Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Cyber Security Enhancement Act Passes Senate 112

Posted by timothy from the why-can't-we-take-a-pass-instead dept.
XorNand writes "The Cyber Security Enhancement Act (which was attached to the Homeland Security Act) was overwelming approved by the U.S. Senate today. According the EFF this soon-to-be-law allows "any government entity (federal, state, or local) to request email and voicemail from your ISP or telephone provider without a warrant or probable cause." The passage of the Homeland Security Bill is covered here on CNN.com. Yippee."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cyber Security Enhancement Act Passes Senate More

Cyber Security Enhancement Act Passes Senate

Comments Filter:

  • Ouch. (Score:1, Troll)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm happy I don't live in the United States of America.

    Please don't dump your freedom rhetoric on me; you're no 'more free' than the rest of the western world.
    • New Microsoft sponsored legislation in the House...

      "All persons running a none state sponsored OS (with built in state spyware) must wear a large yellow patch of a penguin at all times while in public. Non-compliance is subject to capital punishment."

      Seriously though...

      This is getting out of hand...

      Hmmm... Sorry Uncle Sam, my M$ windurs box crashed and I lost the only copy of my private key! Worse yet, all that pot smoking when I was a teenager has caused me to forget my password too...

      Guess I'll just "say hi to Bubba".

      What a glorious time to be alive... huh?
    • September 11th -- Bush's Reichstag fire. An attack on a national symbol that prompts the single-party control of the government, followed by the strengthening of the executive portion of the government and the establishment of unrestricted government powers. Sound familiar? Yup, same as the rise of the Third Reich. And Bush doesn't even need to dissolve the legislative branch as the Nazi party did, because his party managed to just seize control of it.

      I'm not even going to mention the fact that he's using national upset over a terrorist act against a national symbol to fuel lust for a totally fucking unrelated foreign war (Iraq). Same as Hitler.

      Of course, the people being detained and having their civil rights as regards imprisonment ignored so far are Islamic, rather than Jewish. But it also took Hitler a while while in unopposed control of the government to gain complete control over the country.

      If Islamic people start getting deported, then I'm going to start worrying. (And it's not like we haven't put a race in camps before -- we grabbed Japanese-Americans out of their homes and dumped them in big guarded, barbed-wire-fence-surrounded camps during WWII.) We hover a lot closer to serious nastiness than most people would like to admit.

      I mean, for chrissake, we've a father and a son on the "throne" of the Presidency at the minute! Who buys into the "meritocracy" claims any more?

      And we just established a massive domestic monitoring organization specifically built to bypass the restrictions placed on the FBI after decades of abuse of powers. Of course, this one can grab wiretaps w/o needing warrants, has the powers of the CIA, FBI, and INS, and is extremely well-funded. /me is very frusterated, but doesn't see any remedy...

      Don't be so glad you don't live in the United States of America. France, Poland, and friends felt the brunt of radical German political changes as much as Germany. You get a shift towards a empire-building dictatorship (except this time bigger, with nukes and the most powerful military in the world) and you can be damn sure that it will impact you.
      • Oh, and I'd like to add that there is no longer any reasonable quick fix. Legislative solutions are not feasible. Bush's party now controls the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government. No one is going to move against him.

        Violent solutions will not work (like shooting politicians involved in this). At this point, most Americans are swept up in anti-terrorist nationalistic propaganda, and martyrs would make matters worse.

        Protests? Useless. There have already been people speaking out against the use of anti-terrorist resources to start a war in Iraq, talking about the disturbing power grabs over the last twelve months. Nothing. In Vietnam, you had untold numbers of students being drafted for war, vast numbers of parents with dead children, and still it took years for protests to be paid attention to. And in the process there was FBI intervention (thanks to the strengthening of federal powers, it would be worse in a case like this), abuse of local police powers, federal influence over the press...and this is not a situation that can be tolerated for nearly as long.

        Remember Pastor Martin Niemoller, convicted of treason by the Nazis:

        In Germany they first came for the Communists,
        and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

        Then they came for the Jews,
        and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

        Then they came for the trade unionists,
        and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

        Then they came for the Catholics,
        and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

        Then they came for me -
        and by that time no one was left to speak up.

        Sage advice, from a man who has seen this before -- and yet who are we to speak out to? Who is to hear what we have to say with the power to do anything?

        There are no countries, no one on earth that can do anything if this goes wrong.
  • To bad it can't go to 16k.
    • I'm sure the parent post is intended in jest, since 16Kbit RSA keys are not subject to any known attack; but if you have enough cpu power to perform rsa operations on longer keys (remember, decryption and signing are O(n^2 log n) operations), there's no reason to accept gpg's limits.

      Writing a fully functioning RSA implementation from scratch is the work of a couple months; if you're really paranoid (which you must be if you want keys longer than 16Kbits) then you should be able to spare a couple months.

  • Thank God for crypto (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EvilMal ( 562717 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @01:45AM (#4713400)
    We should fight back and use more cryptography. Even if it is somewhat weak, they can't decrypt ALL the encrypted e-mails going over the net, can they? :]

    • neo-email (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 )
      Definitely.

      There's been a lot of talk about canning our current email system and going with a semi-p2p replacement. This replacement should include cryptography.
    • Yeah, but they can make it illegal for you to not give up your key.
      • Is there a possible way to make a message be decrypted in two different ways with two different keys?

        Read: Can I encrypt two messages into one, and with two different keys, one when used reveals MessageA and the other when used reveals MessageB?

