC or Tailgunner Joe. The other was in the Watergate hearings, where many of the conspirators resorted to it in an attempt to protect themselves or the President. Fortunately there was plenty of corroborating evidence.
The penultimate result of Watergate -- the Clinton impeachment -- was deliberately conducted (by Ken Star Chamber, er, Starr) via grand jury proceedings, precisely because a grand jury proceeding is exempt from the restrictions against self-incrimination. In short, no Fifth Amendment.
To paraphrase another poster, one of the hallmarks of our democracy is the principle that it's better to let ten guilty men go free, than to send one innocent man to jail. In the same spirit, the men behind the Bill of Rights recognized that it's better to let ten guilty men go free, than to let the state use its power to violate individual privacy.
We can only hope that present and future governments keep this in mind!
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
I don't much care if the government knows what I'm doing - as long as they don't restrict it (within the law, that is).
I'll start worrying when all the conspiracy theories stop.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
"I have never been happier than I am now; a fact which depresses me immensel
democracy will save ourselves (i.e. individuals) as long as propaganda (which is very effective when based on alredy collected data) do not overpower our judgement thus abilities of "Ambition will be kept in check by...ambition".
so think when voting and cry when hurted by government.
nowadays people are forced to think more (which is good :) and this trend will continue because of technological advance) because otherwise they became "good litle sheep farmed by government".
i just fear that significant portion of population [like/will like] that and thus i lose my [right/privacy/...] because of them giving power to some "farmer".
hany
It's about choice, not silence.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I used to think this as well, but the US has one thing going for it that will help alleviate (not necessarily eliminate) the pressure for political revolution. That thing is rampant consumerism, which is exactly what is causing a large part of the loss of privacy problem! As long as people continue to buy their SUVs, pay the interest on their credit cards, pay $3 for a gallon of milk at the conveinence store (give me conveinence or give me death!) they are unlikely to do anything that will change the political landscape radically.
Periods of radical protest in the US (the 20's, 30's, and 60's) were quietly and relatively easily quashed by portraying the protesters as unAmerican, radical, and stirring public opinion against them through smear tactics as well as actual violence. You don't need to read a lot of history to see how the US government's actions against the anarchists, Wobblies, Socialists, Communits, SDS, AIM, Black Panthers, Civil Rights movement, anti-nuke movement, and Central American Solidarity movements all used the same tactics and achieved the same goal - quashing any political challenges to the status quo.
However, even were there to be a radical government change (most likely through a Constitutional Convention rather than a violent overthrow) it'd be the vocal minority (mainly the X-ian Right) that would most likely take over. In any event, changing the government is very unlikely to change the practices of corporations (which have more rights than US citizens). It'd take a massive reformation of the legal code to fundamentally change any of these practices. At best, we'd have a middle of the road leader trying desperately to walk a line between the radical right and the clueless masses.
Given the means all governments (and to some extent the US government) go to to protect themselves I don't see changes coming barring some global meltdown. The US makes it changes too gradually to notice while focusing on all the great economic freedoms all law abiding citizens are granted.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, a 40-bit "export" version of PGP. Other programs, yes. PGP, no.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the keys can be reconstructed on a LAN, with only the time of message known". Frankly, I suspect that you just don't know what you're talking about... but maybe you'd like to explain how to go about it? If you think that the random number generator is seeded with the time of day, think again... it's seeded with keystroke cadence information.
Of course if you send your pass phrase or the cleartext of your key over any network, LAN or otherwise, you lose. The solution is not to do that, as has been clearly explained in the PGP documentation since version 2.
Newer commercial versions of PGP do have a rather nasty data recovery system, but it's optional; you turn it on at key generation. It's also intended for corporations to use to recover messages encrypted by their own employees, and there's no infrastructure for giving it to the government. Anyway, if you buy your own copy of PGP, you just don't turn on the recovery feature.
PGP has problems. It's big and complex, so it might have unknown bugs. It has a corporate key recovery system. It's not clear that the "web of trust" PKI will scale even as well as the (also problematic) hierarchical model. Weakness of the cryptography is not, however, one of PGP's problems.
Sheesh.
Let's also add the Stop&Shop discount card data, and a credit card statement digest to that DB. That way we'll be able to harrass each other for buying Coke over Pepsi, and having bought that Durango in a state with lower taxes.
Just a thought - sorry - didn't think it'd be dangerous.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
What you all fail to see, is that every law you make will infringe on someone's belief's.
And no of us have the right to do that.
Anarchy is not a solution either, because it can never happen.
We do not need to add more laws, we should rather take more of them away.
If we make it all simpler, we'll have a more enjoyable place.
Privacy is up to the person who wants that privacy.
Ask the people who make the laws if they want their lives tapped into. If so, broadcast their lives on TV 24/7. Add channels, see how fast they go crazy. When you want privacy, make it. Don't say you can't, break laws if you have to. Those cameras can all be broken, power can be turned off.
You might disagree with making crack legal, but if someone wants to use it, why should we stop them. You all praise the fact that you can make you own decisions, but you fear letting other people make theirs.
We should not stop people from hurting themselves, as humans, we learn from destruction.
Read The Lucifer Principle, really good book about the way society as a whole works.
Without computer security, there would be no hackers.
BB keeps reams of information on all of us, but while the information is easily collected, stored, processed and retrieved reviewing the information is another matter altogether. Orwell stated, ironically, that "Ignorance is Strength," but, IMHO, Knowledge is power. Knowing what others do with the information that is collected on and about us allows us to "diddle" the system ourselves.
One could even argue that we have a right to mess with systems - government or otherwise - that are insecure or that could be used against us in an illegitmate or illegal manner. It could also be argued that the offense is not the actual use of the information for "bad" purposes but the Collection of the information without thought of how it is used or secured.
Information may be more available, but it is more volatile and less controlled by the collectors.
J:)
When it comes to biometrics I like retina scanning. With the systems that are out there now, the scanning can't be forced and you don't leave retina prints on doorknobs everywhere.
J:)
War is Peace
Love is Hate
Ignorance is Strength
Ernie is Bert
Oh well, no point in steering now.
Don't use "savings cards" designed to collect consumer data on you
If you are willing to give up some conveniences, then you can retain a great deal of privacy. I emphasize retain - once you have given away privacy it never returns, so you cannot "get it back".
If you enjoy the above conveniences, then you simply have to live with less privacy.
Of course there are a great number of things government and industry could do to increase privacy, but I'm sure other posts will cover that.
do not let governments ban or criple strong encryption.
and just to be sure: encourage variety of formats (thus interoperability) - do not let someone (some company? some government? some E.T.s?) unify our tools to made [this task] (this = echelon and similar projects) easier.
hany
Asimov wrote a story about this, the title of which escapes me.
