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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Security

Wiretapping the Web Easier Than Ever 180

Posted by CowboyNeal from the in-case-you-haven't-heard dept.
theodp writes "All the trends are toward easier to tap, says an EFF attorney in MSNBC's recap of last week's 5-0 FCC vote to require broadband and VoIP providers to provide Uncle Sam with wiretapping backdoors and a recent Court decision that stored e-mail is not protected under a strict reading of wiretap laws. Civil-liberties concerns aside, MSNBC notes the FCC is also exploring its Internet regulatory options, including placing tariffs on online newspapers and requiring e-tailers to process 911 calls."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wiretapping the Web Easier Than Ever More

Wiretapping the Web Easier Than Ever

Comments Filter:

  • You called the internet the web (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:50PM (#9968734)
    How did I know the submitter was an AOL user before even doing a mouse over of their name...

  • GnuPG (Score:5, Informative)

    by skrysakj ( 32108 ) * on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:50PM (#9968739) Homepage Journal
    I recommend everyone look into it, install it, and use it. All emails go
    plain text without encryption, so it's the least you can do to enhance your privacy.
    As for VoIP, I don't know.

    http://www.gnupg.org/

    • Re:GnuPG (Score:5, Insightful)

      by McDutchie ( 151611 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:58PM (#9968807) Homepage
      GnuPG, PGP, and the like are only useful for communication between nerds. Mere mortals have no idea what public key encryption is, never mind how to use it. Nor do they want to bother.
      • Any way of fixing it so that when they "descramble" it, they get goat.cx or tubgirl instead? We could call it GnuGoatPG.

        On another note, I was actually able to find a practical use for goat.cx this week when I had to cut one company's access to one of our databases.

        I replaced the page where they normally log in with one explaining that if they continue, they basically give me the right to hack into their boxes and do whatever I want with what I find.

        Then I put a form at the bottom with action="http://g

      • Re:GnuPG (Score:5, Funny)

        by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:28PM (#9969047)
        GnuPG, PGP, and the like are only useful for communication between nerds.

        But why would you want to talk to anyone else?

        Oh yeah... girls!

      • "GnuPG, PGP, and the like are only useful for communication between nerds. Mere mortals have no idea what public key encryption is, never mind how to use it. Nor do they want to bother."

        So let the nerds have relatively secure communications and let the mere mortals get listened on and their communications ran thru Echelon/Carnivore. Once the mortals get busted, they'll want to bother -- only then it will be too late.

      • Re:GnuPG (Score:4, Interesting)

        by gnu-generation-one ( 717590 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @05:05PM (#9969726) Homepage
        "GnuPG, PGP, and the like are only useful for communication between nerds."

        That does seem to be the case. I've never received a PGP communication where I didn't personally guide the sender through key-creation. I don't think that should be an accepted limit though -- it's still useful to get through to people that if they don't use GPG, their emails will be read.

        In some cases it can be very easy. For example if you work someplace with a nasty "email isn't private" policy, it can be quite easy to convince your friends and family to encrypt when they hear that your boss and the IT department will be reading their emails. For some reason people don't bother because they don't believe it'll really "happen to them", and they become quite different when they realise that an actual person is reading the email that they just sent.. they just assume it's as secure as postal mail, and if anybody doesn't encrypt, it's because they have no idea whatsoever of what's actually happening to the email.
        • For example if you work someplace with a nasty "email isn't private" policy, it can be quite easy to convince your friends and family to encrypt when they hear that your boss and the IT department will be reading their emails.


          Alternatively, you could elect to not use your work e-mail for personal correspondence. Too radical?

          • Re:GnuPG (Score:3, Insightful)

            by maximilln ( 654768 )
            Alternatively, you could elect to not use your work e-mail for personal correspondence. Too radical?

            I don't buy into that separation of work and home junk. Corporate masters know EXACTLY what they're doing with those policies, and it's not just covering their legal angles.

            Communication is a basic human function just like using the toilet. Does your company provide toilet facilities only to hang a sign on the door saying,"Only to be used for the processing of water and food consumed at lunchtime"?