        That way, you can encrypt your message and include some spam in the other message, encrypt them both to one file, and give them your "spam" key. Thus, you give up your password to be legal and it doesn't help them with nothing :)

        • Re:Thank God for crypto (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Zocalo ( 252965 )
          Is there a possible way to make a message be decrypted in two different ways with two different keys?

          I'm not aware of any actual implementations, but it's certainly possible. All that is required for generation is to GPG the two alternate messages, stick the two bits together in an envelope and transmit. What is required is for the decryption engine to be able to determine which half of the message has been decrypted to the original and silently discarding the other half.

          A fairly obvious way of acheiving this is to MD5 checksum the two plain text messages and append that to each message before encryption. Upon decrypting both parts with the available key, only one "plain text" message should match the MD5, and the other could then be safely discarded.

          Of course, law enforcement isn't totally dumb and it's not going to take them long to realise that they need to ask for both keys when confronted with this kind of message. Also, there are probably issues with obstruction of justice by deliberately giving the wrong key to an authorised party. Your legislative system may vary of course...

        • Is there a possible way to make a message be decrypted in two different ways with two different keys?

          Yes, and there is even a stronger result. The one time pad has this property, because it is essentially just an XOR with random (known) bits. In fact, there exists a key that will produce ANY message (of proper length) from the cyphertext.

          The problem, of course is that the one-time pad is impractical for mass use.
        • Use OTP for the emails (say you share a 100GB HD with keys with your fellows). When the goverment comes and ask for the unencripted messages you could just tell _whatever_ you like :)

          Impractical, but should be really funny. And if we can do this so could Saddam. There's no possible way to know the message. Thee know this, but spying on people has a lot other advantages to US. Imagine, spying on what everyone that is not a terrorist (99,999%), all the information you can gather for whatever. That is power.

      • Well here in the United Kingdom the fuckers (.gov) already have! Three years porridge, IIRC, if you don't cough up your keys, even if you have genuineley forgotten/lost them. So no, it doesn't matter whether they have anything on you. If they ask and you don't bend over for them, then hold on to that soap!

        Thank goodness for university boffins [mit.edu] and government stupidity!

        My favourite quote from that txt? "As usual, the policy debate about regulating technology ends up being obsoleted by technological innovations."

        Ali

    • Even if you don't encrypt your mail, they can't analyze ALL the data generated by ALL the emails that are sent EVERY day. I know, if encryption is only used when you have something secret to say then it draws attention, but really. Do you all think that the government is going to sit back and read everyones mail? I'm not even sure this bill allows them to do that. They have to report all uses of this power to the Attorney General within 90 days and he has to report it to congress, and the public, within a year of the use. The paperwork alone would bury an entire department if they monitored all emails. Yes this is a bad piece of legislation and takes away civil liberties, it does not however, mean that all emails are going to be read. The more crackpotty sound, the less people will listen to your legitimate concerns.

    • They might not be able to decrypt all of it today, but if they store enough of it, you might find that they have decoded all of it before the statute of limitation on whatever you might have been discussing runs-out.

      Who knows what kind of amazing decryption tech they'll employ in a couple of years? I know there are some really incredible storage technologies they could put to use today, so it's a valid concern if crypto users still don't comprise the bulk of Net traffic - there's not an amazing amount to store.

  • This is probably a weighty issue from a legal precedent point of view, but it seems to me that anyone worried about whether the government could snoop their email was already encrypting their communication five ways to Sunday.

  • So Much for the 4th Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @02:06AM (#4713465)
    ...Or is it unreasonable search and seizure if the material they obtain is not on your property or within your reach and control?

    I swear Bush sounds more and more facist and like a smooth talking Hitler every day. "We're in danger. We'll protect you and preserve your freedom. All it will cost is your freedom."
    • What I don't understand is who is actually coming up with these ideas...I can't accept that Shrub is some kind of evil genius...hell the man is a talking chimp!

      • President Bush is not mentally capable... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @04:41AM (#4713938) Homepage

        President Bush is not mentally capable of being a leader of a country. He only participates in selling parts of the government to the highest bidder. As Senator John McCain [senate.gov] says, the U.S. government has been corrupted by money disguised as campaign contributions.

        This is not meant to be excessively negative about George W. Bush. There are many people who are not mentally capable of being a leader of a country.

        George Bush's performance is typical for someone who has been an alcoholic: 1) Many alcoholics are extemely likeable. 2) Alcoholics don't like conflict; they resolve conflict in crude ways. 3) Alcoholics don't like to be expected to think.

        President Bush delivers the statements that are written for him. Have you noticed that the coherence of his statements has improved now that he has a staff of more than 5,000 in the White House? He didn't suddenly develop ways of thinking more clearly.

        The U.S. is experiencing a social breakdown. Few good leaders are available. For example, President Clinton was the child of two alcoholics. His crude adjustment to sexuality is typical for a child of alcoholics. It must be said, however, that President Clinton was mentally capable of understanding the issues of running a government, and he also had spent many years teaching himself government policy.

        Other aspects of the social breakdown in the United States are: 1) The U.S. has the highest percentage of obese people in the world. People in the U.S. eat when they are not hungry, a sign of unhappiness and social disfunctionality. 2) The U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of any country in the history of the world. European countries have one-sixth the percentage of their citizens in prison. 3) The U.S. government lacks social skills. The government's answer to conflict is often violence. The U.S. government has bombed 14 countries in 33 years, killing more than 3,000,000 people directly. The number killed indirectly is credibly estimated to be more than 3,000,000 additional people. 4) The U.S. government has at least two world-wide police forces that are authorized to kill anyone anywhere -- the FBI and the CIA. This also shows poor social skills. 5) The U.S. government is the biggest manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. government is also the government that talks most about using its weapons.
    • It's been a while since I've taken a government class, but couldn't the supreme court find this unconstitutional? The congress can't just pass a law that ignores the 4th amendment, they'd have to pass a new amendment.

