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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Browsing Privacy - Off With Your Headers! 336

andyo writes: "Incredible assertion in this Wired article that 'Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the identities of their e-mail correspondents, or the addresses of Web pages they visit.' Cites two senators who I'd thought to be more clueful (Orrin Hatch and Chuck Schumer)." Sure, the FBI should be able to check out every URL I visit without a warrant. They'll never abuse that power.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Browsing Privacy - Off With Your Headers!

Comments Filter:
  • by q-soe ( 466472 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @01:06AM (#2356969) Homepage
    In normal times the opinion of these 2 avowed members of the ultra conservative christian right would be ridiculed, but at this moment in time they will get wide support in some areas.

    the terrorist actions commited on the 11th are such that many many americans will give up what they see as small freedoms in order to fight the supposed evil around them.

    Enough small freedoms and you are living in a police state - and the scary thing is how easily this could be done in the US.

    But in a way they are sort of right - with many modern systems and tools you dont have a hell of a lot of privacy in these areas unless you set out to make sure you have it.

    • I totally agree with you. It's extremely scary, but how can we fix the problem?

      From what I can tell, there aren't enough "educated" people that care enough to make a difference. For instance, out of everyone that reads this site and agrees that all this additional privacy invasion is bad, how many people would actually DO something to make a difference and end this nonsense?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27, 2001 @01:15AM (#2357001)
      Enough small freedoms and you are living in a police state - and the scary thing is how easily this could be done in the US.

      No, the scary thing is that it looks like it will be done in the US. The Bush administration seems to be right behind it, and they've rallied enough support to do it. There's serious support for a national ID card. People who speak out in dissent are being ostracized, and it wouldn't surprise me to see dissenters start to experience violent suppression soon. People are driving around with big American flags on their vehicles and displaying these in the name of patriotism. We've seen this kind of patriotism before - or at least if we haven't, our grandparents and great-grandparents have (treading close to the Godwin line here, but not in histrionics as would normally be the case).

      Don't fear that terrorists might win - fear that they have already won, because from this angle it looks like they have.

      • No, the scary thing is that it looks like it will be done in the US. The Bush administration seems to be right behind it, and they've rallied enough support to do it. [...] Don't fear that terrorists might win - fear that they have already won,

        I agree with this concern: it is truly scary how easily Americans are willing to give up freedoms and constitutional guarantees for what is an uncertain protection against what for each individual amounts to a tiny risk of terrorism.

        There's serious support for a national ID card.

        I don't see how a national ID card is related to a police state. The US government already has several identifiers to track you and anybody else. A national ID card wouldn't give them anything more, but it could at least come with better protection against identity theft and better privacy legislation.

        • I don't know the details of this National ID card project, but here I Germany we have something very similar. It's called a "Personalausweis" and there's really nothing bad about it. Around the age of 16 you get one, and it's the ONLY valid proof of your identity (even your Passport contains a copy of it). Thus, you don't need a drivers licence like in the US to prove your age, just show your card and every government institution, bank or theater will accept it.
          • by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @04:40PM (#2361000) Homepage Journal

            Sounds very practical, and I'm sure almost everyone in Deutschland trusts their government not to abuse the system of identification.

            In the United States, from a practical perspective we probably don't have any much more reason than you do to distrust our government's intentions if they were permitted to institute a similar system.

            It's just that we still cling nostalgically to the idea that we are empowered with not just votes to change our government, but guns, (just in case!).

            That's the part that is interesting, because conservative politicians have to walk a fine balance between being pro-law enforcement and pro-gun ownership.

            Remember that the deciding factor in Bush's election was white, male, rural voters that helped him get electoral college majority despite a popular vote minority.

            The current administration can't afford to alienate their constituency too much with measures that smack of a police state.

            If I were in the administration and facing this situation, I'd take advantage of the fact that citizen's object vehemently to government intrusions into their affairs, but think little or nothing about corporate intrusions into their private lives. The wise move would simply be for the government to start buying information from all the direct marketers, credit card companies, frequent shopper cards, etc. Those profiles are already light years ahead of a national identity card.

      • People are driving around with big American flags on their vehicles and displaying these in the name of patriotism.

        And there is nothing wrong with that. Patriotism is what has protected us for so long. Like it or not, patriotism is what allows you to sit there and post this. Someone ELSE's patriotism, I mean. Someone who may have had to fight a war on your behalf.

        If no one cared about our national identity, it would have been lost long ago. Patriotism can be abused, but it is a critical part of maintaining the cohesiveness of the state. Of ANY state.

        Patriotism is not a dirty word. If you find it disturbing, at least let other people express it. Be vigilant, sure... but I'm not seeing mobs of flag-wavers torching Moslem businesses in my neighborhood yet.

        We've seen this kind of patriotism before - or at least if we haven't, our grandparents and great-grandparents have (treading close to the Godwin line here, but not in histrionics as would normally be the case).

        You are comparing our current flag displays to the fervor of wartime Germany?

        Don't you think that flags were displayed in this manner after Pearl Harbor? I think that would be a better comparison.
    • In normal times the opinion of these 2 avowed members of the ultra conservative christian right would be ridiculed, but at this moment in time they will get wide support in some areas.

      I think Mr Schumer would disagree that he is an "avowed member of the ultra-conservative christian right". And Hatch is one of the most respected members of the Senate (he used to be the chairman of the most important committee there). That doesnt sound to me like his opinion is normally ridiculed... Its even a stretch to call Hatch an ultra-conservative- he is known to go out of his way to occomodate others, and he even supported stem cell research (a very non-ultra-conservative thing to do).
    • by AaronStJ ( 182845 ) <AaronStJ.gmail@com> on Thursday September 27, 2001 @02:11AM (#2357144) Homepage
      Enough small freedoms and you are living in a police state - and the scary thing is how easily this could be done in the US.

      With all the patriotism and support for the Bush administration, I'm beginning to wonder if the majority might not eventually want to live in a police state. And if that's what the majority wants, who are we, I wonder, to stop them? If the majority wants to be opressed, isn't that kind of (ironically) their right?

      And if so, what are we to do? Interesting stuff to think about.
    • by sfe_software ( 220870 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @02:22AM (#2357171) Homepage
      I think there's some confusion about "reasonable expectation of privacy". There should be no expectation of security, eg email is plain text and easily intercepted. But you should, in the United States, have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

      If just anyone were reading someone's email without permission, certainly there would be legal recourse. That's where a "reasonable expectation of privacy" comes in. Just because they're in plain view doesn't mean people have a right to view it. Think 900 MHz (analog) cell phones and the ban on scanners/down-converters. This is really no different in my opinion.
    • by phantomlord ( 38815 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @03:02AM (#2357245) Journal
      In normal times the opinion of these 2 avowed members of the ultra conservative christian right would be ridiculed, but at this moment in time they will get wide support in some areas.

