EFF Asks How Big Brother Is Watching The Internet 354
MacDork writes "The EFF filed a FOIA request yesterday with the FBI and other offices of the US DOJ regarding expanded powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act. The EFF is making the request in an attempt to find out whether or not Section 216 is being used to monitor web browsing without a warrant. The DOJ has already stated they can collect email and IP addresses, but has not been forthcoming on the subject of URL addresses. It seems the EFF is seeking any documentation to confirm such activity is taking place. One can only hope the automated FOIA search doesn't produce any false negatives or cost the EFF $372,999."
Creepy stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which is more important? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the whole "those who are willingly to sacrifice freedom for security deserve niether" bit.
Re:Quibble... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does the title... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which is more important? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which is more important? (Score:3, Insightful)
Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't it be something... (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty damn sure.
Re:Which is more important? (Score:1, Insightful)
It seems odd to want privacy on the 'net. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't it be something... (Score:3, Insightful)
The ideas in '1984' always seemed a little simplistic and naive to me. In a society that values fame and media exposure so highly, wouldn't it be easier to get us all to spy on each other? Informant meets reality TV, all in the name of state security and voyeurism.
Re:Which is more important? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Creepy stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the problem there was that the (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:49% (Score:4, Insightful)
As has been pointed out multiple times, in the grand scheme of things the difference between R's and D's is miniscule in this country. BOTH parties believe in bigger government, BOTH parties believe in more control over the lives of citizens, BOTH parties are willing to sell you down the river in a heartbeat.
If 49% had tried to make a difference, they would have brought in new voices to the political scene.
Re:Creepy stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree with that stance on web browsing...
Requiring a Warrant to monitor URL's and Content would basically put Google and Netcraft out of existence.
Let's step back and think before we get carried away here.
Personally, I think all "in the clear" Internet activity should be considered public. Why should the FBI be required to get a Warrant to do what any 13yr old with a network sniffer be able to do with dubious legality?
Personally, I think a warrant should be required only to intrude upon private networks and encrypted communication protocols.
So, in my mind, the FBI should be able to snoop on my iChat activity, but required to get a a warrant to snoop my local network activity/Hard Drives/Content if it is behind a secured firewall.
It boils down to precident in the physical world. When you walk around in public, do you bring out your kiddie porn collection, break into shops, try to abduct little girls/boys, expose yourself to random men/women, talk about crimes you're about to or have commited in broad daylight while dozens of bystanders mill about? Then why the hell should you think that the magical interweb somehow makes that OK?
Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
You still stand a greater chance of dieing in a car crash or being shot by someone you know than getting killed in a terrorist attack.
Terrorism does *NOT* justify the abridgement of civil rights. *NOTHING* justifies the abridgement of civil rights.
Re:Creepy stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
In the same realm, just because they can sniff the network traffic doesn't mean that they should. They have to get a warrant to tap your phone, and they should have to do the same to tap your IM conversations, e-mail correspondence, and web history.
Just because they can do something doesn't mean they should be able to without restrictions.
Most of you have it... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are millions of "transactions" going on every second
If someone wants to listen to YOU specifically, they need to know you exist...
Carnivore is dead, but what good was it anyway? With anon servers, and other tricks, like encryption, and attachments, how could they even know what is going on?
So, if the FBI or anyone takes an interest in YOU it is because you came to be on their radar in some way...either by visiting a suspected web site, or sending e-mail to a suspect...then, you are in their scope...
What is the moral of the story?
Stay out of their radar...
Reflection on Intelligence - Embarrassing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which is more important? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which is more important? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a terrorist attack occurs killing millions of people, the people would have been wise to reflect upon their actions. What suffering they must have caused to fuel such an attack.
Facing the idea that Terrorism is just an artifact of the way global politics are handled will be tough for America. Given a seat at the negotiating table, and an honest ear to hear their side, who would choose terror ?
Taking away my freedom will not change global politics, and will not reduce the root causes of terrorism.
Re:Quibble... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Considerations (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole concept of an index revolves around most-common keywords. You index what is most likely to be searched for -- that's why indexes enhance performance. Indexes are about speeding up queries -- they're not about filtering queries.
Surely the FBI employs someone that knows about "grep". I understand that indexing is useful. In this instance, though, we're talking about the FBI failing to find documents in its possession because they weren't "indexed". Guess what, if the FBI *makes* the indexes and refuses to comply with FOIA requests on the basis of "that keyword wasn't indexed" then all FOIA requests are worthless.