      Of course now that the entire government is controlled by Republicans, the supreme court soon will be too. Boy these checks and balances really work well!
      • Of course now that the entire government is controlled by Republicans, the supreme court soon will be too. Boy these checks and balances really work well!
        The US Supreme Court is already predominantly Republican; how do you think Bush got elected? By winning an election?

        On a more serious note, remember that the Supremes are nominated by the President for life, so unless one of them goes wacko or kicks the bucket, Bush won't be appointing any more Republicans.

        Yes, I am a bitter liberal. So what?

        • Re:So Much for the 4th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)

          by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @03:18AM (#4713735) Journal
          So naive--you think the Democrats are any better? Ever heard of the Kennedy family? The answer to these problems is not partisan politics at all. They set up this phony left-right paradigm to get us quabbling over really lame issues while really scary stuff gets passed without much media attention. Take this bill that just passed 90-0. The Democrats voted for it too.

          This is the hole I put my faith in
          What about the information?

          • Ever heard of the Kennedy family?.... Take this bill that just passed 90-0. The Democrats voted for it too.

            Many Democrats did vote for it. However, the vote was 90 to 9. Among those voting against was Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.
          • So naive--you think the Democrats are any better? Ever heard of the Kennedy family?
            Yes. I wish the Kennedys would just all disappear. However, on the whole, the Democrats tend to respect my interests more (government regulates business sometimes when necessary, but stays the hell out of my private life).

            I know that there have been and are bad Democrats (Fritz Hollings [D-SC], anyone?), just like there have been and are bad Republicans. Still, I must present this one rebuttal to your statement: The Kennedys were/are lecherous assholes with way too much money and power for their own good. But they are nothing compared to John Ashcroft, who is quite frankly evil.

            • This just goes to show how our values are superimposed collectively onto the silly left-right perspective. The Democrats are "for" civil liberties, but tighter reins on corporations. The Republicans are "for" tax cuts, letting businesses have their way more, and also morality laws. Both sides have huge problems.

              For instance, ever consider how tough the Democrats have made it to do business in this country? No wonder everyone's leaving! And as for the Republicans, I think we've all had enough of privacy abuse and basic civil rights infringement.

              I say support a third party candidate who thinks outside of the confinements of media-blips and dried-up dead-horse issues.

              • ever consider how tough the Democrats have made it to do business in this country? No wonder everyone's leaving!

                I have been thinking this every time I browse clothing in the stores. /me checks the label: Yup, "Made in Honduras". I bet Honduras is part of the NAFTA policy.
              • How can you argue that the Democrats are for
                civil liberties when they consistently vote
                in favor of grossly anti-constitutional laws,
                such as the PATRIOT act and this latest
                treasonous abomination?

                It's called a false dichotomy. Republican vs.
                Democrat is simply a divide-and-conquer strategy,
                and the American electorate has fallen for it
                largely because of the role of the mass-media
                oligarchs in playing up this false dichotomy.
        • Perhaps. Perhaps not. The Republicans hold an incredibly small control over the US Senate. If any supreme court justices do resign in the next 2 years, Bush will be forced to nominate a moderate to the post (More of a Sandra Day Occonor, as opposed to Clarence Thomas).

          Why? Because you can only truly control the US Senate with 60 votes. A simple majority won't do. The Democrats (Or indeed, any single senator) can stop and legislation dead in it's tracks with the filibuster.

          The only exception has to do with laws concerning revenues. Senate rules allow a simple majority to stop a filibuster w/ laws concerning revenues. But clearly, a Supreme Court confirmation does not meet that test.
      • ---here's the problem. Our system was setup for independents, not for a cabal of two almost identical private organizations to back and forth split the OWNERSHIP of the government. No place is it carved in stone that the dimwits and repugnants get the whole deal, BUT, by manipulating the system they have brainwashed people into voting for them well past any sort of usefulness right into harmful.. They control the mass media outlets, the broadcast and print media to a large extent. It's the party line, year after decade. It never ends.

        The times we've had national debates that included third parties, the third parties did well in the polls and elections. Several election cycles in a row who knows what might happen. They don't do that anymore now, they realised that too many people would see that yes, there are alternatives. And that "waste your vote" nonsense both parties use to scare their brainwashed sheeps back into the herd. We have globalist_traitor_goon party A and B. They keep their little minions faked out "lookout, just you lookout now, don't you dare be wastin' your vote! If you don't vote for our goon, the other guy's goon will get in!". Well, duh. Result is we keep electing goons from the globalist_traitor_goon parties.

        There's no checks and balances when a combo of the crips and bloods run the show. A criminal gang is a criminal gang, those retardo labels they give themselves are the biggest scam going, there's a pittance worth of difference over all in the long haul. More big government, more taxes,more intrusiveness, more laws that aren't constitutional, on and on. It won't end until people stop voting for those people, local to federal, until enough people see you get the same thing if you keep electing the same thing. And it hasn't mattered, back and forth, this goon is a prez, these goons run the house, the other goons run the senate, both of them pick tame goons for the courts, always distills to the essence of "goonishness".

