Carnivore To Die? 126
Mr_CFG writes "Rep. Dick Armey is looking to tighten FBI funding in order to starve Carnivore, and is asking AG Ashcroft to review the Constitutional questions surrounding
the program" Rep Armey raises a good point, citing the recent Supreme Court decision regarding high tech survellaince, strongly limiting the government's ability to monitor things inside the home.
Right to Privacy (Score:1)
Re:There is no reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:1)
Re:The Obvious (Score:2)
I am not willing to sacrifice privacy for security, just as most americans are not willing to.
You seem to think that *if* the fbi knows, you are somehow protected, LOL
The fact of the matter is, somebody new that there was going to be a bomb at oklahoma city, as there was a bomb squad hovering around the fbi office before the cow pies exploded; if they won't protect their own, what makes you think they will protect you?
Classic Slashdot moderation (Score:1)
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:2)
Regardless, you can return your refund for precisely that:
Me, I've got better things to spend my refund on, like brewing equipment. :-)
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:2)
Re:Not that simple... (Score:2)
Re:The rule should be... (Score:2)
bush called Africa a nation???!!!!!! (Score:2)
Yesterday Bush called Africa a nation. On Tuesday he mispronounced the name of the leader of Spain. I'm not too surprised if he mispronounced nuclear. Maybe it's one of his pet names for a pet project. Now he wants to give Spain access to Echelon so it can spy on its own people. We know why Aznar was smiling.
Bwwwwaaaaa ha ha ha ha he he ha ha ha
(my cisco class laughs out loud)
He he snarf lol ha ha ha
Mod this guy up! this is great stuff. Bye bye republicans
he he he he...
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
Whether they're Democrat or Republican, if they champion something that is good (such as attempting to get rid of Carnv.) Then who cares what party they belong to!
Hell we could sit here all day drawing up a list of what Fienstien or Lott, did and said. Or we could write in email to support killing Carnavore, if you in fact support killing it.
I could go on, but I have an email to write.
peaCe
The rule should be... (Score:2)
Meaning, when a new communication medium is introduced, the First Ammendment statement that Congress will make no law abridging freedom of speech or press on that meidum automatically applies.
And when a new surveilance method is introduced, then the fourth ammendment restriction against search and seizure automatically applies until a court decides that the search method is reasonable. I imply here that someone not related to the FBI should have the chance to make their case that the search is unreasonable, if they so believe.
The first ammendment already works that way, essentially. The net was free, until people started trying to censor it.
But if this applied to search methods, it would a) give us the public a chance to hear about these new methods and b) make the default be to protect our privacy, rather than to allow our privacy be invaded and perhaps later having some recourse if it was decided the search was unreasonable.
I especially like part b. If you get nailed by some new surveilance method, by the time you get your day in court to contest the findings, you're already screwed.
Re:The rule should be... (Score:2)
And I think that's the way it should be. Not that the government should be listing our freedoms, but that if they want to, they need to specifically spell out the ways in which they are.
I don't really see how presumption of innocence applies. Sure, we presume that a given FBI agent is not violating our rights, but why should that mean that we should make presumptions that a given surveillance method doesn't constitute a violation of our rights? The agent shouldn't be allowed to use unapproved methods, and the presumption of innocence is that the agent isn't using the unapproved methods.
Maybe they're just jumpstarting the militias (Score:2)
Well I do - so before you go all "it's muthfukin' Clinton's fault" remember who the Justice Department represents...
Re:Ahhh yes. Carnivore will disappear. Reaaaaallll (Score:1)
Now now George. Be nice on Slashdot, otherwise you can't have any ice cream!
Ahhh yes. Carnivore will disappear. Reaaaaalllly (Score:3)
This announcement is as good as the fact that americans don't build chem/bio/nuclear weapons anymore.
-Vic
Link to Dick's letter, and link to news story (Score:1)
Here's an actual ARTICLE [cnsnews.com] about it. I submitted this story over 24 hours before the posting, but it was rejected because i mentioned that Dick Armey was a texas republican.
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
As much as I despised Janet Reno, the incident at Ruby Ridge occured before her watch began. It's just the investigatoin of that event that can be blamed on her.
LK
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
We will never know who the majority voted for, in states like California, New York, Texas the like there were more than enough uncounted absentee ballots to change the popular vote tally in Bush's favor or enough to cememnt a clear Gore lead. But in the states where they made no difference they were not counted.
With a less than 500,000 vote difference, there is no way to tell who won the popular vote.
LK
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
Under which federal law? None. Outside of the US Constitution, the federal government has no authority to dictate to a state how they certify their election results.
States do not have to submit their popular vote totals when they certify their election results.