I'm pretty sure you're talking about the good doctor's story "Franchise", in which an election consists of Multivac interviewing a single randomly-selected individual and extrapolating "the will of the people".
Maybe I should reread it (been a really long time), but I don't remember it having much of this sort of political cynicism. That is, it seemed more like a spoof, carrying the mathematical foundation of polls to its absurd extreme. The claim, at least, was that this system really did produce the outcome that an ideal democracy would have chosen, but even better due to the lack of dirty political campaigning. That's not to say that it didn't have a subtle point: I would say the moral of the story (expressed mainly when the elector reflects afterward on how good it felt to have his voice heard...) was to emphasize the importance of voting, but in a poetic way, rather than by evoking fear of a possible future.
He wasn't describing a Brave New World, or a Big Brother. That wasn't his style -- he seemed to be generally optimistic, and more interested in the technological possibilities. Even though in this and other stories, Multivac did seem to take on a Big-Brotherish role, it usually seemed like it really was a benevolent one -- I think it even took into account the effect that it was having on humanity (freedom and self-reliance vs. safety, etc.) and carefully weighed the results. When he did get cynical, it was usually regarding humanity's dependence on technology, e.g., in "The Feeling of Power", where nobody remembered that it was even possible to do arithmetic without a calculator, and this (re)discovery had a profound impact. Again, though he was (hyperbolically) expressing a fear, the real point was to emphasize, to us, here and now, the importance of such things.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
I wonder if it would be possible to copyright personal information? It may be fun to try, and if you can then you can sue anyone who uses it for royalties. Just a thought....
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
you can move on if you want, i'll be using ZKS's Freedom software. the game's not over yet.
Have you seen Ironstayn vs Supergovernment yet?
Any student of history (or anybody who knows _anything_ at all about history) knows that revolutions occur on a pretty regular schedule. Governments come into power, usually backed with the support of the majority of the population, on a platform that 'fixes' the problems of the previous government.
.02
But after a while, the new government gets so bogged down in its own buraucracy, and opportunists seize every chance they can to gain more power for themselves (=> less for the people) and eventually the new government that was supposed to fix all the problems of the previous one has its own set of problems.
Now I'm definately NOT a history major, but one instance that comes to mind is Russia/USSR. After the fall of the czars, a communist government (which sounds great on paper) took over. What happened? The few people in power were selfish, more concerned with themselves than with the good of the country, and then you get what happened in the 1980's.
What's my point? I think that our governent (remember how that came to be?) is starting to abuse its powers. The principles that the US was founded on are being twisted and manipulated by people with ulterior motives. This process is being accelerated to an incredible speed thanks to our level of technology (the Net, etc.).
The world is an imperfect place. No large population of people is every happy with their government for a long period of time. THIS WON'T CHANGE! As Joseph Campbell once said, (I don't remember it exactly), "The world isn't perfect. It's a mess. But it's a perfect mess."
Just my
LL
"If you are falling, dive." -Joseph Campbell
This keeps everybody in a state of fear: am I "normal"? is my credit record worse than that of other people? was the bank justified in denying my loan? did I do something wrong? is everybody around me earning more money than I am?
Perhaps a better approach to the encroachment on our privacy is more transparency: with some exceptions, anybody can view most data about other people, from the Bills (Clinton and Gates) to your nextdoor neighbor. That way, I know where I stand relative to other people in society, I can review my records for accuracy, and people can detect discriminatory or harmful practices by businesses. Or on a smaller scale, if all salaries in a company are widely known, that will likely lead to more equity in pay since it gives employees more negotiating power.
Perhaps it would also mean that individuals behave more prudently because they would embarrassed about some of the things they do. Right now, detrimental behavior is covered by a blanket of privacy in a way it has never been before. The constitution may protect your right to bear arms, but it doesn't protect your right to amass a private weapons stash without your neighbors knowing about it.
The current state, where large corporations can get information on consumers, but everybody else is in the dark, seems to me like the worst possibility. Transparency, if it applies to everybody, individuals as well as corporations, could be a workable alternative.
Privacy isn't a part of what makes the USA a 'free' country; it's not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution (so I don't know what this "We the People" icon is all about). I say get over the privacy thing. It's gone, daddy- let's move on, shall we?
The US House just passed a bill that would reform the drug war seizure laws. (basically, if you're suspected of producing/distributing/possessing drugs, they can permanently confiscate your possessions in the name of investigating the drug charges. needless to say, this gets abused.) I'm not sure what exactly this bill would do, if passed into law (I've only read the introduction, which described it's purpose as "initiating reform". yeah, now *there's* a real measurable target. Alas, I forget the name of the bill, but at least someone in the government is making a token effort at paying attention to the lunacy that goes on in the name drug control.
it is not that acurate nor some true art but it points out some pretty good implications and possibilities of abusing information systems (by whoever).
hany
Probably not ever will the US be a facist state.
At least not until a member of a minority group can get stopped, harrassed and beaten for driving through an afluent neighborhood... Oh, wait!
Well, at least not until Faderal, State and Municipal workers are forced to forefeit their liberty by making union membership a mandatory condition of their employment contract... Oh, wait!
Well, certainly not until politicians stop saying and doing what is right, and start saying and doing that which will keep them in power... How you like them Big Apples Hillary? Now wait a cotton picking minute here!!
At least we still take responsibility for our actions, and face up to the consequences of our choices... [Blame Canada! Blame Canada!]
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I say let's spam 'em! Just sprinkle likely trigger words randomly North Korea through your emails. Your recipient NORAD might be confused until you potassium nitrate explain it to them, but that's a small price to pay for anthrax the fun. We could also attach boiler plate to our sig files, replacing those threadbare Star Trek snippets. It's kind of like that Jeff Goldblum tactic in one of his less-than-successful movies, where he tells his captors so many different stories, they don't know which one to believe.
Flood the system.
Problem is, there are no measures you can take to protect your privacy from the government. If you want a drivers license, marraige license, or to stay of of jail for income tax evasion, you must tell them alot about you. No way around it. Then they can do whatever they want with it, including sell it to private business, and your screwed.
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,
Another way of preserving your privacy is to create some random noise around your "real" identity.
True story: Several years ago, just for fun, I started filling out warranty cards, shopping survey cards, discount store cards, etc... with false information. I said I was 20 years older than I was, with a wife Buffy and two kids (I used my roommate's names for the kids just for fun...). I consistently did this for two years.
It was fun to get mail at home for life insurance for my non-existent children, etc... but the real punch line involved my brother. My brother works for one of the large credit card companies. American Express was trying to sell them an information database that they claimed was the most accurate ever. How do you test something like that? Put in some family members and see what comes up.