        It's too far, most people won't wake up until there's tanks in the streets, armed mercenaries on the corners with full auto rifles, "camps" of the work and re education and concentration variety, and the whole nine yards then they STILL won't realise that it's mostly their fault for voting for it and putting up wityh it as they went about their daily entertainments and amusements..

        Bread and circuses works, divide and conqueor works, and mass psyops and propoganda and brainwashing work. Look how theyuse popular television, theyhave people seeing police routinely breaking the law and violating rights, they have tv shows with the cia engaged in domestic work, they constantly link anyone who espouses constituional mandates as somehow being "fringe" and a 'domestic terrorist", they link gun ownership-not misuse, just plain ownership-with being a drug dealer or worse. They are breainwashing the children in public schools, demonizing home schoolers, getting the doctors to find out who owns guns by asking little billy and sally "do your parents have guns? where are they, how many do they have?". Just all sorts of little chunks of creeping fascism and snitchisms.

        People just must really enjoy this sort of thing, they really put up with it. Why I don't know, but they sure do.
    • swear Bush sounds more and more facist and like a smooth talking Hitler every day. Hmm... I don't think GWB has ever been accused of being a "smooth talker" before. . .
    • Don't worry, be happy.

      Congress is powerless to change the constitution. That's why it's called a constitution. So the 4th Amendment is safe. One thing Congress can do is raise the bar higher, placing more stringent requirements on law enforcement. It can also decide to provide effective remedies for privacy violations.

      Whether a conversation or piece of property is protected depends on a complicated analysis called "reasonable expectation of privacy." That is, was there an expectation of privacy that was objectively reasonable, as opposed to what you privately desired.

      However, the Supreme Court already trashed the 4th A. over the last couple of decades. It has more holes than cheesecloth, ask any drug defendant.

      The one area where the rules have been fairly strict is wiretap, and the reason for it is a federal statute on point. It would be a shame to see this undermined. American sensitivities to abuse of wiretap were heightened by the Vietnam and Watergate era. But that indignation has faded over the years.

      The tension between liberty and security is perennial.
      • "Congress is powerless to change the constitution."

        I wish this were so. De facto it may be but in Du Jour practice we have these lovely things called Amendments (hence the 4rth Am.) which can add and subtract from the content of The Constitution. They may not be able to reword the title of the Article and/or Amendments (though they can certainly ratify a repeal), but they most definitely can reword the method of recognizing and implementing them.

        The rest of your statement is sound. A simple contradiction in the beginning.
        • Article V sets out the amendment procedure -- the Congress may propose the amendment by 2/3 vote, but the states must ratify it by a 3/4 vote for it to have any effect.

          For history buffs, note the prohibition of amendments before 1808 to clauses concerning _______.

          Article V [cornell.edu]
          The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
    • I swear Bush sounds more and more facist and like a smooth talking Hitler every day. "We're in danger. We'll protect you and preserve your freedom. All it will cost is your freedom."
      He just works as a mouthpiece for Ashcroft and Cheney. And Hitler was a very persuasive guy. How else could he get the Reichstag to give him a "temporary" emergency dictatorship? The scary thing is, Bush seems to be doing something similar. Watch for the Capitol building to have a mysterious fire. If it does, run for Canada. Or Mexico. Especially if you're not a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. You might just end up detained without trial as a "suspected terrorist" otherwise. At least until the secret tribunal sends you off to the firing squad.
    • Read the artice again.
      Who passed the bill?
      The Senate! 90 people voted for it. The President can't make law and he didn't make law. Blame the right people.
  • It was nice knowing you, now you are over.

    "May I see your travel documents?"

  • Voicemail and Email (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Descartes ( 124922 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @02:14AM (#4713489) Homepage
    There are two main things I find troubling about this: "ANY government entity" and "without a warrant or probable cause"

    Think about the potential for abuse and misuse when it's put in that scope. The idea of just allowing an agency like the FBI the power to do this is daunting enough. But now were giving this power to regular cops.
    • and another thing. Don't forget that this isn't just about Email. They can listen to your voicemails too. Basically this is circumventing wiretapping laws and rights to unreasonable search and seizure because the information is in a digital format. I'm glad I have an answering machine and not voicemail.

      • Re:Voicemail and Email (Score:5, Insightful)

        by legoboy ( 39651 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @02:34AM (#4713549)
        and another thing. Don't forget that this isn't just about Email. They can listen to your voicemails too. Basically this is circumventing wiretapping laws and rights to unreasonable search and seizure because the information is in a digital format. I'm glad I have an answering machine and not voicemail.

        Which prompts me to wonder whether this 'no probable cause' clause also includes the cell phone conversation archives which (given some media reports re: backtracing Sept. 11 hijackers) are purportedly being kept (and if so, would be kept in perpetuity, the costs of data storage being what they are).

        I daresay that a fishing expedition with even today's rudimentary voice recognition software could pick up a decent number of drug dealers, both large and small scale.

        Incidentally, I would also like to remind anyone who begins to respond that they're glad they don't live in the US that their own nation more likely than not has essentially equivalent laws either on the books or waiting to be passed. I'm talking to Canadians especially, here, since a) they gloat about not being American whenever given the chance; b) they're normally ignorant of their own nation's politics; and c) because I know, thanks to personal research in the past, exactly what Canada's current laws regarding government surveillance are, and have read the outlines of the newer bills which will be passed sooner or later by our "friends" in the federal Liberal Party of Canada)

  • Unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)

    by XorNand ( 517466 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @02:16AM (#4713496)

    This is insane. More email is delivered than first class mail in the US today. The interception of first class mail requires a federal warrant. How did this bill pass, in it's current state, with a 90-0 vote?!