Remember, under the system that we have (and are likely to have for the forseeable future) the popular vote means dick in a presidential election. Maybe it should be different, maybe it shouldn't be different, but it isn't.
As it stands, we'll never know who really won the popular vote.
LK
Re:Carnivore is great (Score:1)
This is the whole basis of Libertarian arguments, the whole reason for limited government, the whole argument against any centralized government.
Most of the people in government (usually) are out to help the people. They are doing their jobs, keeping the peace and prosecuting wrongdoers.
The problem is the 0.01 percent (I'm overstating here) who are a bunch of psychopathic powermongers. Since they desire power, you find much greater densities of them in positions of political power. It's these people that we have to protect ourselves from.
Carnivore is an amazing tool. As far as I can tell, it is something that could be done privately. Is there a market for it? Probably not. Why not? Well, would you pay $10k/yr to have somebody put a black box on your network to capture data that can be used as forensic evidence?
No, but *I* PAY FOR IT! I pay TAXES, while you get it for FREE!
Good admins do it on their own; extra box + packet sniffer + no running services + lots of disk space == Carnivore-that-I-pay-for-in-my-monthly-ISP-payment . So there. As long as it *isn't* taxes, I'm happy!
Think about it.
-lf
Carnivore is great (Score:3)
I work for a medium-sized ISP. Not too long ago, we had a server that was broken into and used for launching DDOS attacks, despite being well-maintained with security patches and intrusion detection systems. While rummaging through the system after the break-in was detected, the logs pointed to a couple other ISPs, as would be expected.
When I went to contact the other providers, one of them responded *much* quicker than usual for a major hosting company. We exchanged six emails in the course of an hour regarding the specifics of the system compromise, and shortly thereafter I received a call from our boys in the bureau.
It turns out that there had been a carnivore system at the other provider watching specifically for the perpetrator of the attack on our server. The traffic that was captured there helped diagnose the breakins (along with many others).
In talking with the agent, I *quickly* realized that this isn't used for "black helicopter" surveillance. They don't give a flip about the data they accidentally collect that has your credit card number paying for that adult website and they don't care about that email you sent to your friend about the meeting. If anything, the stuff that is accidentally captured is taking up disk space where REAL forensic data could be.
Most of the FBI people who deal with carnivore aren't out to find anyone who's committing a crime. They're not out to invade the privacy of internet users. They're people with computer and networking backgrounds like you or me and they dig through the electronic clues to provide reports to higher-ups that are clueless about the technology.
It's a good thing. Let's try to look at both sides.
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
Re:Right to Privacy (Score:1)
1965.
Connecticut
Griswold v Connecticut [cornell.edu]
Return of the Grammar Nazi (Score:1)
Personally, I like people that make up words as it shows a sign of creativity. I'd rather have someone in office who mixes up words sometimes and is somewhat creative, than yet another bland politician type.
One last thought - an AC who wants to support Carnivore is just too ironic!
Re:Seems to me... (Score:3)
Let's see... what else is not private? How about calling your doctor? The phone network is a "public place", by your reasoning. Sure, let's just have the phone company record your conversations and publish the statistics to interested parties.... Do ISPs do this now? Yes, but I expect that to last until the first law suit that cripples an ISP because they sold what ammounts to medical information to the wrong party. Americans are very sensitive to their tenuous right to privacy, and the trigger is usually violence against women or medical information.
My stepfather has worked with Carnivore(he is a high ranking federal law enforcement agent) and when we talked about the Carnivore system he said that it is much harder to get a warrent for it or for taking a computer than it is to get warrents for searching more traditional things.
Of course, it's harder now; they're working out the ground-rules. However, if attitudes like yours prevailed, I would expect it to be much easier within the next few years. Thankfully, many judges take the long view, and such invasions will likely be curtailed over the next few years.
--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)
it would have been too cumbersome.. (Score:1)
But back to the original article, I agree that they should get rid of Carnivore, and that they ought to take away the use of thermal imaging without a search warrant, blah blah... I certainly don't want anyone poking around where I live without a warrant because that's simply invading my privacy.
while(Constitution)
{
discuss(our_rights);
}
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
Actually, I'm kind of surprised you invoked Hitler - according to Usenet rules this conversation is now at an end and you lost.
Nevertheless....
I don't think the armed forces or police should have guns either; I am of a general mind that guns and violence are a pretty stupid way to resolve any kind of conflict. Yes, Iraq, Osama Bin-Laden, evil criminals, blah blah, etc., etc., but just because they are out there and thus you need guns, doesn't make the guns right, moral, or smart - just necessary. And still stupid.