So, you can see what is coming here. My brother calls me on the phone and says "Who is Buffy???". American Express trusted my warranty cards, etc... more than they trusted whatever other public records they could get their hands on.
Just a little bit of random noise can really throw off a "data warehouse" trying to track you. Make it fun! Go buy whipped cream and condoms at 2 am on the first of every month and see what your grocery does (grin)...
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
Just don't do anything wrong. ever. :)
Michael Dikkema Systems Administration Moot Technologies
As stated below, this is very remniniscent of 1984.
I particulally love the phrase "War is Peace" because it is so true. At a time of war people can be so focused on the current situation, productivity goes up, and nearly all the peoples hate can be directed towards the enemy.
The heading "Your government allows-- no, encourages-- others to spy on you" also reminds me of 1984... the way that the children were given listening-horns for the purpose of listening at their parents keyholes.
I remember that for the last twenty years the novel in question has been dismissed on several occaisions, and indeed in the editorial of the current edition that I have been reading. Could it be true that in thirty years, it won't be Goldstein who is the enemy of the State ? In fact, it is Orwell with 1984 as The Book ?
OK, pessimistic I know, but always a bit thought - provoking nevertheless.
Offended? Heck no -- keeps me humble. Not as much as that photo did, though. The only resemblance I bear to that graven image is that I, too, have two eyes and a head .
/. discussion of her article, which beats the hell out of any discussion engendered in her unmourned magazine days .
AG, aka HK
genuinely amazed by the
Is there a HOWTO or other "comprehensive" document on how to protect your personal privacy, both online and in the real world? If not, I could probably start one. Submissions welcome :)
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
When the Bill of Rights was framed, it was easy for a citizen to arm himself with weapons equal to that of the army. The second ammendmant was meant to allow exactly that.
If the Constitution were being followed today, any citizen could legally own military weapons capable of stopping an M1 or an AH-64. Supposedly, that is not allowed since without military weapons nobody can blow up a building in Oklahoma.
This isn't just about legal or illegal issues.
Powerful people use the technology at their
disposal to gain more power. I wouldn't care
so much about all of this if the FBI, CIA and NSA
didn't have such a terrible history of setting
their own agenda through surveillence.
This isn't about crime. These agencies watch all
political activists and activities. We do not
live in a healthy democracy where dissenting from
the government's opinion is always accepted.
Kevin Mitnick?
Mumia Abu-Jamal?
Watergate?
Leonard Peltier?
Where have you been man?
The people who run these 3-letter organizationz
have their own agenda and they stick to it at a
cost of our freedom.
The Information Revolution will be fought on the command line.
Wasn't it Scott McNealy who claimed "You already have no privacy. Get used to it."
...not that that's necessarily A Good Thing.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Yeah, I read somewhere that we were officially still under martial law because there was no limit on how long it could last. The Constitution is suspended but we are allowed the appearance of it's still being in effect.
I also heard that official martial law has been going on since the Civil War. Heck, the income tax was an emergency Civil War measure that was never lifted!
Kinda scary I'd say.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I don't think it matters what our founding fathers intended this country to be, they've been dead for over 200 years. Quit trying to please them, and live life for fun and enjoyment.
If you want to own a gun, buy one. Legally or illegally, it's not hard either way.
Same with drugs, you want pot, buy it, illegally of course.
The laws that should not be here, are to protect the stupid people from themselves, and to protect the other stupid people from them.
By the way, we are all stupid.
Some laws you might agree with others you might not. Some laws people don't want to change.
Like Child porn. It's illegal, I agree with that. But the people who practice it don't think it should be illegal.
If you don't like something, stay away from it, don't try and tell people that they can't do it.
Without computer security, there would be no hackers.
It's not so much that the government is out to get you, as that the government intends to do nothing to stop the private sector from ferreting out everything they possibly can. Now, whether this is because Congress is in the private sector's pocket, as many would believe, or simply because they're clueless, I don't know.
On the subject of electronic privacy, a lot of people simply don't seem to realize that what applies to paper or speech does in fact apply to the internet as well. The Internet (capital I, folks) is a scary, untamed, and completely different place in the eyes of most decision-makers.
A threat more dangerous than the ones this article mentions is Congress' continual encroachment on the first amendment, and the constant attempts to limit the civil rights of minors. (I'm just waiting for them to pass a law making it illegal to be under 18.) I know this is a shameless plug, but visit the slowly-being-constructed home page of the fledgling Student Civil Rights Campaign at http://www.crosswinds.net/~civilrights.
That's all.
"Don't touch the bunny!"
I guess I'm kinda confused by this whole privacy issue. It seems to me that the lack of it only leads to more efficient prosecution of lawbreakers. Why do you care who finds out how you live your life? If you don't want everyone to find out what you've been doing, why not just not do it? A transmitter telling the police how well you drive wouldn't be such a big deal if you kept it down below 90, and I don't care who has my hair samples because I don't do drugs. It's not the right to privacy everyone wants but the right to break laws. And those laws exist because the voting populace (NOT the American people, tragically) selects people whose political viewpoints are consistent with those laws. If you have a problem, campaign. Vote. Elect someone who agrees with you. (Professional wrestlers can be useful for this.) But you have to ask yourself, "What is it that I'm doing that I don't want people to know about?"
"America's at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent." - Clair Wolfe, _101 Things To Do 'Til The Revolution_
err...umm..wakey wakey. china has pilots which fly the chinese version of the american F-16. i believe its called the Super 7/J-7 or something to that effect. migs are more primitive than F-16s..so why bother training on russian migs when you can build your own F-16 ? theyve had the plans for a loong time.
easily preventable. visit the junkbusters site..she can call them and tell them that they can never mail her junk and never give her name out to anyone..or else she can sue. Check the rules governing the DMA (Direct Marketing Assoc) which is responsible for all the junk mail.
Agreed on the approach, but now how do you...
a) Convince 260 million sheep that they're being sheparded by someone.
b) Explain to them how this is done.
c) Explain to them why it's bad - so as to not look like a fringe malcontent.
d) Get them to, in a concerted effort, feed poison to the InfoHounds.
e) accomplish all of the above without the powers that be taking note and counteracting your efforts
Maybe a march on Washington? Nah, that'd just be labeled as nostalgic... The nation is being babysat and placated by the national media, driven by focus groups.. It's hard to tear somone away from their TV set.
I know, let's put libertarian comments in the source code we release open source. But that'd give M$ the edge in the legal arena... Hmmm..
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
hmm..go to a different state, get a license and transfer it across. you have to pay $15 but at least you'll get a license w/o the fingerprinting and shit.
If it weren't for the info you provide (explicitly or otherwise), you would receive 100 times the junk mail and calls you do now - it really would be at the level of spam. But with info about who's most likely to respond, direct marketers won't waste the postage and printing of stuff that you've no chance of responding to.