      So now Chuck Schumer is a member of the "ultra conservative christitan right"? Let's see... He authored the Brady Bill back in 1993 and the assault weapons ban in 1994, wrote the Freedom to Access Clinic Entrances Act, he's for socialized medicine and free prescription drugs, etc. Do you know who he beat to get his Senate seat? Conservative republican Al D'Amato.

      Stop and think about all of that for a minute. Just because someone did something you don't like, they must be a member of the VRWC(Vast Right Wing Conspiracy), right? You want to talk about knee jerk situations in a crisis? You're calling one of the most liberal democrats in DC a right wing extremist. If you can't be bothered to do your homework regarding the people whom you're attacking, why should anyone bother listening to your attack. This is one of the reasons why /. would make a horrible lobbying group - so many people here are ignorant of politics but think because they're 1337 perl hackers, they can solve all the problems of the world. You think the legal advice offered on /. is usually bad, the political information is often 10x worse. Moderators: -1 flamebait, -1 attacks /. elitism, -1 must be right wing nut

    • I post my correction (Score:3, Informative)

      by q-soe ( 466472 )
      Many people have pointed out that it is my personal opinion that these gentlemen are ultra conservative right wing christians is incorrect so i have decided i will post a small correction.

      The opinion expressed above is mine alone and thus it may be incorrect.

      There.

      Having said that i think that my point is a valid one - this country can easily slip away from the free one it is if we dont watch out - there are forces out there (yes even democratic party ones) who would take away our most basic rights if they think it is the right thing or politcally correct thing to do.

      Pay attention today otherwise you may lose more than you will ever know.
    • Chuck Schumer is not an ultra-conservative you ignorant dimwit.

      Schumer is a left-winger liberal ass-kisser of the highest order.

  • by Mustang Matt ( 133426 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @01:07AM (#2356976)
    I feel so powerless.

    I realize that a lot of the things I read on this site are semi-biased sometimes, but the overall feeling I'm getting is not good.

    We all realize that more monitoring is not necessarily a good thing or a solution to any problem, but how do we truly inform the people that don't understand, especially those who are making decisions for us in politics?

    I've written some of my state reps but I'm just not sure that's doing the job. Is there a bigger organization that will stand up for us and privacy?
    • I've written some of my state reps but I'm just not sure that's doing the job. Is there a bigger organization that will stand up for us and privacy?

      Then maybe it's time to replace your state reps. Try the Libertarian Party [lp.org].

      Whether you otherwise love or hate them, you have to admit their platform plank on privacy sounds a hell of a lot better than that of the virtually indistinguishable ElephantDonkey policitians:

      The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. ...

      We oppose all restrictions and regulations on the private development, sale, and use of encryption technology. We specifically oppose any requirement for disclosure of encryption methods or keys, including the government's proposals for so-called "key escrow" which is truly government access to keys, and any requirement for use of government-specified devices or protocols. We also oppose government classification of civilian research on encryption methods. ...

      We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing.

      We further oppose the nearly universal requirement for use of the Social Security Number as a personal identification code, whether by government agencies or by intimidation of private companies by governments. "


      more here [lp.org]
  • We need to organize (Score:5, Informative)

    by maddman75 ( 193326 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @01:16AM (#2357004) Homepage

    We've got to beat them at thier own game. I started a mailing list after reading the "Slashdot in Politics" thread. I'm wanting to get involved, to change the system. Anyone want to help? We've got to do it open source style. Each person works on a small chunk, ending up with a massive effort.

    Follow the link in my sig to sign up for the newsletter. We can't just stand by and let this happen.



  • Natural Justice (Score:4, Interesting)

    by os2fan ( 254461 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @01:28AM (#2357027) Homepage
    Under the days before computers, copying and tracking was a costly process. This cost provided a dissentive to engage in these, and copyright and privacy laws were intended to finish it off.

    Observing a particular action of you is of course not protected. To build a database of this on the other hand is time consuming, and attracts the attention of the law, eventually. Likewise, pressing bootleg or pirate money, books or records.

    Copying and tracking have become essentially free. The effect is that the laws of copyright and privacy struggle to deal with the ability to use computers to track and copy things.

    At the moment, what is seriously lacking is some measure to deal with the correct use of copies, and who can legitimately copy things and for what.

    To deal with "privacy" and "copyright" and "licensing" as separate issues is to miss the point.

  • So, personally, i've been designing a webapp for use by myself and my friends lately, and this whole thing has inspired me to use POST vs GET whenever possible.

    Unless they're actually wanting HTTP Headers instead of just URLs, which seems more clueful on their part.

    Either way, this is a travesty. Not in and of itself, but because of the precedent that it sets. People can't take video and sound of you in a public place, but they can take an exact record of what you've been surfing to.. wonderful.

    It would probably be possible to set up an anonymizing proxy that used a form of chaffing with HTTP headers to obscure the actual transactions from the random crap grabs.
    • You wanna use POST instead of GET anyway. When you encode the form submission into the URL, you quickly run into the limits of the various browswers. Some will try to be helpful and rewrite things in the address, URL-encoding characters that shouldn't be encoded (IE, for instance). Others will allow you more space in the address than you're really supposed to have (255 characters) but then chop off your data at some later point. And finally, when Joe Random User tries to use your web app and sees all that crap in the address, he's gonna be Confused.

      I think it's much cleaner just to write up a library routine that grabs the GET and POST buffers and parses them into some kind of hash table, and include that library in all my web apps. It keeps the URL clean, and it avoids all the weird browser issues with encoding and length. I can use either POST or GET that way, making it easy to keep things tidy.
      • Hmm.. a hash of POST and GET variables.. that'll be exactly what PHP does then.. does cookies too..

        Anyway, its a bit more complicated than 'Just use POST whenever'.. what if you want to send a URL that includes variables to someone (a search engine link, slashdot comment, ecard etc etc).. Theres a good reason for having both.
    • Anyone can video your movements (well authorities or companies can, but they get upset if you try and video them - see Steve's wearcam thread from yesterday. Sorry can't find the link right now)
      They do, however, have to give you a copy of all footage and info they have on you if you request it and pay for the privilege.

