Appeals Decision in USTA vs. FCC (CALEA) 99
Note that this case is fundamentally about money: the telecom carriers are suing the government because they feel that the government's desired surveillance abilities (mandated under the 1996 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act; this is where Carnivore was born) are too expensive to implement. If the government provided more money (half a billion tax dollars were given to the phone companies when CALEA was passed, but the companies want more), these objections would evaporate.
So there weren't any principles of privacy involved, at least in the beginning. But some civil liberties groups have grabbed on the shirt-tails of this case to make principled arguments - that the surveillance requirements are too burdensome and intrusive in principle, not just too costly. So this is actually a good result where the Court mostly agreed with the civil liberties people that the surveillors should have to get warrants for some of the information they were seeking to get without warrants, and other information may be unavailable entirely. Note however that "call location" information (the ability of cellular carriers to report to the cops which cell phone tower your phone is registered with, and therefore, probably where you are) will still be available to law enforcement.
Re:I like your thoughts (Score:1)
As a Christian I firmly believe in the morals that once made this country the greatest in the world before self-worshipping atheists and liberals told people that committing sins like drug use, extra-marital sex and sodomy were "lifestyle" choices rather than actions with consequences for your eternal soul.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I consider people like yourself the reason why the U.S. has all but given up on Liberty. Think about this, if you will: If it weren't for religion, 90% of all wars that have occurred over the history of mankind would never have happened. This is just my personal estimate, but I think most people would agree that it's pretty damn close. Not everyone wants to live like you. I respect your personal morals, and in fact I live by similar morals. But with all due respect, you don't have one god damn right to tell me whether or not I should use drugs or have pre-marital sex, and neither should the U.S. Government.
If you truly believe in the Libertarian roots of the U.S. Constitution, vote for Harry Brown [harrybrowne.org] this election year. If you don't have a clue what the Libertarian party is all about, please spend some time to educate yourself. The U.S. needs less government, not more.
Telcos just aren't upset about the money (Score:1)
While the money did quiet the objections, don't think the telcos are happy about CALEA either.
Re:The FBI was probably worse under Bush (Score:1)
The Republicans always talk about Clinton violating the law by perjuring himself. I consider what happened under the republicans to be a far greater threat to me.
Re:The FBI was probably worse under Bush (Score:1)
Oliver North was convicted. His convictions were thrown out on appeal on the grounds that the evidence was tainted by evidence he gave under immunity.
Check this [webcom.com] for a list of convictions, a summary, etc. Bush pardoned six of the convicted government officials.
And in general, what would you rather have your president do: lie about schtupping some floozy, or sell arms to terrorism-sponsoring countries generally hostile to the United States?
Gay? (Score:1)
Cellphone Encryption is a Joke (Score:1)
Judge with a Clue, Law Enforcement Disaster! (Score:1)
Louis Freeh, eat my shorts.
Re:Costly vs. Principle (Score:1)
--
Re:Cellphone Encryption is a Joke (Score:1)
The thing to note here is the paternalism in the system design: ideally, handsets would use strong crypto that would be end-to-end, and not decrypted once on the wireline network. But nooo, that would not be good for us. One could infer from this that preserving unencrypted speech as the most common traffic in the PSTN is important to some law enforcement or, more likley intelligence function, like, for example, the use of speaker identification on a wide scale.
Re:I like your thoughts (Score:1)
Re:This is acceptable... (Score:1)
Re:Face it... (Score:1)
Re:This is Great (Score:1)
(umm.. joke)
Re:The FBI was probably worse under Bush (Score:1)
Re:Imagine... (Score:1)
Re:I like your thoughts (Score:1)
easy! (Score:1)
just install a little chip ala cartman's v-chip which shocks the little piggies every time they break the law!
unfortunately it wouldn't be long before most major cities were overrun with the smell of bacon.
...dave
Re:This is a red herring. (Score:1)
First, most of the FBI agents I've met seem like reasonable guys and I rather doubt they'd break the law. Second, even if they did it wouldn't do them any good -- any evidence obtained in consequence would be inadmissible in court:
I really do not mean to be derogatory, but you are being very naive in this case. A typical situation goes like this: The LEA suspects that a person is doing something illegal. They use some sort of unconstitutional method to find this out. They then backtrack to find "clues" that would have led them to that conclusion, but this time the clues are constitutional.
Example: FBI suspects John Smith of selling marijuana. They tap his cell phone, sure enough he's selling some amount to Joe Slashdot. The cell phone tap was illegal; they didn't have a warrant. So they get a local cop to pull him over on a routine traffic stop, search his car, and whoo-HOO what do we have here Mr. Smith?
Badda bing, badda boom. The original means used to determine that Smith was selling pot were unconstitutional. But they busted him anyway just by coincindentally having a local cop help them out.
- Rev.Re:This is Great (Score:1)
They're welcome to ask all they like. In most cases, the answer will and should be "Request Denied".
/.
Re:This is acceptable... (Score:1)
-- P.J. O'Rourke
Re:This is a red herring. (Score:1)
DA: So you found Mr Gambino on the docks with a container of cocaine?