Of course in the UK (and elsewhere in Europe), it's mandatory for direct marketers to clean their lists against the Mailing & Telephone Preference Services before they undertake cold mailings. This is A Good Thing. Shame email isn't effectively covered the same way.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
I'm sorry to all of you who haven't seen Army of Darkness and obviously missed the reference, which is what the reply was all about anyways. Your might wanna see it, its a funny movie, with a bunch of great one liners, a good number of which duke nukem stole in duke 3d. So basically back off, it was a movie quote that you didn't get.
Of course, us Good People don't have to worry about that, since only Criminals would want to send encrypted messages.
No sig.
err...i hate to tell you this but if they check you can be arrested, put in jail for 5 yrs or get a $25,000 fine. Remember that little acknowledgement you signed that the info you provided was truthful at the bottom of the form ?
A choice between only two alternatives: Democrat and Republican. This is not a democracy when both are owned by those who pay for the elections. The US is an Oligarchy. It used to be controlled by rich noblemen, then it was controlled by the robber barrons of the 1890's, now it is owned by the Fortune 10000 companies.
-- This is not a signature.
As anyone been able to find this survey he quotes?
I looked and I couldn't. There are at least 2 online documents with this name, one is a Priceton U publication and the other is a liberal publication(acording to their homepage, and I didn't see it on either.
The best kind of government is none at all!
--- In the land of the blind the one eyed man is burnt at the stake Can you see?
There are exemptions to some of the provisions for government agencies (so you can't wipe your police record :-( ), but they still have to register what types of info they can hold. And those registers are public.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
There's no such thing as an uninterpreted form of communication. Thus, I would have to acknowledge to that extent that the Court was right in Marbury v. Madison. The question has more to do with how we interpret it. I would, therefore, affirm that a strict construction of the Constitution is the only one that is both a) faithful to how we *must* treat any form of expression if communication is going to occur, and b) the only reasonable way to understand something like a Constitution. It's not meant as a list of tips or guidelines. It's meant to define the nature of our federal government.
If we don't like something in it, we have an actual form of recourse embedded within the Constitution: amend it.
I cannot possibly agree with you that I am "more free" now than my great-great-great-great grandfather was. When the Federal Register consists of over 10,000 pages of fine print every year, it is not conceivable (nor, in my opinion, honest to myself to believe) that I have more liberty than did Patrick Henry. It is no exaggeration what a police officer friend of mine told me: a cop could easily slap you in jail after any traffic stop because there are so *many* infractions of which we are all guilty on a daily basis.
I certainly won't claim that the Constitution was/is perfect. I definitely agree that it has some terrible flaws. And I do agree that the Supreme Court has certainly made some applications of constitutional law that are excellent -- the wiretapping you mention is one example.
But I am not more free. I can't dig a well in my yard myself, and not at all without permission from the state. I could not fill in a swampy area (if I had one) to convert it to agricultural use. I am told whether or not I must wear a seatbelt. We have ramp meters where I live; I'm not even allowed to merge onto a highway as I please. In some states you're not allowed to drive a car that is hazardous to *you* but no one else. You can't ride a bike without a helmet in Dallas. You can't ride a motorcycle without one in many states. I could not go to a gun shop and buy a gun on the spot if I wished to. If as a business owner I employ others, I have no right to manage my payroll taxes as *I* see fit prior to paying them. I can't own chickens where I live, or any other small livestock. I can't water my lawn except on certain specified days even though I'm paying for the water (and no, I don't live in an arid part of the country). I can't withdraw more than $10,000 from the bank in cash without filing papers with the IRS. I can't carry a gun even if I wanted to. In some places it's against the law to spank your own children. You can't go hunting when you want. You can't fish when you want. You can't rent your own property to whomever you want. You can't leave your business inaccessible to the handicapped -- even though the only person it hurts to do so is...yourself (because you lose their business). You can't become a barber without permission from the state. I can't accept what *I* want (and nothing else) in exchange for my goods and services; the government *requires* that I accept Federal Reserve Notes, if they are offered.
So how am I more free?
I could obviously go on and on for pages and pages (tens of thousands of pages of the Federal Register, just in my lifetime). I think you get the point: I'm NOT more free. You're not. NO American is.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Hey, wow, wonderful. I haven't heard anything about Echelon in the mainstream, ever. I do know that I live about an hour away from one of their biggest monitoring stations(in Bavaria)... You can see the golf balls (doppler radar for the most part) and antennae arrays from miles around... Lotsa US military personnel on base down there, and they don't talk about what they do for a living. When I first found out about it, I was scared as shit. Now, I just remember not to joke about anything involving the CIA on the phone (semi-joke, that).
Cheerfully awaiting the arrival of a CIA field agent at my front door.
-- K
Indeed there needs to be more information about making people aware of how they can protect themselves. Are there watchdog websites out there anyone?
A friend of mine does not like using credit cards to pay for anything only cash or money orders. One day she gets harassed by her isp ("distrupting" service, adding additional fees in the name of better service, etc.) because she pays them using money orders. They inform her that they are "cracking down" on people who don't pay with check or credit card. Aparently, they are peeved because they are losing out on cash they can pimp out on her personal info they would otherwise gain from her credit card or checking account.
-paranoid
they wouldnt..but the toothpaste manufacturers and drugstores would. look he makes spot purchases! quick -- send him 200 spam mails to make him buy xyz brand!
Its funny you mention giving up conveniences, I refuse to get a drivers licesn as of right now because they have installed digital fingerprint scanners at my local DMV, my only form of ID is my social security card and a old school ID.
Ya, some may have a problem with not driving. But hey, at least im not polutting the air. Also IMO I do not want to be just a nother number in a database.
What ever happened to the Atlantis project?
-magister-
Really, though, that has nothing at all to do with it. The problem is not with what they've read or understood; the problem is that they no longer care about what the Constitution says. They no longer think that it really is supposed to define the government's limits. I don't think the Constitution is a perfect document by any stretch, but it really is almost completely irrelevant to modern life. Neither the laws passed in Congress nor the decisions made by the courts seem to have been founded upon a careful consideration of the constitution. The document is as close to a dead letter as it can be without actually going on life support, and anyone who thinks differently need only consider the previous examples I've mentioned. It's only a matter of time before any liberty mentioned in the Bill of Rights -- never mind those which aren't mentioned -- will be the victim of unconstitutional violations, all in the name of things like "fairness", or "public safety", or "social justice", or whatever.
