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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy The Internet United States Your Rights Online

EFF Asks How Big Brother Is Watching The Internet 354

Posted by timothy
from the hey-little-brother-what's-that-in-your-mind? dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Asks How Big Brother Is Watching The Internet

Comments Filter:
  • Creepy stuff (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dj42 (765300) * on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @06:55PM (#11546208) Journal
    I don't like the idea of them monitoring web browsing, URLs, content, etc, without essentially a "warrant". I also think ISPs should not store any sort of historical browsing information. The fact there is no response as to whether or not this occurs is also disconcerting, because not only are they probably doing it, but they don't even care if we know or not.
  • by flewp (458359) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @06:57PM (#11546222)
    My right to privacy. Seriousely. If the FBI suspects someone of terrorist activity, it shouldn't be hard to get a warrant to monitor their internet traffic.

    It's the whole "those who are willingly to sacrifice freedom for security deserve niether" bit.
  • Re:Quibble... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tehdaemon (753808) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:00PM (#11546261)
    Not quite. IP addresses will only give you slashdot.org. URL's can tell which stories you went to/posted to.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:01PM (#11546272)
    ... Have to say "Big Brother"? That just sounds like typical /. paranoia. Before you mod me, consider this: By its very nature the internet is insecure. Any email you send passes through and is temporarily stored on at least several computers before reaching its destination. It's not just "Big Brother" who's watching, it could be anyone with an interest in you, really. I'd say it's more likely that a corrupt server admin, or a large corporation is more likely to read your email than the goverment. In the end the answer is simple: Use any of the myriads of free encryption programs!
  • by comm3c (670264) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:03PM (#11546281)
    The difference between freedom and opression are the rights of privacy afforded to us as citizens. The idea that monitering could POTENTIALLY come up with valuable information in fighting terror is outweighed by the individual's right to maintain one's items private. I mean, if you can't even come close to a hit, is the cost of jeopardizing our freedoms worth it? Remember, under our government, even criminals have rights afforded to them that can not be revoked without due process.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:03PM (#11546282)
    If only preventing terrorism is all homeland security was about. The concern is not for the intended use, but the guaranteed misuse of power.
  • Good! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ktulu1115 (567549) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:03PM (#11546286)
    I think this is excellent. Even if they get nothing, I still think it's a step in the right direction. Let the people be aware of what's going on.
  • by somethinghollow (530478) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:04PM (#11546288) Homepage Journal
    If they are, I would sue the government for distributing child porn. I'm pretty sure I did some things in front of my computer that would qualify as porn before I was 18.

    Pretty damn sure.
  • by unixbugs (654234) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:04PM (#11546295)
    Good point, but I know of thousands or even millions of Americans who would be better served with a hot meal than a robot watching them suffer at their own expense. You are a NAZI.
  • by game kid (805301) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:06PM (#11546304) Homepage
    Its servers and clients are connected to others around the world. How people decided to do credit-card commerce there is still beyond me, however revolutionary or secure it is now. While there are fair uses of information and rights to privacy, "Internet privacy" still feels like an oxymoron, and technology like quantum computers may soon crack encryption like SSL, so I'm doubting we can stay private for very long. (Please correct me if SSL/other forms of "https" can never be cracked.)
  • by Trespass (225077) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:06PM (#11546306) Homepage
    There would be a lot of government employees watching nerds masturbating, for one.

    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.
  • by SparksMcGee (812424) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:08PM (#11546316)
    Terrorist Attack? Put this in perspective. As a symbol and a demonstration of the relative laxity of certain aspects of the American security net 9/11 was devastating. But statistically 2,000 people is fewer than we lose on a monthly basis to car accidents. If there's one thing that past governments have demonstrated (not to invoke Godwin or anything) it's that if you give them the power, they will take it, and hang responsible use *cough*McCarthy*cough*. The more America lets itself quietly give up civil liberties--particularly on the domain of the internet, where the only parties with a vested interest in covering their activites for the sake of a conspiracy will find relatively easy ways around surveillance, the more this country ceases to be worth living in. Who wants absolute security at the expense of being arrested and helf without charges indefinitely? (which is now legally feasible at the government's discretion. Taking reasonable precautions in the name of security is common sense, but with the best military in the world and more security legislation than is healthy already passed, this is nothing we need, not now, not ever. I'd rather sacrifice the perceived security bonus and instead continue to live in a country worth ilving in with unrestriced access to a venue whose primary purpose is free discourse--exactly what the First Amendment is meant to protect.
  • Re:Creepy stuff (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Seigen (848087) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:24PM (#11546436) Homepage
    I agree, but unfortunately since 9/11 the american government is growing more and more corrupt. The very fact that our government goes out of its way to find ways around its own rules like imprisoning people in foreign countries to get around any rights they might have adequately demonstrates this. It seems that right or wrong has almost gone out of fashion. If you can spin your arguments such that the public buys them, even if they are lies, then you win. A warrant should be required. FOIA inquires that are won in court shouldn't be returned without the information content redacted. To a very great extent the workings of our government need to become less secretive lest we lose the freedoms we cherish.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:32PM (#11546492)
    investigation by the police and the courtroom process was fucking flawed. The problem isn't the grocery store databases, the problem is the shitty way laws are applied and how data like that is interpreted in courtrooms.
  • Re:49% (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FrankSchwab (675585) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:38PM (#11546531) Journal
    If 49% had tried to make a difference, who did they vote for?

    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. /frank
  • Re:Creepy stuff (Score:4, Insightful)

    by l0ungeb0y (442022) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:41PM (#11546550) Homepage Journal
    "I don't like the idea of them monitoring web browsing, URLs, content, etc, without essentially a 'warrant."