    This is exact the reason I gave up being a SQL DBA and went back to school to get a law degree.

  • They were waiting... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @02:46AM (#4713617) Homepage
    The sort of privacy rollbacks we're seeing have been hotly desired by certain groups for years. They probably already had their ideal statutes written up, ready for a quick edit in the wordprocessor. So it is more accurate to view this sort of legislation not as a kneejerk reaction but as a kneejerk opportunity for a long-simmering reaction. Many are exploiting the country's disarray to advance their law-and-order agendas, without even a pretense of any real advance in defending the nation against terrorism.

    As for the near-unanimous Senate vote, you can imagine the fear of those who had qualms -- in the next election they'd have someone shaking a finger at them, accusing them of undermined the nation's security. It would be ludicrous if only it didn't work. Amazing how much political mileage a few bastards with boxcutters can provide.

    Encrpyt now! And when the FBI drops by to interview you (the ones I've met have been unfailingly polite), give them the number of a lawyer (it doesn't have to be *your* lawyer :).

    Seriously, the privacy issue demands active engagement by U.S. citizens (non-condescending foreigners are welcome to weigh in, too). Pick your favorite advocacy group as your antenna and tune in, this ain't over yet.

    • Re:They were waiting... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The sort of privacy rollbacks we're seeing have been hotly desired by certain groups for years. They probably already had their ideal statutes written up, ready for a quick edit in the wordprocessor. So it is more accurate to view this sort of legislation not as a kneejerk reaction but as a kneejerk opportunity for a long-simmering reaction.

      That is exactly the case with the USA Patriot Act. It's also why the justice dept used everything in it's power to keep it from being circulated to congress before the vote. It was a wish list of everything they had wanted and failed to get at some other point in the past all rolled into one bill.

      I've got a better idea to protect our privacy -- they want to read our mail? Okay. Lets send it to them! Everytime you write an email, or recieve an Email -- BCC it to president@whitehouse.gov, someone @fbi.gov, your congressmen, the secret service, the CIA, TIA, the DEA.

      Get a million people doing that every day and they just might get annonyed with getting what they want. ;-)

    • --wellstone got assassinated. It's reality. The remaining senators took this as a clue on playing ball. They went along with the "opposition" amendments that they knew wouldn't stand a chance anyway, then most of them lined up to grant dictatorial powers to the executive branch.

      They not only are cowards, but they abrogated their responsibilites and turned over constitutional duties that aren't their's to give away. But it doesn't matter, the bulk of the US code is unconstitutional anyway. It's a joke. they took the commerce clause and the duty to promote the general welfare to heights not even imagined by the founders. And even with the delineated bill of rights, it hasn't mattered, they just do what they want to do. We have a government comprised of bribe takers, blackmail reciepients, and blackmailers. Murders and assination happen, and nothing is ever done about it. From waco to chandra levy to a president to senators to "friends of bill" to "friends of the bushes", people get whacked. It's a dictatorship with window dressing teevee melodrama "politics". In some nation that has "one" party, people can see this easily, but for some reason, when you have "two" parties, but the results are constantly the same as those "one" party nations we all like to point at, the residents of the "two party" nation keep insisting they have choice and freedom, more from fervently wishing it than actually enjoying it.

      Expect the roadblocks, the military troops all over in the streets and patrolling schools and factories and other businesses, and the camps soon,too, because it's coming. Oh ya, and the "disappeards". First it will be only partly disappeard, we are seeing that now, to "military tribunals", but eventually the numbers will get high enough they'll just vanish and not even bother with any niceties like that.

      There is just an overwhelming parallelism with past tyrannical regimes, it's impossible to ignore it now unless you go way out of your way and apply blinders, which most people are doing.
      • ...and we should believe all this on your say-so? Impressive how you avoid citing even one fact. That's the miracle of conspiracy theory: the "absence" of facts proves the theory.

        There are a thousand reasons this kind of thing is silly, and the most prominent is the myth of Washington competence to keep a secret. Oh yeah, and the lack of evidence.

        And we did land on the Moon, so there. ;-)
        • --sure, here ya go it's called google. Look up anything ya want, start with the "friends of bill list". On the bushes side start with prescott if ya want, how he got convicted of trading with the enemy-the nazis. It's just data. Get the data, make up your own mind. Learn how george the elder allowed in thousands of iraqis, of whom many settled in oklahoma, and the now starting to creep out linkages with the murragh building and the explosion there. Interesting stuff there. Learn how immediately after the 9-11 attacks of how after ALL civilian aircraft was ordered grounded, that shrubya allowed-ordered- the bin laden family to load up and flee in their private jet. Learn about the dumbya's ties with the bin ladens, how they used to even vacation together. Look up anything ya want to. Have fun. It's not theory if there's data to look at, but I'm not your paid search engine, the data is out there if you are really interested. Try "government prior knowledge, 9-11" in google. Try looking up uzbeikstan and taliban and oil, then check the dates and names involved. Try unocal and haliburton and carlisle group. Try "opium, cia, KLA, taliban, northern alliance". Any and all of it, have big fun. Try running "bush, drug smuggling, clinton, mena", that's another goodie. There's tons really.

          And oh ya, oswald wasn't the only dude involved in kennedy's whack, "so there". Take your warren commission "report" to the outhouse with ya, it's the appropriate place to use that paper it's printed on.

          neener neener

          %^)
          • So I should troll the web for conspiracy theorists to prove the existence of conspiracies? Ingenious.