      This is certainly true in the UK and I think it is in the US as well, but feel free to correct me.
  • But it's true. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Giant Hairy Spider ( 467310 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @01:29AM (#2357030)
    You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, any more than you do about where you go when you leave your house or who you send letters to. That's just the nature of public actions... they're not private. People can see them, and they are free to tell others, including police. They can be asked with no warrant, and freely cooperate, or if they refuse to cooperate, and reasonable justification can be found, a warrant can be issued to require them to provide it if they have it.

    The questions of mass-databasing this information and of requiring private parties to give constant, full reports on the data available to them, are entirely different.
    • You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, any more than you do about where you go when you leave your house or who you send letters to.

      Why wouldn't I have an expectation of privacy in my postal communications? The letters go into a locked mailbox, are picked up by employees who are required to keep postal secrets, and delivered into a private mailbox at the other end. I don't even need to give a recipient's name--an address or P.O. box is sufficient, and I don't have to put a "From" address on it either. Most countries (the US probably as well) have strong legal restrictions on what you can do with a misdelivered piece of mail, so even in the case of accidents, your privacy is supposed to be preserved.

      Yet for E-mail, all of a sudden all of that is supposed to be "public"? On the same footing as a USENET posting? Even if I use an SSL connection to pick up and send my mail? Sorry, but I just don't get your logic.

    • BUT....

      People may be able to assertain who I send letters to, as you can easily read it from outside the envelope. But can anyone (even the police) READ my mail without a warant? No, thats a fellony. Are you trying to tell me that if the FBI/etc is given the right to snoop email servers to see to whom you are talking, they're NOT going to keep scrolling down the page to read the actual email??? (Wait, avert your eyes, we can't keep reading this!) Yeah right.

      In this day and age, with snail mail being used less and less every day, we NEED the same protections put in place on email as we have on regular mail. I know, some say sending unencrypted email should be taken more like sending a postcard than a sealed envelope. Fine. Then special protection should be given to encrypted email only, but if that was the case, you would have to be required to fork over your key upon the presentation of a warant, so that the authorities could have the same options as they do with regular mail. To do / expect otherwise is foolhardy.


    • You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, any more than you do about where you go when you leave your house or who you send letters to. That's just the nature of public actions... they're not private.

      I do agree with that to a certain degree, but ...
      What frightens me is that the *police* expects/demands that their actions are private.

      Have a look at This story [boston.com]
      "The preamble to the law said electronic devices are a danger to the privacy of all citizens. This case turns that notion on its head because here we had an individual trying to protect himself from a misdeed on the part of public officials and he's the one who ends up being arrested for it and prosecuted,"

    • That's just the nature of public actions

      If I'm in my own home, in the dark, using one hand to surf to "special" web sites, in what way is what I'm doing a "public action"?

      People can see them, and they are free to tell others, including police

      First, people can not see them. Even if so, this is not good, as the above described actions are illegal in some states of the US. [Extra credit: so what if instead of visiting a "special" web site, you subscribe to "special" magazines delivered by postal mail? Any expectation of privacy?]

      They can be asked with no warrant, and freely cooperate, or if they refuse to cooperate, ....

      Isn't failing to cooperate grounds for probable cause? [If not, will they will rectify this soon?]

      Finally, if you want to take an extreme view, do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in anything you do? After all, the room could be bugged. The phone could be bugged. The government could have placed cameras in your home. They could be parked outside in a van watching your actions using advanced alien technology. They could be using telepaths. etc. [Better make yourself a tin foil hat.]

      Give me a break. Barring extraordinary conditions, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in lots of things you do. Especially in your own home. Surf the web. Read e-mail. Watch TV. Use the phone. Send a fax. Have a conversation. Pull the drapes.

      [Yeah, I know the whole "e-mail is a postcard" thing. But any idiot with aligator clips can listen in to your phone conversation too. The plain simple fact is that most people don't have access to the right infrastructure points to intercept your e-mail, any more than they have access to the right wires to hook up their aligator clips.]

      One of my points is: your expectation of privacy has some correlation to your paranoia. A reasonably well balanced person has a certian expectation of privacy which is higher than a paranoid person.
  • Wait a sec... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ClubPetey ( 324486 ) <clubpetey AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday September 27, 2001 @01:31AM (#2357033)
    *puts on asbestos*
    Ok, seriously, I'm not trying to be difficult here, but where is the part in the constitution that says you have the right to be anonymous. I understand the right of free speech, and general "freedoms" granted, but the right to say what you want is not the same as the right to say things anonymously. People need to be responsible for their actions and their words. While sometimes anonymity is usefull and necessary (such as children reporting sexual abusers), most of the time all an anonymous service does is encourage people to behave poorly. When people are not responsible for their actions, they behave irresponsibly.

    Take for example the SPAM I get through YIM (or Email). If one was REQUIRED to properly identify themselves in order to get a YIM account, and that identity included name, phone number, etc. How many "HOT SEXXX!!!" messages would you get? Very few, considering you could call them or get their address and harass them back if they annoyed you.

    The same applies to the web, I see no reason why a company can't track you through a site. your are on THEIR servers, using THEIR service. They can do what they want as far as it extends to tracking your way around their system. AS for telling you about it. I think people need to realize that they have NO privacy unless they work to create it. Assume all companies are trying to get EVERYTHING from you they can (since they are) and assume that any information you give out unsecured on the web is public domain (since it is anyway).

    I know this has been discussed before, but I do honestly believe that a "National ID system" may be useful. The question is making the system difficult to circumvent. The best solution I have at the moment is smartcard chips embedded under the skin (seriously, I think this is cool!) that could be used to track you, grant you access to things you should have access to, and keep you out of things your shouldn't. Just think of the criminal uses if anyone could be tracked. The whole determination of who was at the scene of a crime and who wasn't would be a simple database query. Yea, yea, I know, mark of the beast, but I don't subscribe to that religion.

    Oh, no, I don't see National ID cards, tracking, or the FBI reading my E-mail as a loss of my privacy, I didn't think I had privacy in the first place. Besides, if the FBI is really interested in reading the love letters between me and my Fiancee, be my guest.

    *takes asbestos off*
    • Here's where, exactly:
      Amendment IX
      The enumeration of the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to endy or disparage others retained by the people.

      Ask most Americans if they "retain a right of privacy." I think you find they expect to, and therefore, it exists.
    • Re:Wait a sec... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by maddman75 ( 193326 )

      Ya know, that asbestos will give you cancer....

      It has been determined by the courts that anonymity is a part of free speech, otherwise reprecussions could hinder your ability to speak out against the government, your employer, or other powerful individuals. The framers themselves relied on anonymous papers to rally support against the British.

