Slashdot Log In
Keeping an Eye on Government Snooping
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jun 06, 2006 08:36 AM
from the who-watches-the-watchers dept.
from the who-watches-the-watchers dept.
abb_road writes "BusinessWeek looks at the need for better electronic privacy safeguards in light of NSA call monitoring, and more recent administration pushes for ISP data-retention. As the article discusses, though safeguards are already in place, they're easily bypassed, based on older communication norms and don't take into account any 'war-time necessity' arguments." From the article: "There's a crying need for better privacy safeguards that reflect today's world -- and mirror a consensus among America's gadget-happy, cell-phone addicts whose daily chats and text messages are grist for Echelon's computers."
Related Stories
[+]
U.S. Government Demands ISP Data Retention 355 comments
dlc3007 writes to mention an article in the New York Times discussing data privacy. The article expands on the U.S. Government's 'request' last Friday at a meeting between Robert S. Mueller III, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, and the executives of several Internet Service Providers. The ISPs were required to retain data on users, for trials if subpoenaed. Right now they're asking companies to do this. The threat is that, if they don't comply, legislation will follow. From the article: "The Justice Department is not asking the Internet companies to give it data about users, but rather to retain information that could be subpoenaed through existing laws and procedures, Mr. Roehrkasse said. While initial proposals were vague, executives from companies that attended the meeting said they gathered that the department was interested in records that would allow them to identify which individuals visited certain Web sites and possibly conducted searches using certain terms." We originally covered this last Sunday, but more details have been released on the meeting since then.
[+]
More Details of the NSA's Social Network Analysis 367 comments
mrogers writes "USA Today has a story describing how the NSA looks for suspicious calling patterns in the huge volumes of traffic data it collects. "Templates" such as a call from overseas followed by a flurry of domestic calls are used to identify leads, which are forwarded to the FBI for investigation. There have been complaints that low-quality leads are drawing agents away from other cases, and similar pattern-matching approaches have been found wanting in the past. Can data mining identify terrorists?"
[+]
Government Adds Consumer Databases To Mining Queries 179 comments
mrraven writes "According to an article in the Washington Post the government is increasingly using consumer databases for surveillance purposes. " From the article: "It is difficult to pinpoint the number of such contracts because many of them are classified, experts said. At the federal level, 52 government agencies had launched, or planned to begin, at least 199 data-mining projects as far back as 2004, according to a Government Accountability Office study."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Time to start encrypting *everything*. (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be clear to everyone by now that the government cannot be trusted to respect the privacy of its citizens. Pushing for stricter controls at the governmental level is futile, since the Powers That Be have absolutely no qualms about sidestepping any troublesome rules and regulations that stand between them and their agenda.
The only way for citizens to reclaim their privacy is at the citizen level. The only solution is to start encrypting all data and communications as a matter of course. If every communication is encrypted, the government will not be able to make the argument that 'if you're encrypting, you obviously have something to hide'.
If we want privacy, crypto is the only way to have it in this day and age. If we want crypto to remain legal for citizens, we have to start excercising our right to encryption now, before it is stolen from us. If crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will use crypto.
Re:Time to start encrypting *everything*. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Freedom of *what*, exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
It can be argued that a t-shirt with this script on it couldn't possibly be piracy, yet there was a controve
Re:Freedom of *what*, exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Time to start encrypting *everything*. (Score:5, Insightful)
I use encryption with my circle of friends... but what about the rest of the people I need to communicate with?
I have two siblings who still *insist* on using malware laden Wintel boxes; I despair of installing anything on their computers.
I'd have to setup & manage everything for my Mum's iMac (from a different contentment)
And what about what my Investment Brokers send me... sometimes it seems they're barely capable of using e-mail (and still want to use fax)
So how in the hell do I get all these people to use encryption when not only are they unaware of the risks they don't understand how to configure & use encryption?
Not a complete answer (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, there's a big sacrifice of security if you have dumb robots designed for convenience doing the key management. You'd need
Re:Time to start encrypting *everything*. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm Spying on Me!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The true "Powers That Be" are the people. As people we have the power to govern our own state and restrict the government's snooping. The NSA can be disbanded, those that broke the rules jailed, and the path of the government reoriented. Unfortunately, a far greater level of education and political will would be required to restore the decision making process to the people. For as long as the people are afraid of terrorists, crime, and the "axis of evil", the people will willingly give up personal freedoms in vain hope of personal security.
Re:I'm Spying on Me!! (Score:4, Insightful)
do we have a God-given right to private conversations? And the answer is clearly no.
How do I come to that conclusion? Simple: ask any representative sample of Americans who believe in God (a prerequisite for believing in God-given anything), and I bet you anything that nearly all of them will tell you that God listens in on all their private conversations, and indeed on all their most secret thoughts, and that this is right and proper. Ergo, God does not recognise any right to privacy, QED.
