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.
The ultra Conservative right (Score:4, Insightful)
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 agree, but how do we fix it? (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:2)
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.
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:2, Interesting)
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).
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:2)
Schumer is a left-winger liberal ass-kisser of the highest order.
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:2, Troll)
THIS IS A CLEAR CALL TO BEGIN THE UNIFORM USE OF ENCRYPTION *FOR ALL 'NET COMMUNICATIONS*. Or you dipshits can just stick your worthless hollow heads back in the sand and pretend that if the FBI isn't allowed to snoop your traffic that neither is the Enemy.
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:2, Funny)
I'm with you! I just wrote a small utility to encrypt all my email and ip headers before they leave my computer. Now I wonder why my traffic isn't being routed correctly?
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:2)
Re:Is Bin Ladin Sniffin' Yer Packets? (Score:2)
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:5, Insightful)
They already have the ability to do this, but not the legal right without a warrant (or at least it can't be used as evidence). Just because it's in plain text does not mean you have no rights protecting you.
They already have the ability to listen in on your phone line, but they do not have the legal right to do so without a warrant. This is not much different, really.
Mind you, some ISPs and web hosts have provisions in their agreements making sure they can view any data on their machines for whatever reason. In those particular situations, this proposal doesn't make much difference. Personally I will only view or give up information on my customers when required to do so by law (eg, a warrant); this proposal certainly changes things.
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:2)
Actually, there is a legal distinction made between the records of whom you called and the content of the conversations. The police just have to get a subpoena for phone company records, not a search warrant.
As I understand it (IANAL), the courts have ruled that you don't have an expectation of privacy for these records, or at least not the same level of privacy as the content of the conversations.
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:2)
And people ask why I choose to run my own mail server at home (on a Linux box of course). I manage my own data because I don't trust anyone else to do it with MY best interests in mind.
Now, they can track any traffic that goes through their server, but without a warrant it's dicier than just looking at mail and such that's stored on their computers. The have to "actively" track my Internet usage to get any real information.
In the long run, nothing is "safe", but at least it's harder to get at if you take care of it yourself.
MadCow.
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:3, Insightful)
- The sys admin can't arrest me.
- The sys admin isn't an agent of the Federal government.
- The sys admin is essentially immune to subversion for political ends, or at least, vastly more so than the FBI.
- The sys admin could be sued for damages.
- Just for emphasis: The sys admin can't arrest me.
The agents of the government are still citizens but they are not merely citizens. It matters a lot when we expand the police power and constrict judicial oversight. In fact, it means the beginning of the end.Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:2)
As for the ted kennedy comment despite his penchant for adultery and drinking he still describes himself as a proud christian and catholic.
You dont have to be a republican to be conservative and this sort of bill is the shit you should be fighting against not semantic statemements about ideology - keep picking at nits and you will turn around and find that you no longer have any of the freedoms you have today in 5 years
Re:The ultra Conservative right (Score:2, Insightful)
Careful guys, he's a christian so he must be evil. Come off it buddy, I'm an atheist and I don't run around calling everyone who holds some religious view I don't agree with a zealot out to get me. You do know that people are allowed to have different opinions than you, right? And just because they hold a different intellectual position doesn't make them a bad person, does it?
How can we stop this? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:How can we stop this? (Score:3, Informative)
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]
I'll try... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's my simple explanation of why I think it's a bad idea...
1. Employers... I'm self employed but if I worked for a company, I wouldn't want my company knowing that I'm searching for another job or even researching bad information about my company during my lunch break.
2. The government doesn't need to know how I spend all my time on the web just so they can run my browsing habits through a script that decides if I'm a bad guy. For instance, what if I'm searching for crop duster information, they log it and show up at my door the next day wanting to know why I'm trying to find out info about crop dusters when I never have before.
3. In the U.S. Anonomousity is one of the many freedoms that we have earned. No one should take that away.
4. Too much risk of security holes. So they want to install a crypto backdoor in EVERY computer... Can you imagine the chaos as soon as it was cracked? yikes!
Re:I'll try... (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Employers... I'm self employed but if I worked for a company, I wouldn't want my company knowing that I'm searching for another job
in the sense that i own a business that has employees, i can say as a "company" that most companies generally don't give a rip about the average employee leaving. most savy employees realize this, too: when working for someone else, you can be replaced.
