Big Brother To Watch Judges? 234
One week from today, the U.S. Judicial Conference will decide whether judges and their staff can handle grown-up responsibilities like ... using the internet. No, you did not click onto The Onion by mistake: after heated
disagreement
earlier this year, the issue is coming to a head. Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has
a great Wall Street Journal opinion piece, today only. (It wants your email; try
me@privacy.net.)
Jeffrey Rosen's
analysis in TNR
is another good take on it. If you don't think the men and women who hold people's lives in their hands need daddy and mommy looking over their shoulder, you might take a moment to fire off a quick, polite email
per the EFF's suggestion.
If surveillance can invade a judge's workplace, it's for damnsure
there's nothing keeping it out of yours.
Wrong branch. (Score:5, Insightful)
Monitoring is bad but filtering would be worse (Score:5, Interesting)
Monitoring opens the door for filtering, which by definition operates with the sole purpose of preventing access to certain information. It is an exceedingly dangerour proposition, to suggest that Judges should be prevented from recieving certain information, as a matter of law, however this bears a little explaining. I'm not prtoposing that preventing judges from viewing pornography while they contemplate a legal decision is nessecerily a bad thing, but merely having the capability to filter what a judge sees opens the door to the potential risk of the abuse of the technology. Granted, monitoring is not filtering, but again, it's a slippery slope. Slippery slope arguments are difficult to make because you come off as though you're tilting at windmills, however, I think any technically knowlegable person can see the risks here.
This decision has been a long time in coming. Earlier this year Judge wrote an article in the Green Bag Law Journal [greenbag.org] called In Defense of the Hard Drive [greenbag.org] in response to proposals then to monitor the office PCs of members of the judiciary. It seems that proposal has been expanded to an unbelievable degree at this point.
On the bright side, there is a new grounds for appeal for every case brought before any court where this proposed system is implemented. Essentially, the argument could be made that undue influence was excerted over the court by those who monitor the proposed monitoring system; that judges will be hesitant to seek out information theough communications systems made available to him for that specific purpose in his/her chambers.
--CTH
Re:Monitoring is bad but filtering would be worse (Score:3, Interesting)
Darned damn well it is! If a judge working on a controversial case want to get informed and fetch information about the controversial stuff he's working on knows that legislators will see that he's getting data on the unpopular thing du jour, it will have a definite chilling effect on efforts made by the judiciary to get informed.
And boy do we know how bad can an uninformed court can be [freehenson.da.ru]!
Lastly, monitoring judges is a totally intolerable and unacceptable interference with the judiciary by both the legislative and executive branches.
Perhaps the judges should protest by installing bots that continuously troll for pr0n, in order to overwhelm monitoring efforts.
Quit crying about it (Score:2)
Re:Quit crying about it (Score:2)
Further more, you've demonstrated my point about the difficulty of using 'slppery slope' arguments in defense of a position. While defending a judges right to view at porn may be questionable, I hardly think think you could find fault with defending the right to research public policy without fear of monitoring.
The reason monitoring members of the judiciary is so outrageous is because we as citizens can't afford to have the decisions of that judiciary system influenced by parties about which we have little or no knowlege.
Furthermore, if federal judges decline to enforce their own privacy rights, how can we epect them to enforce our privacy rights? after all, enlightened self-interest is still the single greatest motivator for any person in any society, no matter how enlightened that society might be.
--CTH
Re:Monitoring is bad but filtering would be worse (Score:2)
Pros:
- Monitoring might reduce or eliminate the 7% of non work related internet usage by judicial employees - which amounts to less than a lunch break per day.
- It's important that we prevent Judge Schumann (chairman of the Committee on Information Technology & Automation) from viewing the Nascar website for 10 minutes per day
Cons:Monitoring is legally questionable
The program was already canceled once due to it's questionable legal standing
To be perfectly fair, maybe I missed something. Tell me again why monitoting is a positive thing...
Re:Wrong branch. (Score:3, Funny)
It was all the more humorous given how socially conservative their boss was.
Re: (Score:2)
great opinion piece? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:great opinion piece? (Score:2)
It'd be a great piece if he talked to the larger issue of any employee's right to privacy. It's kind of ironic that BOFH policies hit the news with judges, but what about the rest of us?
Why do you believe that you have a right to privacy while employed and paid by someone else, and while using their equipment, internet connection, etc?
If you want to make private communications, then do it on your own time, with your own resources.
Re:great opinion piece? (Score:1)
Why do you believe that you have a right to privacy while employed and paid by someone else, and while using their equipment, internet connection, etc?
If you want to make private communications, then do it on your own time, with your own resources.
Why? So the CEO of the company can use this precious company money to go golfing? Or so executives can go to corporate sponsored dinners? Or so they can go to company bought seating at sports arenas?
Why do you care so little for your rights while the rich and privileged certainly enjoy those rights?
Oh wait, you must be a one of those undercover M$ executives posting as a regular person.
Re:great opinion piece? (Score:3)
Why? So the CEO of the company can use this precious company money to go golfing? Or so executives can go to corporate sponsored dinners? Or so they can go to company bought seating at sports arenas?
Damn straight right. I'm sorry, but the perks go up depending on how valuable you are to the company. If you want more perks, then be more valuable. Or do you think that the CEO of IBM should have exactly the same privileges as the janitor?
Why do you care so little for your rights while the rich and privileged certainly enjoy those rights?
Because the privileged have earned their privileges. I don't expect people to give me anything I haven't earned. Why do you?
The only expectation I have is opportunity -- everyone has the opportunity to get the privileges. And everyone does, although some have it easier than others. But then I live in the real world, where everyone has some advantage over everyone else. You suck it up and move forward.
Re:great opinion piece? (Score:2)
It's largely bestowed, and merit is rarely a consideration [...] then get your elitist ass to the peace corp and do some good before your misguided notion of how shit works finds you penniless and hating with all your might those pussies of priviledge from whence you did not arise.