Here's another one to think about: Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the right to suspend the Constitution during times of emergency (i.e., under declaration of martial law, or in wartime, or in natural disaster)? Answer: NOWHERE. Why do they do it? Because they can, and because the people want it. They are perfectly happy to sacrifice their liberties for the sake of having Uncle Sugar take care of them.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
"Well, face it, the vast majority of society cannot be trusted to make responsible decisions about drugs."
So you're saying that Clinton and Co. are more capable of making my drug decisions for me???
Or maybe you mean the church???
If our government would keep it's nose out of things, natural selection would once again take over and people who are too stupid or lazy or depressed to not get addicted and OD would OD and die.
I've tried it all and used to smoke some serious pot and drank whole bunches of beer... I'm not as smart as I used to be and regret much of what I have done. I reliazed real quick that cocaine was way too addicitve and gave it up after the third time. It wasn't easy even after 3 times but no one made me do it.
Give me a break. You are clueless.
Considering that single socsec numbers are used multiple times for different people, I'm probably sharing mine with a convicted child-rapist cop-killing bomb-making gun-owning tax-dodging criminal.
Just my luck
InThane
What a complete load of hooey. First off, its worth mentionning that the article is obviously USA specific. The first ad, which deals partly with the 5th amendment is an american issue. So other countries inhabitants have never had such 'rights' in the first place. But that amendment confuses the hell out of me at any rate: if you're doing something wrong, shouldn't you be working to change the law that makes it wrong rather than trying to uphold the amendment which keeps you from incriminating yourself for it?
;) I'll fully admit that capitalism and democracy seems to be the best of the evils so far.)
People often confuse the growing rate of human interaction with privacy. I'd argue that back in the 1800's, you're privacy was no better - there simply was not the means to track such detailed information, nor services which would require such information. But if those infrastucture elements had been there, no one would have been better off.
No one knew it was going to come to this, and so no one could act upon it in time. And now that it's here - well good luck changing things.
Remember, the real goal of everyone in this society is money and power. Capitalism encourages the storage of information, because it can be used later (even if the owner of such information isn't sure how to leverage it's value quite yet, s/he'd argue that it never hurts to store it until it does become useful.) So is it really a surprise that people in power wanna know everything about you?
Every day I see people running stop lights, people taking advantage of other people, people bending the truth about themselves in order to gain access to services, discounts, and such. People going for theirs. What boggles my mind is how hot headed they get when they discover that those in power act pretty much in the same vain, albiet on a larger scale. Information, and consequently people's 'privacy', is one such thing abused by everyone, on a daily basis. (Like the guy who passes around his ex-gfs phone number as revenge, and then turns around and bitches about the government or some company asking him for his.)
I'd argue that the democratic and capitalist system is set up such that the storage of your private deails is an inherently attractive notion to those in power. Rather than some sort of control on the information, which is pretty useless considering the people we think are abusing it are the ones to whom we'd trust the task to implementing those controls, we need to rethink our social structure. Otherwise, just get used to it. I have.
(And no, calling me a 'commie' won't work.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I actually take a perverse enjoyment out of watching the crestfallen looks on peoples faces when I say 'No' to their plaintive 'Would you like a reward card?' Most people seem to expect me to say 'No, because...' and they get very puzzled when I just give them a monosyllabic reply, smile, and leave the shop. :) I suspect that they are carefully trained to counter all arguments as to /why/ someone doesn't want a reward card, and given no room to manoeuvre, they get lost :)
:)
I shouldn't be so nasty, really
I'm trying not to smile, really I am.
And they just might be.
I'm not in a militia. Why? Lots of reasons. But why does the government, media, and (therefore?) the public think that they are evil in general? What militia has bombed a Chinese embassy in the recent past because ``our maps were old?'' What militia thinks they have a right to all my personal information?
Oh, maybe they're evil because they have guns. Because we all know that guns are evil, right? While many states are making it worthwile to get conceal-and-carry permits, lots of people with influence want to take away your right to arm yourself.
Now, I'm not some sort of crazy personal armory. I don't own a gun. But I also have done research, and know that owning a gun isn't a bad idea.
What if we switched this discussion from guns and militias to computers?
Does the government have the right to know how much computing power you have? What if you amass computing power to help a foreign country do nuclear simulations? Computing power is a dangerous thing... maybe we should keep a record of all computer parts everyone owns in a ``safe place.'' The government wouldn't let anyone see that information who didn't need to, nor would they sell it... promise.
Why not run your email through the government filter? Only criminals would get into trouble! And why should you encrypt your data? What do you have to hide? Bomb plans?
For that matter, the government should be able to have root authority on all your machines... you could be hiding plans to shoot everyone in a high school... if the government could find those plans near the outlawed game of DOOM (which only criminals and people with violent minds play) they could save children's lives.
And that's what this is all about, right? The children. And protecting those children is why all people who are in contact with minors should have surveillence cameras in each room of their house. Think about how much child abuse could be stopped each year!
Go back and ask the framers of the constitution if ``necessary and proper'' includes eavesdropping on private conversations and censorship. Ask them if it is worthwile to infringe on rights if it can bring criminals to justice faster. Ask them if they would find it acceptable if the govermnent knew how much money they have, where it is, and how it was being spent.
I think we have a horrible government. I only wish there was somewhere better to move to. As many problems as the USA has, it's still the country for me... the least of the evils.
Sorry for the rant. It's a slow day at work.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Just to be clear, I own firearms. I vote. In at least one Presidental election my ballot was decided by the actions of the local US Attorney... and then Clinton didn't replace the asshole for almost a year.
I'm not a member of the NRA, but reread your comments with that group in mind. They own guns. They are very politically active. And they catch a lot of flak for standing up for what they believe in. Most other political affinity groups are jealous of their ability to get their members to contact their elected representatives.
Nobody wants to take up arms against the government. Nobody even wants to consider that as a real possibility, except for some nutcases who are as representative of most gun owners as Jeffery Dalmer is of meat-eaters....
... but I also know that I don't expect my house to burn down. I don't live my life as if it will burn down at any moment. But I still pay my homeowners insurance since history shows that houses burn down.
In a lot of ways, I think an armed populace is like a smoke detector on every floor. They may not stop a fire, and they may not stop the place from burning to the ground. But you have a better chance of getting out of the rare fire alive with working smoke detectors than without them, and you have a better chance of saving at least part of the house.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
"Look," he said, "we're not the FBI."
"Look," I replied, "I am not a target market."
And I grabbed my book before things got really ugly. I swear I could have socked him! Last week I was in Smithbooks again, and lo and behold, there's the clerk. He kept staring at me as if I was a total nut
I got the other clerk. She asked me if I wanted a card (it's $15 to join, no less!) and I said "Yeah, I know all about your f*king card". I'm a person that normally doesn't swear, just that the bile came to the forefront...I told her that you can't treat customers as commodity and that's something Smithbooks should learn. If I could have gotten the book anywhere else at the moment, I would have...but I think after this I won't go there ever again!
sjames (sjames@nospam.gdex.net) wrote:
> When the Bill of Rights was framed, it was
> easy for a citizen to arm himself with
> weapons equal to that of the army.