Cop: Yes.
Defense: How did you know to look for Mr Gambino on the docks at that place and time?
Cop: We read his email.
Defense: Motion to strike evidence -- Fruit of the Poisoned Vine.
Judge: Granted. Case dismissed.
IANAL.
Good to see freedom MAINTAINED (Score:1)
The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, and this is one vigilant action.
There are those who worry about corporations acquiring too much data, and violating your privacy. This can be troublesome, but not as bad as a government that can compel actions under threat of imprisonment. So long as there aren't monopolies, you can always chose to deal with another corp.
Re:This is a red herring. (Score:1)
But if the cops were illegally reading email, then they would have to show that they gained nothing from that email. In other words, they would always have to check out anonymous tips:
Defense: Do you always check out anon tips?
Cop: No.
Defense: What made you check out this one?
Cop: I felt it in my bones.
Defense: Have you read his email?
Cop: Yes.
Judge: Case dismissed {?}
Of course, this is getting into a very hazy area, and I don't know what the "tainting" threshold is.
Of course, your second point is entirely valid. Information can always be used in other ways. This is one of the principle threats of police powers.
It isn't discovering evidence that leads to a police state but rather discovering blackmail material. And that's just what an evesdropping dragnet turns up. Just why do you think the heads of the KGB and Stasi were so powerful, and often headed their governments? This thing autocatalyses, and people become informers out of self-protection and to curry favor.
Re:I don't have one, either (Score:1)
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
Re:Costly vs. Principle (Score:1)
Gah freebeerware morons (Score:1)
Oh brother (Score:1)
None. Stop talking outta your ass.
They just showed up at the discussion table.
Re:Face it... (Score:1)
I hate fucking paper chases. Nothing in the world other than the equations for general relativity require so much paper. State your case simply and I may have the info.
Re:Wrong.. (Score:1)
Re:Anyone who commits a crime with a cell phone (Score:1)
Heh... For many midrange computerised scanners, a bandplan modification is pretty easy; it usually requires only a computer interface for the scanner (usually commercially available) and software (sometimes shareware or freeware will do the trick). And most are designed so that the manufacturers can easily produce unrestricted versions for countries where there aren't any restrictions on selling such gear (e.g. Canada), which usually means at most an easy hardware modification.
Evading Pen Registers, Legally (Score:1)
In order to defeat this tactic, the LEAs will be forced to apply for phone tap warrants, for which they need to meet a much more exacting legal standard than the one that applies to pen registers.
This is obviously an anomaly, and I doubt that it will stand indefinitely. But before it can be corrected, the court has made clear that the FCC and the industry must demonstrate the ability to filter out "content" information from call-relaying information in post-calling-card-number dialed digits.
Man, if I were an FCC commisioner, I'd be pretty embarrassed at the blunt language the judge used to smack down the Commission. "Lack of reasoned decisionmaking"! That's gotta hurt!
Re:This is Great (Score:1)
Re:This is Great (Score:1)
However, what I do for my job COULD be duplicated by someone with the right experience.
Besides, my personal life is just that.. MY PERSONAL LIFE.. The government exists to do things that our state govts. can't. And I can manage my own life thank you very much...
Re:This is acceptable... (Score:1)
Re:I hate your thoughts (sheesh) (Score:1)
Clinton's "perjury" (Score:1)
First, he wasn't. Second (what follows is a common European point of view), if he had been, it would have been on a non-subject, and on a question he should never have been asked. This kind of privacy must be respected whether you're John Doe or the president of the USA, period.
Re:I hate your thoughts (sheesh) (Score:1)
It's "Huguenot" (which basically means "protestant").
Re:The FBI was probably worse under Bush (Score:1)
Perjury and contempt of court aren't really that different. Perjury is of course the act of lying under oath, and contempt of court is doing anything that may be seen as a hostile act towards the court. Lying can be construed as hostile. In fact, depending on the circumstances, they can actually hit you with contempt as well as or i/o perjury.
=================================
Re:I like your thoughts (Score:1)
Because one of the basic principles of law (in the USA) is "innocent until proven guilty." Say that the FBI only eavesdrops on people who it believes to be violating the law (I'm not saying that this isn't the case, but then again, I'm not necessarily saying that it is). If it then eavesdrops on someone who turns out not to be guilty at all, then an innocent person's rights have been violated. Not good.
The same thing goes for other such "good faith" laws that are in effect. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement officials may search whatever they feel is necessary to search whenever they feel it is necessary to do so, provided that they have a good faith belief that they are doing it "by the rules." OK, but what happens when someone is subjected to an illegal search, but cannot take any legal action because, oh gee, the police *thought* they were doing it legally? Regardless of whether the party being subjected to the search is guilty or not, allowing law enforcement such power based on "belief" can be a very bad thing. Not only does it create the possibility of innocent citizens being subjected to illegal searches, but it also has a potential for abuse. [Cop searches home/car/whatever based on a hunch, knowing full well that it is an illegal search. Then when it goes to court, said cop states (untruthfully of course) that s/he was doing it in "good faith."]