[rant mode] OK, I have to deal with this head-on. I hope to God you NEVER come in contact with anyone down on their luck. It's people like YOU that keep people down, not this largely mythical "privilege class". You convince people that they have no chance, that people in power will never give them any opportunity, and their only recourse is to sit and wait for government to "help them". Meanwhile, people every day pull themselves out of poverty by getting an education, working hard, and earning their way out of the ghetto. All the time being pulled back down by people like you telling them they'll never make it.
I daresay my positive attitude has helped more people in my life than you have in your entire life. How many people have you encouraged to get an education? How many people have you told that they can do it, no matter what, if they try?
You make me sick. Stay in your little self-imposed hole and stop poisoning everyone around you.
Re:great opinion piece? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is precisely (sp?) what I don't understand about issues like this. If I supply you with a computer to do your job, then it should be my perogative to assume that you are not using it for anything but doing the job for which you are paid.
If, as is seemingly the case today, I can't trust that this is the case (for example, history has given us reason to be concerned about employees downloading virus laden files to our network), then employers may monitor them... Yeah, I wouldn't like it either, but my not liking it is for purely emotional reasons, not rational ones.
As well, if I am foolish enough to expect privacy on someone else's gear, then I should have my head examined. It's their machine, I'd never even consider putting a file on it that I didn't assume was read by every pimple-faced MCSE in the building.
Let's set aside such trivial non-issues, and worry about invasions of privacy where we have a right to one (like carnivore reading our PERSONAL email on home email accounts, etc.).
Anything Goes (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is interesting for a couple reasons. First, it assumes that money -- cash, whatever -- negates privacy considerations. I'm entitled to privacy only with stuff -- phones, faxes, computers -- that I *pay* for. If I haven't paid for it, then anything goes.
Second -- and this is derived from the first point -- is the resulting "anything goes" mentality. This seems to be the real point of the WSJ article. Even though I'm getting paid for working -- and certainly expect to be given the money I'm entitled to -- why must I give my fundamental right of privacy up?
(The logic here, then, if I'm *not* getting paid -- on my lunch hour -- then does that give me the right to surf? In some places, yes. In most places, no. Because -- and some junior manager will be quick to explain this -- the fact that you surf means not only wasted productivity [which is, of course, dubious] but also liability.)
Which brings me to my third point -- and one that I have yet to receive an explanation for: the digital paradox. Why does a company fear the internet more than it does idle chatter in the bathroom? Or idle phone conversation? Why aren't my telephone calls monitored -- yet every site I visit is.
Why aren't there video cameras in the bathroom? (Because, well, that would be
I'd really like an explanation as to why the web -- more so than the phone, more so than the break-room during "work" time -- is so feared by management.
The reason, of course, is power. Skippy the mid-level manager can *see* you yabbering away in the break room.
Britney the just-out-of-Keller-with-an-MBA-I-worked-real-hard
Ah well. It's all power. Britney needs to commandeer what little power she is and make sure the power remains inviolable. I think that's what managers fear most -- loss of power. There is this illusion among the worst managers that somehow power -- their own, tenuous power -- will increase productivity. Because that means money -- the real reason the web is monitored.
It's crazy -- the surveillance. Everybody's watching, watching to make sure you don't do something to decrease productivity. Fucking absurd.
Re:Anything Goes (Score:2)
Just like the old Deutsche Democratische Republik where about half the population was informant for the state secret police...
Now, the police state is within the capitalist entities that croporations are. Makes you wonder if man isn't naturally a totalitarian communist...
Re:Battle of Time Wasters: WWW vs Solitaire (Score:2)
Hmm, seems to me that someone with a modicum of skill and an axe to grind could get his/her cow-orkers into a lot of trouble if their employer whas monitoring their web use and sanctioning them for "improper" surfing. Those "indisputable" log entries you mention will show exactly what you want. Forward ports. Forge packets. Re-route traffic. Sniff. Come on, you've got physical access to their computer -- if you can't think of a dozen ways to (mis)use that power, you don't deserve to call youself a geek.
Converely, if you want to surf in total privacy, it's trivial to do if you have the resources (IE a cable modem, DSL line, or some other permanent connection at home). All you have to do is run sshd and squid on your home machine, then ssh into it from work and forward a local port to the squid port at home:
ssh -2 -L 31337:myhost:8080 me@myhost.mydomain.com
Then set your web browser's proxy settings to localhost:31337 and the only thing that your employer will see is a bunch of encrypted packets going back and forth between your machine and an outside host. If you wanted to obfuscate what you are doing a little more, you could run sshd on another port (like 80 or 443). Use SSH-2 protocol and public-key authentication to eliminate man-in-the-middle attacks, and set up a dummy account on your home system (preferably with a non-functional shell) for extra security.
Re:Battle of Time Wasters: WWW vs Solitaire (Score:2)
Re:Battle of Time Wasters: WWW vs Solitaire (Score:2)
That's why you run sshd on port 443 instead of 22, so it looks like a nice, harmless https session to a non-offessive web site. [Or use any other port that's normally used for encrypted traffic.] If they do notice and ask about it, you just say "Oh, I'm just logged into my machine at home so I can check my personal email." Of course, you should be sure you have the pop3/imap ports forwarded to back up your story.
Re:great opinion piece? (Score:2, Interesting)
In other words, freedom to those who can afford to buy it.
-J5K
Because I'm a person (Score:5, Funny)
It's not my right to use someone else's resources to surf the net at work, granted. But if I am allowed the privilege of doing so, it _is_ my right to have my privacy untrammelled while I'm at it. If a guest at your home asks to use the telephone, you are not obligated to let them. But if you _do_ give them permission, a basic respect for human dignity demands that you not eavesdrop on their conversation by using another phone without their knowledge. And I haven't met the person yet with enough ill-advised chutzpah to inform his guests that all calls made from his phones will be monitored by him without specific permission (which is exactly the stance many companies take in their anti-privacy policies that explicitly warn employees that everything they do is being watched.)
