Slashdot Mirror
Clinton creates group to "address unlawful conduct" on Net
Ungrounded Lightning Rod writes "President Clinton has issued an exectutive order creating a "Working Group" to "address unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet". The text of the Executive Order is online..
" The text of it looks disturbing-perhaps a legally-qualified person can offer some thoughts, but a trying to change the Internet by fiat doesn't seem the most effective-click below for more details.
Chaired by the Attorney General and including the other law-enforcement and "child"-related cabinet secretaries (Treasury, Commerce, Education) and department heads or agency directors (OMB, FBI, ATF, DEA, FTC, FDA), it is mandated to investigate how current federal law can be used to investigate and prosecute Internet users, propose new laws, regulations, and technology development to assist investigations, and study existing and potential technological tools for mandatory internet censorship.
They are to issue a report early December - a very fast track
but implied very strongly:
(3) The potential for new or existing tools and capabilities to educate and empower parents, teachers, and others to prevent or to minimize the risks from unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet.
It says "minimize the risks" but does not specifically state who is at risk, but strongly implies children from the statement "..parents, teachers, and others..."
I'm not sure what the relevance is, but why not just say "risks to our children/citizens" or something? Sounds like an incomplete sentence without it. Seems kind of odd the way that is worded.
This really points out a big weakness in the government. All these committee members are non-technical people. Why isn't someone like an Esther Dyson on this committee? While I realize this working group is supposed to examine unlawful conduct on the Internet I have no doubt that all these law enforcement agencies need help from real computer people to understand what's going on. Without that guidance I have little hope that their recommendations will be all that useful.
How can they reasonably expect any kind of national legislation to work? I mean, say that USA outlaws nudity on the net; here in Sweden it's perfectly legal, and it's as easy to point your browser to a Swedish site as it is to an american one... The same goes with most information, whether it be nudity, violence, religios or political information or various forms of rumor-mongering.
The only things that really can be outlawed on the net are those few things that governments all over the world can agree on, like child pornography. And even then, there is still the matter of actually finding and prosecuting perpetrators. The ability to locate servers, their owners and the owner of the data on them all over the world makes current extradiction and jurisdictional problems look easy.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
No, this group will make recommendations. They will likely take these recommendations and write bad draft legislation, but last time I checked, we still have three branches of government: executive, judicial, and legislative. Its still got to get through congress before its a law.
(disclaimer, I am not a constitutional scholar, please correct me if I've misstated something. I know the president has power to make Executive Orders, but I read this one and didn't see this as anything other than the formation of a blue-ribbon panel to form recommendations).
I'm not "in favor" of any of it, but I think that most guns, mostexplosives and all controlled and prescription drugs should be legal.
Fraud and child porn are bad, but I'm not sure the federal government needs to be any more involved.
What about that one some investigative justices found lurking in the penumbra emanating from some other rights?
;)
Oh, I forgot... That right to privacy wouldn't apply here -- it was single purpose.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
> This Order's true target will no doubt rear its disgusting head in the
> next few weeks or so.
Amen. That's the part that frightens me.
(1)(a)(1)
The first part is pretty good. There's nothing wrong with investigating the "...extent to which existing Federal laws provide a sufficient basis for effective investigation and prosecution of unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet". If something is illegal in the Real World, it's probably illegal on the 'net.
(1)(a)(2)
The second bit is neutral - in and of itself. "The extent to which new tec hnology tools, capabilities, or legal authorities may be required for effective investigation and prosecution of unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet" simply means "hey, if someone's doing something naughty, how much new technology do we need to find them?"
So what's the agenda?
It's structured like most good propaganda documents - start with something everyone will agree with, stick in something that may have "unintended consequences" (to give you room to manoeuver), and then bury the real agenda deep down in the document, covered with noise. I've often felt that reading Fedspeak is more like an exercise in steganography. (The irony of this is left as an exercise for the reader.)
The obvious answer to (1) is "For the most part, existing federal laws probably do. Let's figure out if we've left any loopholes that need to be plugged."
