Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

CNN Talks WIth ACLU Tech Maven Barry Steinhardt 181

Posted by timothy from the watch-that-mandatory-stuff-now dept.
muon1183 writes " CNN interviews Barry Steinhardt, the ACLU's cyberchief and former staff laywer for the EFF. Steinhardt speaks on his concerns about current and upcoming legislation and its impacts on your civil liberties. It's good that this is finally making the mainstream media."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CNN Talks WIth ACLU Tech Maven Barry Steinhardt More

CNN Talks WIth ACLU Tech Maven Barry Steinhardt

Comments Filter:
  • I wouldn't go and say this is a good thing just yet. They could easily change "It is a violation of all that is good and just" into "It is all good."
  • As long as people are not willing to sacrifice fundamental liberties for a temporary sense of safety...

    • Re:Could be good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zayin ( 91850 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:29AM (#5630547)

      As long as people are not willing to sacrifice fundamental liberties for a temporary sense of safety...

      They are. Welcome to the real world. In my experience, most people long for safety and stability, not liberty and truth. I would be more than delighted to be proven wrong, though.

      • Re:Could be good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bertrum ( 631643 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @08:12AM (#5630630)
        They are. Welcome to the real world. In my experience, most people long for safety and stability, not liberty and truth. I would be more than delighted to be proven wrong, though

        Most people do long for safety and stability. The problem is that safety and stability are a natural consequence of of liberty and truth but no one notices. The world has huge amounts of liberty and truth and is a very safe place to be. Crossing the road is still the most dangerous thing you are likely to do even with all the wars, despots and terrorists. The sense of proportion gets lost at times like this however, which is how these worring laws get passed. If every 'Man killed by terrorist' report came along with the millions of 'Man has entirely trouble free day' reports that could also me true at that point, then maybe we wouldn't panic so much.

      • Problem with satisfying your desire for security is that King George the W took and oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. In other words, Junior is supposed to defend and protect American principles, not American's citizens.
        1. Your precious security. How many people died in automobile accidents yesterday? Last year? Compare this number to the number of deaths due to terrorism and there you have the greatest threat to your personal security.

        2. But I bet you hop in your c

      • The really nasty part is that people are sacrificing the liberties of other people for their own security. I'm reminded of the protesters for the past year and a half who have been saying "Overthrowing (despotic government X) will only provoke more attacks!"

    • Re:Could be good (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pmodern ( 630742 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:38AM (#5630564) Journal
      Sadly people forget what their fundamental liberties are a lot more readily than they forget the tragedies on television everyday. I wish they would see that every time a new piece of legislation comes through unchecked it brings us one step backwards in the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  • ACLU's Efforts (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gorilla_Man ( 222813 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:31AM (#5630552) Journal

    Here's more info about ACLU's campaign to challenge new security laws, called Keep America Safe and Free [aclu.org]

    It's interesting to note their views that in order to keep America safe, you do not necessarily have to take away freedom.

    More info about the controversial PATRIOT ACT [aclu.org].

    Best of luck to him!

    • They have a nice print ad that I just saw in GQ, which tries to place the ACLU in more of a patriotic light than many conservative foes would. Too often, they just fail to stick up for the rights of those they disagree with...

      • Re:ACLU's Efforts (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by deanj ( 519759 )
        So, what fundamental right does the ACLU stand up for when they sue a small community for putting up a nativity scene in front of a public building, but fail to sue any non-Christian (but still religious) display in front of another public building. You can't name one case where they've done that. If you can, please provide the link.

        • Re:ACLU's Efforts (Score:2, Insightful)

          by mrseth ( 69273 )
          "...but fail to sue any non-Christian (but still religious) display in front of another public building."

          I've yet to ever hear of such a thing. I am a firm believer that the gov't has no business in religion and vice versa and such a thing should also not be permitted. There is one subtle difference here though: the spirit of the first amendment is, in a nutshell, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Popular speech does not need protecting. Nobody will hit me or punish me for waving an
        • So, what fundamental right does the ACLU stand up for when they sue a small community for putting up a nativity scene in front of a public building, but fail to sue any non-Christian (but still religious) display in front of another public building. You can't name one case where they've done that. If you can, please provide the link.

          Here. [aclu.org] And here. [tulane.edu]

          You're right, I couldn't name one. I could name two though.