Personal use of company equipment is a privilege. To have my privacy respected while I exercise that privilege is my right.
IHBT (I think)
Re:great opinion piece? (Score:3, Insightful)
The cornerstone of our civilization being a state of law where everything the State does is DICTATED BY LAW ALONE, law that has to be the same for everyone, it is absolutely essential that there shall be no interference between the executive, judiciary and legislative branches.
So, YES, we believe that those in one branch do indeed have a right of privacy from the other branches.
Perhaps this event will wake the judiciary (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a very important issue, not just for the judiciary and rendering of justice, such as it is, in America, but in the long run for all of our individual rights in the workplace as well.
The Libertarian notion that constitutional protections stop at the private property line, and that it is therefor ok, even reasonable, for employers to invade and snoop the personal correspondence of their employees merely because such correspondence passes through their privately owned equipment or networks is responsible for more loss of individual privacy than all of the government's orwellian snooping combined, if for no other reason than that the focus of the privacy invasion is targeted so specifically by an entity against a relatively small group of people (their employees).
How then, are we to combat this remarkably Orwellian situation? First and foremost, by getting our government, in particular the judiciary, to understand what is going on and just what the stakes are. In so doing they will be sensitized to these issues, and rulings favoring individual employee rights over an employers property priveleges may perhaps become more common (after all, it is a felony for an employer to open an employee's private correspondence which has been sent by US Mail, even though the desk it is sitting on is privately owned by them, not the employee. Why should email, or web browsing, be any different?)
On the other hand, if judges are routinely subjected to this kind of invasive monitoring, and it becomes truly a widespread, acceptable practice within all branches of the government, then any argument for the protection of individual citizens' privacy will be correspondingly diluted. Our courts and judges may not grant a private citizen priveleges they themselves enjoy, but they certainly won't grant a private citizen priveleges, or rights, they themselves not only do not enjoy, and perhaps even have come to take the lake thereof for granted.
It is ironic that the judiciary is only now beginning to experience the kind of Orwellian monitoring and control all too many people have come to expect in their workplace, but perhaps this is exactly the catalyst that is needed to put an end to this nonsense in both the private and public spheres, once and for all.
Re:great opinion piece? (Score:2, Informative)
RIAA Evil Plot (Score:2)
Now I think I'll be getting my morning coffee.
Judges vs Prisoners (Score:5, Insightful)
I should probably address those who will tell me that I shouldn't be defending prisoners. In fact, I would suspect that the first thing people will say is 'Prisoners give up their right to privacy when they break the social contract that our society agrees to', ie, when they break laws. However, not all prisoners are gulity, nor are all prisoners truly that dangerous. Giving a prisoner who commited a minor offense private access to a phone is hardly endangering the community.
Prisoners are people, and judges are people. We should treat all people as much like people as we can. And I think that involves giving them as much privacy as we can. Unless we suspect something hoakey is going on, we should never, ever be permitted to monitor anyone's private messages. If you think a judge is corrupt and you've got some resemblance of evidence, get a warrant, and start listening. If you think a prisoner is trying to hire a hitman to kill a judge, and you've got evidence, get a warrant and start listening. If Joe Prisoner says he wants to call his wife to make sure she knows how to properly do the laundry and just to talk to her, if he's got phone rights, by all means let him have his private time.
By creating artifical lines between humans, and allocating rights to some and not others, a greater divide is created. If judges can't be monitored, but prisoners can, does that mean entry level workers can be monitored for no reason, and CEO's can't? Or does it mean that all criminals (past and present) be watched in the workplace, and no one with a completely clean record?
Why not just make it easy and flat forbid it except in the most extreme of circumstances?
first MS, now convicts? (Score:2)
Your rights end on conviction. Harm others and go to jail. Prove yourself untrustworthy and find that others track your activities. It was so much easier when you could just hang em high.
Jebus! (Score:2)
Funny how everyone that replied to this post totally ignored the argument it made. He already made an argument against the replies in his post, but nobody seems to have read past the first paragraph. If you're gonna post some moronic reply, at least read the damn post first. Maybe then you can actually say something regarding the actual point of the post instead of wasting everyone's time with this drivel.
Re:Judges vs Prisoners (Score:2)
We don't allow prisoners to walk around freely in public. Judges can. But to argue that prisoners should have that same freedom because they are human is rediculous.
Prisoner's choices lead to their restricted freedoms and lack of privacy. A direct connection can be made between their actions and their circumstance.
To imply that humans deserve privacy regardless of their background is rediculous. If your son or daughter was caught with drugs, then it would be justified to search their room. The part you are missing is that the initial actions by the prisoners are what left them without privacy.
Re:Give a man an inch..and he thinks he's a ruler. (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a very long list of exceptions. Look at the municipal code of just about every city in the US that has a municipal traffic code.
In my city, speeding IS a crime, albeit a minor one. You get caught, you get issued. You have the option of paying by mail. Fail to pay by mail within the time perior (fifteen days in my city) and it becomes a summons to appear in the municipal court. Fail to appear on the summons, and a warrant is issued for your arrest.
Tell the cop that you won't take care of the ticket one way or the other, and he'll arrest you right then, assuming that the offense is arrestable and the officer is willing to deal with the paper. I usually just tell the driver "You've been served. If you want to leave this hanging, it's your problem."
Just about every home-rule city in Colorado has the same thing, with only the specific details varying. Most other states are similar, in that they have such practices at the state level or allow cities or counties to enact them into law.
Under the STATE CODE[1], speeding isn't necessarily a crime. It may just be a civil traffic infraction. (The cutoff is at 20MPH over the limit). Even so, fail to pay or appear and the court will simply enter a default judgement against you. Then DMV cancels your license. Then you will almost certainly be arrested if you're caught driving on a cancelled[1] license.
[1] State Patrol, State Parks and Wildlife, etc., only write under the state traffic code. However, city officers have the discretion to charge under either state law or muni code.