The obvious answer to (2) is "Not many could be developed and implemented without draconian legislation (e.g. banning crypto) or an enormous erosion of civil liberties (e.g. mandating key escrow and/or automatic wiretap technologies built into all communications gear). The crypto genie has been out of the bottle for decades; if you want to enforce the law, you'll have to do it the old-fashioned way. Sucks to be you, but even policing in a democracy ain't supposed to be trivial, and even if we wanted to make it easy for you, it's too late; you'll have to rely on HUMINT, not SIGINT.
Any /.'er on this Working Group would be done with it at that point. "Mr. President, set up e-mail hotlines like the one at enforcement@sec.gov and staff 'em with people who can nail the abusers, and sponsor training for local police departments so they have a rudimentary degree of technical clue when it comes to people using the 'net for criminal activity."
Of course, we're not on the Working Group. Buried at the tail end of the document is a list of names. Hmm... an interesting list indeed.
And so, buried in the noise we find the real signal...
Instead, we've got the Attorney-General and the directors of the FBI, ATF, and DEA here, none of whom have been terribly interested in the Internet as "an important medium both domestically and internationally for commerce and free speech", and all of whom likely consider things like auto-wiretapping technologies, key escrow, and the elimination of strong crypto as precisely the things that are "...required for effective investigation and prosecution of unlawful conduct..."
Perhaps there's hope in the EO's (3)(b) paragraph, which specifies "technology-neutral laws and regulations", but I wouldn't count on it.
Finally, note that the committee isn't limited to the people on the list; it includes under Sec. 3. (11), "Other Federal officials deemed appropriate by the Chair of the Working Group". Seeing as how the Chair of the Working Group is none other than Ms. Reno herself, I wouldn't place any bets on anything but token representation from technology companies and/or privacy advocates on the Working Group.
> Can you say False Consensus Building
And if you're still having trouble with saying "False Consensus Building", try saying "Stack The Deck" first.
Don't underestimate governments. If they want to know who you are, they will.
That all activity use
This should read That all illegal activity use
--Shoeboy
This EO has more implications than just studying internet "usage" and proposing new laws. It actually gives this group the power to implement policy and legislation over the internet without agreement from other legislative bodies. The text of the EO just requires that the working group get input from other bodies. They can ignore the input as long as they document the reasons why. Last time I read the Constitution, only Congress had the power to enact legislation like that. Where is the Congressional outcry??????
_ xcbtl_clinton_co.shtml
For a good analysis of the EO, look at WorldNetDaily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/19990809
cheers!!
Once again, Slashdot has reacted in its typical reactionary manner. This order is NOT a, abuse by Bill Clinton. It's nto even a significant event, really. Here's why. All this order does is establish a group to study whether or not there could be effective laws to help prevent some of the illegality that already exists on the internet, and whether or not these laws exist. (See the examples cited in the order: fraud [travel scams, prescription drug scams, fake ecomerce sites, etc], child pornography, drug trafficking, etc.) Most of the time, these laws already exist; if they do not, any new laws would still have to go through the existing lawmaking process - the house, the senate, a signature by the president, and, if there's a possibility of a constitutional violation, the court system. This group has NO lawmaking powers on its own. No one is talking about banning nudity or encryption or anything like that. Besides, the federal courts have been very reluctant to uphold any anti-liberty net laws so far; it's unlikely they would suddenly start approving them. The US government sponsors hundreds of such commissions every year; this is nothing new. And likely, nothing will ever come out of it. Don't worry. The sky is not falling. Roger Ford
Usually, I'm resolutely apolitical on slashdot. I'm bored today, though.
Does anyone doubt that the result of this will be a recommendation for special laws that pertain to the internet? There is so much popular media that portrays the internet as dark and evil (your cat-5 is cursed!). Many see it as a home for pedophiles, hate groups, and little else.
Kiddie porn is illegal no matter how you trade it. Hate crimes are crimes regardless of whether or not the perpetrators have a home page. What is the purpose of creating more laws when we are doing an inadequate job of enforcing the existing ones?
Is it more likely that the recommended laws will actually amount to provisions that make it easier for the government to "monitor" internet activity? Is it likely that those provisions will make the internet less useful for law-abiding citizens?