  • Now the pro bill campaigners will come (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Neophytus ( 642863 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:32AM (#5630555)
    Once the opponents come 'into the mainstream' then as night follows day the pro-legislation campaigners will start shouting their side of the corner. No doubt they will shout louder and as the mainstream always works, the person who shouts loudest usually wins over the public at large.

  • Mighty nice petard you've got there Senator. (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:33AM (#5630557)
    Perhaps when some of the politicians calling for enhanced surveillance get caught on terahertz candid camera getting spanked by underaged hookers we will finally see some saner legislation protecting privacy.

  • Serious Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Boss, Pointy Haired ( 537010 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:34AM (#5630558)
    I'm not trolling.

    I'm interested as to why someone who has "nothing to hide" should be worried about mass surveillance by their government?

    It certainly doesn't bother me.

    What the arguments?
    Why should I be worried?

    I'm quite willing to change my mind!

    • Re:Serious Question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by onion2k ( 203094 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:44AM (#5630576) Homepage
      Its a question of trust. Do you, honestly, trust this government, or any future government, not to misuse the data they collect right now?
    • Someone will collect a lot of data about you. Someone will abuse this data by selling it to other parties. I guess you can imagine "data abuse" yourself in some ways, I hope.

    • Re:Serious Question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:48AM (#5630586)
      Because people are innocent until proven guilty, and the innocent have the right to conduct themselves as they want in private.

      People like to do strange things, and they might not want other people to know about them. If the things are legal, then they have the right to keep them private.

      Although most people don't demmand privacy like this - it's important that we all have a basic level of privacy so that when we do want it we don't have to be suspected of being up to something for asking for it.

      Also, there is a fear that the information could be used for something it isn't meant to use for, and that people should not be exposed to this risk if they have done nothing wrong.

      I agree with you a bit - but I think that people have a right to privacy if that is what they want. With mass surveillance, people can't choose.
    • Overhere it reminds many people of the time we were occupied... Unless you have enough faith in your government that this power will not be abused, and of course that something you don't have to hide now, will "suddenly" become something to hide it is IMHO good to limit the government's room to do surveilance.
    • There are two reasons, as the other poster stated, can you trust the goverment to use the information they gather in good faith, and although you have nothing to hide right now, what happens when the rules change (something you do legally now becomes illegal, for example, criticizing the goverment).

    • Re:Serious Question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pediddle ( 592795 ) <pediddle+slashdot@NoSPam.pediddle.net> on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:50AM (#5630593) Homepage
      Here's a link to David Ross's page [vcnet.com] on the subject. Suprisingly, many of the examples listed there do apply to me, and apply to most of the people I know (if only more of my friends and coworkers would use PGP...).

      What, you say? All of those examples are still about hiding things? I thought I said I had nothing to hide!

      IMHO, there's a huge difference between having "something to hide" from an FBI investigation -- i.e., committing a crime -- and maintaining your privacy. You don't want everyone to know that you pick your nose and eat it, so when you send a letter to your psycologist about your "problem", you should be allowed and able to protect that message with encryption.

      And, of course, if you're transmitting other types of secrets, namely trade secrets for your company, you should be able to encrypt that as well.

      Now, you may still ask, so what if the government can view those messages, as long as "real people" can't? My answer to that is that the government is made of "real people" too, and I don't want any old FBI agent to know about me picking my nose. Extend that analogy as necessary for different levels of "secrets", as well as different levels of paranoia about how Big Brother will stretch any information about you to fit His purposes.
      • And add to that the notion that encrypted speech is still speech and as such is free and should continue to be free from restrictions. What if the government said, "Sure, you have the right to free speech, as long as you don't use your mouth to say it, we want to keep a written record of everything that you say..."? Encryption is no different, and should not be able to be regulated, not even for the sake of national security. Encryption algorithms are also just ideas and as such should not be able to be sil
    • it's not that you may have someting to hide right now, but that in the future others (including government agencies) might find something objectionable or offensive
    • Yes you have nothing to worry, the govt is just and will not harras you. We dont need ACLU... period

      Welcome to the real world. Lawmakers, authorities etc are people, not ideal machines. Suppose there was somebody in FBI who hated you and your family, just imagine what all could he do if he had information about your whole life....Or a more grimmer scenario... Somebody in the police wants to harm you.... some govt employee who has acess to this database desparately needs money... so if you are rich enough he

    • Re:Serious Question (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AndyS ( 655 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:55AM (#5630604)
      We had a really unpleasant rail disaster in the UK a while ago. One of the survivors, who was horrifically burned, made a point of harassing the government over safety measures and so on.