[2] The legal term is "denied." If your license is suspended, revoked, or cancelled in any state in the Traffic Offender's Compact, then it's automatically denied in Colorado. That means sitting behind the wheel on any public roadway in the state is good for jail time.
Requires you to enter an Email ... (Score:4, Funny)
Am I the only one who sees the irony of asking my e-mail address before you show me an article about privacy? Yes, any address works, so it's not nearly as bad as it could be, but still
Wrong thing to focus on... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Wrong thing to focus on... (Score:3, Informative)
Furthermore judges can only interpret the law. While this can have large implications, it's not the same as if they can decree martial law is in effect or pass taxes to raise money for themselves. The founders of our democracy decided that benevolent dictators with limited power were good for the republic.
The important thing is to make sure that only good honest people get to be judges in the first place. As an additional safe guard, the heirarchy of the judicial system ensures that only judges who consistently make intelligent reasonable rulings will advance in stature.
Re:Wrong thing to focus on... (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore judges can only interpret the law. While this can have large implications, it's not the same as if they can decree martial law is in effect or pass taxes to raise money for themselves. The founders of our democracy decided that benevolent dictators with limited power were good for the republic.
Judges in this nation do not only interpret law, they create it out of whole cloth. A perfect example is forced busing. No legislature enacted this program, the federal courts did. There are many other examples such as requirements to feed and shelter illegal aliens and requirements to display public documents in thousands of languages outside of English (de facto national language of the US). That is why I feel they need to be monitored and more reactive to public will. If they are going to be making laws when they have no Constitutional right too, they need more oversight by the public.
Re:Wrong thing to focus on... (Score:2)
They do have that right. The Constitution only grants the authority to pass codified law to Congress and the States; the Constitution is silent on whether or not the Judiciary can enact common law. Given that at the time the Constitution was drafted, a few hundred years of English common law had been incorporated into the United States, the historical record is pretty clear that the courts have always held the right to enact common law.
This doesn't mean it's wise or good when judges write a new chapter of common law, but it is most certainly Constitutional.
I know one Federal judge whose hobby is finding the oldest binding precedent that he can to support a notion. If I remember correctly, he's managed to get all the way back to 1632, predating the United States by almost two centuries, by using English common law which was incorporated into the United States.
Common law has a loooooooooooong pedigree.
Re:Wrong thing to focus on... (Score:2)
The only perfect example this is of is how not knowing your history gets you into trouble. The people outlawed unequal treatment under the law when they ratified the 14th amendment, which states:
What you are forgetting is that prior to Brown v. Board of Education, busing existed, but was used for a different purpose: to segregate schools. This was true even in northern cities like Boston -- only many people didn't realize it because their children weren't the ones being bused. Busing to achieve racial uniformity didn't achieve what many people hoped for, and arguably it was close to an unmitigated disaster. But the courts did not "make it up out of whole cloth". They didn't walk into school districts that just let all kids go to their local schools and force them to start busing kids around. It was specifically a punishment and redress for the illegal actions of school administrations that targeted minority kids to go to inferior schools.
What the SC did in Brown V. Board of Education that was unusual was to overturn a previous constitutional principle it had established in Plessy v. Fergusson. In that ruling, it was admitted that unequal treatment would violate the 14th amendment, but that separate accomodations (segregation) was not tantamount to inequality. In retrospect, equality never happened, so this interpretation of the 14th amendment proved to be untenable.
You have to take one position or the other: either wilfull segregation based on race is a form of unequal treatment or it is not. This requires judgement, which the courts provided. The solution wasn't as good as if we all sat down in good faith and worked out a plan for our representatives to implement, but that didn't happen. So, like many other instances where we the people didn't have our act together, the courts came up with a solomonic solution that cut the baby in half.
A lot of this kind of reaction against "judicial activism" depends on whose ox was gored. Let me give two examples where I hope and expect the courts will intervene in express contradiction to the wishes of congress: copyright extension and the anti TPM section of the DMCA. In both cases, I wish them to do so because the congress has used underhanded means of achieving something they are not constitutionally allowed to do: grant copyrights for unlimited terms and restricting the fair use of copyrighted works.
The courts have a role in our system to put a check on the excesses of the legislative and judicial branches. If you think this sucks, look at the countries where the judicial function is a tool of the government (China, for example). In the present case, it is a good thing that our judicial branch is getting a taste of the kind of high handed treatment that bureaucratic bluenoses are meting out to others.
Re:Wrong thing to focus on... (Score:2)
Re:Wrong thing to focus on... (Score:3, Informative)
This actually happened in Missouri. If I recall correctly, Kansas City was not budgeting enough money to pay for a court-ordered desegregation effort, so the Federal judge sitting on the bench imposed a sales tax on Kansas City with orders that the proceeds from the tax be used to pay for this court-ordered desegregation.
This was very recently, too--in just the last few years.
The decision was later found to be grossly unconstitutional by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the damage had already been done.
When John Ashcroft was being grilled for his Attorney General confirmation hearings, he took a lot of flak (primarily from Democrats) for his statement that the number one threat to the Constitution and public liberty was ``judicial tyranny''. A lot of people screamed bloody murder that we couldn't approve Ashcroft as A.G., that he didn't trust the courts.
How could he?
John Ashcroft was the Governor of Missouri at the time this half-baked crock in a robe usurped the Constitution and passed his own tax on the citizens of Missouri.
Why spy on Judges? (Score:1)
Re:Why spy on Judges? (Score:1)
Dude, I thought that judges were also lawyers...
I have seen this in real life. (Score:2, Interesting)
His solution? He bought a dial-up account and had an analog phone line installed in his courthouse office.
great, another amature sysadmid does it again. (Score:2)
Please, please help your friend if you have not already. Set him up with a real OS and configure it well. If you do things right, you can hook him up to the normal network and preserve his privacy. If you explain these things to him and show him a little about how it works, you may do the rest of us a big favor. It would be nice for him to know just how bad things are already. Good luck!