            Ideal
    • As for VoIP, try to look for non-US services. I'm using VoIPTalk.org, but they're
      in the increasingly US-friendly, privacy-hostile UK :(

      (Yes, foreign companies means calls cost more, but if most people end up
      using VoIP, the calls are free)

    • Re:GnuPG (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Short Circuit ( 52384 ) *
      How about a really cheap encryption for VoIP services: Modem communication.

      Many winmodems are essentially sound cards attached to phone lines, and there's been a lot of work getting those devices to function as useful modems under Linux. As a result, there's probably a lot of Free code out there that handles encoding the data stream to the audio samples that are sent over the phone line.

      Why not adapt some of this code to perform such communications over the VoIP audio stream? The data source could be a
    • When the least you can do still isn't enough, think about my own solution, metanet.
    • I absolutely agree. I just sent an email to all of the folks I normally exchange email with to let them know that as of Monday the 16th I'll be using encryption (GnuPG) on all out-going email and IM client sessions. I've been pestering people for months, maybe a couple of years, to start using PKI at least with their email. Maybe this step will force them to do it.

      As far as I know it should be possible to encrypt VoIP by tunneling it through SSH, It may also be possible to encrypt it directly, but I ha
    • "I recommend everyone look into it, install it, and use it. All emails go plain text without encryption, so it's the least you can do to enhance your privacy."

      The sad thing is how easy it is to defeat this sort of encryption. Template: "$SENDER dear, I can't seem to read your email. Can you send it again normally? Love, $RECIPIENT"

      "As for VoIP, I don't know."

      I bet Phil Zimmerman is kicking himself now for not releasing PGP as Free Software, but one of his projects which is still gathering proprietary du

  • That's it... (Score:2, Funny)

    by MrDomino ( 799876 )
    I'll see you all in Canada.

  • what about voicemail? i.e. stored or not (Score:5, Interesting)

    by way2trivial ( 601132 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:54PM (#9968770) Homepage Journal
    if you use verizons voicemail service, they store the calls, does that mean verizon can listen if they want to?
    • it's rarely a question of whether they have the ability to, but more about the manpower. Even if they can listen to your messages, but unless you are attracting attention from them, they probably aren't. It's the same idea as with MS reading my hotmail account's email: sure, they COULD, but out of their tens (hundreds?) of thousands of accounts, why yours?
      • It's the same idea as with MS reading my hotmail account's email: sure, they COULD, but out of their tens (hundreds?) of thousands of accounts, why yours?

        Well, in my case, it would be worth Microsoft's time to read email from my hotmail account. I, unlike most people, get many unique offers:

        • Prestigious university University degrees at a discount
        • Great mortgage offers
        • Numerous software packages at reduced prices
        • Some rather personal services and medications
        • And an offer from Nigeria that is going to ma
    • if you use verizons voicemail service, they store the calls, does that mean verizon can listen if they want to?
      Text messages sent by Kobe Bryant's accuser more than a year ago are potentially going to be introduced as evidence at trial. I don't know if telcos bother to keep your voice mail messages around forever, but it's obvious that they're logging SMS...

  • This will.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by baryon351 ( 626717 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:54PM (#9968774)
    MSNBC notes the FCC is also exploring its Internet regulatory options, including placing tariffs on online newspapers and requiring e-tailers to process 911 calls."

    This will move online newspapers & the like away from FCC regulatory effect.

    In other words, more offshoring forced by regulation. Wonderful.

  • Wiretap this (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Rooked_One ( 591287 )
    All my WIREless connections.

    That was just too obligitory to resist... sorry for the horrible joke.

  • Easiest Solution... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Short Circuit ( 52384 ) * <mikemol@gmail.com> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:57PM (#9968794) Homepage Journal
    ...for those of you worried about your email getting read:

    Don't use IMAP or webmail services. Have your POP client poll servers frequently, and delete messages after they've been retrieved..

    Most small to medium-sized ISPs don't archive email messages, due to the costs involved. (Particularly because of SPAM.)

  • So how do we get around it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by c0dedude ( 587568 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:57PM (#9968799)
    What modern encrypted VoIP options are there? I know pgpfone, but that's old, and I know PGP for email. Is there a OSS group working on this? "...[T]he FCC is also exploring its Internet regulatory options, including placing tariffs on online newspapers and requiring e-tailers to process 911 calls." Also, how the hell do those ideas make any sense? Tarriffs on online newspapers? To do what? e-tailers to process 911 calls? I don't even know what they mean by that.