      As far as chips under the skin - you can implant one under the skin of my cold dead corpse. Not happening while I still draw breath.

      • Oh, great! (Score:3, Funny)

        by Pope ( 17780 )
        As far as chips under the skin - you can implant one under the skin of my cold dead corpse

        How'm I supposed to run my Anonymous Zombie business if you've got a tracking chip in there!?

    • Re:Wait a sec... (Score:4, Informative)

      by prizog ( 42097 ) <novalis-slashdotNO@SPAMnovalis.org> on Thursday September 27, 2001 @09:12AM (#2358211) Homepage
      "where is the part in the constitution that says you have the right to be anonymous."

      1st and 9th amendments. See also McIntyre (sp?!) v. Ohio Election Commission

      "I understand the right of free speech, and general "freedoms" granted"

      The constitution does not grant freedoms. It acknowledges that the gov't will not take them away.
    • One ... ok, that's long enough.

      The constitution does not grant rights. Rights are inalienable. If the constitution contained a clause that said you didn't have a right of privacy, then it would be wrong and we would fix it.


      But amendment IV of the constitution is actually pretty clear on this point:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      I'd say email counts as ones "papers" in this context. The police need a warent to track it, and that shall not be violated.


      Now the common carrier I use to send my papers might have some right to do traffic analysis,
      but the police have no right to do so without a court order. They certainly can not force my ISP to turn over such records, or impose on my ISP in any way, without a court order.


      Warents aren't that hard to get. All that is necessary is to convince a judge that you have
      probable cause to believe the person is involved in something illegal. The fact the law enforcement is trying to remove this requirement make me wonder why. Are investigations so poor that they don't even withstand that tiny amount of scrutiny?

    • by Speare ( 84249 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @02:09PM (#2360033) Homepage Journal

      [stock rant on the subject]

      There have been several postings already that point out that the First Amendment does, or does not in fact, protect anonymous speech.

      There is a confusion about what 'anonymity' means. Courts have ruled specifically about two aspects of anonymity, and have ruled that one form is protected, and one form is not protected. Others tend to think that anonymity is related to privacy. To lump them all under 'anonymity' is to ensure further confusion.

      There is a First Amendment right to 'unsigned' expression. You can CHOOSE not to put your name on something you write, because you have the right to express yourself how you wish to express yourself, and to COMPELL an author or artist or whistleblower or witness to SIGN their own expressions is a blow against freedom of self-expression, and has a chilling effect on expression.

      There are regulatory exceptions: the post office usually does not reject to unsigned envelopes, but sometimes does reject unsigned packages.

      However, there is no right of 'unaccountability'. That is, if a third party is able to prove that you were the responsible author/artist/whistleblower/witness, then this fact is admissible, and you are able to be prosecuted if your expression is libelous, slanderous, or in some other way breaks existing laws. You are always accountable for your actions, including expression.

      The Internet makes it easy to elude obvious signatures, but most ISPs keep enough logs to ensure some modicum of accountability. It is because of this linkage, and because of the confusion over the use of 'anonymity' that the courts are beginning to form guidelines, and the law enforcement community is interested in shaping that process to favor the availability of latent evidence.

      The guidelines describe what standards must be followed to force ISPs to divulge private records to turn 'unsigned' expressions into 'accountable' expressions. In short, the courts seem to say that the specific expressions must be shown specifically to have a strong case for illegal forms of expression: again, libel, slander, or other legally disallowed forms of expression. This hurdle must be met BEFORE the ISPs are required to divulge private information.

      [end of stock rant]

  • For anonymous email, one can use the following: ENCRYPTED WEB-BASED MAILSERVER HushMail [hushmail.com] LokMail [lokmail.com] ZixIt [zixit.com] ManiacMail [maniacmail.net] For ANONYMOUS WEB SURFING Anonymizer [anonymizer.com] SubDimension [subdimension.com] HREF='http://www.safeweb.com/'>SafeWeb
  • email privacy? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by interi ( 233954 )
    It is not very surprising to hear a public official claim that email and web traffic is not private. For the most part ISPs will tell you as much in their disclaimers, and most schools and colleges will claim that email is the property of the school. Companies vary on policy, but most of them consider email and web traffic as part of their business and ultimately as their domain to moderate. What we should be doing is creating an online bill of rights to secure rights to privacy in electronic transactions and communications.

    just my $.02

  • Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lie as cliche ( 266319 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @01:43AM (#2357066) Homepage
    When government officials, cops or otherwise, follow your every move on the internet without a warrant it's considered acceptable. But if they follow you around and watch your every move offline without a warrant, it's considered harrassment.

    You know, I'm the first to agree that it's assinine to make new laws to cover territory already covered by old laws simply because of a new information medium, but if we can't reverse the trend what about making new information-based laws to protect our rights there, as our parents originally did with old laws? If the RIAA can pass the DMCA, why can't we get stuff through like "digital harrassment laws" and the like? What, are we too few in numbers or something? We've all seen how sites linked here get slashdotted within minutes; why not slashdot the government similarly? We would seem to have the same basic concerns and motivations, with a few exceptions here and there. Talk about a special interest group waiting to happen.

    • why not slashdot the government similarly?



      Because we are a community of individualists and therefore very difficult to organize. Also, as a community we are more interested in the latest wireless technology or the soft core porn scenes in Star Trek: Enterprise, then we are in taxes, social security or the public education system. Oh here on /. we talk the talk, but when it comes time to do the walk, we stumble and often fall down. This is one of the many reasons why there will never be a major Union for Tech Workers, even though it is obvious we need one worse than the auto industry. This is why the EFF will never do anything but sputter along impotently and the ACLU has never take on a one of our causes.


    • When government officials, cops or otherwise, follow your every move on the internet without a warrant it's considered acceptable. But if they follow you around and watch your every move offline without a warrant, it's considered harrassment.

      Nonsense. They can do it any time they want. The reason they don't is it isn't worth their time.

      Harrassment would be if the did it in a manner that impeded or threatened you. Cover surveillance would not be harrassment.
  • Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27, 2001 @01:44AM (#2357067)
    Now don't get me wrong - I'm a total privacy advocate (ok, some would say nut), and I don't agree with these morons, but in a certain sense they are both correct and incorrect.

    1) Correct: You don't have any expectation of privacy in the *ADDRESS* of the person you are corresponding with. You *DO* have an expectation of privacy with the contents of the envelope (let's not even go near postcards). In fact, the USPS has been known to photograph the outside of the envelopes for DECADES of people they want to learn more about, but don't have a warrant for just yet...