And if Dick Armey was just a two-bit representative from a backwater district making a fool of himself, his views on religion, artistic expression, and sexuality wouldn't matter. The fact that he and his cronies drive the agenda ratchets the importance of his beliefs up a notch, though - don't you think?
If the moderates on either side prevailed in these debates things might make a little more sense and real work might get done. The fact that they are in the hands of extremists just makes it harder for the sensible voices to be heard, and places every argument in an "us against them, holy war" context.
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
Re:Not that simple... (Score:2)
I agree with you here. However, I'm not sure it illustrates your point. The fact that the First Amendment prohibits restrictions on free speech and that that logically applies to all media doesn't mean that another prohibition should be dropped when new methods arise. (I realize you didn't say that; I'm just making the point that both are restrictions on government authority and that there should be no extension of that autority by default.)
I think your argument supports the principle of 'general reasonableness', by which I mean reasonable to a substantial majority of the people. I would argue that modern, high-tech surveillance methods are not both understood and expected by most people, thereby making them unreasonable by the intent of the Fourth Amendment.
The real intent of my post was to make the point that if such searches can be quietly implemented before their widespread public consideration, then they will seem much more 'reasonable' after they become common. Perhaps if we quickly implemented new punishment methods, they would no longer be 'unusual punishments' by the time the public considered them an issue. Neat trick, if you can get away with it. Unfortunately, I was sloppy in making that point in my original post.
Unreasonable Search and Seizure (Score:4)
None of these high-tech methods of spying on citizens were available at the time the Bill of Rights were written. That, alone, should be enough to disqualify them as unreasonable since they were certainly not considered 'reasonable' -- or even considered at all -- in the language of the document.
Re:The Obvious (Score:2)
Given the FBI's record (*cough*COINTELPRO*cough*), that is the prudent assumption.
/.
Re:There is no reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:2)
/.
Re:There is no reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:4)
I think the expectectation and reasonableness rise in proportion to the amount of government probing into our lives. If the government and companies weren't so intent on gathering so much info on us, and monitoring all of our activity, and even checking our thoughts, we wouldn't be so obsessed with privacy.
--
Re:Thank the Democrats. (Score:1)
The one X'd Exon, he's an ass,
The two X'd Exxon, that's a gas,
But there's one thing you can bet your necks on,
You'll never see a three-XXX'd Exon.
(Ah, fond memories indeed.)
Re:Read the decisioRe:Unreasonable Search etv (Score:2)
So, if the Feebs GPL Carnivore, or assert that packet sniffers are freely available (Linux on a laptop and a promiscuous card!) to the general public...
(Yeah, I think Carnivore, by virtue of its design requirement that it be hooked up to the ISP, doesn't fall into "generally-available", falls under the recent Supreme Court ruling, and should therefore require a warrant before use. But I'm playing Devil's Advocate here...)
Re:Inside The Home? Hardly. (Score:4)
Huh?
It's a packet sniffer. But you have to have physical access to the ISP's datacenter to use it.
The real question (arguably unanswered) is whether or not the part of your TCP/IP connection between your home and the first router away from your ISP constitutes part of your home.
The argument can be made that it does - they could just wiretap you. But they don't, choosing to use the ISP's outbound pipe to wiretap everyone and (so they tell us :) then throw away the data from everyone but you. They do this for the sake of convenience (It's arguably harder to wiretap a cablemodem. Or optical fiber to the home. Or line-of-sight laser to the home...).
That is, Carnivore is just an easy way (using means not available to the general public, like sitting down in an ISP's datacenter) of getting access to your data stream (which is information they would not otherwise be able to gain without having to) wiretap you (which would typically require physical access to your property or the wires/cables/lasers/EM-fields connecting thereto or emanating therefrom).
I don't know how far that'd fly in court, but it sounds like a non-frivolous argument using the recent SCOTUS ruling as precedent. I don't know how they'd rule, but I'd think the Justices would have to think about it for a while before ruling either way.
Re:Not that simple... (Score:2)
"The Founding Fathers couldn't have predicted the UZI, which lets you shoot 30 rounds!"
s/UZI/Internet s/shoot 30 rounds/put your dangerous crackpot opinions in front of 1 billion people
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:2)
Exactly one country has ratified Kyoto, Romania. If it's so vital to the future of the planet, why are you waiting around for the U.S.? Just because the Senate unanimously rejected it doesn't mean other countries can't approve it.
The ABM treaty was made with the Soviet Union. Consulting a current map, I see no such entity. I actually don't support Bush's missile defense program, because it will almost certainly turn into pork barrel programs with little or no results, but the ABM treaty is a non-issue.
Government is dangerous (Score:2)
The FBI has a long history of using it's information for blackmail, and of killing political opponent and other inconvenient people.
