Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist 720
schwit1 passes on this snippet from Public Intelligence: "A flyer designed by the FBI and the Department of Justice to promote suspicious activity reporting in internet cafes lists basic tools used for online privacy as potential signs of terrorist activity. The document, part of a program called 'Communities Against Terrorism,' lists the use of 'anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address' as a sign that a person could be engaged in or supporting terrorist activity. The use of encryption is also listed as a suspicious activity along with steganography, the practice of using 'software to hide encrypted data in digital photos' or other media. In fact, the flyer recommends that anyone 'overly concerned about privacy' or attempting to 'shield the screen from view of others' should be considered suspicious and potentially engaged in terrorist activities. ... The use of PGP, VPNs, Tor or any of the many other technologies for anonymity and privacy online are directly targeted by the flyer, which is distributed to businesses in an effort to promote the reporting of these activities."
The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO
"[There's an] error in logic that leads to short-sighted conceptions of privacy like Schmidt's. ... Google, governments, and technologists need to understand more broadly that ignoring privacy protections in the innovations we incorporate into our lives not only invites invasions of our personal space and comfort, but opens the door to future abuses of power." - EFF
Can you believe that the Internet was once considered a place to escape identity? Where anonymity reigned? It's pretty amazing in retrospect how quickly that changed, and the way people are now trained to reveal everything on Facebook and Twitter is creating a society that doesn't understand the value and the power of their personal information. They're willing to reveal all, to act as better products for advertisers and to avoid suspicion from overbearing governments.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you don't care if the government knows everything about you... do you trust them to keep your info safe from hackers? Do you want ME to know everything you do?
Re:The power of privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you want ME to know everything you do?
Apparently most people on Facebook and Twitter do want that.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
some people (like myself) make a point to tailor the information that is posted / accessible so that i am seen in only a certain light. this has become increasingly important as companies use our social presence to make decisions about us. to the point that i created a twitter with my real name so that i can have what i post that definitely attributed to myself. (its all work related and makes me seem like a hero). if you havent done this yet, do it now. and post there every so often with a mind to create a stellar professional image.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Err....those political and religious views could prove to be VERY important/useful to others.
Targeted ads and contact by political parties...
Might be used to discriminate against you on the next job hunt...without you even knowing or being able to prove such.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
You know what I don't mind abandoning privacy but I have to look corporations and governments in the eye and say 'YOU FUCKING FIRST'.
That's what it really all boils down to, if corporations are going to keep secrets and not tell me anything I want to know, well, that's pretty much rock solid evidence that they are not to be trusted. So measure of harm, which is likely to be more damaging and risky, me keeping secrets or corporations keeping secrets. Reality than is who should be first to give up secrecy individuals or corporations.
Now lets look at governments, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning anyone. This is unto itself damming evidence that government should not be trusted with too many if any secrets at all. The individuals within government, those actual, lying cheating and stealing political appointees and those dissembling politicians who routinely lie with false claims of national security are proof that's its a top down change in rules about secrecy that is required not bottom up.
I gather from this report that the FBI is making a public statement that the 'far too many secrets keeping government of the United States of America', can not be trusted and is very likely a terrorist organisation.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want ME to know everything you do?
Apparently most people on Facebook and Twitter do want that.
Sigh. I wish this stupid /. meme would disappear. Unbelievably, some people in the world are able to exercise self restraint. Some of them also like to use Facebook or Twitter. These are not mutually exclusive traits.
I suppose you think that most people who are on Google+ also suffer from this lack of ability to self filter?
Re:The power of privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you don't care if the government knows everything about you...
I do care. The government has powers it should not have. The less they know about me the better. And everyone else for that matter.
If you want to know something about me, ask, if I want to tell you, I will.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with you. However, there are many people who say "well if they're watching me they must be pretty bored, hahaha". Usually putting a face on it (whether your own or someone you know) can drive the point home that this stuff is creepy.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Personal encryption is not easy on a PC, but remarkably hard on common mobile devices. I still dont know of any easy to use system for supporting PGP on my iPad/iPhone, or even on Android. I do have an app that can decode PGP blobs, but it is such a painn having to copy and paste between the apps.
Why cant this be built in to the mail clients?
The answer is the same reason governments are scared of RIMs encrypted BB mail system. They cant back door it, so they hope it doesnt gain wide acceptance.