Now that I think about it, I'm off to write a letter to my various Congress-critters.
Re:Which is more important? (Score:1, Insightful)
Terrorists ?
Never mind the Internet .. (Score:2, Insightful)
the internet was -never- free, nor -ever- safe from big brother. its pretty ludicrous that we're 'fighting for the Net', when in fact it was the 'net info apparat which gave Big Brother the leg-up it needed in the first place
the big question is this
every computer in existence is prime target for a 'highly sensitive orbiting equipment platform' or two (interferometry) thats been launched 'in the name of NSA^H^H^Hnational security' in the last 15 years or so
now *that* is some tin-foil the EFF should be un-rolling, yo. seriously. its legit.
Re:Be alert (Score:2, Insightful)
what about submit method = GET? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why does the title... (Score:2, Insightful)
No matter how good you feel saying it, this isn't paranoia, it's the cost of remaining 'ever vigilant'.
No expectation of privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
You have an expectation of privacy in a private domecile. Bad analogy.
In the same realm, just because they can sniff the network traffic doesn't mean that they should. They have to get a warrant to tap your phone, and they should have to do the same to tap your IM conversations, e-mail correspondence, and web history.
Your internet traffic, for technical reasons, is travelling over many, many routers operated in the open by many, many companies and government organizations.
Honestly, what expectation of privacy do you have for unencrypted traffic over an OPEN, PUBLIC network?
You have some options if you want privacy:
- Use strong encryption.
- Use an anonymous proxy service that you can trust.
- Setup your own network and send your information over it.
Re:Considerations (Score:3, Insightful)
Your elected representatives were. They probably considered a host of reasons for opting to charge extra for FOI requests, including the following:
1) Somebody's got to pay for it, and raising taxes isn't generally a popular idea.
2) Many people and businesses use material obtained through FOI requests for financial gain. These folks have financial incentive to request everything they can get, and paying for these requests from the general fund makes such businesses insanely profitable on the backs of taxpayers.
3) Paying for them makes sure that requesters really want the information, and aren't sending agencies on wild goose chases for truckloads of data just because they can.
Now, if you'd like to posit that government largesse should be reduced and the funds formerly directed at it should be used to pay for every document you could possibly want, that's a separate argument. Personally, I'm in favour of reduced government size and you -still- having to pay for your own documents. I don't have any particular desire to pay the photocopy charges on every truckload of documents you think you might find interesting.
Nobody's making you pay for information. They're making you pay for paper, toner, and somebody's time to make you your own personal copy of it.
Re:Which is more important? (Score:2, Insightful)
Facing the idea that Terrorism is just an artifact of the way global politics are handled will be tough for America. Given a seat at the negotiating table, and an honest ear to hear their side, who would choose terror ?
Fucking hell, don't be a reverse-idiot.
Let me explain. See, there are the regular idiots that think, "All those Ay-rabs are terrorists, like them what crashed the aero-planes into them buildings in NEW YORK CITY."
Then there are reverse-idiots. Like you. Those who are so naive as to think that the terrorists are all just people pushed to the brink, and what, they had no choice but to kill 3000 innocent people because, after all, two wrongs make a right.
There are some people that fight with terrorists because their family was killed by America, indirectly or directly, and they are filled with rage.
But most of the Islamic terrorists that get air-time, and their immediate followers, are not like this. They are simply interested in spreading militant Islam through-out the world, and stopping any spread of democracy or pluralistic thinking.
Re:No expectation of privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
I never said the government should be able to take traffic willy nilly from servers owned by non-government entities.
My point is, YOUR INTERNET TRAFFIC IS NOT PRIVATE.
I expect a warrant before they go prying into my mail, too, even though it goes through several government offices prior to reaching my home.
Then I've got a ballbuster for you -- if your illegal activity is printed on a postcard, or is noticeable from outside the sealed letter (say, a computer has detected anthrax in your envelope), they don't need a warrant to come and get you. In many cases, you've also committed a FEDERAL crime because you used the USPS to send that illegal material.
You can't expect privacy in a public arena. Internet traffic is public. If you want privacy, use your own network or encrypt your traffic.
Encryption is like putting on clothes rather than walking around with your naughty bits in plain site.
Re:Considerations (Score:4, Insightful)
Encrypt what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can run a 6400000-bit encrypted stream between site A and site B, but if I am financially attached to one of the nodes they will get the information they are looking for. This isn't about reading text as it flows through a router, it is about noting where a suspect communicates, how often, at what times, etc. Perhaps then expanding the search to other users of that location, as warrants are not needed for execution.