2. The government doesn't need to know how I spend all my time on the web just so they can run my browsing habits through a script that decides if I'm a bad guy. For instance, what if I'm searching for crop duster information, they log it and show up at my door the next day wanting to know why I'm trying to find out info about crop dusters when I never have before.
many reasonable people -- including me -- would argue that a script like that would be damn handy to have right now. i pray the FBI is looking very, very closely at any and all records they have about people accessing crop duster info. and commercial ventaliation systems. and large water supplies.
3. In the U.S. Anonomousity is one of the many freedoms that we have earned. No one should take that away.
i'm not being specious, but where is this in the Constitution? Bill of Rights? anywhere? i honestly don't think anonymity is a "right".
4. Too much risk of security holes. So they want to install a crypto backdoor in EVERY computer... Can you imagine the chaos as soon as it was cracked? yikes!
just like your employeers, the "govment" really doesn't care about your data. if they did, they can break any encryption you cared to apply to it, because all it takes is cycles.
Re:I'll try... (Score:2)
(IANAL) The 1st Amendment says that the right to free speech shall not be infringed. Free speech is the ability to say what you want to, and to not say what you don't want to. If you do not want to state your identity, government attempts to force you to do are a violation of your rights.
if they did, they can break any encryption you cared to apply to it, because all it takes is cycles.
The time required for a brute force crack is exponential with the key size. The energy output of the sun over its entire lifetime is not enough to power a computer to count to 2^256, let alone crack a 256-bit key.
We need to organize (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:We need to organize (Score:2, Funny)
I will bring this idea up over and over again until it happens
Not another mailing list (Score:2)
Anyonymity Loves Company (Score:2)
Maybe it's about time slashdroids stopped jabbering and implemented something to improve their privacy, crowds.
Natural Justice (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
POST vs GET; chaffing? (Score:2)
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.
Re:POST vs GET; chaffing? (Score:2)
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.
Re:POST vs GET; chaffing? (Score:2)
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.
Video in a public place - oh yes they can (Score:2)
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)
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.
What's "public" about postal mail? (Score:2)
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.
ad hoc choice of policies (Score:2)
Re:But it's true. (Score:2)
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.
Re:But it's true. (Score:2)
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,"
Re:But it's true. (Score:3)
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.
Re:But it's true. (Score:2, Interesting)
Certainly, actions that occur in a public arena have no reasonable expectation of being private; if you observe an event in a public space, you then own that knowledge. BUT, until recently, you could pretty much guarantee that if anyone was observing your actions in such an environment, you would be able to observe them as well. With recent proposals for introducing face-recognition software, for example, you can now be observed and recorded in public by anonymous and unaccountable voyeurs for any purpose.
Society would run a lot smoother if we weren't so secretive about what we do and what we like.
Privacy is not the same as secrecy. Privacy is about having the right to choose which actions or communications are made public.
Wait a sec... (Score:5, Interesting)
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*
Where in the Constitution? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Wait a sec... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:
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?
Unsigned vs Unaccountable Speech, Privacy (Score:4, Informative)
[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]
Ultimate Free Privacy and Freedom (Score:2, Informative)
email privacy? (Score:2, Insightful)
just my $.02
Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sure... (Score:2)
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
Re:Sure... (Score:2)
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)
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!
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
"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.
Where please? (Score:2)
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.
Mayor Giuliani for Attorney General (Score:2, Troll)
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]
Re:Mayor Giuliani for Attorney General (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mayor Giuliani for Attorney General (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Privacy is Important to a Free Society (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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)
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?
Re:Jefferson quote (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks, ESR [tuxedo.org].
Creating a Privacy Expectation (Score:3, Interesting)
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...^_^
Re:Creating a Privacy Expectation (Score:2, Insightful)
The attacks on core values are just symptoms. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?For chrissakes, source your points! (Score:2)
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
Re:For chrissakes, source your points! (Score:2, Informative)
Believe nothing without good evidence. (Score:5, Insightful)
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].
Re:Believe nothing without good evidence. (Score:5, Insightful)
To make a rational argument against US policy does not make one an apologist for terrorists. Or worse, a supporter of terrorists as you claim this person to be.
By the same argument, you could posit that American rebels during your* own revolution were terrorists against the British Empire. I don't think people find it so hard to believe that one might be willed to violence against an oppressive empire in the pursuit of liberty.In any case, this attitude of "if you're not with us, you're against us" will only inevitably lead to witch hunts and the further degradation of what little democracy we have. Such arguments don't hold water.
BRx.
Re:Believe nothing without good evidence. (Score:2, Informative)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it George W. Bush who created that? "Either you're with us, or you are against us." At least, that's what I gleaned from my own newspaper, the Dutch "de Volkskrant". Alas, I can't find the reference, neither in the dead tree nor on the internet. So it may be wrong.