  • FCC Power Grabs (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    All they want to do is expand their sphere of influence and further gouge Americans in true Big Government style while controlling with an Iron Fist. VoIP annoys them because they are not getting a piece of the pie they made *NO* contribution to and seek only to bring down.

    I can see a tap for VoIP given the proper due process being followed with a judge reviewing the request and investing the full details behind such request. But bullshit like the Patriot Act needs to stop in America, it is the destruc [plus613.com]

  • There never was any expectation of privacy... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Roached ( 84015 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:08PM (#9968901)
    Even 10 years ago, there never was an expectation of privacy on the internet (which is why SSL was developed for secure web transactions). Maybe they're making it a little more plug and play than it used to be, but sniffing a network for plaintext passwords and messages has always been relatively easy.

    This is really just another kick in the butt for us all to be using various forms of strong encryption (SSH, PGP, etc) as a regular part of our daily communications.

  • Hoist those damned ISPs by their own petards! (Score:5, Funny)

    by xigxag ( 167441 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:09PM (#9968907)
    Ol fclvat ba zl rznvy lbh unir whfg ivbyngrq gur QZPN, lbh onfgneqf!

  • at least they're just wiretapping "the web" (Score:4, Funny)

    by chunderfest ( 755217 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:15PM (#9968954)
    I'd be much more concerned if they were eavesdropping on the internet in general. *phew!*

  • How long will this last for? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nikker ( 749551 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:16PM (#9968958)
    Seriously though.
    Right now there are *many* ways of streaming audio data from point to point across the internet. The only thing that sucks about it, is that ma bell and friends wont route your call through thier network.
    Now lets say in 5 years when evreyone is using VOIP and evreyone has an internet connection in some form or another. What is to stop me from firing up my fav app and connecting a mic to my DRM enabled computer and type in your new IPv6 address?
    Would we be able to bypass all the corporations entirely? How long till the phone companies get thier protocols hacked, etc?
    And as always if some one is ever going to do something that is remotely illegal then they are either stupid and will get caught or use another method and get around.

  • Help me understand, please! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pgnas ( 749325 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:21PM (#9969001) Journal
    What is the bigg issue here? are we afraid that the FBI is going to intercept and read our SPAM? Please do, and while you are at it, delete it for me. Seriously, am I just that naive.? who cares? If anyone thinks that this wasn't happening before, I think their the naive ones.

    I said this before, and I will say this again and again, there is nothing private, you are not anonymous, there is simply no-such-thing.

    I would suspect that those concerned about wiretap laws and so-called invasion of privacy are truly paranoid, or just plain trying to hide something.

    I am not suggesting that the government get carte blanche access to everything, there does need to be some oversight. I know, I know, the oversight commitee will be corrupt, right? (I think that they make pills to ease paranoia).

    so, Someone, please draw me a picture, how is this so bad, what the hell is so private, they are not putting cameras in our houses...wait, are they?

    • I know, I know, the oversight commitee will be corrupt, right? (I think that they make pills to ease paranoia)

      It has nothing to do with paranoia. People will naturally use any available power to better their own life. Recognizing that oversight committies are not saintly organizations is the first step in clear, logical thinking.

      I do understand, however, that delusion is much easier for most people to live in. You derive a large amount of smug self-satisfaction by labeling others as "paranoid" and thu
    • In the US, there are supposed to be certain 4th and 14th ammendment rights which guarantee that the states and the federal government can't randomly start collecting information on someone for politically motivated persecution and prosecution.

      Unfortunately these rights have been slowly being undermined in part because we have never seen a supreme court opinion (IANAL) which clearly states exactly what is protected against here. One of my real gripes in Roe v Wade (yes, I am pro-choice) is that the Supreme
    • This attitude drives me nuts. Just because you're not doing anything wrong doesn't mean it's okay for the government to listen in on your phone calls/read your e-mail/whatever else, and not wanting total strangers to know all your business isn't paranoia. Clearly, oversight is needed, but there seems to be no such thing in the continued erosion of privacy American citizens are experiencing right now. I just hate the argument from "duh, this is happening, get used to it." Just because it's already going on

    • Re:Help me understand, please! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @04:11PM (#9969340)
      >they are not putting cameras in our houses...wait, are they?