Actually, I think a gun was an expensive piece
of hardware back then, and if you believe the
article in the current issue of The Economist,
not many people had them.
> If the Constitution were being followed
> today, any citizen could legally own
> military weapons capable of stopping an M1
> or an AH-64.
Motivated guerillas, fighting on their home
territory, can do a lot with "inferior"
technology. Think about the Vietnam war.
(By the way, traditionally guerillas use Molotov
cocktails against tanks. Though personally, if
I were up against M-1 tanks, I would consider
strategies like, say, throwing some sand in the
treads.)
> Supposedly, that is not allowed
> since without military weapons nobody can
> blow up a building in Oklahoma.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
The federal building in Oklahoma was blown
up with a bomb made from something like 55 gallon drums of oil and fertilizer mixed together.
Yep, this has really made my morning...it makes me wonder why this all has been done, is it to protect ourselves from our all too human, mistake and injury prone selves? Making mistakes, getting hurt, and learning from it all is how one matures.
Yes, a stupid, sedated population is easy to control, while an intelligent, informed population is more prone to speak out and rebel against what they percieve to be unfair and gross misuse of authority..they might even overthrow it. But as Animal Farm demonstrated, eventually the oppressed become the oppressers, a new rebel underground forms and the cycle begins all over again.
Will mankind be stuck in this loop for decades, centuries, millenia to come? Or is it just part of the process of humans governing themselves, and only anarchy or absolute tyranny can bring it to an end?
"Fundamentalist forces are undermining the integrity of liberal and democratic political structures."
Cigarettes are probably more addictive than cocaine. Ever tried to give up ?
The problem is, you can't just click on the 'challenge in court' button on a web page. You must actually refuse to give your SSN, deal with the problems that causes, get a really good lawyer, and take it to court. Be prepared for appeals right up to (but not including) the supreme court.
Now for the twist, The DOJ will never let it go to the supreme court. You will "win" your case and be assigned an alternate number. Because you won, it'll never be heard by the supreme court, and the practice will continue unabated. Furthermore, you are out a great deal of time and money.
It will soon be required on every driver's license.
Isn't requiring an SSN as a form of identification illegal? (The answer is yes.)
My state does not put the SSN on driver licenses, nor does it ask for it on the DDL forms. (Technically, it's the DHSMV: DDL -- we love our acronyms.) If you are filling out a form that asks for your SSN (like at the dentist's office or the video store), refuse it and ask to be assigned an alternate ID number. The only people who should need it are the IRS and the SSA.
Even if you are in one of the many (15?) states that use the SSN as the driver license number, you can request that they not use it. They will assign you an alternate number unrelated to your SSN.
The security of your SSN is solely your responsibility.
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
Actually, I think a gun was an expensive piece of hardware back then,
I'm sure they were expensive, but they were perfectly legal. Today, an M1 is expensive, but even if I come up with the money, I can't have one.
Motivated guerillas, fighting on their home territory, can do a lot with "inferior technology. Think about the Vietnam war.
No question there. As for the VC, they had many weapons that are illegal to own in the US now. When's the last time you saw a case of grenades for sale? Or a morter? These days you even get a background check (and a special file) if you buy a lot of fertilizer.
The federal building in Oklahoma was blown up with a bomb made from something like 55 gallon drums of oil and fertilizer mixed together.
Yes it was (the mixture is called ANFO, Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil). That's why I said supposedly. What we need to ask is what is the REAL reason that military hardware is illegal in this country.
Conclusion: 'anti terrorist' laws do a lot to restrain armed insurrection, and very little to stop terrorism.
(By the way, traditionally guerillas use Molotov cocktails against tanks. Though personally, if I were up against M-1 tanks, I would consider strategies like, say, throwing some sand in the treads.)
Molotov cocktails look good on CNN, but aren't very effective against tanks. Tanks can (and do) operate in the desert. A handful of sand won't even be noticed. What you want is an anti-tank mine (illegal).
"What makes you so damn important or interesting? "
Depending on remaining unimportant enough that the govt isn't interested in you isn't very safe. All it takes is one cop, public official, or civil servant to take an interest in you....
Actually FEMA is the organization that comes in and helps relief efforts after a hurricane etc. They do not "assume total power" and they are not in the business of violating people's rights (the local police forces do that most often in the USA)
But biometric IDs can be copied, and there is no way for you to revoke them.
When was the the last time you voted?
Was it just to much trouble to stop by the polling place and make your view count, I mean it would of cost ten minutes out of your day.
Have you ever taken the time to write your local repesentive did you try to phone? Have you carried a petition to the Governor.
In the USA it works if enough people make the same noise.
if people make the same noise;
then take action;
else do ();
end if;
Who owns your data?
ya know, i just (like 30 minutes ago) finished reading ender's game, and it is odd to me how much of it applies....
perhaps all the answers are already here, we just need to think a minute about how to arrange them.
certainly without some sort of at least vague leadership, we won't get anywhere, and deciding where to get is another big question.
and in all truth, i begin to wonder who is manipulating whom? there will always be sheep, they don't even factor into this. although our definition does. are we, the elite, being manipulated as well? playing into their hands while we think we are foiling them? like ender...
*shrug* who knows, but i figure we probably are. in all honesty, i'm not so paranoid to take it all to heart all the time...and even if i were, there are parts of me that wonder if it's bad. our country doesn't filter out the best of the best; we don't sequester our talent or requisition it to state use. but it's all just left out there, on the "free market". how else is the government - for the moment we'll actually imagine that they might be working in our interest - going to encourage us to push forward?
alright...that image didn't last very long!
but the myth of privacy is long gone in my life, and in all honesty, it really hasn't affected me much. i'm quite certain that there's really not anything about my life that isn't catalogued *somewhere*, but so far, it hasn't been a negative influence. and it might not be for years...or maybe i just don't know it. but i'm certainly sick of outraged soccer-moms with barely a braincell to tie their shoes bouncing up and down about how very important their personal privacy is!
The really amazing thing is the fear our founding fathers(USA) had of government. They understood very well how easily a government can get out of control and created a Constitution that at the time was ingenious.
Quotes below from Investors Business Daily Editorial on July 6 1999
James Madison warned: "All men in power ought to be distrusted."
Jefferson: "History has informed us that bodies of men are susceptible to the spirit of tyranny,"
George Washington:"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master."
FWIW
given my luck...
InThane
> The problem with America is a majority of it's become fashionable to trash your own country in public forums ...
...
... and so tend to
...