Don't get me wrong here -- I fully support going after those who break the law. However, the rights of the innocent must be carefully protected as well.
=================================
Re:I like your thoughts (Score:1)
One of the reasons we have freedom of religion in this country (the U.S.) is because the last time we tried to have a "pure" religiously run Christian state, the leaders of that state ended up hanging missionaries of another Christian religion (Quakers). The leaders of Boston hung Mary Dyer for speaking about her religious beliefs [mayflowerfamilies.com] on June 1, 1660 on Boston Commons, and had hung at least 2 other Quakers the previous year. This culminated a series of oppressions against Quakers that included fines, whipping, branding, and boring holes through the tongue. The oppression officially ended following orders from the British governmet. While this part of the history of Massachusetts is generally not taught, it's out there to be found. Eventually a statue of Mary Dyer was erected in Boston.
When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, both the early American history and the European history of religious wars was in their minds, which is why we have the Bill of Rights and particularly the prohibition on the establishment of religion by the government.
This is why I don't have a cell phone (Score:1)
That's the problem with anything that maintains a continuous connection with other equipment. It can be tracked easily. Even if you encrypt your conversation, your physical location can still be found.
Maybe a dynamic DNS server using my laptop over a cell modem would provide enough layers of abstraction to keep somebody from finding me quickly. I wouldn't count on it though, unless you change your IP address once every ten minutes or so. That might do it.
Re:I like your thoughts (Score:1)
Re:Gah freebeerware morons (Score:1)
Re:I like your thoughts (Score:1)
Re:Gah freebeerware morons (Score:1)
Surprise, /. inhabitants are not uniformly "freebeerware morons". Not even all morons. Yes, since I am a businessman, I have indeed heard of services, and I have no particular fetish for the Free Software Movement.
However, you entirely missed the point by a barn-sized margin. The point isn't about cost structure, but the danger in hiding behind cost as a reason for not invading privacy. Cost structures can collapse unexpectedly, as any basic econ class would teach you. The right to privacy is inherent in the person, not the convenience.
Re:I like your thoughts (Score:1)
Laws are meant to protect _everybody_.
Why should the guilty be allowed the same rights as everybody else? They've gone out of their way to invade other people's rights - they deserve everything they get. Protecting criminals only leads to them getting away with it and comitting more crime.
Heck, the way you put it, we might as well just shoot anybody that we think might have committed a crime.
Don't be silly. The punishment must fit the crime.
The definition of crime evolves like everything else.
Yes, according to the wonders of liberal "philosophy" you're correct. But for those of us with a more enlightened outlook, morality has dictated what is a crime since Moses received the Commandments, and those definitions are eternal.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Re:I like your thoughts (Score:1)
And another thing, why is it that you are enlightened and liberals aren't? Why does morality define a crime? Christian morality accepted, and then perpetuated, the idea of africans as a sub-species or second class citizens. A fair number of white supremicists are God fearing people such as your self, subscribing to all the morals set forth in the bible.
Freedom requires eternal vigilance. -- Thomas Jefferson
Re:Hiding behind mother's skirt? (Score:1)
If these groups want to challenge measures such as Carnivore, then let them to it alone, rather than hanging on the coattails of a real court action.
But why do you consider the protection of privacy to be detrimental ? This is very different from the Pork Barrel that politicians attach to bills.
Re:Payphones not tapped??? Bwahhaaaa! (Score:1)
If you have to have a land-line, get an ISDN-based voice phone. Because of the way ISDN is encoded, this will prevent all intercept up to the first electronics.
do you really think that you cant intercept isdn up to the first electronics?
BZZT..
really, it probably being done right now.
buy a STU III, thats secure enough:)
Re:This is Great (Score:1)
This from someone posting anonymously. If you have a user account, you obviously concern yourself with moderation enough to try and dodge it.
And where exactly does homosexuality come in? Did I miss a poll that linked sexuality with moderation? I seem to see a lot of people using the word "gay" in contexts where it doesn't belong.
Re:Gay? (Score:1)
He was clearly not using the word "gay" to mean "happy," so why was he using it? Is he genuinely homophobic, and thinks that anything bad or stupid or generally "uncool" is "gay" ?
Anyone who commits a crime with a cell phone (Score:1)
Think of it as a basic intelligence test for a criminal, do I want to advertise my criminal scheme over a public airwave where anyone with a good scanner can listen in, or do I want to use a payphone where the probability of tapping is slim.
So what if you can still determine the location by triangulation, in general, that's a good thing when you use your cell phone for emergencies, because you're rarely home when you use your cell phone.
I suppose the most secure telephone conversations would be IP-phones with encryption, any links fellow
Re:This is Great (Score:1)
This place is full of bloody hypocrites. You demand that companies Open Source their software so you can snoop and pry in the code, but God forbid your government ask to take a little peek at your private life.
Re:This is Great (Score:1)
Re:Payphones not tapped??? Bwahhaaaa! (Score:1)
This makes intelligible intercept difficult from a point in the middle of the circut, which does not have access to the originating data.