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
Not to mention the unilateral cancellation of the Kyoto and ABM treaties, showing off that typical American arrogance towards the rest of the world.
Sorry if I insulted any of you by that statement, but that's the image you get by doing all those things.
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
Re:Unreasonable Search and Seizure (Score:2)
Untrue. Wiretapping is old as dirt and is still considered unreasonable.
Should vehicular homicide not be a crime because cars hadn't been invented? Should wiretapping not be a crime because recording devices hadn't been invented? Should we disallow laws about guns, because if the constitution had been written 800 years earlier they might have been left out?
The founding fathers may have been libertarians, but they were certainly not luddites.
Re:The Obvious (Score:2)
According to the article 'critics have charged' this.
This kind of automatically assumes malevolence and deceit on the side of the FBI. They have said it will not. They had independent reviewers look at it who said as much. Yeah, I know they weren't quite independent (blah blah blah).
The crux of the matter is that the FBI cannot use information in court garnered without a proper warrant. If they can't use it in court, why are they collecting it? To post on the internet? Because they give it to the CIA so that they'll kill us? To go in a secret government database? To determine who goes in 'Who's Who Among Email Senders'? Come on.
"Blah Blah Blah" explained (Score:2)
However, I attribute this to government-bureaucracy (sp?) type stuff, not to purposeful FBI wrongdoing. Government contracts are a pain, and you can't just jump in if you don't know what you're doing. Likewise, it's likely that the reviewing team chosen would have people that worked with the government in their team. It's not malevolence ... just domain knowledge.
Living near D.C., and knowing many people that work for the government, I *do* trust them.
Except for that old hanlon's razor thing ;)
The Obvious (Score:4)
The supreme court decision did not say thermal imaging could not be used ... it only said a warrant would be required.
Protections against misuse of carnivore would be good.
Eliminating carnivore would make the FBI less effective. Unless you would like more terrorists and kidnappers running around.
Inside The Home? Hardly. (Score:5)
The Supreme Court decision actually has very little to do with Carnivore. I'm surprised to see such technological illiteracy on /. but I have learned to lower my expectations over the last couple of years.
The Supreme Court decision concerns surveillance of an intrusive nature that gives police access to information they would not otherwise have been able to gain without physical access. Carnivore has absolutely nothing to do with such kinds of surveillance. Carnivore is nothing more than a glorified packet sniffer.
As such, it picks up (pursuant to lawfully obtained search warrants) information that is sent OUTSIDE any area that could be reasonably considered private. When you send e-mail or browse the Web, you are submitting information on a public network, and as such, police are perfectly entitled to perform surveillance there, provided they have the appropriate judicial permission (in the form of a warrant).
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:2)
That notion, quite frankly, scares the living hell out of me. The fact that Americans won't even discuss incidents in which their own government acted like tyrannical thugs shows how easy it would be for them to do it again.
We must not hesitate to discuss these matters. We shouldn't sweep Ruby Ridge, Elian, or any of those under the rug any more than we should ignorethe bad actions of Phillip Morris or Microsoft. Only by exposing and working against injustice can we get anywhere.
Re:The Obvious (Score:2)
collected dirt of any kind is a scary thing.
Re:There is no reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:1)
Did Daddy not hug you as a child? Just because you can't trust YOURSELF around women doesn't mean other men can't. Or perhaps you are a woman who's been mistreated by men, in which case you have my pity.
Back, however, to privacy. If you honestly don't understand the need for personal privacy and security in one's own property, there would seem to be something wrong with you. It's a basic human urge. Privacy is what allows us our human dignity.
No one ever had any actual privacy; merely artificially imposed curtains that conceal malicious actions by some against others.
Back to the whole concept of "projection" -- perhaps you should pick up an Abnormal Psychology book and look into it. First of all, "artifically imposed curtains" are "real" privacy. That's like saying "we never had shelter, only artificially imposed homes." The response, of course, is "duh."
Unfortunately, I feel my arguments will fall upon deaf ears, and that a foray into psychology would stray too far off topic.
Suffice it to say, the desire for privacy is a basic, entirely natural human urge, and to deny it is like keeping a Laborador Retriever from digging holes, or keeping a cat from grooming itself. If you don't understand it, for your own sake, you should spend more time worrying about your own state of mind and less about others'.
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
Re:Right to Privacy (Score:3)
Amendment IV
From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed.
Should the 4th ammendment and definition of privacy not satisfy you, lets look at our magic bullet...
Amendment IX
Just because a right isn't listed in the constitution does not mean said right may be taken away.
Deal with it. We have a right to privacy.
Help save carnivore (Score:2)
Re:Go Figure... (Score:1)
Even if they "don't have the authority", should we honestly believe it would stop them?