This does an end-run around encryption. Hence the "Big Brother" aspect.
Re:Most of you have it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it monitoring "terrorist" websites? Maybe. What about child porn websites. Possibly. Those are all concidered "legitimate" targets, right?
Who decided?
What if they decide to monitor pro-marijuana sites? Well, people shouldn't be smoking that stuff anyways. Hmm. Okay, then what about sites with the word "gay" or "lesbian". We can weed out those underisables. They can tag any "abortion" sites too.
Did someone just visit a "9/11" site? Let's get them before they start thinking uncomfortable thoughts.
And so on, and so on.
There's a reason why search warrants exist, and this is the exact reason. If you give the "police" (fbi, police, whoever they may be) the freedom to indiscrimitaly hunt for people who "might" do something "bad", as defined by those same police, you get... well, 1984. Cliche, but poignent.
You want to cache and store all internet requests for future review? Sure. But you better have a damn good reason before anyone is allowed to collect and prosecute with that data.
Re:Hilarious! (Score:1, Insightful)
man you got it all wrong. where in the hell did you get the idea that we are scared of terrorists? CNN? i know you didnt get that idea by sitting on that 911 plane when your buddy got his ass beat during the final moments.
dont you get it? we will die for our country, just as you will die trying to bring it down. its called war, and in war there is no room for fear, only the recognition of certainty of death. this is something our forefathers knew to the bone and passed down to us as we built this country from the ground up.
if your government is too corrupt to support the needs of its people then you need to take that up with them. our government isnt going to listen to us until we riot in the streets by the millions, and thats not going to happen as long as the NFL, Big Macs, and Budweiser are number one. no government listens to its people unless they are banging down the doors. thats just the way it works.
your own governments may not be so receptive to the idea of change, so what do you want from the people of the U.S.? you want us to write a letter? you want us to all quit our jobs and protest everything that is wrong with the world and get thrown in prison for the beliefs of a third world civilization that beats women religiously and spits on basic human rights?
all we can do here is vote, and even that doesnt matter. its all about the thresh hold for inconvenience we Americans have. things wont change until they need to. you need to explore your local options if you think there is something wrong with the place you live in rather than walk around in the guise of a free citizen of the U.S. with a bomb up your ass.
maybe you should use the guns you have just as we did when we got fed up 200 years ago. we kicked the crap out of the people who were at our door telling us what to do, and thats what you need to do.
payback time? i think you just need to catch up. its OK to be PISSED, just direct your anger to the right efforts or none of this will ever end.
a thought on the current state of the US gov't (Score:3, Insightful)
there are quite a few threads under this story about civil rights in the usa and their abridgement since 9/11.
remember when it happened? the immediate consensus afterward was that we needed to carry on with our lives as before, or else "the terrorists would have won." we couldn't allow them to cow us, by god!
but, after all, we did change the way we live, with all this "homeland security" and "USA-PATRIOT" and guantanamo and abu ghraib and all the other abridgements of civil and human rights... the sad truth is that, thanks to the current administration, "the terrorists" did win...
i leave you with this quote from louis brandeis:
"experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purpose is beneficent. men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Re:You just now figured this out? (Score:1, Insightful)
Always .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Always Encrypt, shred, proxy, etc.
If you do it always , then all activity seems to have the same sensitivity.
If you do it sometimes , then those few times stand out sorely.
That's one of the biggest reasons why you should show your parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, neighbors, etc., how to use PGP or x509. That way all traffic looks the same.
But is it really possible to surf anonymously?
You have to trust the proxy you're using, and nowadays a Fed could just as easily subpoena the proxy logs (or maybe get that without a Judge's involvement as the article suggests). About the only thing you could really do would be to proxy-hop from one proxy to the next, routing all traffic through umpteen (yes umpteen) proxies-- thereby making it difficult to track down the traffic. But who really has the time and bandwidth for that?
Re:Why does the title... (Score:2, Insightful)
The key difference (which most people fail to understand or realize) being that only government holds the unique right to initiate force (theft, fraud, extortion, physical force) as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal. THAT is the reason why government needs to be strictly limited in their powers over the people: government is the most dangerous organization that could possibly exist. What other organization posesses the right to initiate force as a means to an end? None, unless they have been specifically granted that ability by government, in which case they become another arm of government.
As for the term "Big Brother", I don't like it either. That's like referring to a lion as a pussycat.