            Every one of the allegations you throw out has been debunked, including the hilarious ones about the bin Ladens. Start at any urban legend site (e.g., snopes) and go from there.
            • ---umm, nice try, but no they haven't been all "debunked". What has happened in a lot of cases has been half assed spin efforts. Like that ridiculous cia cartoon video of twa 800 and the magical sploding center fuel tank and a plane that can zoom almost straight up all busted in chubks, that was hysterical. And the fat guy don't look nuthin like him "osama" cia video, again, hilarious. You guys never quit, the "attack" by gunboats on US destroyers in the tonkin gulf. too bad the head navy guy in theater there never heard of it. On and on, same scam, yep, it usually works because people are easily lead when they can't get to any data, but the net is sorta making that harder to pull off now, ain't it?

              Just remember, the "nuhremberg defense" is not a valid excuse. Tell your boss that too.

  • Important details... (Score:5, Informative)

    by singularity ( 2031 ) <nowalmart.gmail@com> on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @04:00AM (#4713861) Homepage Journal
    From C|Net [com.com]:

    By rewriting wiretap laws, CSEA would allow limited surveillance without a court order when there is an "ongoing attack" on an Internet-connected computer or "an immediate threat to a national security interest." That kind of surveillance would, however, be limited to obtaining a suspect's telephone number, IP address, URLs or e-mail header information--not the contents of online communications or telephone calls.


    This is a very important distiction.

    Everyone seems intent on the government reading your email. This article seems to say a lot differently.

    Indeed, the rights granted seem to make a little sense, even.
  • I think it would have been better to require a
    -minimum- local gov't -size- before opening the
    Act's power to use by local gov'ts.

    In a small town, local gov't very likely lacks
    the personnel to monitor/interpret/utilize any
    info received (eg from ISP's).

    Also, I think there's a big risk that such info
    would be misused, no matter how great the pen-
    alties that such misuse might attract.

  • The text of the Bill, and the amended US Code (Score:4, Informative)

    by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @04:58AM (#4713984) Journal
    This is the text of the part (d) of the "Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002", which is section 225 of the
    (House of Representatives version) of H. R. 5710, the Bill in question.

    Section 225 is found on page 51 of H. R. 5710

    I've removed the line numbers, but kept the original lines breaks. The quoted text begins after the three dashes, and ends before the four dashes

    ---
    (d) EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE EXCEPTION.--
    (1) IN GENERAL.--Section 2702(b) of title 18,
    United States Code, is amended--
    (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ''or'' at
    the end;
    (B) in paragraph (6)(A), by inserting ''or''
    at the end;
    (C) by striking paragraph (6)(C); and
    (D) by adding at the end the following:
    ''(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental
    entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an
    emergency involving danger of death or serious phys-
    ical injury to any person requires disclosure without
    delay of communications relating to the emer-
    gency.''.
    (2) REPORTING OF DISCLOSURES.--A govern-
    ment entity that receives a disclosure under section
    2702(b) of title 18, United States Code, shall file,
    not later than 90 days after such disclosure, a report
    to the Attorney General stating the paragraph of
    that section under which the disclosure was made,
    the date of the disclosure, the entity to which the
    disclosure was made, the number of customers or
    subscribers to whom the information disclosed per-
    tained, and the number of communications, if any,
    that were disclosed. The Attorney General shall pub-
    lish all such reports into a single report to be sub-
    mitted to Congress 1 year after the date of enact-
    ment of this Act.
    ----

    Below is the text of Section 2702(b) of title 18, United States Code, as provided by findlaw.com. As I note below, the version found through findlaw differs slightly from the version to which H.R. 5710 appears to refer. Please unsderstand that nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice, and do not rely on the below as neccesarily accurate.

    Italics indicate text removed from 18 United States Code 2702(b) by H.R. 5710, Section 225, part (d)
    Boldface indicates text added to 18 United States Code 2702(b) by H.R. 5710, Section 225, part (d)

    * United States Code
    o TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    + PART I - CRIMES
    # CHAPTER 121 - STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS

    U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
    Section 2702. Disclosure of contents

    (a) Prohibitions. - Except as provided in subsection (b) -
    (1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication
    service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person
    or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic
    storage by that service; and
    (2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to
    the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity
    the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained
    on that service -
    (A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic
    transmission from (or created by means of computer processing
    of communications received by means of electronic transmission
    from), a subscriber or customer of such service; and
    (B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer
    processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the
    provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such
    communications for purposes of providing any services other
    than storage or computer processing.
    (b) Exceptions. - A person or entity may divulge the contents of
    a communication -
    (1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication
    or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient;
    (2) as otherwise authorized in section 2517, 2511(2)(a), or
    2703 of this title;
    (3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee
    or intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in
    the case of remote computing service;
    (4) to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are
    used to forward such communication to its destination;
    (5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the
    service or to the protection of the rights or property of the
    provider of that service; or
    (6) to a law enforcement agency -
    (A) if the contents -
    (i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider;
    and
    (ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or or
    (B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of
    1990.
    The copy of 18 US 2702(b) available through findlaw.com has no paragraph (6)(C)
    ''(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental
    entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an
    emergency involving danger of death or serious phys-
    ical injury to any person requires disclosure without
    delay of communications relating to the emer-
    gency.''

  • Is it just me or.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Korgan ( 101803 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @06:10AM (#4714139) Homepage
    does anyone else find the fact that "Fritz" Hollings voted against this bill kind of ironic given is track record so far?