Also, would you like to show som eevidence to back up your statements? How are we suposed to know that the NSA "has a hard enough time tracking foreign terrorists"?
And lastly... had they ever thought that maybe the world might be a better place if the terrorists going after the white house got through? Just a thought. "Just planting seeds".
-Steve
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
Sheesh, you run a country with two right wing parties and all of a sudden people start calling the more centrist one "left wing".
Quite amazing. I will agree though - we could use more parties. Actually, I like an idea I heard recently from a friend.
Change the senate such that parties are elected, who then apoint members. Ie a party is elected to each seat and the party determines who fills it.
Then change the house such that members are not allowed to be members of political parties. NO parties in the house. No Majority leaders or whips. Just representatives of the people, pure and simple.
-Steve
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
> actually agreeing with Armey for once
And if you think only the armed forces (police, army, etc) should have guns, then you agree with Hitler. Surprized?
SO what? What Dick Armey believes about religions or about homosexuality has nothing to do with other issues. Its impossible to take one or two issues and say "I wont agree with this person on anything" or "This person can't have any good ideas".
It is annoying though. There are so many people (like my High School Senior year religon teacher, who prayed in class that Roe Vs Wade would be overturned) that I would love to consider complete wastes of flesh but... sometimes they do end up holding a few ideas that arn't too far off.
-Steve
Re:The Obvious (Score:1)
In fact, I think you will find that back room deals still happen in back rooms, not chat rooms. Remember, these are people who are used to being under the eye of newspapers and TV cameras.
-Steve
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
> Hitler - according to Usenet rules this
> conversation is now at an end and you lost.
Hmmm well this isn't usenet. Besides the "loss" idea is not actually part of Godwins law, it simply states that the chances of a comparison to hitler or the nazis aproaches 1 as a conversation goes on. You will not that my point in doing so was opposite to that where most such comparisons are made. In fact, I made it specifically to show that such comparisons are meaningless.
I don't see how your post has anything to do with mine. The entire point to my post was, afterall, 'Just because a person believes one thing, doesn't mean they believe another'
-Steve
/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
I would seem to me that the /. crew would finally get a clue that the Republican party isn't a party of illiterate inbred morons that they seem to think it is. The Democrats made Carnivore, the DMCA (bipartisn in Congress, but signed eagerly by left-leaning Democratic President) and other major civil rights violations possible.
I remember how most of the /. crew wanted desparately to see Gore win over "that idiot" Bush and how most /.ers in general were attacking Ashcroft when he was nominated for his position. Yet Reno gleefully made this system possible, was on watch during Waco, Ruby Ridge, refused to investigate top Democratic fundraisers for illegalities, sent federal agents to Miami gestapo style to get Elian Gonzalez among other things. At least we have an Attorney General now who because of his mostly hard-line conservative view (and don't give me that bullshit about him wanting to monitor "wackos" and non-christians) would probably heavily restrict its use anyway if not outright ban it while he's in charge.
I for one am sick of the bullshit on /. about "Your Rights Online" posts talking about how evil corporate "rights violations" are when the government is doing worse. The corporations can't bloody well wiretap you legally unless (well the telecoms might, but they have nothing to gain by screwing your privacy since their monopoly status in their regions is contingent on playing nice guy) their people want to be sent to prison. The CEO that does that better have a fast private jet ready to leave the country if he gets caught because a small army of state and federal law enforcement personnel will be after him for such an audacious act. And wouldn't that be something, Board has to explain to stockholders why its CEO had to suddenly leave the country and now the company's PR image has been ruined for blatantly illegal behavior. As I've said in previous posts, you can walk up to a corporate executive officer and tell him to kiss your buttocks, and he can't force you to do what he wants. You do that to a cop you will find yourself in jail. That is the world of difference. Corporations have no more legal right to use force against you under our system than you do against them. The government though can simply pass a law saying it can kill you without a trial and until someone challenges it and the Supreme Court nullifies it, it is in effect. The Congress with people like Diane Feinstein in it could pass a law saying that "as of now kiddywinks, the first and second amendments are nullified!" and you have to live with that until the Supreme Court slaps them down. Get rid of the power to do that, and I might be mildly willing to discuss corporate "rights violations"
Forget about carnivore! (Score:1)
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:1)
Unless of course, you think that we ought to raise the President to the level of Supreme Dictator, then what's going on is not the least bit arrogant.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Re:There is no reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:2)
As you cling to the arbitrary notion of privacy, you're doing little more than empowering men to rape and torture women.