Want to run your browser in private mode and do not track - this actually stands out in the crowd making it easier to see you because noone else is making a stealth attempt, and forever-cookies just ignore the request to not track anyway.
But dont worry, when you walk down the street in most cities now you are going to show up on someones CCTV, and blimp drones can over for months over a city, or anywhere of interest. You have no expenctation to privacy in your own back yard according to the cops now. ANd they dont need a warrant to place a GPS on your car if they do it while parked out in the open. The only place they cant do it is in your own garage. Your driveway is however fair game. And requesting your cell traffic logs - trivial. They can even st up a spoof cell tower without a warrant, catching their target AND every other innocent cell phone that is in range.
Get stopped for a random breath test, and the cops can rip the contents of your mobile for whatever reason, just like they can ask you to pop the trunk for whatever reason.
Broder security in the US can conficate any encrypted device if you refuse to decrypt it to show them whtats on it, and your mail can be pulled from GMail if stored form more than 6 months as this is considered Abandoned, even if you are contantly accessing it with iMap.
It's harder than ever to protect you privacy, and this in no way will stop the next terrorist parking a truck full of fertiliser outside a federal building if they are insane enough. Welcome to America - land of the free.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Informative)
While I won't comment on everything...
Get stopped for a random breath test, and the cops can rip the contents of your mobile for whatever reason, just like they can ask you to pop the trunk for whatever reason.
Bullshit. Repeat after me: "I do not consent to a search"
The cops can ASK you if they can search you, your car, etc all they want. Without a warrant or evidence that a crime is being committed, they CANNOT search your person or property without your consent.
I do not consent to a search. Know your rights!
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Repeat after me: "The patriot act allows searches without a warrant within 100 miles of any US border." By which I mean legal in the sense that the law says so, though the constitution obviously forbids this outright, not that the constitution matters any longer. According to 2007 figures from the US Census Bureau, 197.4 million people, 2/3 of the United States' population, including the entire state of Florida, live within this adjacent-border strip.
You might want to start reading here, then Google further. [frtv.org]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not an error in logic. Eric Schmidt knows exactly what he's arguing for.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just another example of just how far out of touch the US Government is in technology.
I swear...armed uprising might soon be the only way to restore the country to some semblance of normalcy, where the government works FOR the people, not against us all.
AC to prevent an anonymous black van from showing up at my door.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
...AC to prevent an anonymous black van from showing up at my door...
I could do the old ftfy crap, but posting AC perhaps adds a weak layer of obscurity, but it won't necessarily prevent our rulers from showing up: your anonymity depends hugely on what other steps you may have taken to shield your id....
But the old "only terrorists have something to hide" ideology has become so ingrained in our society that it's sickening. In these parts there was a campaign to swab all the men in town for dna (they were looking for a serial rapist, or something along those lines.) At the press conference, the spokesman for the police said exactly that, "If someone doesn't want to be swabbed, they're obviously hiding something." And pretty well everyone I mentioned this to over the next few weeks absolutely agreed. I didn't get swabbed. Two detectives showed up at my door. I *think* I convinced them that I was refusing, on principle, but I really can't be sure now, can I?
cheers,
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
the spokesman for the police said exactly that, "If someone doesn't want to be swabbed, they're obviously hiding something."
Yes that's exactly what a investigator would say. The quote doesn't break the law by forcing people to swab. That's the thing, you still have the option to refuse. Dragnet style investigations aren't anything new, it's just the newest label is terrorist. Police officers are out there to catch criminals and if they have no clue as to who to catch, they'll suspect everyone till they, "find their man."
I won't get into the whole legal thing, but basically police officers can say pretty much whatever they want to say about the public at large or to anyone who refuses to cooperate. It's when they *do* something that impedes your freedom that they've crossed the line. However, the story that you gave above, is pretty normal rhetoric.
I'm not saying that it's moral and at times it could be illegal, but there again, you'd need to be a lawyer to know the diff. [sarcasm]You a have problem with that? The you must be terrorist[/sarcasm] Seriously though, this tactic only works when people buy into the message, so you're looking at a problem of the people and not so much as the cops.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
...being reported to the FBI by a barista with a patriotic leaflet.
1984 gets nearer every day.
Re: (Score:3)
This comment has been reported to the authorities and we are tracing your IP address.