    I would have figured that he would've loved to have more power to chase after pirates, especially in the name of "Homeland Defence" :P

    Oh well, I guess he just didn't get his asking price this time round.

    I'm sorry, but I really find it concerning that someone so vocal in his support of other laws that are just as draconian, would then turn around and vote against this one. It just doesn't seem to add up.
  • Hey, in other news,

    TERRORISM WORKS

  • When I turned to the editorial page of the Chicago Tribune this morning, I was greeted by this column [orlandosentinel.com] by Kathleen Parker of the Orlando Sentinel. Always a voice of measured rationality, she sums up the whole thing quite tidily.
  • The Lameness Filter Is Requiring Me To Have _More_ Characters Per Line; Interesting... I Thought It Was Supposed To _Fight_ Page Widening. Lalalalla--MEEPT-- CmdrTaco Can'T Handle Losing Control, Doo Dah Doo Dah, CmdrTaco Can'T Hack Perl, Doo Dah Doo Dah, How Are We Supposed To Post Meaningful Comments When Lists And Blockquotes And Indentation Are All Considered "Trolling", E-I-E-I-O

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Subject: The Reichstag BURNS
    From: vsync <vsync@quadium.net>
    Organization: quadium.net
    Date: 20 Nov 2002 06:11:19 -0700
    Message-ID: <87u1ic2xoo.fsf@piro.quadium.net>
    Content-Type : text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Lines: 105

    Well, they just got done raping the 4th amendment, among other things.

    The Senate just approved the "Homeland Security" bill, granting the
    government the right to read mail without warrants, as well as
    stuffing INS, Customs, and others into one giant department. The bill
    (law now) also includes such provisions apparently unrelated to
    security as refusing government contracts to US-traded companies based
    in the Cayman Islands, with no justification given.

    They were forced to back down from some of the most explicit corporate
    pork (but only as a promise to rescind these provisions later; they're
    law now):

    * Shield Eli Lilly only from future lawsuits based on claims that
    thimerosal, a vaccine preservative, caused autism in children; as
    passed, the bill makes moot a number of pending suits.

    * Restore a provision from the late Sen. Paul Wellstone that would
    ban companies from getting federal homeland-security contracts if
    they reincorporated abroad to avoid U.S. taxes, unless an
    administration finds national security is at stake. The GOP language
    now in the bill broadens the waiver power.

    * Drop an earmark that would have put a new homeland-security
    research center at Texas A&M.

    -- WSJ, "Bush Wins Senate Passage Of Homeland-Security Bill",
    2002-11-20

    Last night I found this speech by Senator Thomas rushing the bill to a
    vote without further debate or discussion:

    Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I just listened to the two Senators who
    are probably most involved with the details of this homeland
    security bill--very interesting comments. I have been, frankly,
    disappointed that it has taken us as long as it has. We have been
    on this measure, I understand, now for about 7 weeks, and we are
    still not finished--a bill that needs to be finished. It needs to
    be there for security. Yet we continue to debate and worry over
    issues that are not as significant as the passage of this bill.

    -- [Page: S11243],
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r107:./temp /~r1077h0c6g

    And here I thought people were concerned about the unconstitutional
    aspects of this bill and worried about the amount of power being
    placed into the hands of the Executive Branch. Now I know that
    getting a bad law passed is more important than fixing the issues it
    has first, passing a better law instead, or even determining if a new
    law is needed.

    I'd like to quote from an article about 1930s Germany:

    In Jan., 1933, when Adolf Hitler became chancellor without an
    absolute majority, the Reichstag was dissolved and new elections
    were set for Mar. 5; a violent election campaign ensued. On Feb. 27,
    1933, a fire destroyed part of the Reichstag building. Hitler
    immediately accused the Communists of having set the fire. President
    von Hindenburg proclaimed a state of emergency[...]

    Sound eerily familiar? I pray that the second half of that last
    sentence never comes to pass in the United States of America:

    [...]and issued decrees suspending freedom of speech and assembly.

    Now, look at how Hitler got all his power. Did he seize it in a
    military coup? No:

    On Mar. 23 the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, which gave the
    government, i.e., Hitler, dictatorial powers.
    -- http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Reichstg_ HitlerandtheReichstagFire.asp

    I say that the World Trade Center is our Reichstag. Yes, the United
    States was attacked. Yes, there are those who wish our doom. But
    shifting power between the branches of government and giving the FBI
    power to read our mail without warrants and browse our library reading
    lists freely does nothing to stop someone flying another plane into a
    building, shooting random people as they go about their business, or
    sailing a ship with a nuclear weapon aboard into a harbor. No, it
    merely clears the way for more ... dramatic domestic happenings.

    I'm surprised that this wasn't passed by secret voice vote, the way
    the DMCA was. At least we know the names of those who sold us out,
    abrogating the constitutional rights which define the freedom they
    are so eager to protect. Whether the Supreme Court will intervene is
    an open question.

    As citizens of the United States, we share a solemn responsibility in
    that we allowed this to happen, the same responsibility we place upon
    those who gave Hitler his power. And should we see our government
    take further steps along the road to establishing a tyrant, and do
    nothing, we are not merely careless and apathetic, but fools. For we
    have seen this happen before, and we know the potential results.

    God bless America.

    [This email may be reproduced and redistributed verbatim and in its
    entirety.]

