Slashdot Mirror
FCC Makes Wiretapping Easier for Cops
"The FCC order will require telecommunications companies to provide six of nine new surveillance capabilities that have been on the 'wish list' of the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation," according to a story in this morning's Washington Post. Telcos have until next June 30 to implement the new E-Z-Wiretap(tm) rules, which do not yet cover data packets (and therefore Internet telephony) but the FCC is now working on how to tap into them, too. This is the long-dreaded implementation of the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Read it and weep, m'friends.
The Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties advocacy group, said it is outraged by the FCC's decision. "The FCC basically sided with the FBI, putting aside any privacy concerns," said James X. Dempsey, senior staff counsel at the center. He said the center is considering appealing to the courts.
The FCC doesn't seem to be much on the side of the common citizen, the American citizens as a whole.
Something is wrong when a government has to be extremely paranoid and keep watch over everything. If America was such a perfect and free society, the worries would be less...except possible concern over the actions of a group of "bad" countries. Our military budget is still by far the greatest of any nation, much larger than China's even...yet they always make it seem like we're on the verge of attack from crazy terrorists who will take over the world, or China, or some guy in Iraq who doesn't want to share his oil with US/western corporations.
It's quite amazing how accurate George Orwell's predictions were. I'm sure people were quite frightened when 1984 was first released and they probably thought "Wow, that's like the Soviet Union!" Nowadays public knowledge of the invasion of privacy is practically zero so they have no idea this is going on. Why doesn't the so-called fair and unbiased mainstream media ever cover things like this? Because it's mentioned in non-headline areas of a few newspapers, somehow this shows there is no bias?
Let's see, we have echelon, everything the NSA does, the CIA meddling in the governments and militaries of other countries, the FBI watching over people and keeping a really close eye on humanitarian, civil rights, anarchist, and socialist organizations and people...I barely remember this fact, but on the FBI watch list they have something like 20 (or even 2) right wing groups, while they have several hundred more "left" type groups. Left referring anything from human rights groups, animal rights, earth protectionists, and political type groups such as state socialists, anarchists, etc. I forgot where I read this, and wish I had taken better note of it...it was pretty outrageous.
What is the government REALLY afraid of? Is it really this BIG terrorist threat or some evil nation that changes every year? Or is it the spreading of the awareness of the shit the US and it's corporations do to the common masses, creating a larger movement of people calling for major changes to this? Keep your eye on Seattle at the end of November of this year.
For those unfamaliar with political/social movements and such...very few people are anarcho-primitivists, while it's made to look like any person with concern over such things the US does or corporations...is a dumb idiot who wants everyone to live in the jungle again. More people want things to progress as they are now, possibly even faster as there would be MUCH less middle men and service people, and more people actually doing productive work. The changes have more to do with the way things are set up, how decisions are made, who gets all of the money, etc. I don't want to start a debate over political ideologies, I just want to make it clear very few people are actually primitivists.
As I like to say, "If you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind this anal probe."
Since criminality is decided by the same people (that is, an entrenched, poorly-responsive government) as would like to watch your movements, listen to your phone calls for dirty thoughts, etc, the idea that "this should only worry you if you are a criminal" is nonsensical.
If you do something they don't like, you'll soon find that you're a criminal.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Both would use images from "1984", with subtext saying things like "The Government wants to tap your phone line without a warrent", "The Government wants to control your speech on the Internet", etc etc. It should then briefly tell people how to 'fight' it, by either writing their representatives, or even better, vote the ones that voted these bills in out.
The problem is with laws and regulations like this is that 99% of the general public either doesn't know about it or doesn't care. Only until their rights are completely gone will they wish they paid attention. And unfortunately, the media seems to be avoiding these issues, as well as the fact that with 2000 being an election year in the US, none of the candidates have even mentioned the Internet or privacy or freedom of speech issues. Without knowledges, the 99% will continue to live happily as their rights are abolished.
However, if we push an ad campaign *NOW*, gettings ads out during the Nov-Dec-Jan months, and make enough of an issue about it, it might force the candidates to bring it up themselves, and that itself might help us (those that care about our rights) to vote wisely. It would also make the press take notice, *HOPEFULLY*.
Now, unfortunately, none of the major players for fighting these types of regulars have the money. But I'd being willing to send in a small donation to help produce and push the ads into the mainstream. As I'm sure a lot of others do to.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
This is unconstitutional. It falls under "illegal search and seizure."
Look, I don't doubt that the people who originally created this law had good intentions. They want to stop terrorists and criminals. But they're deluded. They think they can stop crime and create a utopia.
The simple fact is, you cannot eradicate suffering, no matter how hard you try, because the only sure-fire means of stopping the suffering of a few will instead cause the suffering of billions. Case in point: Big Brother from 1984; it stopped crime, sure, but at what cost? The right to privacy for millions outweighs the right of hundreds to snoop around, even if that snooping could save lives. And yes, that statement sounds heartless, and yes, it isn't fair, but it's the way of the universe. The best a person can do is live his or her life, alleviate suffering as much as possible knowing that it can't be completely stopped, and try not to cause any more.
That's the problem: if law enforcement is to dispense true justice, it can never win completely. It can gain a huge lead, and maintain it indefinitely, but it can't ever totally win the war. It's sad, but I really wish law enforcement would realize this. There's a reason it's called "utopia," after all; translate it from the original Greek word and it means nowhere.