      Fast forward a little way and a leaked memo appeared, asking party machinery (just the Labour party here) to get details on her, and see if she was working with the opposition in order to discredit her.

      This is the nub of it, a lot of people have stuff to hide. It might not even be anythign that is a crime, but purely something that you are ashamed of, or might affect how other people see you (which, in this day and age, can be pretty much anything). It basically is a useful tool to settle personal scores, and to stop people from exercising their rights to loudly question their political masters.

      Now, I'm not saying this WILL occur, but it certainly can. They can neuter your ability to effectively say anything about the government.

      And that's not even going all the way.

    • Re:Serious Question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rknop ( 240417 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:57AM (#5630606) Homepage

      I'm interested as to why someone who has "nothing to hide" should be worried about mass surveillance by their government?

      Ask yourself what you do every day.

      Then ask yourself if, seriously, everything that you do and which you consider "nothing to hide" is also something that every potentially powerful religious political group or other self-appointed "guardian of public morality" would also consider "nothing to hide."

      If we lived in a utopian society where individualism was respted, where victimless crimes were just considered poor judgement but nothing to bring charges on, and where moral judgements were considered private opinions and not a reason for censure or imprisionment, then a university surveillance society (e.g. like what's depicted in Robert J. Sawyers' Hominids and Humans) could actually be a good thing. Unfortunately, we live in a society where people are lining up to condemn others for wrong thinking, where people can't wait to limit each other's freedoms in the name of morality and other arbitrary reasons.

      Are you a homosexual? Do you read any pornographic magazines? Heck, do you look at lingeire catalogs? Do you ever drink alcohol before noon? Do you ever masturbate? Do you ever post to "hacker" message boards like Slashdot? Do you read opinions online critical of the government? Critical of the RIAA? Do you believe that Islam may be at it's core a pecaeful religion? Worse, are you a muslim? Are you an atheist? Do you ever send personal E-mail while at work? Do you ever look at sports scores or other personal sites while at work? How about when you're telecommunting from home?

      There are so many various groups with strong opinions about other people's personal morality who have a lot of political influence in this country that I simply do not trust society with universal surveillance capabilities. If we really did respect individual freedom as much as we claim to, then no problem. In the mean time, when we've got things like the DMCA and the philosophy behind it, and when it's a struggle to get anti-homosexual-sex laws stricken from the books, a universal surveillance society will turn this country into a totalitarian state. Nearly everybody has something to hide. Even if you don't really, even if you don't do anything you're embarassed about and if you don't do anything to hurt anybody, there is probably some sort of fundamentalist group out there with a lot of sympathy and ability to get somebody elected who does think you ought to hide it. The easier it is for them to track down the people like you doing these "immoral" things you didn't think you had to hide, the more likely you are, in the best case, to check your own behavior-- behavior you would otherwise have thought innocuous. (And in the worst case, you'd be brought up on charges for it.)

      -Rob

    • The arguments seem to boil down to "trust" and "possible misuse".

      Fair enough, but I really think people are getting a little paranoid here.

      Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me; they go home at night to their families; and have a private life - just like anybody else.

      It is in their interest to protect their private life just as much (if not more so!) as you or me.

      Even the (President | Prime Minister) if they were to leave office would be as subject to any gov
      • The USA, we have a Constitutional Democracy, is better know as a Capitalist Republic.

        The civil servants are regular folks. The Elected Officials are the Ruling Bosses, who have been known (at times) to try controlling the future by sometimes questionable actions. However, as long as they are the Ruling Bosses there will be no questions [HEIL ______ (fill in the blank)].

        OldHawk777

        Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
      • Ok. Imagine the situation:

        Microsoft buys some (more) politicians and gets a law passed saying that emulated gaming is illegal. This means that people who write emulators are criminals, and those associated with them ought to be 'watched'.

        You get an FBI phone tap.

        Why? In your slashdot 'fans' list is one 'rtaylor', who has links to WineX on his website.

        You see, you've done nothing wrong, and yet 'they're watching you'! This is sounds like a pretty extreme example, but this sort of thing is entirely possib
      • The arguments seem to boil down to "trust" and "possible misuse".

        Fair enough, but I really think people are getting a little paranoid here.