To say that things could be better, to imagine a
more perfect world, is not to say that things
aren't worse elsewhere.
> that you can't squeal 'I have rights!' when someone looks at you wrong
I would allege that the biggest problem with
Americans is that we, as a group, lack a
sense of perspective
show a higher-than-usual propensity to whine;
in essence, we've become a nation of spoiled
brats.
> I voted Republican in the last presidential election
I've come to the conclusion recently that
most anti-republican groups, and most
anti-democratic groups, are arguing different
things.
Rabid anti-republicans tend to view the GOP
as the party of governmentally-enforced morality;
bible-thumping activists come to tell us who
we can sleep with and what we can do with our
free time.
Rabid anti-democrats tend to view the Demos as
the party of governmentally-enforced economics:
university professors come to impose an idealistic
worldview on everyone else, with lots of
regulations that make it impossible for businesses
to react quickly to changing conditions.
Both stereotypes have large kernels of truth,
unfortunately --- but almost nobody on either side
will admit it.
that only criminals would want guns too.
the world's search engines can't acquire all the web pages out there.
deja.com tries to get all the usenet news posts, and it probably fails.
most people i know have at least one bill or piece of data on file with a misspelled name. i myself have had everything from my social security number to my name entered incorrectly. i've since moved to ireland and i'm not used to all the numbers that id me now - who knows if they're correct.
a friend of mine's dog has a credit card.
there's tons of data being produced. tons. some of it may even be tracked. by the time people have developed computers fast enough to snarf it all, disks big enough to hold it all, and algorithm's smart enough to tie it all together - there will be even more data to deal with, newer ways to package it, and more sources for it.
think about it. let's say there's a tap on an undersea cable. is the line carrying voice, fax, or data? voice - what language, is it a code? fax - what speed, what language, is it coded? data - ip, x.25, other? ip - what protocol, is it encrypted, what formats? let's say it's email - is it plain text, uuencoded, mime (flavor?), binhexed? if it's mime, what's in it? is it a word document - which version, what language, is it in code, is it encrypted? is it some other word processor - writenow, macwrite, wordperfect, wordstar, star office, applixware(sun), pdf, postscript, amiword, the wp that's popular in korea, etc?
then there are encrypted data streams like freeswan, ssh (i do an ssh connection from dublin to boston everyday, and i do a 128bit ssl connection from dublin to bankboston every now and then too), and others.
your privacy is gone. right. it can be taken, but if you declare loss before even trying it most certainly will go away. you want to protect privacy? use secure connections. send a few extra emails each day (and use pgp or gnupg). put up some web pages. lobby for more bandwidth. and if you want, pester your reps (or run for office yourself), to protect your personal data.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
When is Congress going to pass a law making it illegal to turn off your TV? (Max Headroom)
- - -
If you want to read a REAL indepth book on the NSA, get "Puzzle Palace". It's a bit older, but still worth the insight into the secret workings of the NSA.
Much more sopisticated are the systems like GM's OnStar which is automagically alerted when things in the car happen, i.e. if airbags deploy and they cant get through to you on the cellular phone, they send an anbulance. Neat, for sure, but what else do they know? What radio stations I listen to? What times and where I drive? OnStar equiped cars can be unlocked automatically remotely, what if someone pretending to be me calls the service center? Interesting stuff.
There now...we've found yet another use for Windows NT. We can just sit back and wait until M$ convinces the various governments involved to migrate Echelon to a Windows NT platform. It will happen, if there is a system out there with THAT much computing power, it represents a huge marketplace and M$ will obviously pursue it.
:)
Once the NT-Enhanced Echelon (perhaps they can call it Echelon 2000) is up, it will only take a couple of days, probably hours before the whole system crashes and burns
I'd be more paranoid, but thanks to television, I don't have the attention span...
The copyright issue is a non-sequitur. It really has no relationship to personal privacy, but it is an interesting space filler in an article that has a veneer of doom and gloom, but little substance to back it up.
I have a hard time taking issue with the copyright law. Why should Disney be forced to surrender the copyright to Mickey Mouse when the character is still a current, thriving, revenue generating business? The copyright law was created under different circumstances than exist today. It's hardly fair to lobby for changes in, say, telecommunications laws that were created with no regard for modern communications without examining other laws that were created during similar times.
While the author's opinion is correct that nobody is going to starve in a garret because some works are passing into the public domain, he is incorrect when he suggests that writers, artists and musicians sign over virtually all of their rights to their publishers. I've written for publication for over ten years and I own the copyrights to everything that I've written. A writer makes a choice upon sale to a publisher: Sell all of the rights and take a big(ger) check or sell some portion (perhaps first publishing rights) and take a small(er) check.
The Internet, and to a greater degree all modern entertainment delivery systems, have opened a Pandora's box of issues regarding copyright issues. If a company is successfully using an icon after 70 years or more, why should they find themselves in danger of losing it?
And even more pointedly, what right does the public have to confiscate that property?
=h=
The author of this article concentrated solely (she thought) on the respects in which technology has compromised our privacy. She misses the boat on two counts by doing so.
First, she fails to note the respects in which technology can enhance our privacy as well. It's a hoary example but a good one: For every radar gun we invent, we can and should invent a radar detector and a radar scrambler. If we have not developed countermeasures for other methods of surveillance, then it's up to knowledgeable people to educate the market so that there is a demand for those countermeasures. Is that naive? I hope not.
Secondly, she doesn't pick up on the fact that most of these privacy invasions were caused by law, not just technology. Some of us live in countries where we can fight unjust laws -- do so! We can't hurt 'em if we don't hit 'em!
If we lose our rights due to inaction, then we didn't deserve them in the first place.
--
Some keywords for the NSA in the Lord of the Rings universe: One Ring bind find Sauron quest Nazgul freedom
I honestly wasn't very impressed with this piece. All he did was state that the world is quickly becoming an Orwellian nightmare, then cited several events over the last few years which he claims support his argument. He does make a decent argument, but I'm not entirely convinced. All of his examples are fairly superficial and pulled straight out of news stories written just to get attention. I don't doubt that many of these things are taken out of context. In my experience, simple explainations like his are rarely the whole story. It usually takes an insider fullly understand what's going on.
He does hit a few things right on the mark, though, especially the extended copyright issues. Walt Disney and others are (successfuly, it seems) trying to proect their empires by lobbying the government. This, however, is nothing new. This kind of crap has been going on forever. That's just the way our government works, for better or worse.
GNU Privacy Guard is a Free alternative to PGP. Take a look at their web site for more information.
--
one thing that wasn't mentioned, and the article probably left OUT a lot, is not just govt. but what ADVERTISERS do to track your behaviour. It's been reported that once digital TV starts rolling out the media networks will be able to monitor peoples viewing habits, for the purpose of gathering 'ratings'. Yep, everytime your change the channel or watch a program it'll be logged.
