Since when has the lack of an expectation of privacy conveyed a right to log, track, spy on, profile, or otherwise stalk an individual - ESPECIALLY by the government, and ESPECIALLY without cause?
I AGREE with you, I think the government has no right to moniter what I do with out reasonble cause. I slowly see us givng up our democrasy for security.
Correction...for the illusion of security. It's nothing more than a PR pill given to the public in order to mask the underlying problem.
People who don't mind cameras in public places, and who think that there's no 'reasonable expectation of privacy' in public, probably wouldn't be the least bit bothered if someone caught them (with a camera) in an embarrassing moment (in public) and then plastered it all over the net. Or would they?
The guy who co-founded Napster, software whose focus it was to allow the unlawful distribution of copyrighted material, is now trying to fight something else that's every bit as troublesome.
All I've read suggests that the IAO effort is geared toward building a massive data infrastructure that will allow fast access to all manner of information related to a specific target (which could be anyone that fits into a specific profile, for one reason or another). So, it's not a mandate per se, but the mere fact that our browsing habits, including search queries, could be part of it, is, and should be unsettling for every American citizen. The problem is that the government will have more and more access to information with less and less control or acountability.
I purchased a product called the Opcode Sequencer (some early MIDI fans might recognize this). It had one of the most obnoxious schemes I've seen. First, it limited you to two installs. After that, either the master floppy had to be in the drive, or you weren't going to be using the software. I think Performer used something similar for a while (and it still may). I was never one for actively trying to circumvent copy protection for the purpose of using software without paying for it, but it really ticked me off that companies made it overly difficult to use the software that you HAD paid for. In this light, I was glad to see that someone had hacked thorugh this particular scheme. Legitimate owners should not have to worry about this kind of nonsense.
* Pipe the radiation at the nads at those guys who feel the need to drive by your house at 2:30 AM with their base pounding loud enough to shake windows.
I couldn't agree MORE!!!!! Either that, or just force them to rewire a bit so that the current runs through the nads first before it gets to the speakers...not as interesting from a scientific perspective, but I'll bet it's effective.
Being a Norwegian company, would they be under the same mandate to hand over all 'suspect' search queries for abuse by the US's new CIAFBINSASSSASD (known in PRSpeak as the Information Awareness Office)?
This could lead to all kinds of nastiness. If a software vendor wants to limit their liability, they may tie their software to a very specific hardware configuration. This could result in the unintended consequence of giving M$$$$ an unprecedented amount of control over the hardware manufacturers and resellers. So, instead of purchasing software to solve a particular problem, you purchase hardware to meet the requirements of a software package. This seems^H^H^H^H^H is half-assed backward.
This is the same Court that regularly holds that "the appearance of corruption" is sufficient justification for draconian regulations of political speech at the heart of our republic. The "appearance of corruption" is a standard which acknowledges no crime has been committed at all. Things just look corrupt because some people are too stupid or too lazy to discern the truth or too cynical to believe the truth when they see it. Don't get me wrong, of course there's corruption in politics ? though vastly less than at any other time in American history ? but saying that citizens spending money on speech creates the "appearance of corruption" ? and therefore it's worth regulating ? is an insult to our collective intelligence.
The appearance of impropriety is usually a good indication that impropriety exists. It is a strict standard, but it's there for a reason. As for corruption and politics - let me ask... what do you call it when a government official (or his party) is handed a 'contribution' in exchange for an expectation of favorable treatment? Put in less abstract terms, I pay you so that you can fund your effort to stay in office (and hence, continue to build your power base and inter-governmental empire), and in exchange, I expect you to create, vote in favor of, gather support for, or stonewall attempts to change, legislation that is clearly in my favor. Favor, in this case, can mean anything from a huge government contract, a subsidy, an exemption from certain regulations, etc.
What makes you think the U.S. isn't that far behind? I last read that the U.S. Government is busy creating a massively-linked data infrastructure that will give access to all manner of information about U.S. citizens. The U.S. p4tr10t act exists now, and is already overly permissive. As long as these actions are framed in a manner that they're being used to fight t3rr0r1sm, I see no reason why such invasiveness can't spiral out of control in much the same way. What's particularly ironic about all of this spying is that it won't, for a second, yield the touted effect: Any soul sufficiently motivated will find a way to route around the system- assuming it even works for its 'intended' purpose.