    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)

    by Tony (765) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:48PM (#11546603) Journal
    Terrorism is a real threat.

    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)

    by Martin Blank (154261) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:51PM (#11546625) Journal
    A 13yr old with a camcorder can also set it up in the bushes to look inside your home and watch what you're doing. This doesn't mean the FBI shouldn't be required to get a warrant to do the same.

    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.
  • by Efialtis (777851) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:57PM (#11546666) Homepage
    The internet is a very big space...
    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...
  • by ClarkEvans (102211) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:58PM (#11546669) Homepage
    I found the CBS link, where the FBI was unable to find documents that were previously released under FOIA, particularly troubling. Either there is a direct effort to render FOIA useless, or, perhaps more likely, that the FBI's computer systems are just incapable of managing even the most basic intelligence queries.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:10PM (#11546743)
    Something else to keep in mind, most people don't have "Leave It To Beaver" perfect lives. Blackmail is particularly powerful weapon used to silence people; Ad Hominem attacks are excellent protection from scrutiny when framed as "credibility" or "character" issues. It is a supremely valueable political weapon to know all of your opponent's weaknesses without having to expose any of your own.
  • by Tsiangkun (746511) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:12PM (#11546754) Homepage
    My privacy.

    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)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:17PM (#11546782)
    {sigh} yes, but government has a way of ... simplifying things. They're not always rational, not always well-informed, and the resulting torrent of illogic usually gets someone screwed over bigtime. Trust me, when the goverment gets through with it the waters will be very clear. Not accurate, by any means ... but clear. If you know what I mean.
  • Re:Considerations (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jayed_99 (267003) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:31PM (#11546867)
    The FBI's argument of "umm, well, it's not indexed so we can't find it" is, at best, moronic -- at worst, it's an attempt to intentionally deny FOIA requests by claiming "keyword isn't indexed, no document for you".

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:41PM (#11546907)
    Given a seat at the negotiating table, and an honest ear to hear their side, who would choose terror ?

    Terrorists ?
  • by torpor (458) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <musibi>> on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:46PM (#11546931) Homepage Journal

    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 .. who knows if NSA hasn't hacked our compilers with certain decoder-friendly higher-frequency 'signatures' which can be used to see what a computer is doing, remotely, from .. oh .. say .. geosynchronous orbit .. ?

    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)

    by Tsiangkun (746511) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @09:00PM (#11546986) Homepage
    All the information contained on my buyer card is as legit as the info I give the NYT everytime they ask for a registration. I don't care about getting additional direct marketing offers . . . I just want the price of the food before they jumped the price up so they may offer discounts to card holders.
  • by Doppler00 (534739) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @09:02PM (#11546995) Homepage Journal
    Does this mean they can also read any information we post on forms that use the GET method instead of POST? Since GET encodes the form information in the URL, by recording these URL's that would be the same as tapping a phone conversation.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @10:14PM (#11547368)
    Do you feel the same way about unwarranted police surveillance of public houses? Can they train lasers sniffers on the windows to eavesdrop what's happening inside? Watch you constantly with infrared? After all, both technologies do nothing more than access 'publicly available' information, sound and light emanating from your home. You may think yes, the nature and history of democratic republics has been to say no.

    No matter how good you feel saying it, this isn't paranoia, it's the cost of remaining 'ever vigilant'.

  • by That's Unpossible! (722232) * on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @10:18PM (#11547392)
    A 13yr old with a camcorder can also set it up in the bushes to look inside your home and watch what you're doing. This doesn't mean the FBI shouldn't be required to get a warrant to do the same.

    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)

    by Daniel Boisvert (143499) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @10:40PM (#11547495)
    I don't remember being asked if I wanted to pay extra for obtaining my information.

    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.
  • by That's Unpossible! (722232) * on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @11:01PM (#11547603)
    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 ?


    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.
  • by That's Unpossible! (722232) * on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @11:14PM (#11547662)
    And yes, I do expect a warrant before they go prying into my traffic if it never touches government servers.

    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)

    by AEton (654737) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @11:52PM (#11547850)
    (We pay attorneys' rates to our counsel, and you will reimburse us for that :)

    . . .

    We don't price-gouge folks on these things. It's important for people to realise that FOI requests cost agencies money, and we will pass on whatever charges we incur to the requester.
    Well, when public agencies use neat tricks like hiring an attorney to examine documents so they can claim attorney-client privilege on files they don't want to reveal (or for various and sundry other reasons not salutary to public interest) can you really complain about the informed public's paranoia?
  • Encrypt what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lysium (644252) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @12:18AM (#11547952)
    In the end the answer is simple: Use any of the myriads of free encryption programs!

    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.

  • by halcyon1234 (834388) <halcyon1234@hotmail.com> on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @12:22AM (#11547971) Journal
    If we had any control over where that "radar" was pointing, I wouldn't have an issue.

    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)

    by unixbugs (654234) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @05:31AM (#11549144)
    Enjoy the coming years of terror sucker

    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.
  • by pgilman (96092) <never@MONETga.in minus painter> on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @05:52AM (#11549202) Journal

    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."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @09:06AM (#11549953)
    Proof, once again, of how desperiately the Idiot mod is needed......
  • Always .... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by malcomvetter (851474) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @09:17AM (#11550026)

    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?
  • by Vince Mo'aluka (849715) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @11:52AM (#11551593)
    It's not just "Big Brother" who's watching, it could be anyone

    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.

I don't have any use for bodyguards, but I do have a specific use for two highly trained certified public accountants. -- Elvis Presley

Working...