And those discount cards that bookstores and grocerys hand out? Nice way to build up a database of your buying habits, too.
Have a pleasant day. o)
Chuck - Application Software Secretary, Home Office License Enforcement
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
>I appologize for the tone here, for all the other >readers, but where does this idiot get off >wallowing in stupidity? Go crawl
>back under the Republican rock you crawled out >from.
One, I am not wallowing in Stupidty,
two, I'm a life long Democrat, I just think that a lot of people are acting like fools.
In many ways I'm as liberal as many people here. There are a fair number of law enforcement agencies (Starting with the NYPD) that need to be fixed badly, but that was not the point of the article.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
I'm still trying to figure out *why* the cops would want to know that my wife emailed to ask me to pick up some toothpaste on the way home.
That's a common myth. It may have once been that way, but now it's not so simple. See The SSA's document on SSNs for the real story. In particular, there's this: and this: That sure looks to me like at least the SSA believes that businesses and other private entities can "require" your SSN. It's worth noting, though, that the SSA believes there's no (federal) law authorizing such a requirement, so it seems you could give such a business a phony number so long as you have no intent to defraud them. If you're dealing with financial services, though, you'll likely run afoul of the big bad credit reporting establishment and/or the IRS, each of whom own more congressmen than you do.
I am not a lawyer. If you go to jail for following my ill-thought-out advice it's your responsibility, not mine.
That's why the right to bear arms is in the consititution. So we can take back the government when they go bad. The framers of the consititution just never took into account mass media, mind control (the mule), the amount of money at stake, and Apache attack helicopters.
I think Angela Gunn, who is a mildly attractive female if I remember her picture correctly from her magazine writing days, would probably be offended to be referred to in the masculine form. ;-)
D
I can't help but cringe when she starts the article talking about the "SUV-driving, politically oblivious latte-esthete Weekly reader" and then goes on to mention how one should worry about fingerprinting at the welfare office.
The article rehashed some old issues, brought up nothing new and liberally sprinkled FUD about the area. Ho hum.
Jason Dufair
"Those who know don't have the words to tell
Jason Dufair
"Those who know don't have the words to tell
and the ones with the words don't know too w
Kyle's Dad: We have laws called sexual harassment laws regulate what we can and can't do and say in the workplace.
Kyle: Isn't that called Facisism?
Kyle's Dad: No, it's Democracy because we say it's democracy!
I found the article interesting, but a little over the-top on doom and gloom. There are measures that can be taken to protect your privacy (as many other prior to this post have pointed out). Just my 2 cents.
:)
I do await, however, the legions of Radio Shack employees, decending from who-knows-where, armed with stacks of data on who bought batteries and audio cable from them, ready to enslave the U.S. population.
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
Here in the UK we are bombarded with store cards everywhere. One big store (sainsburys) call em the 'Reward card' as though you are saving lives or something by buying your food in the same store every week.
I am sick and tired of some sad little guy asking me if i have a reward card, a triumph card or a bonus-super-duper card, but the worse thing of all is the fact that they seem suprised or confused if you say you dont want one...
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
I don't like those types of discount cards, either. But jeez, that second clerk didn't know you didn't want the card.
Keep the bile down, amigo.
Peace.
sheesh, that somewhat disgusted me last Nov because I live in District 3 which was specifically gerrymandered to elect a minority representative, currently Bob Scott. It has been ruled unconstitutional in court but so far nothing has changed. Nothing against Scott personally, seems like an ok rep.
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I don't even want to start on the whole "legalize crack" thing, but as for the whole illegal search & seizure. HA!!
.22 rimfire, single shot, no magazine, no assault weapon capabilities, i doubt i could even kill a coyote with it, as it only takes low-power target ammo. If some one mentions the fact that i own a firearm (regardless of type) to a police officer or politician, i go to jail. If the cops show up at my year-end staff party to tell me to turn the stereo down, and happen to see the gun cabinet in my bedroom, i go to jail. they don't need a warrent, just any excuse to enter my home, then they take my overgrown BB gun, and lock me up for at least 18 months. Because I refuse to pay $80 to register my "gun", shit I only paid $65 for it!! They claim that registration will reduce crime.... if you say so...
I'm proud to say I'm Canadian, i live in a great country, Its so great infact, that we started off with less civil rights than you Americans had, and we're losing them just as fast, only we're too wrapped up in our Maple-syrup-induced bliss to even notice!!!
I own a gun. Its a
Gnothe se Auton
...that every attempt to print that document from Netscrape 4.6 crashes my browser.
Is technology the end of civilization or is talking about the end of civilization the end of civilization?
Posted by Mary CW:
All technological advances (and I don't just mean digital tech) result in:
- more power in the hands of those individuals that master the new tech
- shifts in balances of power between groups
- an ongoing arms race of tech and counter-tech (both physcial and meme)
- unforeseen social and other consequences driven by emergent complexity issues spawned by the new tech ("things bite back")
This century's creation of the digital universe has created incredible new powers for individuals and institutions. It's also created unforeseen risks and consequences. In this the digital revolution is no different from the spread of other major tech "advances": invention of agriculture, writing, the stirrup, firearms, etc.
It's not as simple as blaming big orgs, the govmt, etc.
Cause knowing exactly who owns a deer-rifle will obviously prevent gang members from using Uzi's in a drive by shooting...
Heck the terrorists might even stop importing AK style assault rifles when they find out that they're obligated to register them.
Gnothe se Auton
In May, Newsweek published reports stating that government hackers had been authorized to "diddle" with Serb president Slobodan Milosevic's international bank accounts. Whether or not you regard that kind of news as mere FUD, it hardly inspires confidence in your own account's security or sanctity. And what happens if you become an enemy of the state? (Can you imagine how much fun Dick Nixon could have had with a roomful of hackers and his Enemies List?)
I thought this was shown to be made up by the internet community. It certainly doesn't help us maintain our privacy with the amount of FUD/urban legend that gets tossed around as truth.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
Given the sad fact that most of the file formats for word processing and spreadsheets comes from Micro~1 makes Echelon's job easer. I would not be supprised if Mr. Gates & Co. activally co-operates with, maybe even funds, Echelon. After all, is he not richer that most coutries? Perhaps not, so please don't sue me. Anyway, if the OSS standard file format becomes universally accepted would not that make Echelon's job easer? Perhaps what we need to protect our on-line privicy is ??????
BTW, check out http://www.oss.net it is not what you think.
zenray
The line about being better that many guilty men go free than a single innocent man be punished comes from John Adams' closing arguments -- at the trial of British soldiers after the Boston Massacre.