      Not yours, don't worry. You aren't, let's see, both of Chinese/MiddleEastern/Jewish/FlavorOfTheWeek ancestry and working in the high tech industry. So no worries, mate.

      But pre-9/11, if they had wanted to put their own cameras and microphones in your house, they would have needed a court order, signed by a judge, who would actually (all counter-claims aside) review the evidence supporting the request.

      Now, post-9/11, they don't need a court order at all.

      Now you ask, how is this bad, what is so private? Gosh. How do I explain to you. It's like explaining water to a fish. But in this case, maybe an IQ challenged fish.

      I'll tell you what. I'll do a study whereby you can sign up to have devices hidden in your house. These devices may or may not be active microphones and cameras, and they will be well hidden from you. If you participate, the devices may or may not be installed. If you look for them, you will be mocked on the internet.

      The audio and images collected by the devices may or may not be, at some point in the future, released and or leaked onto the internet. You and other adults in your household, by participating in this study, take responsibility for the fact that any minors under your guardianship may have embarassing childhood episodes revealed on the internet in the future. Of course, they may or may not care, but you can decide for them since you are their guardian.

      I will hire qualified personnel meeting stringent background requirements (physically strong, young, graduated high school) to protect any information collected, and let them work in offices with minimum wage clerical staff who are given large binders containing writeups that mention protecting the information. We will protect your information from release unless there is a mistake or unless we decide, or any future custodian of the information, or anyone who steals the information, decides, at any time, for any reason, to release it.

      If you are interested in participating in such a study, just reply here with your active email addresses, phone numbers, your home address, your mother's maiden name, the maiden name of your spouse and your spouse's mother, the names of your closest neighbors, the names of five friends, your complete school transcripts, a transcript of a recent intimate pillow talk conversation with your spouse, and the names, addresses, and social security numbers of your family members and any relatives through previous marriages. For any private information of others that you do not have, just provide what you do know and we will find the rest.

      I know, it's still hard for you to understand. Re-read the part about them no longer needing a court order. Now think about it, 'them' could be local police, sheriffs, almost anyone.

      You know what? I actually don't believe you. I think you do understand.

      Want to prove me wrong? OK, then just post your information, go ahead.
      • I'll tell you what. I'll do a study whereby you can sign up to have devices hidden in your house. These devices may or may not be active microphones and cameras, and they will be well hidden from you. If you participate, the devices may or may not be installed. If you look for them, you will be mocked on the internet.

        Mod parent up.

        Then print out 10 copies and post them in your neighborhood.

        And for the future of freedom, for the dignity of mankind, hope that you don't get a hundred Esuas [wikipedia.org] selling their bi
    • ... they are not putting cameras in our houses...wait, are they?
      Look at what's already happened with the government wiretapping OnStar [com.com] to listen to you while you drive.

      Fast-forward a decade. Every cell phone has a camera, and they decide to turn it on and see what you are doing without you knowing.

  • Is it so bad? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 )
    wiretapping at the end of the day isnt really an issue online, its so easy to encrypt and its just going to get easier as more and more programs build functionality in for the average user. Although there is the problem of tracing, you cant exactly hide where your packets are going (unless you used an elaborate distributed system of people taking your packets and secretly passing them on while generating random traffic to other places) and you could also have a man-in-the-middle attack if you have no other

  • VoIP Tapping (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Judg3 ( 88435 ) <jeremy@pa[ ]ck.com ['vle' in gap]> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:30PM (#9969055) Homepage Journal
    Even after all the news surrounding the recent VoIP problems, wiretapping, TOS agreements, etc I still just signed up for Vonage [vonage.com], the $30/month for unlimited local and long distance was to good to pass up (Not to mention my great dislike for my current telco and the fact that I can't get another one unless I lived on the other side of the street).
    My question though about wiretapping is: Is it that big of a deal? From what I've read the same rules apply, so they can't just tap into you for no reason at all. So it just seems sort of like a moot point to scream and yell about VoIP tapping, since landlines have already had that for quite some time. Where's the "This is bad because" deal? Are we worried that because now that there's a wiretapping rule in place that it means that there's the potential for hackers to exploit it? Something else?