        But in a free society, shouldn't people have the right to be paranoid? The right to free speech includes anonymous speech, and the right NOT to speak out.
        Life is not so "black and white" or "right and wrong" with respect to privacy. Say I'm a licensed, professional engineering. My company is committing illegal actions violating environmental standards, and endangering the welfare of the local population. If my free speech were truly protected, then blowing the whistle would be consequence free. But anyone knows that companies have something to hide, and that employees who violate that "corporate wall of silence" find it harder to get a job with another employer. Thus, anonymous speech could be used, if I wanted to protect my career. What if the company I worked for had influence politically -- and with our current law and mind frame....i could be considered a terrorist.

        Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me; they go home at night to their families; and have a private life - just like anybody else.

        That argument alone isn't enough for me. Kennith Lay was a person "just like me" -- he went home every night to his home and family. But the big difference is Kennith Lay got rich off putting 42,000 american familes out of work. Misuse isn't a "hypothetical situation" its a standard operating procedure. Wouldn't you misuse it? What if the "security benifits" outweighed the "costs". Besides, no one's going to find out about it. And after they realized we prevented Sept. 11th 2: The Sequel, they wouldn't question our methods. The ends will justify the means for the public.

        It is in their interest to protect their private life just as much (if not more so!) as you or me.

        Or divert the watchful eye's attention on to someone else's. Remember, in 1984 all the party members could turn off their telescreens.

        Even the (President | Prime Minister) if they were to leave office would be as subject to any government surveillance as anybody else.

        If everyone were equal under the law, George W. Bush would have to take the bus and would never have come to power. His "youthful indiscretions" were D.U.Is at age 29. Police Officers found him driving on the shoulder of the road! Now he gets to send other families' kids off to die, having never fought in a war himself (He dodged the draft by joining the national guard back during Nam.)

        If the NSA employee could discover something about you in the future and use it against you; well that's a bummer; but there is just as much chance of something being found and used against that NSA employee.

        Again, more motivation to find dirt on other people. Get results, and they won't be looking for fault on the inside. There are plenty of patsy's in the american public.

        I think I trust my Government. They're elected after all;

        Not in my country, buddy. Stupid Florida.

        the big caveat being that the majority of what is the "Government" is the civil service; which of course does not change with elections. I'm sure "Yes Prime Minister" has been seen outside the UK.

        Even Civil Servants fall in love, and have cats and dogs as pets.

        Plenty of people who've done horrible, horrible things were animal lovers or some such drek. Hitler was a strict vegetarian. G.W. Bush Jr reads scripture every day in the morning, even when he was executing retarded people as the Governor of Texas.

        We've also had the secret police in western countries for years; and probably still have departments that are "even more secret than the secret ones that we know about"; but so what.

        So why should I just sit there and let a soulless organization be funded with my money to work against me and deny me the very freedoms I'm supposedly paying them to "protect"? Are YOU being served?

        I think people need to chill out a bit.

        I think you need to graduate High School, go to college, maybe stop watching "Yes Prime Minister" and look at how dreadfully dangerous your government IS. Not "will be" or "can be", but IS.
      • I happen to be a "person like you or me" that work for the government. The problem is that I have an opinion as to what is right and what is wrong. So do my co-workers. I wouldn't trust them with my private information. Hell, I attended a lunch and people learned I was a vegetarian... this seemed to weird out many of them and I'm pretty sure some classify me as a "goddamned hippie!" If word got out that I was an atheist I honestly don't know if they could ignore that. People in the government will do what
      • Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me

        Have you meet many government employees? My wife's family is filled with them. They're mostly part of a good ol' boys network (primarily it's the law enforcement organizations like this) and you do NOT get in the door unless you know someone or think/act just like the rest of them. People who have ever done anything with their life that shows the least bit of individuality or fun do NOT get these jobs. People that have m

    • Be afraid of Big Brother (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @08:18AM (#5630637) Homepage

      1) Read 1984, and find out what happens to people with nothing to hide

      2) Read about Stalin and what happened to people with nothing to hide

      3) Read about Nixon and what he wanted to do to people with nothing to hide.

      Nothing to hide is NOT the same as agreeing with the goverment.

    • Re:Serious Question (Score:1, Informative)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )
      Let's see I've done the following things in the last month and would like to hide them...they're all either illegal or could bring govt./community attention...

      1. Drove 65mph in a 55mph zone.
      2. Spanked my daughter...just one swat on the bottom.
      3. Had anal with the wife.
      4. Didn't go to church.
      5. Surfed the web at work on company time.