This has been a problem for the industry, so much so that most ISDN test instrumentation does not include the most basic monitoring features, execept at the ST and TE points in the path.
Now, having said this, it is not impossible to decode raw 2B1Q from the middle, it is just very unlikely that the local cop is going to have such equipment in the trunk of his car. Neither is the local phone guy. After the first electronics, however, the signaling is all standard 64K channel, the CO guy can hear all..
I agree about the STU III, but they aren't perfect, either ;)
Payphones not tapped??? Bwahhaaaa! (Score:1)
You can expect to find this setup on payphones in seedier bars, courthouses and police stations (oh, yes!), transit centers, and high schools.
Certain types of cell phones offer the greatest security. Get any CDMA-based pay-cash-in-advance cellphone from you local convienience store for about a hundred bucks, use nefariously while riding about, wipe fingerprints from same, slosh a little vodka over it, and throw in convienient river. No intercept, no billing record, no owner record, no location data, just an ESN they can track to the local wholesaler, who has no idea who bought the damn thing.
If you have to have a land-line, get an ISDN-based voice phone. Because of the way ISDN is encoded, this will prevent all intercept up to the first electronics.
I love this country...
Re:This is acceptable... (Score:2)
Imagine married couples who are tagged to make sure every moment of thier lives are honest and with thier partner. Imagine our social lives being enforced with the law so we will be sure we do not make mistakes. The last bit of freedom we have ever known can be controlled by our government if you wish. Its all about privacy and freedom.
Re:Orwellian Tourettes (Score:2)
Re:"sanctity" has no legal relevance (Score:2)
Re:"sanctity" has no legal relevance (Score:2)
The constitution reserves a special place for religious interests in American jurisprudence, just as it does for alcohol via the 18th and 21st amendments. If you disagree with this fact, then the intellectually honest thing to do would be to seek a constitutional amendment.
Re:I like your thoughts (Score:2)
Certainly! For instance, when a cop is caught violating the Fourth Amendment, we need to be send him to prison (real don't-bend-over-for-the-soap prison, not Club Fed).
I'd watch this thread to see if you 1)endorse this position, or 2)prove yourself to be a hypocrite.
/.
Re:"sanctity" has no legal relevance (Score:2)
There are established legal principles pertaining to different levels of expected privacy. For instance, if I talk to someone on the street, a police officer who happens to be within listening range can listen, because I have minimal expectation of privacy. However, if I deliberately move out of range or ask the officer to do so, the police can't continue listening without some grounds for suspicion, because my expectation of privacy is higher once I specifically do something to protect it. (Note: The case law [state.ny.us] in the U.S. is pretty clear that asserting privacy against the police is not in itself sufficient cause.)
Obviously, a confessional has just about the highest expectation of privacy -- certainly, a higher expectation than a pesonal request not backed by strong institutional tradition. The fact that the "strong institutional tradition" in this case happens to be religious is irrelevant; government in the U.S. is no more supposed to discriminate against a religion than to discriminate in its favor.
/.
Re:Clinton's "perjury" (Score:2)
Wrong.
Clinton's alleged perjury was not just a matter of lying in response to an immaterial question about his sexual conduct. (And nobody really cares if he slept with someone not his wife, or has a thing for redheads, amputees, or sheep, none of which would be an impeachable offense.)
It was about his testimony in a sexual harrassment lawsuit, where such perjury would constitute an obstruction of justice, denying a victim her fair trial. That IS an impeachable offense - especially when committed by someone whose position includes being "the chief law enforcement officer of the land".
As a result of his (allegedly?) getting away with it, the sexual harrassment laws of the United States have now become effectively moot. Offenders now use the "Clinton defense" and generally get off.
Re:Anyone who commits a crime with a cell phone (Score:2)
Actually, triangulation will not be allowed under this ruling. The only requirement for Cellular carriers will be to provide the location of the tower handling the call. The court rightly felt that triangulation "could undermine individual privacy" because triangulating a persons position based on towers turns a cell phone into a tracking device.
Linkage (Score:2)
Re:"sanctity" has no legal relevance (Score:2)
The truth of this statement hinges on what you mean by "confessional". Are you refering to the box in a church where you sit, or the act itself? If the former, yes, there is a strong expectation of privacy, backed by the institution you are in. But the discussion was of a confessional over the phone, which has no more expectation of privacy than any other phone conversation.
The legal effect of confessionals upon wiretapping laws is and should be nill. The admissibility of such tapes should, IMHO be no different than that of phone tap records of calls to suicide hotlines, rape crisis centers or pregnancy crisis hotlines, all of which have an expectation of privacy and anonymity. To set any contact with a priest above other private contacts, and protect against even the chance of breaking "sanctity" as the original poster suggested is discrimination in favor of a religion over similar, non-religious services.