Your argument allocates the power and privilege of God to the State. While I'm sure Dubya would accept and even applaud this argument, most actual believers would find this troubling.
I trust God with my innermost secrets because, to date, He has not abused this trust. The same cannot be said of the State.
Re:I'm Spying on Me!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Most actual believers will believe and accept what they are told to believe and accept. And they will like it. And they will like making you a
Re:Time to start encrypting *everything*. (Score:3, Funny)
Only terraists... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Only terraists... (Score:2)
Re:Only terraists... (Score:2)
Re:Only terraists... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually this is a very good idea. Bathrooms can be used for many illegal things. A lot of home-made meth labs and bomb labs use the bathtub to mix and prepare chemicals. If we put a camera in every bathroom we will be able to win the War on Terror (tm) AND the War on Drugs (tm) at the same time! Great idea! Thank you, citizen. (/sarcasm)
Re:Only terraists... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only terraists... (Score:2)
Re:Only terraists... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, we can catch people mixing up homebrew TNT or crystal meth, but that only scratches the surface.
Just think of the benefits to be gained in hygene. Currenly there's no point
Re:Only terraists... (Score:2)
Wont Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wont Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reinstituting my previous sig, because I think it says all that needs to be said about this point.
We'd best stop them now! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really want to get a picture of the average American's concern about privacy during a phone conversation just stop and listen for a few minutes at the supermarket or mall to all of the cell phone conversations that are going on so loud that it is hard to ignore them.
Re:We'd best stop them now! (Score:2)
I really doubt you can order THAT over the phone... "Yes I'd like to place a take-out order...
Re:We'd best stop them now! (Score:5, Funny)
YOU are a liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, Bill Clinton certainly did lie under oath. However, he lied under oath about what he was doing with his penis in private -- something a lot of douchebag conservatives would probably lie about, even under oath. And when he lied, noone died. QED.
Now FOAD, you disengenous piece of shit.
Re:We'd best stop them now! (Score:5, Informative)
Bush didn't lie, no matter how many times you say it. Bush acted on the best intelligence he had available.
Sounds like someone needs to educate themselves [downingstreetmemo.com].
The US gov is suffering from bad PR. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The US gov is suffering from bad PR. (Score:4, Funny)
They're in desparate need for a ministry responsible for PR, perhaps a Ministry of Propaganda?
They already have that. [foxnews.com]
Re:The US gov is suffering from bad PR. (Score:3, Insightful)
So the issue isn't really one of trust, it is more one of gullibility
Here's a steaming mug of STFU (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's 6:00 Time For Your Next (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny, WidescreenFreak, how you can be so opposed to my viewpoint, and yet somehow fail to address my post directly. What's the matter? Afraid I'll reply?
And before you think I'm trolling
Too late.
look throughout his posting history.
I could say the
Re:The US gov is suffering from bad Gov. (Score:2)
Re:The US gov is suffering from bad PR. (Score:2)
Re:The US gov is suffering from bad PR. (Score:2, Funny)
Not likely when you shoot the watchers (Score:5, Insightful)
The message: Don't watch the watchers!
We are peasants who need to be ruled, not citizens who govern.
Re:Not likely when you shoot the watchers (Score:4, Interesting)
What really bothers me is that, despite what we might like to be the case, history has borne out this fact. Most human beings who have lived, have lived under the boot of some warlord/king/dictator of some kind. What's more, many of them lived happily under that boot.
Sometimes I wonder if the human race is predisposed to living under tyrannies, and if decomcracy is just a blip, a temporary anomaly in the long story of human servitude.
The War on You and Me (Score:4, Insightful)
We've let the Brits marry into our family on two occassions. One line were Normans, invade with William in 1066, yadda, yadda. From this marriage we've gotten a live conduit into the military history of Britain as the family has served since 1066 in one military capacity or another. After dinner and the fall of the Iron Curtain there was much talk about how America would now have to act as policeman to the world as Britain had for many generations prior. The left wing of the family suggested the U.N. was mature enough to oversee international relations and see to the development and enforcement of international law. Although usually left leaning, I went against my better nature and thought the U.S. would have to assume a role similar to the Gunboat Diplomacy practised by the Brits.
With the erroding of individuals' rights across the economic and political specturms in America, has the War on Drugs been conflated with the War on Terror and these further conflated with the War on Pornography to spawn the now ludicrous war on terror for the children in a move on the part of the American administration to wield a big stick without any thought of walking softly.
Has America as the sole world power failed to lead by example by way of multilateral agreement and sunk into a seige mentality that permits China and Russia to forgo democratic change.
Is the American administration so intent of vanquishing its enemies and making history that it's blind to what history will make of it?