In reading a recent news article on the BBC news site regarding Britain's (Jack Straw, I believe) unreasonably invasive 'security' measures, I was particularly amused to see Straw compare B1n L4d3n to the Nazis. The irony here is quite astounding- the Nazis were known for (among other things) the use of a secret police force (the SS/SA/SD), to gather information about just about everyone, and then take care of any 'problems' that arose. I see strikingly *more* similarity between the Nazis and a government's insatiable apetite for gathering information about its citizens.
Ah, but one who copies music *is* depriving someone of something (the rightful owners are being deprived of money associated with cost of the CD). So, it's stealing in every sense of the word.
Ok, but I'm drawing a distinction between information that his public, and the following:
- who is collecting it
- what information is collected
- why it's being collected
It is my opinion that the mere presence of public information, or the fact that it might pass through a public conduit (several servers, in your example), doesn't convey an automatic right to access. Funny thing is, the internet has often been described as the information superhighway. Yet, on a real highway (which is also a public conduit), it is entirely illegal for a government agent to conduct a search without cause.
The article is about the Australian government, but there was a generalization made in the previos post suggesting that it was well within a government agency's right to collect information on citizens based on their actions in public, or in places where there is allegedly no expectation of privacy. The 'no expectation of privacy' mantra has been trumpeted repeatedly as a matter of principle, geographic location notwithstanding. Because U.S. citizens face the same potential for abuse (with the passing of the P4tr10t 4ct), and being a U.S. citizen myself, the 4th Amendment quite naturally comes into play.
What are the chances that once reading the EULA becomes common knowledge, companies will work to make them more obfuscated, convoluted, and otherwise obscure? (does that horrible mess we call the IRS tax code ring a bell, anyone?) If anything, it will be a boon to the legal industry, as many bewildered end users will have to consult with their attorneys just to make sure they understand what it says.
Funny...I've never seen this British comedy, so I guess it qualifies as an eerie coincidence. The irony in their use of the name James Hacker is quite good, whether it was intentional or not.:)
The point is, email is and always has been the equivalent of doing your business in a loud shout on a public streetcorner.The "GOVERNMENT" has always had legal access to it.
You still don't get it. The government can seize your property, arrest you, garnish your wages, lock you up in prison, audit your tax returns (where it's guilty until proven innocent), put you under surveillance, etc., etc., provided a legal reason exists to do so. If the government has no legal justification for access to your e-mail, it has no right to be looking at it. The last time I checked, the 4th Amendment was still part of the U.S. Constitution.
And if you want to blame anyone for the need to increase the intelligence community's nearness to your stash, blame Al Quaeda, or better yet, join the Army and go kill them.
Al Q43da is only part of the problem. The other part is comprised of a combination of U.S. for31gn p0licy, and what could turn out to be a very real level of incompetence on the part of the government agencies charged with keeping track of t3rr0r1st activities. Heheh..my stash? LOL. I can proudly say that I do not use drugs, drink, or smoke.
Whining on internet message boards from the comfort of your bedroom about losing rights you mistakenly believed you had is effecting no positive result.
I see a very real difference between whining and correcting an unfortunate misconception- or at minimum, offering an alternate perspective.
Here's what you don't understand - it's not John Q. Hacker on a joyride down the superhighway that we're talking about - it's the GOVERNMENT. It's a huge bureaucracy that has the ability to collect this information, store it, retrieve it, and use it to profile what kind of person you might be- all without your knowledge or consent. You have no idea who else is using it, when, or for what purpose. As such, the repercussions can be much more severe and long-lasting. Basically, we have government agencies using the threat of terrorism as an excuse to turn themselves into the equivalent of the KGB.
It looks like digital film distribution, Hollywood can start exercising the same kind of tight-fisted control that M$$$ is now attempting with 'doze XP. Once the format and distribution logistics are worked out, and it (either by mandate or market demand) becomes fairly standard, it's only a short step from there that has the studios monitoring the machines that show the films.
Locally we had at least one police department farming out their photo radar to a third-party. In essence, a non-police entity handing out tickets for speeding. It was challenged in court, and several thousand (pending) tickets were thrown out. I don't see much difference between this, and what Verisign is proposing.
Overall, I'm not sure it's a good idea to have private companies assume responsibilities that belong to the government- especially where enforcement is concerned. It's just one more point of failure - if something goes wrong, it makes it that much easier to pass the blame.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that it would take a real stupid t3rr0rist to conduct business in any way that might be tracked so easily?
Slashdot Mirror
Since when has the lack of an expectation of privacy conveyed a right to log, track, spy on, profile, or otherwise stalk an individual - ESPECIALLY by the government, and ESPECIALLY without cause?