I have a BS in Political Science with a minor in Criminal Justice. I worked (briefly) for my local Sheriff's Department. I STILL don't understand the hoopla of "The Internet Menace". Maybe it's because I understand the internet a little better than the average voter. Maybe I'm just naive.
Or maybe it's because "The Dark Internet" is a far more effective scare tactic than an actual menace.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
The British get a direct feed into the European net, which is just as well, as the transatlantic link is a sham. (One occasion, it even shut down for 2 weeks, for a "routine" router upgrade. Ha!)
About the only connection the Europe-wide network has with the US is the pipe Echelon uses.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You sure about that? I read an article recently that he's presided over something like 50 Texas executions since he's been governor there.
I don't think either of the two candidates will do any better than the other.
America is heading to shit and no one cares and it sucks.
Hey all. Just got done reading the order, after putting on my big silly Lawyer's Hat (and taking the Red one off for a minute). Here's my 2c...
1) Folks, this isn't really all that revolutionary. Yes, it shows rampant stupidity and a desparate need on Clinton's part to kowtow towards the right. However, none of the listed governmental bodies are being given one iota more power than they already really have. The fact that no mention is made that LIMITS THE POWER OF THE CM'TE to US LAWS shows that this thing is probably being done as a sort of political pre-emptive strike--a real hack job. This Order's true target will no doubt rear its disgusting head in the next few weeks or so.
2) This can also be seen as a potential strike against crypto, especially strong crypto--look at all those allusions to "just how well can law enforcement deal with this stuff...." Great straw man.
3) The fact that the Budget Cmte. gets to review any recommendations BEFORE they are officially presented to the Prez and Veep also shows that they just want an excuse to write more bad laws, not make real policies. It's a lot easier to tell everyone that they can't do x y or z (like use crypto, have open access at libraries, etc) then to bother to train, recruit, and outfit top-notch people to help get after the real crooks.
4) He's pulled in just about every freaking major association and commission in the GubMint. Can you say False Consensus Building?
In short, the whole thing is just a made-to-order straw man for law enforcement and the Porn Police, IMHO.
If anything, this should not be something that's limited to Federal committees. Write your Congressmen and Senators and DEMAND that the users of new technologies get a voice in the proceedings.
Foreign Slashdotters: Protest, protest, protest and make sure that YOUR governments remind the US that they ain't the only game in town. Use crypto. Help foster use of encryption standards that work between the US and the rest of the planet.
Hope this sheds some light w/o generating too much heat.
It seems to me that the summary of the Executive Order posted above the discussion is somewhat misleading.
...it is mandated to investigate how current federal law can be used to investigate and prosecute Internet users, propose new laws, regulations, and technology development to assist investigations, and study existing and potential technological tools for mandatory internet censorship.
The summary:
The (most relevant) actual text from the Executive Order:
(3) The potential for new or existing tools and capabilities to educate and empower parents, teachers, and others to prevent or to minimize the risks from unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet.
How exactly is there any provision for mandatory censorship?
As others readers have pointed out, let us get the facts straight before posting an article. Slashdot (or at least the person submitting the summary) just looks stupid otherwise.
Secondly, this is just the United States. While the American government may not realize it yet, they do not create legislation for the rest of the world. If any material is banned (remember, this executive order is not calling for that) just look it up in Canada, Sweden, Turkey, whereever.
Relax! PS: Apologies for submitting this comment twice (once as an AC). My mistake.
Expect lots of overseas accounts. Our president is now creating crime on the internet. Just like the war on drugs, now we will have a war on information and expression of extreme thoughts written into text. It will be here soon...
Not only are executions more expensive, but there is always the risk that you are executing someone that isn't guilty.
So, then, why don't we just throw them in jail with no possibility of parole?
All of the activities described are already illegal -- they just want more power to control the net.
The Internet is turning into the great equalizer and the traditional media and established political parties don't like it. Unfortunately for us, they still have the power and no qualms about using it. And, almost as if to prove that last point, they picked Janet Reno to chair the committee. This is scary.
Geeky modern art T-shirts