      I like my privacy. It allows me to stay get to work faster, raise my kid as I see fit, do my wife in the ass, not worry about how the neighbors feel about my religous beliefs,

    • Re:Serious Question (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Does anybody remember Senator Joe McCarthy and his communist hunts during the 50's?

      Just like one poster said, that 'real people' are the government and data can be abused. Someone like McCarthy can show up at any time, especially in times like this, and scare the puplic. Then watch your seeming innocent 'data' be used against you.

      I don't care how much some people claim they have nothing to hide! There is 'always' something you don't want people to know. ALWAYS!!

      There have also been recent cases of 'gover
    • I'm interested as to why someone who has "nothing to hide" should be worried about mass surveillance by their government?
      Because you are not an US citizen, and the government surveilling you is not your government.

      Because you are an US citizen, and has realized that maybe other governments have technology that can do surveillance.

    • "Nothing to hide"???

      Then you won't mind if mandatory searches are done in your house every month by a group of government appointed "concerned citizens".

      Neither should you mind if your next workplace will be able to access genetic, political and sexual histories in order to better profile you. Why would they waste time on someone less than perfect? Why should they believe you if they can check you up using a hypothetical Information Transparency Act?

      Your insurance company would like to know how

    • I'm interested as to why someone who has "nothing to hide" should be worried about mass surveillance by their government?

      Because what guarantees you that some bureaucrat who gets peeved by something legal you do decides to make your day??? Seeing someone being cuffed and booked simply for wearing a tee-shirt that said "FUCK YOU" in Hampton Beach (NH) neatly drove home that point in my case. Or how about being arrested for wearing a " Give peace a chance " tee-shirt [kuro5hin.org]???

    • why someone who has "nothing to hide" should be worried about mass surveillance by their government?

      I accept universal surveillance as long as I get equal powers of surveillance on those looking at me.

    • Simple. The government has failed to prove they are trustworthy of the responsibility.

      There are hundreds of abuses of wiretap privileges by the FBI per year. Are they to catch crooks? No, FBI agents use them to spy on their spouses, or even worse, to spy on companies for insider trading purposes (just last year I recall two FBI agents getting arrested for that). It is a classic case of "who watches the watchers"... If you want more examples, take a look at the recently /. article on the FBI database, a
      • > There are hundreds of abuses of wiretap privileges by the FBI per year. Are they to catch crooks? No, FBI agents use them to spy on their spouses, or even worse, to spy on companies for insider trading purposes (just last year I recall two FBI agents getting arrested for that). It is a classic case of "who watches the watchers"...

        Well, at elast the SEC's watching the watchers :)

        I've traditionally opposed the traditional government model of setting up multiple bureaucracies with overlapping ar

    • whoah there... there starts the slippery slope of little steps towards everyone being implanted at birth with a thought control chip cum gps locator cum life termination device
    • My short answer: because we lose a fundamental right, necessary (but not sufficient) for being a free country. (My answer used to be "if you aren't a voyeur, why are you looking?", but that (along with the 4th ammendment and 'innocent until guilty') has lost it's ironic zing. You know that your question itself used to be ironic, much like the question "Were there computers before Apple and Microsoft?"? i.e. That it is increasingly asked seriously isn't a good sign)

      Why is privacy a basic, fundamental right?

    • my little brother could send an email about the new System of a Down video. It could be short and sweet, something like this:

      "Dood, you gotta see Boom. I just downloaded it. It fuckin kills. It's the bomb."

      that would trigger a flag in a system somewhere, he would suddenly become suspect. they could then check his library records, find out that the had checked out "the anarchist's cookbook" (in order to get drug-making recipes). He is now a possible terrorist. The power they have to 'dissappear' hi
    • I'm interested as to why someone who has "nothing to hide" should be worried about mass surveillance by their government?

      Because politicians, law enforcment officials, etc. often have agendas. Whether it is simply getting re-elected, getting legislation passed for Disney, or "making peace" with black market criminals, government employees are human and will act like it. They are both in positions of power and in positions of conflict of interest (think of our administration's stock portfolio, for exampl

    • If you have nothing to hide, "Boss, Pointy Haired", then why do you post on Slashdot using a pseudonym? Please post your full name, email address, home address, and telephone number. The CIA and FBI would like to talk with you. You have nothing to hide, after all..
    • Your question assumes that the burden of proof is on the individual so that they may make a convincing enough arguement to be free from surveillance.