Consensus? We've already got one. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course this audience will blame it all on other people not being as smart, etc., but by a 2-to-1 ratio [go.com], people just aren't worried about it. That would usually qualify as a workable consensus... and makes it hard to gin up that sense of urgency needed to move things, politically.
And, of course, when Canadian intel people used online chat monitoring as part of their bust on those clowns that were busy procuring weapons and explosives to attack the parliment building (and that makes the news for the average viewer), that tends to further lessen the general public's interest in reducing the ability to repeat that success. Let's face it - most people aren't really all that worried if it's clear that they dial everyone they know and send a flurry of text messages at the end of every American Idol episode. Articles and comments by and for the technorati aren't going to ever feel meaningful to most folks (you know, the ones that form the consensus). Just sayin'.
Re:Consensus? We've already got one. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your anecdote represents one side of the public perception, and you're right that there's a disturbing apathy about these things among the population at large.
But there's another side that also makes the news. In the UK, the police now shoot people for g
The ONLY safeguard is (Score:5, Insightful)
Information Leakage (Score:5, Insightful)
Is skype still encrypted all the way? (Score:3, Interesting)
And once again (Score:3, Funny)
Nobody weighs the "good vs. bad" results. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is there no statistic whatsoever? Not even a forged one? Why can't be said "Look, there was this or that attack, and because we did efficient wiretapping it was avoided"? Maybe because there was NOT A SINGLE incident like this?
Instead we have innocents arrested and even shot because they "acted suspiciously" or because "someone thought they were doing something". Who does the bigger damage? The terrorists, or those that claim they're fighting the terror?
First things first (Score:5, Insightful)
First thing we need to do is dispell this lie that there is some kind of "war on terror" going on because you just can't argue agains "war-time necessity." The government is going to get whatever they want as long as they are permitted to invoke "war" as the justifications. There is no "war on terrorism." Terrorism is a tactic. Having a war on terrorism makes about as much sense as having a war on amphibious assaults. If anything, we're at war in Iraq with insurgents in Iraq. But even that scarcely qualifies as war.
While we are at it, there is no war on drugs either. Let's get that out of the way right now. War is between two states or groups of people... not between a state and a noun.
-matthew
the solution (Score:3, Funny)
Wrap tin foil around everything!
How will you know? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who watches the Watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Those who would trade essential liberty for a little bit of temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -Benjamin Franklin
There are also countless quotes about the price of freedom and liberty being risk and eternal vigilence. All of these wouldn't be problems if your neighbors would stand up for themselves and watch eachother. It doesn't take massive spying programs by people with agendas. It takes knowing who lives on your block, who has kids, where people work, and actually KNOWING the people who live around you. So when the situation changes you know something is wrong. I remember growing up if one of us kids weren't at home when we should be every parent in a 2 block radius knew to be on the lookout for us. I also remember 4th of July when everyone on the block got together and had a BBQ. (Oh, and god forbid one of those other adults in the area caught you doing something wrong...you were gunna get nailed by them...and then again when you got home and they told your parents what you were doing). Too many people take the lazy stance of "not my problem". They won't report crimes, they won't watch out for eachother, and they most certainly will not risk anything themselves to help someone out. Society has allowed the government to do this stuff, the majority want this stuff because they want someone to hand them everything and a place to put blame. We, as a society, refuse to police ourselves, so the government is stepping in to do it for us, and most of the populace seems to welcome the change.
Re:There's something else you should worry about.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Correction: (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and the NSA's actions are harmful not only for violating the founding principles of this country (go to China if you want to curtail the rights of the people rather than putting enough effort into creating a solution that protects everything about this country), but has limitless opportunities for abuse by those near the top of the program and those near them. It's also a program that gives very little benefit to fighting terrorism in an age of disposable cell phones and language that won't trigger any filtering programs, instant messaging, and so forth; there's actually much more potential for abuse than for any real good. Anyway, speaking of the way the world's progressing, nothing could be more important that protecting every legal right and liberty we have, because quite frankly, the people of the West no longer have the capability of popular revolution in the case that things got really bad; imagine if Washington had tried to stage the American Revolution while the British had the armaments of today's military.
Oh, and that brings me to my last point. The worst parts about the NSA and Patriot Act and such is that Al-Qaeda is not that much of a threat to the US. In fact, it's not really a threat at all. We are not up against vast armies or comparable weaponry. With the amount of power that the United States has from its economic and politial clout to the sheer behemoth might of our military and vast superiority of technology, I'd count 9/11 as more of a lucky sucker-punch due to bureaucratic stupidity, and a suicidal one at that. Terrorism is not the Nazi Germany of today, nor the equivalent of the dangers of the Cold War. The only thing needed to stop terrorism is more hard work and careful planning, that's all. There was no need for a war against a country that had nothing to do with bin Laden that killed thousands of innocents, there was never any need for a Patriot Act, nor giving the NSA and CIA blanket authority to do whatever they want.