Since you beleive this, you need to put up or shutup, put up webcams in your bathrooms and bedrooms, better yet every room in your house and stream it to a website, I will be waiting for you to post the URL here on Slashdot.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
Gotta love them buzzwords (Score:1)
So, do they expect us to have more respect for it, just because they give it a technical name? Personally, I think they're doing this so that the court system and the general population won't fixate on its scary name, and instead see it as some new high-tech way of protecting themselves from the evil bad hacker people, as seen in the accurate movie "Hackers". (for those of you who don't realize it, the previous sentence was sarcastic in nature)
Just my $0.001
Benjamin Franklin said it best (Score:4)
Eliminating carnivore would make the FBI less effective. Unless you would like more terrorists and kidnappers running around.
"Those who would trade their essential Liberty for a perceived temporary Security deserve neither Liberty nor Security." --Benjamin Franklin.
Re:The rule should be... (Score:1)
Re:That's a bitch of a name... (Score:1)
Re:Go Figure... (Score:1)
With Carnivore, Echelon, and friends, I bet that the secret service is investigating your ass right now.
Re:Not that simple... (Score:2)
50% + 1? In that case, you have a pure democracy, with the risks that go with it. A bare majority can use the full force of government to destroy the rights of the minority.
Some elite group of people? Choose your poison: dictatorship, aristocracy, technocracy, plutocracy, or whatever other kind of "cracy" scheme suits you. In any case, the ones in power may destroy the rights of others at a whim.
How about a consensus, say 90% agreement? If you can get that, you can easily amend the Constitution to make it say whatever you want.
The US Founders were not superhumans, but they showed enough wisdom to set up a limited federal government, with checks and balances. They also built in an amendment process to allow the document to change over time, but made that process hard enough that changes would hopefully be carefully considered.
Re:Not that simple... (Score:2)
Not that simple... (Score:4)
For example, radio and television were unknown at the time the First Amendment was drafted. But that amendment clearly means that Congress shall not muck about with free speech on radio or television, just as they shall not in newspapers. (In practice, we have let them get by with fudging somewhat for broadcasters, on the theory that the airwaves are a public resource. Shame on us.)
Anyway, we can't automatically claim the Fourth Amendment protects against high-tech surveillance because the authors didn't know about it. Instead, we have to make our arguments based on the meaning of the amendment, as others have done on this thread and previous ones. If the situation has changes so much that we cannot apply the meaning of the amendment any more (or if the SCOTUS applies the meaning foolishly), then it is time to consider amending the Constitution again.
Just like in court (Score:2)
After the people are used to these extreme measures, the 'reasonable' ones will seem mild and unobtrusive in comparison. The only problem is they would bring immediate picketing and demonstrations 10 years ago, but today's society is so used to having no backing for the constitution that they're used to flat out ignoring it for the most part and accepting what is told them by the news that it may not even be looked at crosseyed.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]
Re:International vs. Domestic (Score:1)
Re: I'm liking Republicans more and more (Score:1)
I'm a Green myself, meaning that I'm pro-environment, pro-human rights, anti-corporate power. Pretty liberal in my views. But I'm starting to like Republicans more and more, because at least they have a point of view, compared to wishy washy bullshit Democrats, even if I don't always agree with those views.
You are absolutely right that it was Democrats who allowed the government to become so bloated that we would have things like Carnivore and the DMCA in the first place.
I still think the biggest threat to our freedom is the influence of powerful unaccountable corporations on our government. The answer, however, is not just more government to limit the power of these corporations. We must also limit the power of the government to implement these laws that are only beneficial to corporations and are harmful to the rights of citizens.
(end rant)Re:There is no reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:1)
Re:That's a bitch of a name... (Score:1)
Re:The Obvious (Score:1)
Read the decisioRe:Unreasonable Search etv (Score:2)
Since most people come equipped with a nose as a standard option, police could use a nose to detect things.
Re:The Obvious (Score:4)
The FBI says, in essence, "Hey, trust us". Then they appoint contaminated reviewers and try to pass them off as independent. Surprise, surprise, the reviewers with ties to the FBI find that, hey, we can trust them.
And all you can say is "blah blah blah"? My goodness, the willful naivete that you show!
As a good American, I don't trust the government. Government is only good so long as it is vigilantly supervised. I don't expect the FBI would routinely abuse Carnivore... but I expect they would on occasion, and that's too often.
There are days when I wonder exactly why anyone is bothering to even attempt to safeguard the rights of an American populace that, apparently, doesn't know or care about those rights.
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias (Score:2)
What about all the corporations that, through such things as large campaign contributions, are all but purchasing the government? I know
My point is this: You seem to be implying that there is no connection whatsoever between corporations and the government. However, that couldn't be any further from the truth.
---
DOOR!!