    2) Incorrect: I do not concur that my surfing habits are 'public'. There's nothing public about the sites I choose to visit on the Net. This is my own damn business, and too many incorrect assumptions could be drawn from stalking me on the Net. If you have probable cause that I'm committing some crime (like I bought 5000 bags of fertilizer and 2000 gallons of diesel and 1000 pounds of aluminum powder and 500 pounds of pink dye plus a case of blasting caps) - then STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY LIFE.

    Now, given that these two camels really want to get their noses underneath the tent so they can collapse the whole thing in the name of 'security', here's what we do:

    1) Encrypt everything. Use anonymous chaining remailers. Base your email address upon a key which changes at least every day, if not every minute. Something along the lines of my dear departed anon.penet.fi

    2) Use a different scheme to encrypt the contents of the message. Use digital signatures. At least 4096 bit encryption - more if you and your recipients can stand it.

    3) Use encryption. Use a dual proxy scheme. Proxy 1 is behind your firewall. Whatever you key into your browser get's encrypted by the proxy and passed to an anonymous recipient proxy (one of many chosen at pseudo-random). Anonymous recipient proxy decrypts the info, hits the site, returns the data. There's some key management and exchange issues, differential traffic analysis issues to accomodate, and some other cryptographic goodies, but if enough people do this - it'll totally fuck up the tracking... Check out the AT&T research paper on "Crowds"...

    I for one believe that what those terrorist bastards did was a heinous act beyond belief. However, it is not worthy of my blood-won freedoms. Rather the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Find every terrorist, expel them into space, and DON'T TREAD ON ME!
    • I'm wearing my asbestos but I feel obligated to address this idea of "total commitment to privacy".

      Sorry folks, I'm not that interesting. You want to read me email or see what I surf, go right ahead. It doesn't bother me a bit. The only thing I want confidential is my financial information and medical information. If surf for it without SSL protection, it is (at least practically) public domain anyway. Anyone with a packet sniffer could have access.

      Want to listen in on my phone conversations? Go ahead. You're going to be bored out of your mind. Like I said, I'm not that interesting.

      Want to talk proprietary business sensitive information, encrypt it. Folks don't have the time or inclination to listen in to everyone. The strength is in numbers and there are a couple of hundred million of us. That's the terrorists best security too.

      I'm not a criminal. Other than speeding by a few MPH on the Interstates, I don't break the law. I don't have anything to hide. Like many Americans, my security and that of my family is far more important that who's listening in.

      I don't feel threatened by our government. The reason I'm not afraid of the government is because I really do believe that the government is made up of citizens. Those citizens are endowed with a common set of values and one of those values is respect for personal freedom. Citizens may disagree with specific issues regarding those freedoms but the basic concept remains intact.

      Those values are what adds traction to the "slippery slope" so often referenced. We had ID cards during WWII. Notice they didn't stick around after the war. We put Japanese-American's in camps. We will never repeat that sad and unfortunate chapter in our history. How do I know, I don't. But I do believe in America. Maybe that's what all the flag waving is about.

    • when you say
      "Find every terrorist, expel them into space, and DON'T TREAD ON ME! "
      you forget that until someone is determined to be a terrorist, they are equivalent to you. If you want privacy, you have to accept that you are also going to give the same level of privacy to terrorists.
    • Use a dual proxy scheme. Proxy 1 is behind your firewall. Whatever you key into your browser get's encrypted by the proxy and passed to an anonymous recipient proxy (one of many chosen at pseudo-random). Anonymous recipient proxy decrypts the info, hits the site, returns the data.


      Can you post the addresses of these anonymizers and perhaps a link to software that utilizes them? After all, the more people who use them, the more anonymous they are.

  • It's becoming clear that Ashcroft just isn't up to the job of Attorney General in a crisis. We need a better Attorney General. And there's one available: Mayor Giuliani. Giuliani's term expires at the end of this year, and he's prevented by term limits from running again. So he's available.

    Giulani used to be a prosecutor. And not just any prosecutor; he's the one who took down the New York Mafia, something people thought was impossible. That's exactly the kind of job stopping terrorism will be like - taking apart a big, secretive illegal organization. He's done it before. Ashcroft hasn't. Giulani is effective at being tough on crime, something very, very few politicians can show a track record on.

    Giulani can manage tough organizations. Compared to running the NYC government, the Justice Department will be easy. He's a problem-solver. Ashcroft is an ideologue.

    Giulani is popular with both voters and Congress. Ashcroft lost an election to a dead guy. The Senate was reluctant to confirm Ashcroft as AG, and with good reason. Nobody will miss Ashcroft. Bush will look good if he makes this change.

    The AG serves at the pleasure of the President; Bush can replace Ashcroft any time he wants. So that's the real solution. Push on Bush to dump Ashcroft and put Giulani in. [mailto]

    • Obviously, you aren't a New Yorker. Giuliani may be popular, but he's over the top at times. Remember his position on certain art exhibits? Not to mention, his personal life would certainly cause some objections. Also, he's not well. Why do I have a feeling I've been trolled?

    • This would be a great idea, if Giuliani didn't already have a track record of trampling on citizens' rights?

      Please don't try to excercise your freedom of press by taking pictures of the WTC wreckage, even if you're blocks away and on the proper side of the barrier. Generalissimo Giuliani has instructed the police to confiscate your camera if you do.

      Also, as of 6am this morning, the entire island of Manhattan south of Central Park is one big carpool lane. I haven't heard yet what happens to single-passenger vehicles that get caught, but the entire concept makes me angry.
  • by Tranvisor ( 250175 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @02:04AM (#2357124) Homepage
    Privacy, in of itself, is a lofty goal. It means that we all have to have the respect, trust, and good will to believe that others know what they are doing, and that they are, at least to some extent, 'good' people. That's alot of trust.

    Many seem to have the view that "Well I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't mind the government watching me." This view is not a good one to have, and anyone who disagrees hasn't read enough Orwell. To achieve the goal of a better society, we must go the road that is harder to travel. It is to easy to approve programs of National ID cards, National skin implants, or National Internet tracking. They all avoid the real problem, which is fear, doubt and uncertainty.

    We all need to feel secure. We need to feel that we can do something to avert past terrorist disasters. Well the truth is, if we want to stay a free society, we can't. Maybe for a month, or a year security checks will improve with hieghtened attention. But like the Cole, and the WTC bombing before it, these things will pass into history and we will be open again. Anybody can drive a bomb into a building. This is the price we pay for not having security checks before we enter our cities, or crossing fellow state borders.