      However, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who seek to limit the freedom and rights of others. So, in this example, the government is seeking to obtain information about individuals that those individuals may not wish to be public. It is up to the government to demonstrate why this is necessary. It can't be just a little convincinig either, it needs to
    • The other thing to note is that this surveillance is one sided. I would say that if anything, there is much stronger evidience that the people need to be able to spy on their government but do we see this happening? Why not? Perhaps if the government gave use equal ability of spy on them, by re-instating the suspended Freedom of Information Act, then I might take them, a little more seriously.
      • Oops, I had a total lapse in grammar...

        This...
        Perhaps if the government gave use equal ability of spy on them, by re-instating the suspended Freedom of Information Act, then I might take them, a little more seriously.

        was supposed to be...
        Perhaps if the government gave us equal ability to spy on them or at least reenstate the suspended Freedom of Information Act then I might take them a little more seriously.

  • Eh. Typical mainsteam press, almost content-free (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NBarnes ( 586109 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:34AM (#5630559)
    *insert Benjamin Franklin quote here*

    I'm not as down on the likelihood of winning as Steinhardt is. Cryptography remains essentially unsolvable in bulk.

    Unfortunatley, the borderless nature of much technology means there's a scary point to be made that while the next ten years of surveilance technology is unlikely to be all that useful against sophisticated terrorist, it'll be perfectly effective against broke domestic dissidents.

  • Wired Interview with Barry (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gorilla_Man ( 222813 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:41AM (#5630569) Journal

    Here's a longer interview with Barry from Wired [wired.com]

    They also have some nice information on 'Carnivore' [wired.com] and 'Magic Lantern' [wired.com], spy technologies that the FBI is using on Americans.

    Scary stuff.

  • How George W protects his online rights... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @07:58AM (#5630608) Homepage

    He Hosts under a UK IP Block! The Whitehouse [whitehouse.gov] is hosted Here! [netcraft.com]

    Looks like Georgie Boy is looking for an exit plan :-)

    • As an AC has already pointed out, Netcraft somehow resolves whitehouse.gov to a Akamai server in the UK. Hence the Energis netblock. If you look up the correct IP number of this site (198.137.240.92) and feed it to a whois server, you get some more authoritative info:

      OrgName: Executive Office Of The President USA
      OrgID: EXOP
      Address: Room NEOB 4208
      Address: 725 17th Street NW
      City: Washington
      StateProv: DC
      PostalCode: 20503
      Country: US

      NetRange: 198.137.240.0 - 198.137.241.255
      CIDR: 198.137.2

  • Mainstream media, huh?

    I've been flipping back and forth between this cnn and fox chic in Aman Jordan for my main stream media.

  • A little late (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Notice that the news feeds ONLY start noticing at the VERY last possible moment, or sadly long after the fact (DMCA, Michican's anti-NAT law, etc). Too little, too late.

  • Good but.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by objwiz ( 166131 ) <objwiz@yaHORSEhoo.com minus herbivore> on Monday March 31, 2003 @08:44AM (#5630678)
    It is good to see these concerns elevated to the general public but I always keep this little thought in mind when I read about technology (especially internet related) the mainstream media.

    I get the impression that the mainstream media is scared of the internet. I wonder if part of it due to changes in how we get our information. In the old days, we turned the TV to 1 of 3 or 4 channels and that was about it. Today, we can use search engines and countless news sites instead. So, the mainstream media feels threatened by the internet as it reduces their influence as well as their revenues.

    I got the impression by how some journalist report their discoveries in a local channels expose on the internet. I remember one article where this journalist was inquiring about cookies websites leave behind and the information others can potentially garner from them. Her reaction was of shock! Her response was that a hapless computer user was totally helpless (no mention of turning off cookies for example) unless the government steps in and starts regulating cookies. As a result of this news article, I got the impression that the journalist was more afraid of the internet than anything else.
    • I get the impression that the mainstream media is scared of the internet.

      You bet they are. It isn't easy going from a total monopoly on information flow to this.

      • Before: a one-way broadcast model in which people are isolated and spoon fed selected tidbits of unformation and hisstory.
        Now: their droning, commercial-filled vacuousness drowning in a two (three, ... ten thousand) way conversation.