    • Re:VoIP Tapping (Score:3, Interesting)

      by maximilln ( 654768 )
      so they can't just tap into you for no reason at all

      That's the arguable point. They can tap you for no reason at all. They just can't do anything official with it.

      Where's the "This is bad because" deal?

      It's not about catching bad guys or fighting crime. It's about harassment. You're not like them. They are not like you. Look back over history. People with power derive buttloads of amusement from watching plain citizens get run in circles. It's _FUN_ to drive somebody nuts. It is much easier t
      • Ah see - that's what I didn't think about. Even though they can tap you "just because", they can't do anything with it officially. I hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks.
    1. 1989(in russian accent) -- Due to recent budged constraints, this call is not being surreptitiously recorded....
      Please leave name and phone number for future reference.
    2. 1999 -- Hi. You've reached the phone number of Stephen and Regan. Our answering machine is broken -- but that's OK. Because our line is being tapped.
      Please speak clearly and we'll get the transcript from our lawyers.
    The shocking thing about the second message is the number of people who took it seriously. Regan's mother, left a very motherly message ("Just who do you have for roommates, and are you sure you can trust them???) that had me rolling on the floor laughing.

  • The police are our founders' "standing army" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:38PM (#9969115) Homepage

    As I have said before on my site [blindmindseye.com], there is ample reason to believe that the police are the "standing army" that our founders warned us of. Let's look at what our founders worried about, what the police and military are today

    Standing army of our founders' day and age:

    • Enforced many of the laws. Remember the infamous Star Chamber courts for history classes? Military courts for civilians, often American colonists.
    • Frequently violated the rights of the people, often in the name of law and order.
    • Could basically do what they wanted when it was convenient for the state; not held to the strict standard that you have to disobey an illegal order.

    The police of our day and age:

    • Frequently take on what were once military jobs such as detaining unlawful combatants, fighting those who come to our soil to blow up your women and children (hey that was warfare, not terrorism just 30 years ago....)
    • Frequently disregard the civil liberties of the public, including going so far as to try to instill the attitude that anyone more concerned with civil liberties than fighting crime is "pro-crime."
    • Frequently disregard the rule of law when it means that one of their own will get "ratted out." The boys in blue are notorious for taking the attitude that a cop can "screw up" because "they are human" even when a civilian doing the same thing would get locked up. Ever heard of cases where the police didn't get busted because none of them would speak ill of even their corrupt comrades?

    No knock raids, unprecedented surveillance, military grade equipment, they are a paramilitary, not "peace officers" anymore. Don't ever, ever make the mistake of assuming that they are peace officers anymore. Between their militarization in tactics/armament, and the legal powers that put us at a distinct disadvantage, they are closer to an occupying army than what they were originally created to be.

    If you think that gun control is "common sense" yet you are worried about issues like police powers then ask yourself who you would really trust with a gun. The police, many of whom are neurotic, egotistical control freaks (that's why they are attracted to positions of power, surprise, surprise....) or your neighbor? How about your own family and friends. People you can trust.

    See I trust the latter, because I come from a law enforcement family that has former law enforcement from both the state and federal agencies. I have seen many more law enforcement officers in personal settings than the average person so I have a good idea of what the personality types are. Trust me, people, especially those who think gun control is a good idea, these are often some of the last people that deserve a state sanction to abridge your liberties while carrying a firearm.

    The best thing that could happen to our civil liberties would be for the average citizen to be able to own any weapon that the cops can use, for the government to not be able to register those weapons and for the people to have a right to use force to resist unlawful arrest. Oh wait, unlawful arrest basically doesn't exist anymore because who are you to tell a cop that they don't have a legitimate reason to detain your unconvicted (probably felon) ass? See my point?