Re: (Score:3)
It's pretty amazing in retrospect how quickly that changed, and the way people are now trained to reveal everything on Facebook and Twitter is creating a society that doesn't understand the value and the power of their personal information.
Someone in the halls of power has finally got around to reading both 1984 and Brave New World. "Don't forget to take your Soma, citizen, and remember we'll be doing drug testing later to assure you did. It's for your safety, for the children, and to stop terrorists."
Don't worry, DHS, people like me will soon be dead so you needn't worry further about people like me. "Land of the free, home of the brave", my ass.
Re:Gotten around to reading (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worse than that Jim!
They hired an evil professor to design an entire literature class about How To Implement Big Brother.
1984
Animal Farm
Brave New World
Minority Report
Fahrenheit 451
Harrison Bergeron (short story)
Your choice of five more.
Maybe some cop porn would make up for it though.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
There are some people who are simply intensly private. Nothing to hide, no borderline paranoia, no affairs, no extreme opinions political, religious or any other kind. You know. Average. Introverts.
I remember once I found a website translating strings into binary code. Used to chat with my brother like that for weeks. We both have laptops, and travel, not frequently, but enough to encrypt the hard drives. I might buy another laptop if I lose it, and lose forever the data on it, but nobody else gets to access my mail or other websites accounts, and other things, like work or personal projects.
There's this thing called identity theft in case you haven't heard of it. Dumbass cops. Suits or uniforms, they're the same damn stock.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing is that if everyone felt the way Eric Schmidt did, or for that matter, the TSA, we wouldn't have the iPhone. You want to talk about things developed in secret by people taking borderline insane measures to keep other people from reading their screens.... So is he saying that such products should not have been created in the first place?
In fact, what's interesting is that the people most strongly in favor of privacy are the ones most likely to change things—for better or worse—because they're the ones who see things differently. They look at a piece of wood and see a table, or look at an old car bumper and see a sculpture. They see things not for what they are, but for what they could be. But they know that their ideas must be fully baked before they are unleashed into the wild, or else the public will not understand them—will not accept them—will not appreciate them.
This scares those who have vested interests in the status quo. They call them names like terrorist, radical, or crazy to diminish their standing, further isolating them from society. Eventually this actually drives them inevitably to take some extreme action that changes things anyway, in spite of the establishment's desire to avoid that.
What that action is depends on the person. It might be blowing up an airplane, or it might be releasing the most amazing new piece of technology the world has ever seen. It's the same fundamental way of operating, but with vastly different goals. The problem is that there is no good way to tell the difference as an outsider. The only real option is to accept that there will always be a few people who will try to change the world for the worse—blow stuff up, kill people, etc.—and accept that we can't feasibly stop them all without also stopping those who would change the world for the better.
Food for thought.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case, Schmidt, can I have access to all your files, including google's algorithm?
Re:The power of privacy (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, but some people download movies on the internet, and some people's feelings get hurt occasionally.
Privacy has to go. The internet can't be the wild west!
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO
So I assume that Google has posted their financials, algorithms, complete business plans, etc on the open web? or maybe they are planning on shutting down and disbanding?
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Informative)
The Internet was once a place where your real identity was also your online identity [google.com]. The schools, companies, and organizations which comprised the Internet all voluntarily enforced a policy where each user's username was their real name, or anyone could easily figure it out from their username [iu.edu].
Anonymity didn't really arrive on the Internet until 1993, when AOL joined. AOL users were allowed to pick up to 5 pseudonyms as their email address (because one AOL account might be shared by an entire family). In retrospect, that change was really quick - a span of a couple years and pretty much everyone was allowed to pick whatever they wanted as a username.
Personally, I think anonymity is the proverbial genie that's been let out of the bottle - it's gonna be really, really hard to put it back in. But a non-anonymous Internet isn't something new; it was the norm a mere 2+ decades ago. The funny thing is that when AOL joined, a lot of people were saying that anonymity would be the death of the Internet due to spam (it was already polluting Usenet), flame wars, posers, etc. When e-commerce was first taking off, people were questioning how online stores would ever be able to validate a customer's real identity when everyone was effectively anonymous behind self-selected usernames. Now the tables have turned and people are saying having your real identity known online will be the death of the Internet.
The Internet has survived both extremes, so it's reasonable to think that it will also survive anything in between.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Pseudonymity is one form of anonymity.