Oh, and while I am not Catholic, I have a greater expectation of privacy when I have extracted a personal promise from a friend than from a bored guy sitting in a box. Basing legal protections on "expectations" seems guarenteed to discriminate against the social minorities, especially if it is the majority's expectations that matter and not those personally invoved in the transaction.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:Imagine... (Score:2)
Slippery slope arguments are intellectually bankrupt. Its nothing but the argument ad absurduim - "I can't find a problem with this idea, so I'll exagerate it beyond reason and find a problem with that. Then I'll pretend that its the same thing."
Legal arguments by rational people are about rational extensions of the topic at hand. If you need to make your slope slippery to show how one thing could lead to another, you are just fearmongering.
Rational extention - allowing police to stop cars based on "gut instinct" has been shown to lead to the use of racially tinted "profiles". If there was a proposal to let cops evesdrop on cell phones on the same "instinct" one could rationally worry that similar profiling trends would emerge.
Slippery Slope - Some people might like to have GPS locaters for emergencies, and similar devices could be used to enforce house arrests or restraining orders on convicted criminals. Oh no! This means that the government will track every single person at every moment of the day and criminally charge people who spend too much time with a dot not their spouse!
History has proven it's entirely unreasonable to rely on arbitrary stopping points.
Rationality shows that all stopping points can seem arbitrary. Legally enforced stop lights and speed limits are not the first step to a police trafic state where you enter where you want to go in your car and a government bot tells you exactly what route to take and how fast to go at each second along the way. Laws against rape are not the first step to a reproductive police state where people are only allowed to have sex once a year in government aproved pairing.
Slippery slopes got so slippery from all the mental masturbation people do to create them. If you want to slip on your own mental jizz, go ahead, but I prefer a rational anaylis of what is.
-Kahuna Burger
Religiously neutral laws (Score:2)
However, the law which is seen to "interfere" with this is neutral, or we might even say orthogonal, to religion. The SJC has on several recent occasions made it clear that a religiously neutral law (one which is in no way "aimed" at a particular religion) is binding even on the religious. They have even struck down a federal law meant to say the opposite.
Example time. Horse drawn vehicles are slower, less manuverable and have a panicable animal attached to them. Therefore, traffic laws generally require them to have visible reflective hazzard signs attached if they are using the same streets as cars. In most places this only impacts on those who drive such vehicles to make money or as a hobby. In the Pennsylvania Dutch country, there are also the Amish who drive horse drawn vehicles as part of their faith, and also don't like bright shiny signs.
One could argue that forcing them to put signs on their buggies interferes with the Amish faith and should be forbidden under the 1st amendment. However, the laws are orthogonal to the amish religion. They address only a practical matter of safety, and to compromise that safety because it happens to interfere with a religious action (as opposed to belief) is to grant special legal status to a religious group, which would be the real 1st ammendment violation.
The practice of getting warrents to tap phones is orthogonal to religion. To adjust the practice because it may intefere with religious action of one particular denomination is to give special rights to Catholics. To get silly for a moment, if the Catholic church cannot survive this neutral law, it is no more the government's problem than if my theoretical church requires that I go directly to church every sunday without stopping and I keep getting trafic tickets for running red lights. As long as a law was not implemented against a particular religion, the side effects on a religion are just tough nookie.
To soften my earlier stance somewhat however, I will again grant that a preist may constituationally be granted the same status as other non-licensed counselors. I object however, to the idea that this would be done to protect the Church, rather than being done in the same spirit of personal privacy as protections for doctors, lawyers or rape crisis centers. And in the same line, such privilege should not be any more of an argument against the act of phone tapping, it just effects whether such conversations are then admissable in court. The religious right to never be heard, as opposed to a legal right of confidentiality, I remain contemptuous of.
-Kahuna Burger
Orwellian Tourettes (Score:2)
It seems that some people have a need to say "1984" and think that it is an argument when faced with any discussion that includes the words "tracking" or "survillance". This sad and socially damaging form of the Tourettes syndrome often appears amoung people who have not actually read the book in question, and never includes an understanding of the complexity of the world described therein. Associated behaviours include squaking out the phrases "slippery slope!" and "nanny state!", the inclusion of elipses to appear thoughtful, and spasmodic leaps from voluntary or warrented systems to survelance of every person on earth.
Unfortunately any attempt to medicate for this problem only results in an increase in the "nanny state" eruptions, rather than reducing overall squaking.
-Kahuna Burger
Imagine... (Score:2)
Imagine a discussion on slashdot where the ideas were actually discussed instead of plunging into a hysterical pit of slippery slope arguments. Naw, that could never happen.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:"sanctity" has no legal relevance (Score:2)
However, to let that exercise break religiously neutral laws would give the religious more rights than the irreligious, thus establishing religion, forbidden by same ammendment. The logical and traditional approach has been to say that no law can target a religious practice, but a neutral and justifyable law that happens to interfere with a specific religious practice will be enforced. If my building's fire code prohibits open flame, it doesn't matter if candles are on a pagan alter, a birthday cake or a menorah, the law speaks only of flame. Because the law was not passed "regarding the free exercise of religion" it is enforced evenly on all to avoid "an establishment thereof".
The first ammendment protection of religious exercise prevents congress from passing laws whose only or primary intent is to inhibit religious exercise. Considering the second, establishment clause, it cannot be taken to protect any exercise which you choose to call religious from being regulated by neutral law.