Heh, it all comes down to this: (Score:1)
Who is watching them?
Moose.
Just because you are paranoid, does not mean they aren't out to get you.
Heh, suppose we should point out to the judges that these violations of their rights is brought about by the DMCA/RIAA/MPAA...they might be pirates, and after all judges are guilty until proven innocent like all under the XXAA's bought and paid for laws, right?
Why?? (Score:2)
Re:Why?? (Score:2)
Are we supposed to believe that the director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts (umm, what is that exactly?) did something quite illegal (or at the very least was morally reprehensible) and then called together a "compliant Automation Committee" (again, what is that) that decided that this was a good idea and made the proposal?
Am I the only one who thinks that there is something we don't know, some large piece of the puzzle?
Re:Why?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. In plain language summary.
1) Beaurcrat snoops.
2) Punishes those who viewed obscene material.
3) Other judges find out he is covertly snooping on their private communications and point out that he doesn't have the mandate or legal right to do what he's doing.
4) Said snoop calls a secret closed meeting of the "Automation Committee" who handles all types of communications devices (eg. phone, fax, email ect.) and says I want the right to snoop in writting. They give him said right.
5) Letter is sent out to all judges saying this new power is no big deal. In fact he had the ability to monitor with cause already so what's the big deal about going fishing for misdeeds.
6) This Judge who wrote the Times op/ed tries to get his letter circulated as the other guys was but meets a roadblock so he publishes with the Times.
There's your simple summary. Now I'm going to comment.
One we already know what the US deffinition of obscene is... "I know it when I see it." That was a judge at the end of a case. Who is this guy not using due process of getting a warrant to go gathering evidence? He had no probable cause he just went trolling through proxy servers and mail spools. What he did was a best wrong and at worst illeagle.
Two the judge is right to be up in arms about this because this does change the complete communication flow. In an age where computers allow lawyers and their staffs to find cases that they would never find before as precidents and huge backlogs judges have a lot on their plates. Can you imagine either side could now fault say the judges thought process based on a telephone call. Or heck maybe they can turn the fact that he has pancreatic cancer (gleamed from a call from his doctor on his lunch hour)in their profile for whether he'd be likely to be swayed or worse use it as a technicality to get the case thrown out should they lose.
Bottom line, it's just painful to think about the pandoras box this opens up. And before someone mentions the monitoring of Dubaya POTUS Bush and shows this to be a good thing, think of this applied on a large scale AND remeber a pissant that wants more power does not equal watergate.
Re:Why?? (Score:2)
I once wrote an Internet policy for an employer that warned the staff that, while the company did not systematically monitor Internet usage, it was logistically possible for their email and other Internet communications to be viewed by someone other than the intended recipient. Consequently, they should at best treat it as semi-private (using the post card analogy).
Here's the problem: Maybe the system administrators can set it up so that the boss can't monitor email, but what's to stop the systems administrators from snooping? It would have been a lot of work to secure all electronic communications within the building, and, unless all email with the outside world were encrypted, impossible to secure communications that left the building. Given limited resources, we took the easy way out and warned people not to expect absolute privacy.
The proposed policy for the federal courts goes beyond that, but one could easily get there with similar logic. You get a bunch of head honchos sitting around a table asking themselves, are there really no circumstances where we might not want to snoop? Before you know it, they're building themselves a bunch of back doors just in case.
In the end, it all comes down to Caveat Emailor: If your communications are that sensitive, then you need to be responsible for your own security, and not depend on your employer or ISP to take care of it for you.
Big brother (Score:2)
Re:Big brother (Score:2)
What happened was a lower ranking officer was busted for using an on-base computer for "questionable" activities, and the commander was in the line for possibly passing judgement. Since he felt he had done a similar action, he believed he should indicate he was in conflict of interest, as passing judgement on the junior officer would bias his own case if it ever came to light.
But since the laptop was used from a hotel room, and the connection was not made via DND networks, but rather a private ISP account, and given that we Canadians aren't quite as uptight about normal porn (don't ask our border guys about lesbian porn, though) or nudity, it was basically dropped.
Re:Big brother (Score:2)
check out what they're seeing... (Score:3, Informative)
The downloads were at lunchtime, but jeeze, there are a lot of downloads. It looks like it was some sort of sharing software involved, by the looks of the filenames and the IP numbers.
The letter is from the adminstrative offices of the court to a chief judge, indicating the IP and registered owner of that IP. The log was captured as part of their "security intrusion detection" system because of the large volume of traffic. Sounds a little funny-- the volume of traffic is going the wrong way to be a massive data leak. I wonder how the judges like this "security" precaution being used to spy on them.
The administrative office goes on to complain about sexually-oriented websites are likely to contain "computer viruses, trojan horses, and other harmful products". First off, the administrator didn't notice that these weren't websites, and second, all the files were videos. A decent security system would have blocked
Sure, I'd be weirded out if someone was doing their thing to porn in the office next door, but it doesn't take a porn download to enable that sort of behavior. Besides, by the quantity of the downloads, it doesn't look like there was much time to view them.
Re:check out what they're seeing... (Score:2)
Acid Test for an Independent Judiciary (Score:3, Insightful)
If they drop the ball on this one, maybe we should move to an elected judiciary. I've always opposed that, but the federal courts aren't exactly covering themselves with glory (or independence) these days.
And exactly how do we do that? (Score:2)
You make it sound easy. Or even possible.
When was the last time the American people agreed on anything enough to change a facet of our national government? When was the last time we replaced Form X of government with Form Y, because Form X wasn't working? When was the last time the people actually had that much power to start with? 1776?
Come on, the old adage is true: if voting could change anything, they'd make it illegal.
Hold the phone (Score:2)
Legally, in the US, if you use a company computer to send email, that company has the right not only to read that email, but act on it. Your boss can bring up emails to boyfriends in reviews, and HR can fire you for posting contrary opinions to the web. As far as I'm aware, nothing prohibits identical behavior regarding phones, or even workplaces.