Re: (Score:3)
I would define it as
"Pseuonymity is Identifiable Anonymity"
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Funny)
What's your Facebook username, citizen?
You have to ask?
Re:The power of privacy (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, everyone in the military because they're required to use display shields and VPN when working from anywhere outside their offices. But, according to Secretary Nepolitano, all military personnel (ex or current) are potential terrorists anyways, so why not?
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Informative)
This is actually a good point. I don't know about the FBI, but some friends of mine work for Boeing and have filters on their laptops' screens that massivle narrow the viewable angle (so somebody sitting behind and to one side of you can't read the screen).
The reason? They have security clearance, and might accidentally have confidential info on their screen for a moment when they log on in a public place. The filter screen helps keep their display private... but it's exactly the kind of thing that is being suggested to be suspicious.
Re:The power of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
When you go to the store to buy something, people have an opportunity to notice your activities.
Use cash?
If you use Google, its absurd to demand they forget what you tell them to of the encounter.
You do realize there are other search engines out there, some of which at least purport to respect privacy? I prefer ixquick.com [ixquick.com].
The government should have certain limits ...
It appears that boat's already sailed. Gmail uses https, doesn't it? That's crypto, so every gmail user is a potential terrorist! When your gov't is telling its people that normal, everyday practices used by millions of average, law abiding citizens are suspicious activities denoting terrorist activities, the gov't is out of control in its quest for control/power over the populace. No, perfect anonymity never existed, but now, any anonymity is seen as suspicious behaviour to be reported to the Stasi, er, authorities.
That being said, this flyer is hilarious.
I think you misspelled atrocious, infuriating, insulting, insane, or something.
Maybe That's The Answer! (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe you have stumbled on how to the privacy problem. Create an open source, open project that puts the private lives of guys like Schmidt and Zuckerberg on line 24/7, so that they can't even go to the John without everyone knowing if its #1 or #2. Let cameras, cell phones, video recorders, monitor the activities of their family and friends 24/7. Better yet turn the entire exercise into a reality TV show and give prizes for the best submissions.
I don't know why, but I have this feeling that all of a sudden they would begin to have a different perspective with regard to online privacy.
They aren't wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
These might be signs of someone being a terrorist. It's just that 99.9% aren't and you're basically taking away privacy from everyone by treating the use of such tools as being suspicious. It's exactly what terrorists want to achieve.
Re:They aren't wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
They're not even signs of being a terrorist. To call them signs of being a terrorist is like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.
Re:They aren't wrong (Score:5, Funny)
They're not even signs of being a terrorist. To call them signs of being a terrorist is like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.
Have you seen any anaerobic terrorists? Well, have you?
Your pitiful libertarian Taliban-loving communist leaning socialist inspired arguments pale in the face of cold, hard logic.
Re:They aren't wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Has anyone ever seen ColdWetDog and whoever is the current head of AlQaeda in the same room?
Re:They aren't wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Heck privacy shield, vpn, NO DO NOT LOOK OVER MY SHOULDER AT MY SCREEN, etc are all basic telecommute rules for my day job. So yeah I guess if I have to check something and use the work laptop to do it when I am out and using the library/starbucks/whatever I guess I am a terrorist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These might be signs of someone being a terrorist. It's just that 99.9% aren't and you're basically taking away privacy from everyone by treating the use of such tools as being suspicious. It's exactly what terrorists want to achieve.
So in the same sense that being right handed is a sign of someone being a terrorist - not all terrorists are right handed but a lot of them are (and maybe some other people too).
Re: (Score:3)
Specificity and Sensitivity (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me introduce everyone to those two important concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity [wikipedia.org]
The problem is that while terrorists may indeed exhibit those behaviors, a massively larger number of people who are not terrorists also do. Like, oh, doctors, nurses, your insurance company, finance companies, any company that has trade secrets, any individual who has a sense of privacy, etc.
In other words, the positive predictive value of that test is extremely low. Nearly every time you report someone, you're reporting someone who is not a terrorist. In fact, I seriously doubt the pool of suspects generated by this would be any higher in actual terrorists than random selection would get you.
Chicken or egg? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Like privacy? You may be a terrorist!"
It's thinking like that which risks turning me into a terrorist.
Re:Chicken or egg? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Like privacy? You may be a terrorist!"