The SJC understands this ballance perfectly, it is congress that has been a little on the dense side.
-Kahuna Burger
Because it's not just a financial matter? (Score:2)
In fact, because policy favors consolidation of cases, attaching all the parties to the case is favored by the courts and laws (that's why there are provisions in the law to do so). That way the courts don't have to hear the same facts and arguments twice.
Re:Lucky! We still have to put up with the RIP Bil (Score:2)
Well, I think the problem with RIP is that the government didn't want to loose face but knew it was in trouble (IIRC, it got through with a majority of one vote), and to be honest they never wanted to admit that they were technically incompetent. If they had, they wouldn't have let this one through. It was a rush job put through a bit of gentle pressure from the law enforcement agenices who wanted to be seen to be doing something. Expect a new RIP bill to be presented to parliament within 5 years at a guess.
Re:Lucky! We still have to put up with the RIP Bil (Score:2)
To say that we live in a state where "law enfocement bodies now have the right to walk all over us" is a redundant and rather stupid statement. We live in a state whereby democratic politics is allowed. Would you rather live in a country where surveillance is carried out, but you're never told about it? Or would you rather have the ability to state that the laws are wrong and vote for those parties that promise to abolish those laws once you vote for them? Oh, I know, we don't have any of those rights do we. Except that "Mother of all Parliaments" thing that we have.
I find your attitude (in that you imply the suggestion we are unable to do anything about laws to which we are morally repulsed) quite hilarious. You don't happen to be a researcher on the Mark Thomas Comedy product do you?
Secondly, everybody knows that the RIP bill is unenforcable, and will fall at the first hurdle when tested in a court of law. To think otherwise is again, stupid and mildy amusing on your part. Yet again, you have assumed that The Government will show no respect for the legal system, and will just bang us all up in prison for even suggesting that they should give us freedoms. Oh, and they'll probably stop us from being able to vote as well. Britain is soooo like that.
What I always find really, really, really amusing about all these people (like yourself) who complain about the RIP bill, is that you didn't realise that the Interception of Communications Act had been in place for years. The only differene between the RIP bill and the IOCA is that the RIP bill extended responsibility for interception to ISPs as well as Telcos, the IOCA required a secretary of state to sign the warrant rather than senior police officer, and the RIP bill discusses crypto. If somebody wanted to intercept your traffic, they always could, it's just now going to be the case that the operations will be cheaper to run. Oh, and they'll tell you about wanting your key rather than finding it themselves on a supercomputer somewhere....
Oh, and there is one more thing. Do you honestly think that the Police or the Government really have the time, resources, or even slight inclination to give a damn about you? They're stretched to the teeth already - this law is designed to assist in the capture of major drug smugglers and their kin, not some warez kiddie who posts hilarious and ridiculous political statements on slashdot. If you're not a criminal, this law will never even affect you - ever. As an ISP admin, it may affect me, and I am prepared to install any equipment that the Government ask me to install, and run any interception required providing that the appropriate warrants have been filled in correctly and in adequate time.
Face it... (Score:2)
The only way to be truly secure is to 1) Assume that if the law enforcement agencies even slightly suspect any wrong-doing on your part, that they're going to go ahead and wiretap, read your email, listen to your cell phone and cordless conversations and then work out the legal details later. And 2) Use strong encryption (this has been said a million times), don't use cell or cordless phones for important information, shred your important documents, etc. etc. Be as paranoid as you can.
How come no one threw a fit when people realized that you could listen to your neighbor's phone conversations with a RadioShit scanner? Oh...that's right, they gave us the ability to change the channels. WOOHOOOO!
--
Re:This is why I don't have a cell phone (Score:2)
I thought when analogue phones died a death 5 years ago that we were all safe from eavesdropping.
Re:This is a red herring. (Score:2)
If you simply assume collusion between the police and the courts and therefore say they can always "get around" the law, then you've essentially given up on civil society. I haven't yet. That's why it's important to establish in principle that such actions are illegal.
Actually, "sanctity" DOES have legal relevance (Score:2)
Although it's easy to argue this is invalid under the First Amendment, it's also relatively easy to argue it is valid, interestingly under exactly the same amendment. I can speak only of Roman Catholicism, since that's my background. The sanctity of the confessional is a key part of the Rite of Reconciliation, which the Church holds to be a sacrament and a core of the belief system. Even the Pope cannot order a priest to violate that sanctity. The assumption is that the confessor is acting like a telecom device and that the confessee is speaking directly to God.
If people didn't believe in the sanctity of the confessional, they very well might avoid confession of sins. In the eyes of the Church, this puts them at risk of damnation, which is (of course) a failure of the Church's mission. Therefore, breaking the sanctity of the confessional directly and massively impedes the practice of Roman Catholicism -- so the First Amendment (it can be argued) extends its protection across this practice.
I believe that is the argument used, although I hardly claim to be an expert, or even to play one on TV.