  • Does anyone have a link to the Tariff proposal? I didn't see it mentioned in the linked articles.
  • oh well, too bad for the americans, at least the rest of use can still use other less restrictive versions of voip
    • Ha, wait up, Americans are just test rats. After they find a solid way to deceive people into thinking its OKAY, they will start using the same tricks over there, just you wait!
  • Alright, so the US is now some MOB finding reasons to extort money from it's citizens. They gotta protect us from them. If we dont pay, another 911 will happen, and then if we stand up, they will start another World War to throw everyone off.
  • I dont understand why everyone is so concerned about telecommunications and internet communications being tapped. Personally I dont care if the FBI overhears me talking to my g/f , mom, brother, etc. If you have something that secret use encryption or go to some random private chat room, or use a program to directly connect via IP address. It's not like they could listen to everyones communications. At worst they could use a keyword search.

    Learn how to speak with a thick southern accent and then speak with

    • I dont understand why everyone is so concerned about telecommunications and internet communications being tapped

      You've never been a target of harassment, have you? I would love to have the power to tap your lines. Do you know how easy it would be to drive you crazy?

      And why would I want to do this? Because your tax dollars pay all my bills and I'm BORED. It would be amusing as anything in the world just to watch you go crazy.

      You don't think it happens, do you? For your sake I hope you never have to

  • Tin foil hats... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dmayle ( 200765 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @04:08PM (#9969306) Homepage Journal
    I know I'm paranoid, but that doesn't mean they're not out to get me. I sometimes wonder about the delays with IPv6. It's got built-in point to point encryption that can be enabled by default at the IP level, rather than having to support it at the application level. It would make any point-to-point connections secure, and I'm afraid we'll start seeing government mandated proxies so that wiretapping can be insured. Unfortunately, as soon as that happend, we will have lost...
  • So fscking what if they do that.
    If you got nothing to hide, you can speak freely just about evreything over phone/VoIP/mail. I don't see any diference.
    Our country listens to mobile phone calls (you can tell when a light echo of your voice kicks in) and it does that randoomly on all mobile phone numbers (subscribers/prepayed). The whole thing is there is no such law in .si as in US, and they do it anyway... (except for numbers to tap by court order), but i don't have any criminal record, so they are just pla
    • If you got nothing to hide

      That is the most ignorant point of view possible in this topic. It's not about you. Get over yourself. It's about people who might be interested in you. Do you want to take the chance that someone with political power the likes of which you can't even comprehend is going to take an interest in you? And not that they just take an interest in you, but that they're going to find amusement in exercising their political power just to run you in circles? Just to drive you nuts?

      T
    • Our country listens to mobile phone calls (you can tell when a light echo of your voice kicks in)

      I doubt you would hear anything if they were spying upon you. Your voice is already digitally compressed by the phone, they would just have to redirect your communication through a file. I don't think it's harder than that.
    • Our country listens to mobile phone calls (you can tell when a light echo of your voice kicks in)

      That's bullshit. The echo is simply a reflection from the receiver's end of the call, and happens if they have a shitty phone or phone line. They get crosstalk from the earpiece into the mic. Normally it's not noticeable on landline-to-landline calls because the transport of audio is pretty much instantaneous, but on the cell network buffering, compression overhead and switching all play a part in delaying th
  • "tariffs on online newspapers"

    The FCC is protecting the codependence of the official media and the government. Taxing webzines, copyright/licensing controls, the RIAA/MPAA, promoting the patent of any useful idea... the strategy is to create an unbreachable divide between "official" publishers, a few major corporations that can play ball with the government, and DIY people, otherwise on an even footing for publishing in the inexpensive, rudimentary technology of the Internet. Knowledge is power, and the t

  • Can we say Police State? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by morleron ( 574428 ) <morleron&yahoo,com> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @05:00PM (#9969692) Journal
    I think that it's becoming more clear every day that the U.S. is headed in the direction of becoming a police state. The threat of "terrorism" is being used by the governemnt to expand its police powers in the name of "defending liberty." This is as good an example of double-speak as I can think of. Every step the government has taken since 9/11 has seen a reduction in the liberty of Americans to have privacy, be free from unwarranted intrusions and searches, etc.

    Unfortunately, I do not think that John Kerry, if elected, will stop this trend. He has not made protection of civil liberties, except for abortion, a major issue in his campaign. He voted for PATRIOT and, AFAIK, has made no calls for it to be repealed, re-examined, sunsetted, etc. He has given me no reason to vote for him.