It's thinking like that which risks turning me into a terrorist.
I know what you're getting at, but you would really be an activist. Protesting and revolting directly against those infringing on your rights is a core American value. Some would say there is a fine line between activism and terrorism... lately however I think the line is finer between authoritative government and terrorism.
Re: (Score:3)
Want your basic civil liberties? You may be a terrorist.
Want freedom? You may be
Re:Chicken or egg? (Score:5, Interesting)
Founding Fathers were largely considered to be terrorists by the British.
My personal definition of terrorists is one who targets and attacks civilians.
Hijacking the planes, an act of terrorism.
Crashing planes into the Twin Towers, an act of terrorism.
Crashing planes into the Pentagon, a legitimate act of war.
Had 9-11 involved a UPS cargo plane being crashed into the Pentagon I would not have called them terrorists.
Bombing of the U.S.S. Cole was not an act of terrorism, it was an act of partisan warfare.
Re: (Score:3)
When they equate seeking privacy with terrorism, only terrorists will have privacy.
They told me that if I voted for John McCain, the Federal government and huge corporations would conspire to take away our privacy rights... and they were right!
Re:Chicken or egg? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up. Anonymous Coward speaks truth.
Terrorists (at least the bottom-rank terrorists who commit the actual attacks) are almost always people marginalized by society who feel that they have nothing left to lose. The continued erosion of someone's basic rights quite literally can turn them into a terrorist, or at least a criminal (of which a terrorist is simply one type). This is why people getting out of prison in the U.S. have such a high recidivism rate. They've lost everything—job, family, community—and have basically nothing more to lose.
And, of course, the government predictably tries to stop recidivism and terrorism by tightening their control over the relevant population. Unfortunately, trying to prevent people from taking control of their lives in an undesirable way by passing laws that further reduce their control over their lives is like trying to stop a fire by pouring gasoline on it. It is doomed to fail in the most spectacular way possible.
Sounds like the Drug Wars (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember the loathsome brochures passed around in the Government during the Reagan / G.H.W. Bush drug wars years. They basically boiled down to
- anyone acting strangely might be on drugs, and
- anyone not acting strangely might be on drugs, and covering it up.
Sounds like the DOJ is falling down the same rathole once again.
Re: (Score:3)
And they say Morton's Fork has no modern use...
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. I remember one long flyer the Navy put out. It included things like, "drives with the windows down" (might be a drug user, getting rid of the smell) and, then, later on, "drives with the windows up" (wouldn't want the smell to get out). This, note, was in a flyer intended to get people to nark on their co-workers.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. Which means the government meets the textbook definition of a terrorist organization:
Where terror is further defined as fear. Roosevelt had it right when he said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It is unfortunate, then, that our government is quickly becoming fear itself.
Welcome privacy advocates... (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome privacy advocates to the Accused of Being A Terrorist While Doing Nothing Wrong Club. Take a seat over there next to the Photographers (because terrorists will really cart around a DSLR and tripod in their terrifying terroristic travels).
Re: (Score:3)
Privacy advocates are charter members of that club. Photographers were relative latecomers.
(Remember the Clipper chip?)
a home based ISP? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you login to you comcast webmail you may be a terrorist?
Code? (Score:5, Interesting)
To the average citizen, most programming languages would fit this.
Re:Code? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Suspicious or coded writings, use of code word sheets, cryptic ledgers, etc"
To the average citizen, most programming languages would fit this.
To the average (US) citizen, simple declarative English sentences would fit this.
Worst (Score:4, Funny)
(well not only in the US but that would otherwise kill the joke).
Re:Code? (Score:5, Interesting)
According to Esperantist legend, when Zamenhof (the initial creator of the Esperanto language) went to medical school, his father found his initial work notes on the language and burned it all, fearing that it was evidence that young Zamenhof was a spy.
This was in 1881, according to the sources I could find. So the "OMG SEECRET CODEZ" panic is well over a century old, at least.
Re:Code? (Score:5, Funny)
1. Java terrorist
2. C++ terrorist
1. C terrorist
1. Oracle terrorist
1. Perl terrorist
1. LUA terrorist
(i bet the Oracle terrorist are the most dangerous)
Re:Code? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Code? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Code? (Score:5, Funny)
Ever try reading a bill passed by congress?
Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda... (Score:5, Interesting)
My grand parents knew friends who were arrested as they were suspected communists during the witch hunt years McArthur was going after people who simply had an opinion about the government...
Re:Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda.. (Score:5, Informative)
I think you are referring to Senator Joseph McCarthy [wikipedia.org] and not General Douglas MacArthur [wikipedia.org]. Right?
Re:Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda.. (Score:4, Funny)
As well as anyone who left a cake out in the rain, I have heard.
Working = Terrorism? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Working = Terrorism? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Every child in America a potential Terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game" Seriously!? Communicating through a videogame? By that definition every single child who plays online computer games that allow them to talk to others is a potential threat. I wonder what that means for all those who play Modern Warfare and the like? Maybe they're TRAINING to be terrorists! The US lawmakers sicken me.
Well, of course, they're terrorists. Listen in to the conversations of any Team Fortress 2 game and you'll hear people plotting to shoot people with snipers, spies backstabbing people, and pushing a bomb to a checkpoint. Lock those little jihadi bastards up! The FBI and DHS would wet their panties on hearing that stuff.
Or simply wanking to porn (Score:3)
"Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist"
Or simply wanking to porn. Who wants to be disturbed by CIA/FBI when touching one's genitals?
Re:Or simply wanking to porn (Score:5, Funny)
Who wants to be disturbed by CIA/FBI when touching one's genitals?
Fans of Tom Clancy.
Make it universal (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why everyone should use such tools and practices, all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Utoh (Score:4)
Like a Founding Father, count me in.... (Score:4, Insightful)
.... for I relish in my privacy rights. I always try to hide what I do from others. I refuse to have an account on Facebook, or other social media tools. I guess this makes me suspect.
Forget that my Civil Liberties are being stripped away one chip at a time, and my right to privacy is a pursuit to my life, liberty and happiness, which is in the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[75] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
So I guess our founding fathers were Terrorists then....
Re:Like a Founding Father, count me in.... (Score:5, Informative)
So I guess our founding fathers were Terrorists then....
Actually, yeah, they kind of were. They attacked, tarred, and feathered agents of the government. Held ships captive and destroyed their cargo. They secretly met, recruited, trained, and distributed propoganda. They illegally stored heavy weapons (Lexington and Concorde came as a direct result of th British attempting to locate and destroy weapons cahes of powder and cannon). Remember, our rebellion started out as an insurgency more than an open war, and in its early stages there is not much of a difference between terrorism and insurgencies. Probably the only difference is thatour founding fathers did not go out and hurt innocent people or kill civilians. Their targets were always governmetn agents or those representing government interests. That, and they for the most part adhered to the standard rules of war (except for hit and run attacks and snipers/intentional targeting of officers). So, while they could certainly be labelled terrorists, they should not be confused with the terrorists of today.
I may work for a terrorist organization (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently my employer could be a terrorist organization, because we use PGP and VPN technology routinely. Sure, the boss says it's for HIPAA compliance, but that's what you'd expect a terrorist to say, isn't it?
Fake (Score:5, Interesting)
Because Internet Cafes Are So Secure? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone accessing any kind of sensitive information (like reading email) at an internet cafe is exposing themselves to the possibility of every type of electronic snooping by criminals, up to and including laptop theft. It would be folly not to employ strong security measures when accessing the net under such circumstances.
This is like claiming people who lock their front doors fit a criminal profile, because they are trying to keep people from seeing what they have or are doing in their houses.
This goes beyond terror (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a news story in Ann Arbor in which a pediatrician is accused of peeping involving a minor. Police confiscated his computer based on the investigation. That's great and I'm glad they caught the guy.
But....after analyzing his computer, the cops presented the "evidence" they found.
The detective was (can't find the news story right now, sorry) quoted as listing images, an electronic receipt to a child porn site and....the fact that the doctor deleted cookies and added other privacy measures to his browsing! The quote assumed that he must have been up to no good if he was careful about his privacy.
More telling. Out of the 200-plus comments on the story, none referenced this.
Ask for it by name. (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer at the end (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Disclaimer at the end (Score:4, Insightful)
All of the above, together, are lawful conduct and behavior. You don't just get the rights in the Constitution one at a time -- you get them all at once, as much as you want.