I AGREE with you, I think the government has no right to moniter what I do with out reasonble cause. I slowly see us givng up our democrasy for security.
Correction...for the illusion of security. It's nothing more than a PR pill given to the public in order to mask the underlying problem.
People who don't mind cameras in public places, and who think that there's no 'reasonable expectation of privacy' in public, probably wouldn't be the least bit bothered if someone caught them (with a camera) in an embarrassing moment (in public) and then plastered it all over the net. Or would they?
The guy who co-founded Napster, software whose focus it was to allow the unlawful distribution of copyrighted material, is now trying to fight something else that's every bit as troublesome.
And Einstein...he was a real troublemaker.
All I've read suggests that the IAO effort is geared toward building a massive data infrastructure that will allow fast access to all manner of information related to a specific target (which could be anyone that fits into a specific profile, for one reason or another). So, it's not a mandate per se, but the mere fact that our browsing habits, including search queries, could be part of it, is, and should be unsettling for every American citizen. The problem is that the government will have more and more access to information with less and less control or acountability.
I purchased a product called the Opcode Sequencer (some early MIDI fans might recognize this). It had one of the most obnoxious schemes I've seen. First, it limited you to two installs. After that, either the master floppy had to be in the drive, or you weren't going to be using the software. I think Performer used something similar for a while (and it still may). I was never one for actively trying to circumvent copy protection for the purpose of using software without paying for it, but it really ticked me off that companies made it overly difficult to use the software that you HAD paid for. In this light, I was glad to see that someone had hacked thorugh this particular scheme. Legitimate owners should not have to worry about this kind of nonsense.
On the other hand, if you read the story, expect a knock on your front door sometime soon...
* Pipe the radiation at the nads at those guys who feel the need to drive by your house at 2:30 AM with their base pounding loud enough to shake windows.
I couldn't agree MORE!!!!! Either that, or just force them to rewire a bit so that the current runs through the nads first before it gets to the speakers...not as interesting from a scientific perspective, but I'll bet it's effective.
Being a Norwegian company, would they be under the same mandate to hand over all 'suspect' search queries for abuse by the US's new CIAFBINSASSSASD (known in PRSpeak as the Information Awareness Office)?
This could lead to all kinds of nastiness. If a software vendor wants to limit their liability, they may tie their software to a very specific hardware configuration. This could result in the unintended consequence of giving M$$$$ an unprecedented amount of control over the hardware manufacturers and resellers. So, instead of purchasing software to solve a particular problem, you purchase hardware to meet the requirements of a software package. This seems^H^H^H^H^H is half-assed backward.
This is the same Court that regularly holds that "the appearance of corruption" is sufficient justification for draconian regulations of political speech at the heart of our republic. The "appearance of corruption" is a standard which acknowledges no crime has been committed at all. Things just look corrupt because some people are too stupid or too lazy to discern the truth or too cynical to believe the truth when they see it. Don't get me wrong, of course there's corruption in politics ? though vastly less than at any other time in American history ? but saying that citizens spending money on speech creates the "appearance of corruption" ? and therefore it's worth regulating ? is an insult to our collective intelligence.
... what do you call it when a government official (or his party) is handed a 'contribution' in exchange for an expectation of favorable treatment? Put in less abstract terms, I pay you so that you can fund your effort to stay in office (and hence, continue to build your power base and inter-governmental empire), and in exchange, I expect you to create, vote in favor of, gather support for, or stonewall attempts to change, legislation that is clearly in my favor. Favor, in this case, can mean anything from a huge government contract, a subsidy, an exemption from certain regulations, etc.
The appearance of impropriety is usually a good indication that impropriety exists. It is a strict standard, but it's there for a reason. As for corruption and politics - let me ask
What makes you think the U.S. isn't that far behind? I last read that the U.S. Government is busy creating a massively-linked data infrastructure that will give access to all manner of information about U.S. citizens. The U.S. p4tr10t act exists now, and is already overly permissive. As long as these actions are framed in a manner that they're being used to fight t3rr0r1sm, I see no reason why such invasiveness can't spiral out of control in much the same way. What's particularly ironic about all of this spying is that it won't, for a second, yield the touted effect: Any soul sufficiently motivated will find a way to route around the system- assuming it even works for its 'intended' purpose.