    - --
    vsync
    http://quadium.net/
    Save man-years by not saying things like "mature software process
    concepts" when you mean things like "good plan."
    -- http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=44717&cid= 4641043

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

    iD8DBQE92414E3OXKHY6U7wRAs BaAJ96/N1ZShSiHW0k3w3z6T4wSew9gACeNqhw
    gSOFpMuegz /qkVBIsY/TgwY=
    =mOLy
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    The Lameness Filter Is Requiring Me To Have _More_ Characters Per Line; Interesting... I Thought It Was Supposed To _Fight_ Page Widening. Lalalalla--MEEPT-- CmdrTaco Can'T Handle Losing Control, Doo Dah Doo Dah, CmdrTaco Can'T Hack Perl, Doo Dah Doo Dah, How Are We Supposed To Post Meaningful Comments When Lists And Blockquotes And Indentation Are All Considered "Trolling", E-I-E-I-O

  • Encrypting mail servers? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ka9dgx ( 72702 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @11:21AM (#4715352) Homepage Journal
    Perhaps it's time for a new standard for email, which could be done incrementally... by having the server have only my public key, and encrypting all the emails I recieve before storing them. This would make it impossible for anyone else to read my email, even on the ISP's machine. (Assuming it didn't get duplicated before reaching the server)

    Once this step works, then outgoing emails could search for a public keys of recients, and if possible encrypt before sending. This would incrementally move the encryption closer to the sender, as adoption permitted.

    I suggest using this along with features for verification of the sender as an anti-spam feature, to enhance adoption of the new protocols. An incremental approach is the only feasable one, IMHO.

    --Mike--

  • I'm announcing my candidate for the Wisconsin seat in the Senate, against Herb Kohl, election in 2006. We need 2 Senators who'll defend the Constitution.

    I don't have to pick a Party til 2005.

  • Pundit-surfing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dannon ( 142147 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @11:58AM (#4715606) Journal
    My impulse is, of course, to be greatly concerned about my privacy with this. Not a bad thing, altogether. But I've done some looking around at what other people have to say on the matter.

    On the one hand, I've heard a lot of folks on the radio and read no few columns by smart people saying we need to be paranoid [townhall.com]. Rational paranoia's not a bad thing, I think. Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

    On the other hand, another writer [townhall.com] I like to read has pointed out that, as far as political, legal, and material freedoms goes, we're a lot more free than we have ever been in history, and the very fact that we have a number of people who are incredibly sensitive to violations of civil liberty means that civil servants have to keep on their toes about it. And the Heritage Foundation has published a memo [heritage.org] explaining that DARPA's Total Information Awareness isn't quite what Safire of the NYT said it is, and it's not quite what everyone (rightly) fears.

    Still, I won't budge from my first point. A little rational paranoia is a healthy thing to have. I've been doing my best to be 'safe', and to teach good habits to my not-so-tech-savvy friends. Now that I've got most of my family Back Home using PGP-friendly e-mail clients, I'm going to take some time to show them just how easy it is to use these nigh-impossible-to-forge signatures when I visit for the holidays.
  • I'd like to thank everyone out there who voted GOP and gave complete control of the government to the fascists. Before the election -- when the senate was still controlled by the Democrats -- the senate version of the Fatherland Security Bill was 35 pages long. After the election, it balloned to over 400 pages -- including this noxious bit -- with pro-business and pro-repression amendments introduced by the Compassionate Conservatives.

    Welcome to George Bush's America. It's going to be a very long two years.

    eric

  • Time To Implement "Project White Noise" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Deagol ( 323173 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2002 @12:28PM (#4715843) Homepage
    A while back, I was inspired (by the news of yet another anti-privacy law that got passed) to start a project that would fill the ether with encrypted email for the sake of pissing off three-letter agencies who are on witch hunts.

    It was meant to be like the old usenet practice of adding "spook fodder" to the end of posts. Also, like type II anonymous remailers, it was designed to help thwart traffic analysis.

    There'd be a set of scripts (or easy to compile programs) that would sit on a client machine. These scripts would have a list of email recipients (either static, or snarfed periodically from a current source), and it would send out an encrypted "message" to each address according to a set of rules defined coupled to that address.

    Messges could be sent at random intervals or with a specific frequency.

    The payload could either be encrypted, plaintext, or crypto-grade random garbage.

    The encryption could be symetric, asymetric, or even with a throw-away one-time-pad (generated on the fly and then discarded).

    The payload of encrypted messages could be plain text, garbage, or another encrypted message.

    Of course, this could be done with the current anonymous remailers. But I've found the remailers to be already overloaded and unreliable. Because the project's goal is primarily to add noise to existing email traffic, it would lend itself to be served by clients with sporadic connections.

    There's the possibility of propogating real messages in this system, but running SMTP servers on sporadic clients seems like a bad idea (even discounting the potential for abuse by spammers, etc.). I was thinking of a store-and-forward type of system, using P2P networks. The software could be a P2P client. It would queue a "real" message by sharing it out. Other clients would search for a designated string to find these messgaes and download them (there'd obviously need to be some sanity checking to prevent garbage inputs). Once the originating client knows that the message has been downloaded "x" number of times (some redundancy would be desireable, I would think), it would remove the message from the queue so the recipient doesn't get thousands of copies of the message.

    I know, this idea is really rough around the edges. I had a really nice write-up a while back, but I lost it. The fact that my coding skills don't extend beyond half-page sed/awk/perl/bash scripts (don't laugh, I'm just a sysadmin) hasn't helped in my realization of this idea. :)

    If anyone knows of a project that even remotely comes close to what I have described, please post links!

  • Republicans == Communists

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close