    If we want to look at how our society will be after all these proposed new laws, we have many places we can check. In Singapore crime is kept low with harsh penalties, no one wants to litter if the penatly is a beating. In Isreal crime is kept low by placing police everywhere, nobody wants to hijact a plane if they have to deal with 3 cops with guns to do it. We have to ask ourselves as a people, is all that really worth it? Is it worth living in a police state, to reduce one's chances of dying in a terrorist attck from .8% to .3%?

    I trust my paper to be delivered on time, my university to provide me with good professors, and the police to protect me. They have enough power now, as it is. Privacy is that measure of trust I bestow on others to go about their business without my interference. If we loose that trust, we will become less then we are. It will be a step in the wrong direction. Wars sometimes cannot be avoided, they should be fought over these princepals, they are what makes us the remarkable people we are today. Remember these next few words in your heart, and carry them with you, throughout your daily lives. They are worth fighting for.

    Those who desire to give up Freedom, in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. -Thomas Jefferson
    • Jefferson quote (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lpontiac ( 173839 )
      Those who desire to give up Freedom, in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

      -Thomas Jefferson

      I see this quote so often, but it's different every time, so perhaps "paraphrase" is more appropriate than "quote."


      I don't suppose anyone has a link to the definitive quote in Jefferson's exact words, with a citation to the source?

      • They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

        Thanks, ESR [tuxedo.org].

  • by Zergwyn ( 514693 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @02:05AM (#2357127)
    Online, people order with secure-http, where the information is encrypted so that it cannot be read and stolen in transit. I think that it would be very useful if someone wrote a secure-mail system, which would have a very clear and obvious button to send the message as encrypted data. Currently, it must be done manually by the user, but if it could be automated then it might become very popular. And users would certainly have an expectation of privacy for encrypted mail, because they would still have the option to send mail as plain text. Perhaps those machine IDs could even be put to good use in generating keys that would reveal whether someone had tried to intercept it in route.


    As for Ashcroft's ridiculous distinction of e-mail:
    In his response, Ashcroft said he believed "To:" and "From:" lines of e-mail could be intercepted without a court order, but "Subject:" lines would require a judge's signature. "We're not asking that we get content or the subject," he replied. "We want information on who sent it and to whom it was sent."

    That makes me think of what is quite possibly one of the most amusing messages I have every seen in an e-mail, which creates the expectation of privacy...:

    This e-mail has been sent to you by GDS Publishing Ltd., registered in
    Australia, England and Wales. Registered office: Tower House, Fairfax
    Street, Bristol, BS1 3BN Registered Number 2877774.

    This communication is intended for the addressee only, is private and
    confidential, and is subject to all applicable terms and conditions.
    Access to this email by any third party is unauthorised. This message
    should not be read if delivered in error.


    Heh. I bet that of course the FBI and other security organizations would honor such things. Oh yeah, and about that bridge you wanted me to sell you...^_^

    • I've seen sigs like that myself, warning the reader that they should not read the message unless they are the intended recipient. This always brought the same question to mind: Why put it at the end of the message?

  • Look at the big picture. The attacks on the core values of democracy are just symptoms of a larger sickness.

    The U.S. is undergoing a social breakdown. The U.S. has the highest divorce rate in the world. The U.S. has the highest percentage of obese people. The U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of any country ever, in the history of the world.

    There is evidence that the secret agencies of the U.S. government and the weapons manufacturers have too much control. Few Americans know how much the U.S. government has meddled in the government of Saudi Arabia, so few realize the extent to which Arab complaints are justified.

    The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer. The U.S. government killed an estimated 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and an estimated 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed in any way directly threatened the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, wives and families and friends. The U.S. government has a history of valuing the lives of its citizens much more highly than the lives of people in poor countries. Although violence can never be condoned, it is not surprising that some people want to make an effective protest against this.

    Some of this is discussed in the article: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com].
    • "The U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of any country ever, in the history of the world."

      For fuck's sake, you can't expect me to believe THAT with no back-up! As a matter of fact, I *don't* believe it. I believe the U.S.S.R. under Stalin has us beat. Ever read The Gulag Achipelago?

      Provide proof or at least some minimum corroboration when you're going to try to use such fantastic points to base an argument on.

      -Kasreyn
      • maybe not in history, but we are the current world leader according to: this [mediastudy.com].

      • I agree. You should believe nothing without good evidence.

        The article referenced at the bottom of this post provides official U.S. government statistics. (Search on "prison".) An interesting link mentioned there gives another statistic: The murder rate in Washington, D.C. is 170 times the murder rate in Brussels, Belgium.

        You can do a Google [google.com] search for the prison rate in other countries. You will find that European countries have about 1/6 as many of their citizens in prison as the U.S.

        "Ever read The Gulag Archipelago?"

        Yes, I read that book. During that time in the Soviet Union, there was a far smaller percentage of people in prison than now in the U.S. Also, the Supermax prisons [spunk.org] in the U.S. are less humane than Gulag prisons. There is a difference, though; the U.S. apparently has few or no political prisoners.

        Check out one prisoner's story: Supermax Prison is Torture and Death [inet.tele.dk]. This is not obscure data. I learned about U.S. prisons from a PBS TV program. The two links in this and the previous paragraph are just the 2nd and 4th Google links from a search on "supermax prison".

        We live in a time when a well-dressed, educated man or woman in a leadership position will look into your face or a camera, be very clear and logical-sounding, and speak complete nonsense. That's how things got to be such a mess. Tonight on a TV news program a U.S. government official was talking about the "Talley Bahn". He meant the Taliban. From years of experience with this kind of thing, I know it is a good guess that the speaker knows nothing of importance about Afghanistan.

        We live in a time when total bullshitters are allowed attention equal to people who know what they are doing. That's how we got the dot-com dot-bombs.

        More about the social breakdown: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com].

    • "Social breakdown?" By the gods that's what Falwell says. High divorce rate? That's because, as the Western country with the highest church membership rate, more people get married who would only live together in Europe. Obese people? That's largely because of an abundance of food, and an acceptance of immigrants: it's just a genetic fact that populations from regions with long feast-and-famine natural histories are disposed to store fat easily. The percentage of citizens in prison is one I'll grant you - the drug war should be ended at once, and if it were our prison rates would be normal.

      How have we meddled in the government of Saudi Arabia? It's the Saudi princes who have been funding bin Laden. If we ever encouraged that, it was years ago. Our meddling consists in pressuring the sane side of the royal family to stay that way.

      Viet Nam was a mistake - a French mistake we inherited, not realizing they'd screwed it up as badly as Algeria. But if you've ever visited Southeast Asia, you'd understand why it was desirable to defend those peoples against Communism. Yes, the government in the South was corrupt - but less so than mainland China is today. And we went in just a few years after China had killed 10 million or more in the Great Leap Forward.