Lucky! We still have to put up with the RIP Bill.. (Score:2)
Seriously, take a look at some of the scenarios below:
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl/scenarios. html [man.ac.uk]
Consider yourselves lucky you live in an enlightened coutry and not a polic state like ourselves.
This is a red herring. (Score:2)
FBI Guy #2: "What? We don't have a warrant! We can't possibly look at that information."
(they laugh)
Use encryption, use encryption, use encryption. Short of sniffing people's email and posting it on the web ("What? You had no expectation of privacy."), how can we convince the average AOLer that this is something he has to do?
Re:This is Great (Score:2)
I dunno, a stale pizza, a box of tissues and a copy of Quake would be close enough for most purposes.
Re:I like your thoughts (Score:2)
This is Great (Score:2)
Costly vs. Principle (Score:2)
the surveillance requirements are too burdensome and intrusive in principle, not just too costly.
Too costly is never a good platform to debate from. In technology, the price drops are too precipitious. Principle will last long after "costly" is history.
Why the FBI wants to spy (Score:2)
To the police at any level everyone else is either a 'suspect' or a potential 'suspect'. In order to do law enforcement work people have to be dehumanized; they can't be your friends. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to slap hand cuffs on a good friend and throw them into a cage? People to whom this is NOT difficult are psychopaths, is that who you want policing you?
Once you understand that the FBI sees all of us as their enemies their requests for surveillance begin to make sense. All that is necessary is for you to attract their attention to be watched.
For example this posting is enough for me to get their attention and be a target for surveillance - after all I am speaking against them - so I must be their enemy - which means I must be one of the bad guys.
However, it is not necessary to speak out against a law enforcement agency to draw attention. It is enough to be one of those 'hacker types' who post to a known rabble rousing site like Slashdot to draw attention. Remember, despite your politics or views if you are not part of a law enforcement agency you are their enemy and a criminal who just hasn't been caught yet.
That is why you need to be afraid of surveillance capabilities. It also why law enforcement never apologizes when it breaks down the wrong door on a drug bust; the attitude is "Well we just didn't get you this time - but your turn is coming."
Re:Why the FBI wants to spy (Score:2)
The point of trolling is to be able to say 'HAW HAW I FOOLED YOU'. Exactly how would I do that based on my original post? All trolling is based on the illusion of power that the troll gets from fooling people. I realize that the troll is getting an illusion of power. People only chase illusions when they don't know they are chasing illusions.
The comments about 'us vs. them' came from my observation of personal acquaintances who became police officers. They were backed up by comments of retired and active duty police officers who noted the same phenomenon.
Bonding in any social group is a well known phenomenon - it is a primary force in the military, fraternities, scout troops, and sports teams, as well as law enforcement agencies.
The reason it takes on 'us vs. them' in police agencies is that mostly, the police see humanity AT ITS ABSOLUTE WORST - and interactions with people outside of law enforcement while on duty are almost always negative in nature. It does not take many of these interactions before a new officer begins to see everybody as a potential 'suspect'.
Also remember that to those who work inside the legal - everyone who doesn't is not 'working inside the legal system'. While the conscious mind sees the difference between 'working outside the legal system' and 'not working inside the legal system' the primitive subconscious mind does not. This causes law enforcement people to be subconsciously suspicious of people.
In addition, because officers have hazardous duty, they must necessarily be very skeptical and view anyone they talk to as a potential threat to them.
The 'us vs. them' mentality is an almost inevitable outcome of the nature of police work. The only way for police officers to combat it is for them to be aware of it and take training to combat it.
Re:This is Great (Score:2)
tealover posts a cynical little one-liner, unsupported by any specifics, and he gets modded up to 3 and "Insightful."
In response, somebody posts some specific examples, which sets off some other specific responses, and they get modded down to 0. Not even an "Off-topic" to explain why.
Could someone explain this to me?
Hiding behind mother's skirt? (Score:2)
I agree totally that if the FBI or the NSA want to have the ability to read people's email then they should be ones paying for it - to do otherwise is to reduce the ability of ISPs to compete in the market, which is to be avoided (unlike in the UK where the government couldn't seem to care less about how much ISPs are going to suffer from the costs of implemented their RIP bill). Given that these agencies have a considerable budget already I'm sure they can afford it.
But why do civil liberty groups feel the need to get involved in what is nothing more than a financial matter between ISPs and the agencies involved? Is it because they have finally realised that the average American would rather have this system in place than suffer continued terrorist violence and paedophile rings, and they are now trying to sneak such court cases in through the backdoor? Whenever politicians attach riders to bills with a completely unrelated and detrimental content people on /. are up in arms - how is this any different?
If these groups want to challenge measures such as Carnivore, then let them to it alone, rather than hanging on the coattails of a real court action.
Don't you care about standards in government? (Score:3)
You seem to think that just because the legislation is unenforceable, that's OK. Why? Don't you believe that people who are trusted to govern our country should be expected to go about their business in a competent way and to generate legislation in which we can be proud, rather than a foul smelling heap of rubbish?