I may be wrong on this last point, but I think that employers can use surveilance equipment to monitor their employees activities without their knowledge. The best case is that the policy of surveilance must be made clear.
Judges is the US have defended this behavior for years now, and the computer (and phone) related argument is that the equipment belongs to the employer, and activies on them is in their purvue to observe. Let them be watched. I see no reason a judge should get any fairer treatment than the rest of us.
Re:Hold the phone (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. I once refused to use company equipment for exactly this reason. I used my own laptop, my private e-mail (over a secure link), and my own cell-phone. The company didn't like this, but my contract didn't say I had to use their stuff, nor did it say I had to submit to monitoring.
I've contracted for many companies, and I've never had to submit to monitoring. I spend enough of my life (way more than 40 hours/week) at work that I feel quite justified in using some of that time for personal business.
My experience has been that the companies that insist on monitoring employees also tend to be the ones with the worst moral and the least compentent management. Of course that doesn't prove a causal relationship, but I doubt it's a coincidence.
Re:Hold the phone (Score:1)
Re:Hold the phone (Score:2)
True enough, but I think this is more productively parsed in the other sense: My privacy is no less important than a judge's is.
I fervently hope the judges do fight this, and successfully. And then have the courage and consistently to start ruling that the rest of us have the same right to privacy in our workplaces.
Re:Hold the phone (Score:2)
It may be some time, but if judges don't grin and bear it, the arguments of employees in similar circumstances is going to be much stronger.
On the other hand, for the same reasons, it might take more courage (or more accurately, gall) to rule against an employee privacy case when the judge in question had fought monitoring of his own communications by his employer.
Re:Hold the phone (Score:2)
CS degree at my Uni required a seminar in computer ethics. One of the situations was that, as network admin, we'd been asked to deliver copies of an employee's email to a manager. Much discussion, but the punchline was that several legal cases had found in favor of the employer, because the machines that generated and transmitted the email were theirs, and it was their place to allow or withhold permission to listen in. As I recall, the precedent was set by company phone systems, where they own the desk station and the PBX.
If you memorize your civil rights, don't forget one. --Consolidated.
interesting /. ethics (Score:2, Interesting)
So, how come it's OK for a /. editor to suggest a bogus email address for the WSJ registration, but it's not OK for a /. editor to automatically change the NYT links to be registration-free? Don't both of those actions subvert the normal registration process, and don't they both have privacy implications? It seems like /. should just get a consistent policy on this sort of thing, and stick with it.
Judges To Watch "Big Brother"? (Score:2)
Prosecutor: Dammit, the defendant ate my peanut butter again!
Judge: Yeah, he's just so selfish. Maybe I should add an extra two years to his sentence. Hmmm--that way I'll get the bedroom with the balcony.
Prosecutor: Great! Let's go get a latte.
It is time to remove the computers (Score:1)
Remove all the computers and bring thier own if they still want it. Or better yet back to paper! Install there own phone lines, pay for them from the own pockets.
It this point the Judges will be on that same level as most teachers and sheriffs.
It is important that monitor is done and not done.
To have monitoring done...
We the people, will have the right see what happenes in our courts system.
To have monitoring not done...
We the poeple, are protecting the rights of each person.
For me... NO MONITORING
Everyday..... (Score:2, Funny)
Thank you and God Bless
Linuxrunner
Bad for judges, hopefully good for us (Score:2, Insightful)
So, the fact is that the monitoring of internet use is a gross over reaction to something that isn't really a problem at all.
So how is this good for us?
This may be exactly what is necessary to galvanize judges into action in the fight to preserve privacy. Like that guy in The Patriot they may finally fight the threat after it has hit too close to home.
--------
Remember that you are unique, just like everyone else.
Eventually everyone (Score:2)
Interestingly, though, I think that if this concept spreads to the legislative branch, our reps will not like it one bit. They will undoubtedly try to pass a law preventing government employees from being watched. So in the end maybe this'll turn out in favor of privacy.
Re:Eventually everyone (Score:1)
It might turn out in favor of privacy for our reps, but that won't do us any good.
Over-reaction? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if I could play the role of devil's advocate for a moment:
It is more significant if a judge is surfing for illegal pr0n or warez on the job than some average luser. Is it so wrong to hold the guarantors of justice to a higher standard?
Who guards the guards?
Sleeping in a bed they made... (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine if they're even doing their job, though... (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case, the monitoring is even scarier. Based on the judges' private communications, sites visted, things like that, anyone with access to the log files can begin to recreate the judge's state of mind DURING the case.
Imagine what happens when this gets into the wrong hands. There are some very creative journalists who can take small bits of nformation and blow them out of proportion. We learn that people are likely to be convicted before the trial is complete. We learn that people who appear to be guilty are going to walk. And worse, we learn this because of things that the judges has said and done, rather than just speculation (as it is now) How much harder will it be to keep an untainted jury? Besides, if we know what the judge is thinking, why have a jury?
Yes, it's an exaggeration, but it's frightening to think that the scenario they are trying to achieve is actually worse than finding out which judge has what fetish...
So what should be done? (Score:4, Informative)
My ongoing complaint about the YRO articles is that whatever is currently being proposed is always ridiculed in favor of something else. Government regulation? Schools and libraries should set policies. Schools and libraries restricting access? It should be up to parents. Parents take responsibility? How dare they!
In this case, I would be extremely reluctant to join a workplace that monitored my computer usage. But unlike the hypocritical, dishonest bigots who edit Slashdot, I recognize the real issues here and I'm curious to hear what people think is an equitable way to deal with them.
Unfortunately, the reality is that workers in the judicial offices are not capable of policing themselves. ("A letter Lee sent on March 5 contains a list of all the movies accessed by a particular user between 12:12 p.m. and 1:35 p.m., including /bigtits/bix/mer021/3.mpg and /personal4/fuckmovie/asian/07.mpg. ")
It seems to me the issues are:
Re:So what should be done? (Score:2)
If you'd followed what I've written, you'd know that I stand 100% for parents to make decisions about their own kids, rather than the government. I opine mostly about censorware, so I assume that's what this was directed at. I don't support parents who block ideas from their kids [censorware.net]. But I stand up, over and over, for parents' rights to make decisions about their own kids -- not anyone else's kids.