      Just one of the reasons the 'net, specifically freedom of expression on the 'net, is one thing we should al

  • GPS phones not needed for tracking (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pesc ( 147035 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @09:06AM (#5630737)
    From the article:
    If Steinhardt were to upgrade to a device with global-positioning capabilities, investigators might even track his whereabouts.

    Mr. Steinhart is being tracked right now; he doesn't have to upgrade anything.

    While your mobile phone is active it will connect with the nearest base station. As you move, it will change base stations. By tracking the base stations you use, you can get a quite nice plot of how you move around. This can be done using todays tech and you don't have to use the phone; just leave it on.

    Today the resolution is somewhat lacking, but there are technologies that help. The mobile tech of tomorrow will use smaller cells, providing a finer tracking resolution.

  • Why You Should Use Encryption (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MichaelCrawford ( 610140 ) on Monday March 31, 2003 @09:14AM (#5630752) Homepage Journal
    This seems like a good opportunity to post a link to my article Why You Should Use Encryption [goingware.com].

    Yes, I mean you. And not just you computer geeks. Your mom should be using encryption too.

    Another page of interest is Is This the America I Love? [goingware.com]

    Thank you for your attention.

  • As long as the ACLU refuses to recognize the 2nd Amendment I'll continue to not recognize the ALCU as actually looking out for our civil liberties.
    • The ACLU does many good [aclu.org] things [aclu.org] in protecting your civil rights. Things like protecting your right to free speech, your right to be protected against unreasonable search and siezure, your right to peacefully interact with society without fear of retribution for your political, religeous, or social philospy. The list goes on and on. Yet you would deny them their legitimacy on the grounds that you disagree with their stance on a single issue. That stikes me as incredibly short sighted. What's wrong with suppo
      • Perhaps I should have represented myself better with my original statement.

        I used to support the ACLU. In fact in the past I've support them financially through donations, I've supported them physically by providing my time and labor for their functions, and my girlfriend has even participated in an ACLU internship while in college.

        I've always appreciated the stance they take on seperating church and state and of course I support their attempts to protect our 1st admendment rights.

        However, I feel, by bla
    • I believe that's called throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      Just because the ACLU doesn't support the 2nd the way you'd like, you'll toss aside the work they do for all our other civil liberties?

      Rather than waiting for the "perfect" organization that protects all the rights you value to come along magically, why not support the one that covers most of 'em, and work within that organization to change what you don't like?

      To have any input, you have to participate....

    • Re:2nd amendment (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dpille ( 547949 )
      As long as the ACLU refuses to recognize the 2nd Amendment I'll continue to not recognize the ALCU as actually looking out for our civil liberties.

      On reflection, it seems like the ACLU is just not recognizing what you think the 2nd Amendment means. Their position [aclu.org] seems fairly reasonable to me. I would expect a reasonable person would understand their dithering on the second amendment(do we advocate people can own nukes? do we support some 'weapons of mass destruction' exception? if we support an except

  • Poindexter? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Poindexter is lucky not to be in jail, let alone directing Total Information Awareness. I seem to recall cover-ups for Iran Contra. Do we want this criminal dictating our freedoms to us?

    http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episode s/ 18/archive/

  • People forget that if the government got all the data they wanted, it would be way to massive to really analyze. The best they could do would be to, given a particular name, dig up information about that person. Most data about what people do would never ever ever be seen. Indeed even now there are backlogs in stuff like wire tap transcriptions. If every piece of data is being watched, humans can't possibly watch it all.

    I'm not saying that this is a good thing. Certainly the governments ability to loo

  • ...in Soviet Russia, you watch technology!

    MjM

  • Osama (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by sstory ( 538486 )
    bin Laden hates us for our freedoms. Oh wait I mean John Ashcroft. bin Laden's just a foreign Islamofascist. Ashcroft's a nearby Christofascist. They both suck.

  • Book Banned, What Would ACLU Say? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I came across this article in which a federal
    judge has apparently banned a book. I wonder
    if the ACLU would regard this as a violation
    of the first amendment and what they would
    say?

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Mar- 30 -Sun-2003/opinion/20961508.html
  • Unfortunately, it seems to me that the ACLU often chooses issues and battles that are likely to make the prime time news, rather than those which are truly important. Two years ago, when renewing my driver's license, I discovered that my state had begun to demand each driver's Social Security number and would refuse to issue a license without one. State authorities turned a deaf ear when I pointed out the lack of a Privacy Act notice, and also that the numbers would be entered into a database which (by Fede

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close