    On the other hand, the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik http://www.badnarik.org/index.php [badnarik.org] is calling for a halt to the expansion of the government's police powers. I intend to vote for him as I don't accept that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. I urge anyone concerned about the growth and misuse of governemnt power to consider a vote for Badnarik.

    Just my $.02,
    Ron
    • The third-party vote is a waste unless your state is pretty much decided (such as Massachusetts). The reason for this is that we don't use preferential voting (with the Condorcet method of election), which would mean you could effectively vote according to your actual preferences, rather than for one of the two front-runners. In our current flawed system, though, a third-party vote is rather a waste.
  • Jimmy Swaggart touched me and I have SEEN THE LIGHT.

    Ideally, I'm a libertarian (with a small l). I really do want to see government get so small that I need a magnifying glass more powerful than the one I use when I play with myself to find them. I want government so small that they can fit on the head of a pin and still have room for a thousand angels.

    But let's face reality. Big government is here. Big government, over the course of the year, will consume better than 60% of your paycheck through one hid
    • Of course you can leave the country, you just can't come back once you've renounced your citizenship. And if you don't renounce your citizenship, you must still pay your Uncle Sam. That's assuming you are American. Don't know if any other country has such a firm grip on its citizens' wallets.

      BTW, we Americans have our own definitions for liberal. Libertarian [wikipedia.org] is what Europeans and probably rest of the world would call a Liberal [wikipedia.org] since we don't have those European Aristocratic "shackles of tradition". F

  • Paranoia. Into your heart it will creep.

    Why do so many people seem to believe that the internet deserves to be exempt from the same principles, constitutions, and lawd that govern every other communications and publication medium.

    Whether you support or oppose any given law, does it really make sense to argue that the technology used to communicate or publish take precedence over the actual behavior of the communicator or publisher? Why is it permissible to regulate behavior implemented with one kind of to

  • This makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @07:33PM (#9970683) Homepage
    ...the FCC could, if it wanted to, place tariffs on online newspapers or require that online retailers be able to process 911 emergency calls. "It's sort of a lighthearted footnote," she says. "But for me it suggests the FCC has power over all online services and it's just going to decide what services it's going to act on.

    1) You cannot place a tariff on a newspaper. That would be one of the most obvious violations of the first ammendment I've ever seen. "Oh, you can criticize the government, but there is a tariff on that." riiiiggghhht....

    2) Online retailers process 911 calls? Huh?

    From: reader@slashdot.org
    To: sales@niftystore.com
    Subject: Help!

    Someone is in my house, they are coming upstairs! Help!

    3) The last one is the scariest part. The US government has basically found a way to get around the constitution. They don't have the power to do something, but they can set up an agency that claims the power. But this agency can bite them back by doing things the congress doesn't want.

    Does the charter for the FCC state what it can and cannot do? The FCC is the greatest example of a regulatory agency that expands it's own powers based on it's own decisions. I begin to think that the entire purpose of the FCC should begin to be questioned, and maybe the charter that established it should be rewritten.

  • IPv6 (Score:3, Informative)

    by wytcld ( 179112 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @07:36PM (#9970697) Homepage
    Um, guys, doesn't IPv6 require encryption [usipv6.com]? So as IPv6 is rolled out, and IPsec becomes the default way to go (certainly for business use), what exactly is the FCC-mandated access going to buy them?

    Of course, with an administration opposed to science [nytimes.com], it might be a small step to also oppose foundational technology like IPv6. But can they do that without creating a lot bigger fuss - what with that leaving our infrastructure open to terrorists and hackers, and impeding sale of already-engineered American products?
  • If I were providing encryption to a Mob Boss (I do not actually know any, this is hypothetical), this is what I'd tell him after I installed it.

    "For best security, always assume that the FBI has cracked the codes and is listening to your every word."

    Yeah, vinnie, I washed those ten shirts. Begonia Begonia unlatch the ferret.

    Yeah. FBI would probably arrest me anyway.
  • placing tariffs on online newspapers

    It's one thing to want to wiretap people and activly defend large corporations copyrights, it's a completly different thing to shut down news sites because you don't want information being disseminated to the public. Now they are really turning into goddamn nazi's.

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Close