I just can't understand your complacency. You're letting them get away with utter incompetence and total disregard for the views of the people they govern, and to ignore with impunity the opinions of those who are far more technically competent than they are.
as a voluntary service,.. (Score:3)
that kind of thing might be neat and fun, especially if you could turn it off at will... if it was just a wrist-band or something.
but as something the gov't and liberty-trampling police organizations can make use of to invade my privacy without any notice, i resent it.
it's not about whether it might be useful or fun as a toy, it's about other people having the ability to invade your privacy without you ever knowing anything about it.
i don't really want the whole world to know, for instance, what kind of porn i prefer, or even something as trivial as what stores and restaurants i frequent.
these are things that only the people i choose to tell and associate with should know, not something any little piggy can find out with the push of a few buttons.
if you don't see the threat of these kinds of things, i really don't know what to tell you except put down the crack pipe.
...dave
hello! mcfly! (Score:3)
ok, putting aside the fact that this can and would be used to invade the privacy of innocent people (probably more often than guilty people), even the guilty have rights until they are proven so, and that means they have rights against the methods that are used to prove them guilty.
you cannot say 'hey that guy looks like a guy who would rob a kwik-e-mart!' and then go up to him and take his fingerprints, or search his house for the clothes the robber wore.
without the requirement of getting a warrant (and even then i don't like it), these kinds of surveillance capabilities are too much power put in the hands of ignorant piggies.
attitudes like yours are facilitating the police state that we live in.
as the snooty waiter in ferris bueller says :
i weep for the future.
...dave
Re:Why the FBI wants to spy (Score:3)
There is probably a good argument somewhere, that to try and limit the divergence, any law enforcement "agency" should structurally have some pretty strong feedback loops from the society back into the agency, even at the expense of some of the agency's efficiency.
On the other hand, it might not limit the efficiency much at all - a cooperative public with a great deal of trust in its law enforcement would probably provide a helluva lot more benefits than a public which distrusts its law enforcement and provides obstruction whereever it can get away with it (cases of which have been thoroughly documented between corrupt police departments & poor neighborhoods who don't have the power to change anything).
Re:This is a red herring. (Score:3)
Cop: Yes.
Defense: How did you know to look for Mr Gambino on the docks at that place and time?
Cop: Anonymous tip.
Judge: Good enough.
Just because the FBI can not use a piece of evidence in court, does not mean they cannot use the evidence at all. And, as in my example above, with the legality of anonymous tips it no longer matters where the evidence was dug up.
Triangulation should be allowed. (Score:3)
Its perfectly fine that it not be required of the phone company, but triangulation should be allowed and performed under certain circumstances. The most obvious is when there is a cut off 911 call and a call-back is not answered. Depending on what if any information was transmitted before the cut off, police should be able to get the location of the phone and respond.
Of course there are those who wold assume that any ability given to LEOs will lead to random harrassment of geeks, and those who would consider even the above situation to be an invasion of privacy, but what can you do?
-Kahuna Burger
"sanctity" has no legal relevance (Score:3)
If they have a warrent to listen to the calls of either you or your priest, yes, they have the right to listen to your confessional. In the eyes of the law, your "confessional" with your preist should be no more significant than if I call a friend and say "I have to tell you something really really secret and this can't ever be known by another soul." It is a conversation with great significance to you, but in a religiously neutral state, its just another conversation between two people.
At the very most, I suppose we could consider the priest a counselor and extend whatever confidentiality privelege is given in that jurisdiction to rape crisis workers and other non-licensed therapists. But the "sanctity" that you and your priest have should have no more legal relevance than the special chant two childhood friends might use to establish a special secret-telling zone.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:Anyone who commits a crime with a cell phone (Score:3)
Consider the situation where you have just caught a drug dealer, you could then use the cell providers to identify anyone who was in regular contact with that dealer. I think that is a pretty severe invasion of privacy.
Also you forget it's not just when you use your cellphone that it can be triangulated. My phone rarely leaves my person throughout my whole day, it even charges at night on my bedside table. Having access to cell records is like having 50% of the public wearing the electronic tags they give to sex offenders.
Stopping eavesdropping (Score:3)
You know how they always show the phone call traces in films, and they start with a green line at the point where they are based and that slowly moves towards the point where the person is using the phone... all you have to do is keep moving and then all they have is as floating average of your position
Is it a win? (Score:4)
Basically, the court has thrown out the requirement that telecom carriers capture any digit tones (made by pressing buttons on the phone keypad) trasmitted after the call has already connected. Example: calling-card calls -- the original call is to an 800 number and then, after the call has connected, you dial the number you actually want. Note that this could include also such things as bank account numbers and voicemail passwords.
However the court left in force the requirement to supply the physical location of the closest-to-the-caller antenna tower (thus providing the ability to track the caller). It also left in force the interception of packet-mode communications.
So: win some, lose some. The decision to allow tapping packet-mode communications *could* set the wrong precedent for TCP/IP interception...
Kaa
Re:This is Great (Score:4)
I would rather live in a society where evil is done through the failure of principles than through their success. The courts have affirmed tat, for now at least, our principles are not evil.