And I'm totally in favor of schools and libraries setting sensible policies which are enforced by human beings (not robots). Schools should be free to put a stop to wasteful use of computer resources, but they shouldn't think that installing censorware is a quick fix. Libraries should be free to put a stop to any behavior that interferes with other patrons' ability to use the community's resources, but again, censorware is not a quick fix. And in both cases, censorware usually violates the First Amendment: our government, whether acting as the federal legislature, state legislatures, school boards or library boards, is not allowed to "abridge the freedom of speech or of the press."
Awwwww. We love you too.
It's not just Judges... (Score:2, Informative)
Judges are to blame (Score:1, Insightful)
Reference Desks. Boston Public Library Departments (Score:2, Informative)
Massachusetts Library of Last Recourse, so called, have forwarded
to City Hall some reference requests for public records
managed by our public library.
It's an attempt to be a kind of deterrent for public library users and
contrary to the usual expected discretion for BPL Departmental Reference Desk services.
oo__ dWs
Guide to Problematical Boston Public Library Use
http://GuideToProblematicalLibraryUse.WebLogs.com
http://saklad.org [saklad.org]
This is already common practice (Score:3, Interesting)
I work at a large inventment bank, where many employees have access to information that other employees do not. And, I suppose that whoever has the job of snooping on people's email, etc. would have access to all of this proprietary or client information. But that's not stopping them from having the policy.
Is the outcome of this struggle amongst judges really going to have any effect on the rest of us in the private sector?
unmonitored? (Score:4, Interesting)
That may not be accurate.
http://www.usc.edu/isd/policies/general/
(see sections 1.4 and 3.3)
Judges to watch big brother (Score:2)
White House phone billing "privacy" (Score:2)
Mentioned In The Article... (Score:3, Interesting)
Has anyone else at any company of any size (>100 employees) seen anything along these lines? Simply asking employees to cut down Internet use and the employees did? Or any studies about this?
It sounds kinda odd to me. My reason for asking: I had never had any hesitations installing censorware for my employer to cut down on wasting bandwidth. But if asking actually works for >100 people, (ideally several documented cases) then I'll rethink my stance..
Hardly the first step (Score:2, Insightful)
Useful vs prying monitoring (Score:4, Insightful)
But honest and competant sysadmins will also tell you that usage monitoring never needs to pry into the content of the excessive usage. Merely reporting the amount to the user usually suffices. If not, reporting it to the user's boss by definition suffices.
Unix sysadmins have evolved certain privacy ethics over the decades. Never pry into user files, email or other traffic even though it is trivially easy to do. There is no justifiable need. Record and store email headers (addressees & subject) in the event of a complaint of email non-delivery. Remind users of excessive resource usage, preferably by automated email. At the limit, publicly post a list of the top10 resource hogs. But never any mention of content.
Perhaps NT admins need a lesson?
Your op-ed piece in the WSJ (Score:3, Insightful)
Employees are monitored all day, every working day in this country. They don't have access to the august pages of the WSJ to make their case. Since when should I believe you are a champion of the Little Guy? You represent the same class of people who appointed George Bush president, who support restitution for unauthorized computing in Georgia, Internet filtering for unauthorized reading in Michigan, arresting foreign nationals in California for unauthorized coding. When the tide turns against you, we should be concerned? My civil liberties are stripped from me daily with judicial complicity. What can you possibly expect in return?
Re:Your op-ed piece in the WSJ (Score:2, Interesting)
More cynicism required (Score:4, Insightful)
Given my druthers, I'd prefer a system where everyone got to keep their privacy, but with companies increasingly taking the position, "they're our computers so we can monitor and filter if we want," and ISPs increasingly saying, "they're our networks so we can monitor and filter if we want," does anybody really still believe that's an option? At least one other poster has pointed out that this sort of monitoring is already de rigueur for many employees. Are our saviors on the bench prepared to join the crusade against this practice once their own privacy is assured? Somehow, I doubt it.
I think the worst of all possible worlds would be the one where the high and mighty are allowed to have privacy, but the rest of us are not. If every detail of my life is potentially open to scrutiny by the whole world, then I want, at the very least, to be able to discourage people from making unfair use of that information through the threat of exposing their secrets. If we rally behind these judges, perhaps we might strike a blow for privacy; then again, perhaps we might open the door to that lopsided scenario where judges and congresspeople and billionaries can protect their privacy, but the rest of us can just lump it.
No thanks. I propose instead that we support monitoring for judges and elected officials until such time as they get off their duffs and take steps to assure privacy protection for all of us.
-rpl
Re:More cynicism required (Score:2)
Agreed. Many judges have been more than content to allow everyone else's privacy to slip away, whether it be to an employer, another person, or a new kind of wiretap. They're not writing the law, they're just interpreting it, right? Now that their own privacy's on the line, let's see how creative their interpretations get. They didn't think this was an important issue until it bit them in the ass, and as soon as it stops biting them, they'll go back to their old ways. Keep the hurt on until we all have our privacy.
Re:More cynicism required (Score:2)
{big snip}
Well said. We've come a long way from the time when the law was applied equally to all. We're not quite down the tubes yet; a DuPont was convicted of murder a few years ago. Of course, there's always the Kennedy clan as counterexample to that; maybe I'm being too optimistic.
