ACLU Weighs In On Surveillance Society 18
DeAshcroft writes "In the wake of the TIA (and logo-morphing attempts to be less scary), the ACLU has issued a report discussing the increased use of technology to erode privacy and the decreased use of law to defend it. Take your own spin. Not a light read (24 pages), but it includes some points to ponder. I haven't seen a response from Poindexter on the John Poindexter Awareness Office, but maybe the ACLU will come to his aid when he's had enough. Then again, they don't seem to be collecting much information."
I'll have to agree with the ACLU here (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do stop and think about how the pieces are going to fit together, things get pretty creepy. In an earlier slashdot story I wrote a comment about how UAVs [slashdot.org] being used presemably to protect us against terrorists here in the States could easily be modified to do basically whatever. And, let's face it, UAVs are pretty obvious. Think about the intelligence data that could be obtained by less obvious sources. Bit by bit, they can collect a wealth of information about you.
The problem with making concessions on personal liberties to aid the war on terror is that there isn't going to be any definite end point of this "war". Traditional wars end when one side comes to the bargaining table. This war is pretty ill-defined and so no clear "end" will ever exist. Once those liberties are gone, I don't think we're going to see them coming back anytime soon.
GMD
Re:I'll have to agree with the ACLU here (Score:1)
And here is another fun fact: Congress has never declared war on anybody. Bush did that all by himself, even though he has no athority to do so.
You have nothing to fear... (Score:5, Insightful)
A.) The info falls into the wrong hands (spammers or people who would use it against you even though you haven't done something illegal)
B.) The Gov't abuses the info against people who haven't done anything illegal
C.) You have done something illegal (whether it's a just law or not is another issue entirely; the law is the law)
[/devil's advocate]
The problem arises due to the fact that not all laws are just or should be universally enforced. The very soul of the purpose of having the 4th amendment is to make the government impotent at enforcing unjust and oppressive laws. All laws against "victimless crimes"* are just that, and those are precisely the laws that privacy most inhibits the government from enforcing. It's kind of a fail-safe method of stopping the government from turning into an oppressive majoritarian state that persecutes those who have hurt no one.
*A "Victimless Crime" is any act that does not harm any unconsenting third party or a third party that is not competant to give consent. Any law against a "Victimless Crime" is oppressive, in my book.
We are all guilty (Score:4, Insightful)
You will be chosen for prosection, then observed (with or without warrant, depending on how politically sensitive your case is) until you do something wrong. Then you will be arrested, held on whatever (minor?) charge is available, and investigated until something more substantial is uncovered. If we were all held to account for every crime, there wouldn't be any of us left.
When is the last time you jaywalked? Littered? Violated copyright law? Had premarital sex in Georgia? Stuck a cigar in an intern? Did anyone witness you pulling pranks in college? Were they all legal?
Jon Doe #2178 is being held on charges of tresspass and jaywalking with intent to commit a terrorist act, pending an investigation into possible terrorist links by the Ministry of Justice. Jon Doe's real name is being withheld due to the sensitivity of the investigation. Jon Doe's current location is being withheld due to the sensitivity of the investigation. No further information will be released until the investigation is closed. We'll take good care of him. We promise.
The fail-safe is gone. We are all guilty of something, and the executive branch will decide which of us gets charged. Then they will decide if we get a jury. I mean, hell. The police wouldn't have arrested the guy if he wasn't guilty of something.
If laws aren't just, and should only be selectively enforced, then why are they laws? Why aren't they "good ideas" or "suggestions"?
How to fix it? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't see anything less getting the job done. Morals don't seem to exist in DC and I think the country really needs a compass on how to use all this new spy technology.
Re:How to fix it? (Score:2, Insightful)
The RKBA is how (in the extreme case) we protect the right to privacy (and other rights).
Re:War Not Peace! (Score:2)
is it related to the topic?
Re:War Not Peace! (Score:2)
This isn't your story, you're just a pro-war troll.
Hang you by your toes.
Propaganda bullshit.
Don't be fooled. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Don't be fooled. (Score:2)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, cops run cameras on their dashboard to watch you. Put a camera on your dashboard to watch the cops. This group of any should be able to come up with a cheap technical solution.
There's probably some other ways to fight fire with fire. Like the trash story we saw a week or so ago where the City declared trash was public. They got the government official's trash and displayed.
As private citizens, start our own data warehouse of government officials. Put cameras outside your house to watch the water meter inspector, the trash man, the police, the street cleaners, etc. Just a thought.
People gotta see this, I'm going to pass it on.... (Score:2)
I think the best thing we can do is to try to make other people aware of this. My life is really busy, and I only found this link (on the sidebar) because I really care about this....most people wouldn't think twice....
If you care about this issue, take the time to educate ONE other person that you know....somebody that wouldn't have this cross their minds....
I don't know exactly what the "IP" restrictions on this document are, but I intend to print off a few copies and leave them at the coffee shop...I hope the ACLU will not mind.
I also intend to send everyone I know this link....perhaps a good use of "spam," perhaps not....
As more people know the ramifications of this, there will be some balance, I hope.
I'm really saddened though, when I see that more people would take "security" than liberty in old Ben Franklin's gambit....than perhaps they really do deserve neither.
The important things in life (Score:5, Insightful)
Well right up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your life without being forced to live your life under an oppressive surveillance society. For it surely is oppressive, knowing this information could be used against you for any purpose the authorities wish.
This is quite part from the minor fact it is very leaky - example seen here in UK news today [telegraph.co.uk]: Revenue staff selling tax secrets. Quote, "There have been a number of instances of celebrity-browsing or looking up details of family or friends out of idle curiosity. But there is also evidence that some people are using the information maliciously, for example finding out how much an ex-spouse earns and passing the information to the Child Support Agency, or even selling the information to outside agencies. This is a clear breach of customer confidentiality and the Data Protection Act."
The main thing is this - Not enough importance is placed on our Liberty.
Why can't everybody see the blatant use of propaganda, when it is so clear?
I have placed the following on this board many times - the regulars must be sick of it by now - sorry for that
Subject - Ask Security Services to deny this:
First - a quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [darpa.mil]: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
Okay then -
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET [zdnet.com]: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] - which we have adopted.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."