Re:Not that simple... (Score:1)
Well, actually...There are groups that believe exactly that. For example, the Church of Jesus Chirst of Latter-day Saints believes that the Constitution was devinely inspired. There are several revelations in their Doctrine and Covenants that state that. (See this article [lds.org] for example.)
PerlStalker"I'm here for my sanity..." Train "I Am"
Re:The Obvious (Score:4)
For a post titled "The Obvious", yours does a good job of missing the point.
Armey's objection to Carnivore is that when it's attached to an ISP's servers, it captures the communications of all of the ISP's users, not just the one(s) the warrant was issued for.
Eliminating carnivore would make the FBI less effective. Unless you would like more terrorists and kidnappers running around.
Yes, that's the standard line. "If we don't surrender our civil liberties, we'll never be safe." Hogwash.
TheFrood
Go Figure... (Score:2)
---
Re:Ahhh yes. Carnivore will disappear. Reaaaaallll (Score:1)
I have not heard Bush The Younger make the same mispronounciation yet, though. Do you have a citation, or are you just another "gosh darn, that Bush feller shooore am stupid" hicks that we never seem to stop hearing from?
Re:Ahhh yes. Carnivore will disappear. Reaaaaallll (Score:1)
While he was not technically correct, he is hardly the first to speak of all the Pan-African countries as if they were a nation. [whsmithonline.co.uk]
On Tuesday he mispronounced the name of the leader of Spain.
Who the fuck cares? (Other than the handful of liberal whack-jobs that read The Guardian?)
The Spanish themselves understood it for what it was: an easy mistake for somebody who only speaks a little Spanish...
While I didn't vote for either President Bush, I find it absolutely delightful that people like you are having hissy fits over the fact that Bush the Younger is in charge. Have a nice day.
Abortion Rights... (Score:1)
That's a bitch of a name... (Score:1)
I bet that guy got made fun of alot in high school...
-----
Re:Not that simple... (Score:2)
In a similar fashion, this should include other free spreech issues on the web, and the use of copyright law to limit speech.
But that might be asking too much.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Not the last word. (Score:1)
Carnivore has a virus .... (Score:2)
(for those who don't get out much
Seems to me... (Score:1)
However, I dont really think that it is reasonable to expect privacy when browsing on the Internet which to me is a public place. In fact most people give up their privacy on the Internet when they use cookies. Some ISP's even track where you go so that they can give you "better quality of service". Earthlink does this, they have an Opt out policy in their install program but you have to do the Expert install option to get to it(AFAIK).
To me expecting privacy when browsing on the Internet is kindof like expecting privacy in a public park. And besides that Carnivore is not peering into your home. I think you give up a certain amount of privacy expectations just by sending the packets outside of your home.
P.S.- My stepfather has worked with Carnivore(he is a high ranking federal law enforcement agent) and when we talked about the Carnivore system he said that it is much harder to get a warrent for it or for taking a computer than it is to get warrents for searching more traditional things.
Rich
Re:Return of the Grammar Nazi (Score:2)
George W. Bush, the world's oldest script kiddie.
Re:The rule should be... (Score:2)
This would be great, except that our legal system doesn't work that way. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental aspect of law and extends to everyone, including FBI agents with Spies-R-Us catalogs. If we create a closed list of "approved surveillance tools", what's to stop someone from coming up with a list of "approved modes of free speech"? Then again, they've already made a mockery of the 2nd Amendment in this way, so I'm really just referring to our system under "ideal" conditions.
Re:There is no reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:5)
Heh, that's a good one. I'll need to run it past my wife next time she asks me for a few minutes of solitude in the bathroom...
Um - There IS reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:5)
There has ALWAYS been a reasonable assurance of privacy in human affairs. This comes from the simple fact that people simply cannot know everything that is going on to everyone else. If you live in a world where it is fundamentally unlikely that other people know what is going on in your life, than you have a reasonable assurance of privacy. Call it ignorance if you like, but it has always existed, and people have grown ( I might go so far as to say evolved ) to depend upon it.
Communications is used by all social animals to counteract this inherent social ignorance. As communications technology increases our abilities to share information, it must naturally erode that reasonable sense of privacy.
At one point it was possible to simply travel a few dozen miles to another town and one could recreate oneself with a totally new identity and life. As communications and transportation technology has made it easier to travel and communicate, and effectively made the world "smaller", one must travel further and further to gain that kind of anonymity that was once very simple.
You also say that privacy is merely a social way of hiding the abuse of men upon women. This is a very simplistic view of the matter IMHO. But it is a more specific rephrasing of the general notion that privacy is only used to conceal criminal or improper deeds, that only those with something to hide need privacy.