All other fedral employees are monitored (Score:3, Interesting)
"THIS IS A DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DoD) COMPUTER SYSTEM. This computer system, including all related equipment, networks and network devices (specifically including internet access), are provided only for authorized U.S. Government use. DoD computer systems may be monitored for all lawful purposes, including to ensure that their use is authorized, for management of the system, to facilitate protection against unauthorized access, and to verify security procedures, survivability and operational security. Monitoring includes active attacks by authorized DoD entities to test or verify the security of this system. During monitoring, information may be examined, recorded, copied and used for authorized purposes. All information, including personal information, placed on or sent over this system may be monitored. Use of this DoD computer system, authorized or unauthorized, constitutes consent to monitoring of this system. Unauthorized use may subject you to criminal prosecution. EVIDENCE OF UNAUTHORIZED USE COLLECTED DURING THIS MONITORING MAY BE USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, CRIMINAL OR ADVERSE ACTION. USE OF THIS SYSTEM CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO MONITORING FOR THESE PURPOSES."
Get your own damn connection! (Score:3)
Seriously, any network use requiring privacy should be done on one's own connection. It's too bad, but even eloquently written letters decrying this fact won't change it.
MY Comments (Score:2, Informative)
TO: karen_siegel@aol.uscourts.gov
Dear Ms. Siegel and members of the Judicial Conference:
Please forward my comments on this matter to all members of the Judicial Conference.
I am writing to express my concern about the current proposals before the conference dealing with the monitoring of judicial employee communications.
Openness and privacy play vital roles in a great deal of court business. For instance, if the testimony used to convict an individual were to be kept secret it would undermine both the appearance of justice and the actual fact of justice (RARE special exceptions involving issues such as national security notwithstanding). If a judge were to hold lengthy, substantive conversations with a plaintiff's attorney without involving or permitting any counter by the defense, it would be unfair and unjust.
On the other side, if a defendant's privileged discussions with their lawyer, or between two attorneys on a defense team were to be published in the newspaper, it would undermine the court process. If the comments made by jurors during jury deliberations were available to the public, many a decision would be questioned or even thrown out.
I hope no more arguments are needed to substantiate my point that the decisions of what part of the legal process should be public and what should be private are vital ones which lie at the heart of the just functioning of our entire legal system. Over thousands of years we have developed a code for addressing these issues, and it has NOT included pervasive monitoring of judges and judicial staff, which might, or might not, become part of the public record. Even if it did not, the behavior of that staff, in their selection of what kinds of information to seek out would certainly be influenced. I think that to introduce such monitoring is unwise, but I am CERTAIN that to introduce it suddenly, without EXTENSIVE deliberation and consideration of its effects on the entire judicial system would be dangerous.
In addition to this main point, I would like to mention two other reasons why I believe that this proposed policy is misguided. One is that there is little evidence to indicate that monitoring is needed. Judge Kozinski's article in the Wall Street Journal (with which I am sure you are familiar) expresses this point quite effectively. And lastly, I feel that this is a terrible precedent to set for all workplaces. If the employees of our judicial system cannot be trusted to perform their jobs without pervasive, "Big Brother" style monitoring, then WHO CAN? And if they cannot be trusted without such monitoring, then how can they be trusted with the much more delicate and vital job of rendering justice?
I urge you to consider these issues in your decision. I would be willing to testify or to discuss such issues at further length if you feel it would be helpful, please contact me if you feel this would be desirable.
Sincerely,
Michael B Chermside
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx Ave
Chicago IL 60660
Phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
I seriously don't understand this - (Score:3, Interesting)
I read slashdot all the time, and there is always an article about how some judge has ruled in favor of a wealthy entity's right to take away the privacy of an individual, followed by posts from libertarians saying that its okay that individuals don't have privacy rights in "the real world" as long as they do in theory.
That's fine. That's good. That's slashdot. I love it.
But now we have a situation where the Judges' rights to privacy are in jeopardy. And it seems most people are rallying to their defense. Send letters! Send email! Fight for their right to privacy!
I don't get it. This is almost Shakespearean irony - judges being forced to endure the consequences of an environment that they themselves helped to create. Perhaps the best way for them to see the results of their rulings on individual privacy is for them to experience what it is like to be deprived of that privacy. Why would we interfere with poetic justice?
DJS
Privacy is dead! (Score:3, Informative)
The cameras are coming. They're getting smaller and nothing will stop them. The only question is: who watches whom?
Judges Don't Have Bosses (Score:3, Interesting)
A federal judge is appointed for life. Sure, Congress can remove him for bad behavior, but that has been applied as doing illegal things not how the judge ruminates about the case, or with whom. The system is designed to protect the ability of these individuals to make independent judgments. Courts of appeal provide the accountability, not putting the individuals under a microscope.
A judge cannot operate in a vacuum. He needs clerks, secretaries, and the like to do his job. Monitoring them can be like monitoring him. The judicial conference's monitoring plan is a genuine intrusion into the independence of federal judges that should be beaten back.
This is not only about the kind of privacy issue that comes up with all other workers. If that was the case, a prominent judge like Kozinski would probably not be publishing letters in the Wall Street Journal. (He's a likely candidate to be on Bush's short list for possible Supreme Court nominations.)
No, I don't trust government employees... (Score:2, Interesting)
While I'm not advocating that Judges be subject to surveillance, I have to say that I do *not* trust judicial employees in the slightest. The US legal system is scary. It has very little to do with actual justice or fairness. And these are *government* employees we're talking about. The same government that runs the IRS, FBI, CIA, etc., and in the case of state governments the DMV, the state police, and so on. Does the thought of these organizations instill you with confidence in the abilities of our government workers?
I would agree that employees in the judicial branch of government (especially judges) are probably of higher caliber than, say, your average DMV worker, that doesn't change the fact that they are government employees and are therefore highly susceptible to bouts of extreme incompetence.
I think the EFF's rhetoric here only hurts their cause.
Holy Hog-Heaven, Buttman! (Score:2, Interesting)
Nice try. No cookie...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jim Bell (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constitutional amendment needed?? (Score:2)
There's a certain appeal, but I am wary of any Constitutional amendment, especially one that treads near First Amendment ones. I am afraid people are too myopic to understand the 9th and 10th Amendments; that is, by marking some things off limits we create the automatic assumption that other things must be OK.