In reading a recent news article on the BBC news site regarding Britain's (Jack Straw, I believe) unreasonably invasive 'security' measures, I was particularly amused to see Straw compare B1n L4d3n to the Nazis. The irony here is quite astounding- the Nazis were known for (among other things) the use of a secret police force (the SS/SA/SD), to gather information about just about everyone, and then take care of any 'problems' that arose. I see strikingly *more* similarity between the Nazis and a government's insatiable apetite for gathering information about its citizens.
And 'bribes' is absolutely correct. Only for PR reasons, they're called 'campaign contributions'.
Ah, but one who copies music *is* depriving someone of something (the rightful owners are being deprived of money associated with cost of the CD). So, it's stealing in every sense of the word.
Ok, but I'm drawing a distinction between information that his public, and the following: - who is collecting it - what information is collected - why it's being collected
It is my opinion that the mere presence of public information, or the fact that it might pass through a public conduit (several servers, in your example), doesn't convey an automatic right to access. Funny thing is, the internet has often been described as the information superhighway. Yet, on a real highway (which is also a public conduit), it is entirely illegal for a government agent to conduct a search without cause.
The article is about the Australian government, but there was a generalization made in the previos post suggesting that it was well within a government agency's right to collect information on citizens based on their actions in public, or in places where there is allegedly no expectation of privacy. The 'no expectation of privacy' mantra has been trumpeted repeatedly as a matter of principle, geographic location notwithstanding. Because U.S. citizens face the same potential for abuse (with the passing of the P4tr10t 4ct), and being a U.S. citizen myself, the 4th Amendment quite naturally comes into play.
Now that I think about it, this might be true for many OEMs that sell systems with pre-installed software.
What are the chances that once reading the EULA becomes common knowledge, companies will work to make them more obfuscated, convoluted, and otherwise obscure? (does that horrible mess we call the IRS tax code ring a bell, anyone?) If anything, it will be a boon to the legal industry, as many bewildered end users will have to consult with their attorneys just to make sure they understand what it says.
Funny...I've never seen this British comedy, so I guess it qualifies as an eerie coincidence. The irony in their use of the name James Hacker is quite good, whether it was intentional or not. :)
The point is, email is and always has been the equivalent of doing your business in a loud shout on a public streetcorner.The "GOVERNMENT" has always had legal access to it.
You still don't get it. The government can seize your property, arrest you, garnish your wages, lock you up in prison, audit your tax returns (where it's guilty until proven innocent), put you under surveillance, etc., etc., provided a legal reason exists to do so. If the government has no legal justification for access to your e-mail, it has no right to be looking at it. The last time I checked, the 4th Amendment was still part of the U.S. Constitution.
And if you want to blame anyone for the need to increase the intelligence community's nearness to your stash, blame Al Quaeda, or better yet, join the Army and go kill them.
Al Q43da is only part of the problem. The other part is comprised of a combination of U.S. for31gn p0licy, and what could turn out to be a very real level of incompetence on the part of the government agencies charged with keeping track of t3rr0r1st activities. Heheh..my stash? LOL. I can proudly say that I do not use drugs, drink, or smoke.
Whining on internet message boards from the comfort of your bedroom about losing rights you mistakenly believed you had is effecting no positive result.
I see a very real difference between whining and correcting an unfortunate misconception- or at minimum, offering an alternate perspective.
Here's what you don't understand - it's not John Q. Hacker on a joyride down the superhighway that we're talking about - it's the GOVERNMENT. It's a huge bureaucracy that has the ability to collect this information, store it, retrieve it, and use it to profile what kind of person you might be- all without your knowledge or consent. You have no idea who else is using it, when, or for what purpose. As such, the repercussions can be much more severe and long-lasting. Basically, we have government agencies using the threat of terrorism as an excuse to turn themselves into the equivalent of the KGB.
Consumers have the final say. Don't like what's being offered? Don't buy it (and don't steal it).
It looks like digital film distribution, Hollywood can start exercising the same kind of tight-fisted control that M$$$ is now attempting with 'doze XP. Once the format and distribution logistics are worked out, and it (either by mandate or market demand) becomes fairly standard, it's only a short step from there that has the studios monitoring the machines that show the films.
Locally we had at least one police department farming out their photo radar to a third-party. In essence, a non-police entity handing out tickets for speeding. It was challenged in court, and several thousand (pending) tickets were thrown out. I don't see much difference between this, and what Verisign is proposing.
Overall, I'm not sure it's a good idea to have private companies assume responsibilities that belong to the government- especially where enforcement is concerned. It's just one more point of failure - if something goes wrong, it makes it that much easier to pass the blame.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that it would take a real stupid t3rr0rist to conduct business in any way that might be tracked so easily?