      150,000 people in Iraq? If we killed that many of their soldiers in the aggressive war they started, we shouldn't have stopped there. It's our shame we didn't finish that war properly.

      We've bombed 14 countries? How many of these were NATO or UN actions? Or do you think these agencies - often opposed by the hard right, are just shills for Amercan interests? And do you begin to ask about the people with mothers and fathers whose lives were preserved by our military actions, which often have had no direct reward for America?

      It's the job of every government to value the lives of its own citizens first.

      In your last line, I take it you think the Trade Center atrocity was an "effective protest," "although violence can never be condoned." As Heinlein observed, "Patriotism is a nice long polysyllabic abstract word of Latin derivation, which translates into Anglo-Saxon as Women and Children First. And every culture that has ever lasted is based on Women and Children First or it doesn't last very long." They've indiscriminately killed thousands of our women, orphaned thousands of our children. In response, and in defense, violence must be far more than condoned, or we've no right to continue to exist as a civilization.

      • "We've bombed 14 countries?"

        It wasn't we, wytcld. You've just admitted you didn't know anything about it. It was the U.S. government.

        Let's see: Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos. A pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. Libya, Panama, Grenada, Iraq. Yugoslavia.

        Afghanistan: 60 missiles costing $2,000,000 each into a dry, mostly empty valley, according to last Sunday's "60 Minutes" TV program. I'll bet that annoyed the dung beetles. I'll bet they were saying, "Why would anyone want to spend $120,000,000 just to move our favorite rocks around?

        More.

        I would support an initiative to find ways to live in the world without bombing.

        "That's largely because of ... an acceptance of immigrants: it's just a genetic fact that populations from regions with long feast-and-famine natural histories are disposed to store fat easily."

        The percentage of immigrants did not change in the last 30 years. The obesity did.

        "How have we meddled in the government of Saudi Arabia?"

        The U.S. supports an anti-democratic regime there. I don't have links to articles for you, however.

        Nothing I said, or would ever say, it intended to condone violence of any kind.

        In some ways the U.S. is the best, also: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com].

  • by phpAbUser ( 306398 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @02:38AM (#2357202) Homepage
    Now, taking this from a view of inductive/deductive legal logic...
    • The FBI can snoop on my internet traffic
    • The FBI can do this because there is no expectation of privacy on the internet.
    • Similarly, if the FBI wanted to, they could read all my postcarded mail.
    • This is also because there is no expectation of privacy.
    • Any individual can read my postcarded mail as well, because of this lack of privacy.
    • If an individual does not violate my rights to privacy in that instance, what keeps them from copying the FBI on the internet?
    For clarity: If the FBI can snoop for the reasons offered, then Congress just allowed any individual in the world to legally monitor my internet traffic, and in turn cannot pass laws to punish people who do this. If they did they would be holding a double standard, that privacy rights are not a concern to the government (no troll posts on "oh well it's always been like that").
    If there are any lawyers in the audience, please, tell me this isn't true :(.
  • by jalalski ( 100791 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @02:41AM (#2357209) Homepage
    Since the days when man first gathered together in tribes and the biggest became Chief, he has been concerned with the Chief (or the neighbours) looking into his life. So he built walls and fences and claimed the space as his own, private space.

    And while the sun shone, and the harvests were good and the children played in the street all was well.

    But when the enemies gathered at the gate and fear gripped the citizens hearts, then a great fear arose that there could be enemies in their midst. And the Chief and his people, by dint of their power, would enter and search their people homes in order to safeguard the people, and for fear of losing their power.

    So it was then, and so it is today. The space of 'privacy' is much greater and is no longer just fences and walls, but email and conversations, but the same principle applies. The 'enemies at the gate' may be real or percieved, the fear may intensified by the media, the Chiefs may be more concerned with their own well being than that of their citizens, but basically, the same ball game.

    The US Constitution is supposed to guarantee its citizens the right to their privacy. One of the worlds great documents, but still just a document. It does not list the rights granted to people by nature, it is more the hopes and aspirations of those building a new society. And now they've gone and the society is becoming old and staid and the Constitution is just a document. And so those dreams fade away. Privacy being one of them....

    And thats why I say the right to privacy is an illusion. Just an idea in a document. A great document to base a society on, when times are good and citizens have a song and a great hope in the hearts. But when their courage fails and fear strikes, then like all societies, it will close in on its self and its dreams be considered inappropriate for the great fight ahead.

    From here in Europe, we can just hope that the dreams of your founders win out over the fears of your people.

    ----------------
    .sig restricted on need to know basis.
    ----------------
  • Privacy? (Score:3, Informative)

    by motherhead ( 344331 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @04:15AM (#2357368)
    All of this is opinion, it reflects nothing like policy, save your flames about that.

    This is not a matter of the wolves being let out of the cage. This is a matter of the wolves wanting protected hunting grounds where they already feed.

    The unofficial slogan for the Illinois State Police's intelligence division is, "In god we trust, all others we monitor". In most cases, the laws that would seem to newly empower law enforcement exist or are proposed only to validate prosecution after the fact.

    The fact of the matter is that after meeting and being privy to the discussions of various members of the Chicago Police Intelligence Unit as well as the Illinois State Police's, that any expectation of privacy (once deeds warrant the attention of these organizations) is a façade.

    When I hear the stories it all seems appropriate and sometimes heroic. But I am sure I have not heard all the stories. And I am sure that pretty damned un-American things happen, not just in my city, in my state, but in most if not all of yours.

    Now don't get me wrong, these are good guys and the certainly one wouldn't think they would task the resources and manpower it takes for good surveillance on any random Joe. But if they have what they feel is solid intelligence that you are a "bad guy", you will be monitored. Court order or no, warrants or no, take the moral or ethical discourse out of the equation and these guys just want to put "bad people" away. Yeah, that scares me too.

    We all know what power does; we all know that police powers tend to corrupt, but again. I find myself getting into a theoretical argument. And all I wanted to do was state that this goes on, has for sometime, whether we like it or not. And no one ever asked you or your mom and dad how he or she felt about it.