This notion is false because it is based upon two false assumptions. Firstly it assumes that privacy is defense against the general public, which is not at all true - privacy is mainly a defense against small groups of individuals, whether they be neighbours or the police, or anyone else. Very few people worry about having their homes invaded by a camera crew from CNN for live broadcast, but it might be a very real worry that a neighbour, or the police, or that someone with a grudge might invade their homes.
Secondly it assumes that all private actions are going to be treated as fairly in the eyes of anyone who observes them. This is plainly false. For every opportunity to use privacy to hide criminal or improper behaviour there is also an opportunity to use a lack of privacy to falsely or improperly accuse someone of such an activity. What you might consider to be perfectly acceptable behaviour in private, another person could think of as being totally unacceptable, and vice-versa.
As the famous Franklin / Jefferson quote says:
"he who sacrifices freedom for security will neither have, nor deserver either" ( or something along those lines )
Stop and think for a moment about a society where everyone is comfortable in their sense of privacy and private security, compared to one in which everyone is in fear of constantly being watched. Which society is really the more secure? Naturally it is the first. Social fear, and fear for ones person, whether it be physical or not, is definitely one of the quickest routes to acts of violence. Totalitarian states are much more prone to social unrest and violent upheaval than are democratic ones.
Claiming that privacy is a morally bankrupt concept created by artifical means belies a huge misunderstanding on your part of human nature. Privacy is one of the most morally important institutions that we have - and it is related strongly to the respect for individuals which would IMHO be exactly what a society needs more of to prevent violence against women, not less. Removing the respect for privacy from public life does not give any more security, but rather simply replaces one insecurity with another, and adds to the mix increased tension and unease which can only lead to more problems, not less.
Re:Right to Privacy (Score:2)
The application of the 4th Amendment when only electrons are "seized" has always made some strict constructionists uncomfortable. So it is possible that with a few more justices who are unwilling to go beyond the actual words in the Constitution, the gov't would be free to wiretap at will, look through the walls of your house with infrared, and order fat people to go on a diet. So I would like to see two amendments specifically codifying a true right to privacy (no snooping without a warrant), and the right to control your own body (which would also invalidate drug laws and many of the FDA's powers).
Re:The Obvious (Score:2)
They claim the FBI has changed. I'm not convinced. At best, they still seem to prefer good publicity to good police work. At worst, they seem to tolerate and cover up their own incompetence (Ruby Ridge, Waco, the FBI labs). Let them secretly troll Congressional e-mail for blackmail material, and they could become completely untouchable...
Re:There is no reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:5)
With all due respect, people do not desire a curtain so that they may only commit crimes. Not all men beat their wives. Not all men rape their wives. And additionally, not all people grown weed in their house.
I, for one, have a very strong desire for privacy--whether "artificial" as you call it or otherwise. No one needs to see me make love to my wife (no, it's not rape since she always consents). No one needs to see that I can't last five minutes. And no one needs to know I've got a hideous birthmark on my left cheek. There is just no reason for you, the government, or anyone else to see those things.
Similarly, there is absolutely no reason for anyone--government or not--to watch me doing legal things in my house. I have guns--but that doesn't give anyone the right to inspect them on demand (unless you want to merely ascertain the pain that occurs when one is shot). I also have DVDs and computers--but that also does not give anyone the right to inspect my computers to determine if I'm copying the DVDs to them (I'm not).
The entire fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is an artifical curtain. Not every government has such a constitutionally given right. This right was not given to early colonists, and was one of those issues that forced our revolution. We all need to respect this right; whether you feel that your life should be broadcast on television 24-hours-a-day or not.
Re:Nothing like the heat sensor case (Score:2)
So Carnivore may only be used on individuals. Perhaps you can explain then why the software needs to have the functionality to log entire blocks of IP addresses? You shouldn't even need functionality like that to snoop individuals.
And why keep the workings of Carnivore so secret it is only being used in ways that are legal? What, exactly, have they got to hide?
What about the fact that in order to use the Carnivore system at all, you need Administrator priviledges on the machine? That means that whoever is sitting at the console can do WHATEVER THEY WANT, regardless of whether or not a court warrant has been issued.
Sorry, too many flaws, too much just doesn't add up. Who's watching the watchers? Carnivore should die. I don't believe for a second that its going to (I wouldn't believe them if they did claim that they dismantled the system, the FBI is not about to give up that much power so easily), but for the sake of freedom, it should be killed.
carnivore may kill NIPC (Score:2)
--
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Musashi
Catch this interception! (Score:2)
The recent supreme court ruling doesn't matter` (Score:2)
Re:Ahhh yes. Carnivore will disappear. Reaaaaallll (Score:2)
That's nuculer, buddy. Remember who we have in the White House now.