Employees of ALL public companies are terrorists? (Score:3)
Every publicly traded company has to keep some of their activities confidential. We make heavy use of encrypted hard drives, encrypted VPN and train them not to allow others to view their screens. I can't wait for the firestorm after the CEO gets turned into the FBI for his "terrorist" activities. He has a building full of lawyers at his disposal.
I wonder if the candidates for US President are using these "terrorist" tools?
Self-generated work a problem with law enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
A useful metric for law enforcement organizations is what fraction of their work is self-generated, and what fraction is complaint-driven. When a police department responds to a call to 911 or a crime report, they're performing a service function. When they run a drug sting, they're doing self-generated work. Some self-generated law enforcement work is useful and necessary, but too much of it corrupts an organization.
The FBI was traditionally complaint-driven. Historically, their self-generated work didn't go well. The Red Squads and the investigation of the civil rights movement of the Hoover era are historical examples.
The FBI's anti-terrorism operation is mostly self-generated work. So is their Internet operation. (40% of FBI Internet investigative resources are devoted to kiddie porn. Most of the rest is "national security". Fraud on the Internet, about 4%. The FBI is soft on Internet fraud - stopping that takes real work, and results are measurable.)
Measurability is the big issue here. On their complaint-based work, law enforcement success rates are easily measured. There were N bank robberies last year, and the people who did M of them were caught. Success rate: M / N. Running a law enforcement operation on that basis keeps it productive and honest. Metrics for self-generated police work tend to be less meaningful. The US has had so little terrorism in the last decade that metrics for that are mostly have an N of zero.
Measurability was William Bratton's approach. Bratton headed the Boston PD, the NYPD, and the LAPD, and is generally considered to have improved all of them. He was big on measuring results, and put in systems to track, on a daily basis, how his cops were doing against crooks. There was a lot of software and mapping involved, and twice-weekly crime strategy meetings. In a big department, it was quite possible to have a whole crime spree before someone at the command level noticed a pattern. He fixed that. Focusing his cops on solving identified problems tended to keep his departments pointed in the right direction.
I'm Guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to point out that I was, indeed, using a computer (with privacy tools) in an Internet Cafe in California (an airport, no less!) only last month, after having traveled an illogical distance and despite having robust residential Internet access.
While doing so, I did download content with extremely violent themes and military tactics. Indeed, the material enthusiastically described the ruthless, near-extermination of a freedom-loving people by a warlike, non-Christian foreign power bent on world conquest. The material was written by leader of these warlike people, and frankly I was rooting for him.
If I have to go to prison for reading Julius Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War, so be it. Sic Semper...wait a minute...
The system is totally hosed! (Score:4, Informative)
The Genie is out of the bottle and won't go back easily, if at all.
Examples: National Security Letters
"The Justice Department's Inspector General has reported that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI issued nearly 200,000 NSLs. The inspector General has also found serious FBI abuses of the NSL power."
(from: http://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-and-liberty/national-security-letters [aclu.org] )
Catch 22:
From: Susan Herman's book, Taking Liberties: The War on Terror and the Erosion of American Democracy:
"A number of courts have declared that no one has standing - that is, the right to bring a lawsuit - to challenge eavesdropping programs unless they can prove that the government has been listening to their own telephone calls or intercepting their own-mails. That is a true Catch-22, when the whole point of secrecy is that the target is unaware of being the target."
Bingo!
Issue a NSL to an ISP for all web traffic of a particular person, erroneously accuse a person of {something}. Defense lawyer can't do his job, person disappears.
Ever see an FBI laptop? (Score:4, Funny)
Most agents don't carry laptops...those who do?
Full disk encryption.
Smartcard access.
VPN back in to do anything.
Have those screen polarizers on them so you can't look at the screen for an angle.
Wait a minute, the FBI is full of terrorists!
My other thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone pay attention to history?
Seriously?
I had a public school education, yet i know how this ends.
Re:I'll Become One (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights become crimes, making more criminals out of thin air. Suddenly there's a lot of crime going on, so we strip more rights, to deal with all the crimes. It's pretty damn circular.
Re:You might be a ... (Score:4, Funny)
We need the services of Jeff Foxworthy on this one!
Re:People are clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
capitalism = terrorism? (Score:3)
I have to use a VPN connection when I meet customers offsite or connect to work or work from home and I also do e-banking using SSL so I'm in the same boat.
If the government believes capitalism is a form of terrorism, I guess I'm OK with that...