    Sorry it's late. I'm very tired, and haven't the capacity for eloquence. I will leave you with something I saw on a Intelligence cop's tee-shirt about three years ago though; "There is nothing wrong with a Police State... as long as you are the Police."
  • by ahfoo ( 223186 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @04:36AM (#2357394) Journal
    All this kind of thing will do is give those who have made hidden archives of subversive materials into isolated pockets of power. It's like certain martial arts, the harder the oposing force pushes, the greater the force coming back at them. The target slips to the side at the last minute and the concrete wall takes the force of the fist breaking every finger in the bloody hand of these idiots.
    If anybody can use a search engine to find their --fill in the blank subversive material these guys are looking for-- then everybody is a pro and nobody is a leader. But as soon as you start trying to pinpoint who's doing what, you scare people into looking for the "secret" way so they don't get caught. Bang, up step the wannabee disenfranchised pros with their encrypted magic decoder rings and assorted gang paraphanalia.
    Now you've creating leaders and gangs and mafiettes where there were nothing but curious or perhaps malicious individuals. Okay, so the Senators say, Great! That's what we wanted, targets, an orgainzed conspiracy.
    Alright, now who are the bad guys?
  • by lightray ( 215185 ) <tobin@splorg.org> on Thursday September 27, 2001 @05:17AM (#2357452) Homepage
    What about the list of books I've checked out from the library? The list of movies I've rented? To the best of my knowledge both are protected; in the case of video rentals by the video rental privacy act [cpsr.org] which allegedly came about as a direct result of some reporters checking into their congressmen's video rental habits. Shouldn't web sites visited fall into the same general category? Maybe posting a list of websites visited by selected congressmen would have the same effect as it did with movie rentals. (-:
  • by DJerman ( 12424 ) <djerman@pobox.com> on Thursday September 27, 2001 @05:24AM (#2357466)
    Perhaps the EFF should set up a facility for monitoring all politicians' surfing and email habits... surely some of them go online. If they have no expectation of privacy, it wouldn't be illegal, any more than publicizing their voting record or public appearance schedule, right? Sauce for the goose.

    Sometimes I wonder if the people proposing these laws plan to emigrate when they retire...

  • At this point, I'm just waiting for someone to put 2 and 2 together and figure out that we have already declared 'war' against another amorphous, invisible, undefeatable enemy: drugs. Anyone remember that? How long will it be until some militant 'Drug Czar' figures out that they can also use the current frenzy of 'security at all costs' to eradicate any/all civil liberties in the name of fighting the evil drug empires. It's a very slippery slope we're heading down right now.
  • Chuck Schumer? Right wing? He is an EXTREME Leftist from New York City. His main power base has traditionally been the Jewish Community.

    BTW He is one of the most anti gun guys out there
  • by Anonymous Coward
    What happens when the FBI starts using your web surfing habits to obtains search warrants or to detain you?

    For all you "I don't do anything wrong people": What happens when reading slashdot makes you a suspected hacker (ie terrorist)?

    What happens when you have to have a Star of David on your national ID card to identify if you are Jewish?
  • This is a GOOD thing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fajoli ( 181454 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @07:31AM (#2357743)
    From the perspective of encouraging people to understand the realities of email, this is a GOOD thing. A reason people do not use encryption on their email is the belief that no one will read the email enroute. The first high-profile case of someone being arrested for statements made in supposedly private email will drive the public to protect themselves.

    An example of this is the now common confidential paper handling companies. Twenty years ago companies didn't hire these confidential paper shredding companies as a matter of normal business. Even shredders were not that common outside of payroll and human resources departments. Companies found out that they had no expectation of privacy for papers in their dumpster. Police shows and news reports highlighted secrets being found through dumpster diving. Today, one may be hard pressed to find a company that doesn't ensure as many documents as possible find their way into confidential trash bins picked up by specialized waste handlers.

    In the end, the more hub-bub that comes out of this reality, the better. Nothing drives sales like a real risk uncovered.

    I look forward to a Law & Order episode where they read the email of a suspect, find it all encrypted, and later find out the suspect had nothing to do with the crime.
  • by sharkey ( 16670 )
    Cites two senators who I'd thought to be more clueful (Orrin Hatch and Chuck Schumer)."

    This is that thing called sarcasm, isn't it? Hatch and Schumer are both cut from the same cloth as Feinstein, and are both willing to trample any freedoms they run across to get what they want.
  • Erring... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by basilfawlty ( 154213 ) <basil@kevinbasil ... m minus language> on Thursday September 27, 2001 @08:27AM (#2357948) Homepage

    "...We need to err on the side of having tools available."

    No, no, no! We need err on the side of the protection of our freedoms and civil liberties!

    Which part of "inalienable" don't you understand?

  • by YU Nicks NE Way ( 129084 ) on Thursday September 27, 2001 @08:51AM (#2358077)
    Disclaimer: IANAL.

    First, unless you use IMAP4 or POP3 over SSL, you don't even have a reasonable expectation of privcacy about the body of the e-mails you pull down to you own personal machine. The argument is that if you really cared if anybody read your mail, you would send it in an envelope. Similarly, if you don't want people reading your e-mail, put it in an electronic envelope. (Notice that this envelope need not be secure in order to trigger the privacy provisions, just as a real physical envelope is not secure. You need merely have shown that you intended the communication to be private.) Even then, the address on your mail is only private because a post office box is a secure container. If you leave your mail on a table in a restaurant where I can read the addresses, even upside down, you just gave up your expectation of privacy about those addresses.

    In that light, it's clear that the headers you send in the clear through a public network as dissassembled packets which not only can but must be reassembled on the way aren't sent with the expectation of privacy. If you wanted that, then you'd have sent the headers in a way that indicates you care whether third parties can read them. There's no case law about that, but I expect that the threshold you'd need to reach to trigger such an expectation would be quite low indeed. It might well be enough to send your headers as a post request over SSL -- that's the equivalent of putting your letter inside another envelope and having a trusted third party (such as your attorney) forward it for you. There, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even for the address to which the letter is sent.
  • I can't imagine the FBI wadinging through, the kilobytes of spam I get everyday let alone the millions of people to monitor, so I guess that this will get some real anti-spam legislation passed at some point in time.

    Would falsifing Email headers be like lying to a police officer? Will the CIA track down all of the Japanese and Chinese pron site that Spam me. In short will I get any SPAM reliefe here? Actualy I'm not counting on it.

  • In his response, Ashcroft said he believed "To:" and "From:" lines of e-mail could be intercepted without a court order, but "Subject:" lines would require a judge's signature. "We're not asking that we get content or the subject," he replied. "We want information on who sent it and to whom it was sent."

    So if I wish to preserve the privacy of those with whom I communicate from the government, I need only insert fake To: and From: headers in the body of the email, and use the real addresses in the SMTP envelope. Just like spammers do. OK, not much trouble to do that, and no encryption needed.

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Working...