Stefan.
Re:Believe nothing without good evidence. (Score:2)
No sensible person could be pro- bin Laden. (Score:2)
Saudi friends of mine have suggested to me that the U.S. government is far more involved in Saudi politics than is commonly known by U.S. citizens. My independent study of articles and books on Saudi Arabia causes me to agree with them.
No sensible person could be pro- bin Laden. I only think it is reasonable that a government should represent the will of its people. That is impossible with the present government in Saudi Arabia, I am told.
Big picture? (Score:2)
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.
It wasn't WE, wytcld. (Score:2)
"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
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].
Obesity is a symptom. (Score:2)
No, the obesity is a symptom of the social breakdown. People are eating when they are not hungry. This is an indication they are unhappy.
Without expectations... (Score:3, Interesting)
- 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
Privacy -- the Great Illusion (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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."
Another slogan (Score:4, Funny)
The hard you hit, the more fingers you break. (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Library books, videotapes (Score:3, Insightful)
Senators are citizens too... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes I wonder if the people proposing these laws plan to emigrate when they retire...
The 'Drug War' is next (Score:2, Insightful)
Schumer? Right wing? (Score:2)
BTW He is one of the most anti gun guys out there
You are all suspect (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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.
Ahhh (Score:2)
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)
"...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?
Keep in mind that the headers aren't the content (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
This could be cool, Think SPAM (Score:2)
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.
Need Nutshell books on Capitol Hill (Score:2)
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.
Re:The Slashdot Hypocrisy Meter is Pegging (Score:3, Insightful)
Your cell phone is even easier to listen in to. But again, your conversations are protected by law.
Paper mail is incredibly insecure. Open the envelope. But we prosecute the hell out of anyone who dares to do such a thing.
I could bug your home with a little effort and a bit of technical know-how without ever having to walk through the front door. Just need some windows, is all. How much time do you think I'll spend in jail if I do it?
And yet, for some strange reason (or perhaps not-so-strange reason) email is considered to be a free-for-all. The hypocrisy of the exception is rather funny, if you ask me.
Good thing I use encryption on all of my important emails.
Max
Re:The Slashdot Hypocrisy Meter is Pegging (Score:2, Flamebait)
Because in the absence of significant undertaking--actually going onto someone's property and planting the alligator clips on the junction box--the phone conversation is secure. In normal usage, phone conversations cannot be overheard by any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants. In normal usage, email can. Your analogy to phone lines falls apart right here.
Secondly, it is a serious violation of the law to do this. If you really want to do this, the FBI will be happy to come down to your house and stick a gun in your face and place you under arrest. Given that it requires a criminal act to eavesdrop on a landline, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy--it's axiomatic that you can reasonably expect people to follow the law. (Whether or not this legal axiom is correct is another story altogether.)
Other tidbit is that proof by analogy is intellectual fraud.
Your cell phone is even easier to listen in to. But again, your conversations are protected by law.
No, they aren't. Cops don't need wiretaps to listen in on radiotelephone transmissions--you're *broadcasting*, and anyone with a receiver can listen in. Ever wonder why attorneys don't use cell phones for privileged attorney-client information? Because there is no recognized reasonable expectation of privacy on cell phones.
Cops often seek court orders for radiotelephony anyway, in the interests of making sure the information doesn't get bounced out of court--but in a strictly legal sense, they don't need to.
Again, proof by analogy is intellectual fraud.
Paper mail is incredibly insecure. Open the envelope. But we prosecute the hell out of anyone who dares to do such a thing.
We have laws which require the confidentiality of the US Mail, and we have armed Postal Inspectors who will be more than happy to shove a gun in your face and place you under arrest if you try and violate this confidence. In light of the fact that the confidentiality of the mail is protected by Federal law, there is a very reasonable expectation of privacy in the mail.
Again, proof by analogy is intellectual fraud.
I could bug your home with a little effort and a bit of technical know-how without ever having to walk through the front door. Just need some windows, is all. How much time do you think I'll spend in jail if I do it?
Given that this is, you guessed it, against the law, and that armed cops will be happy to shove a gun in your face and place you under arrest if you do it, there is a very reasonable expectation of privacy within one's own home.
Again, proof by analogy is intellectual fraud.
In short, none of your examples hold water.
Re:The Slashdot Hypocrisy Meter is Pegging (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely right. Fuck it. If you send a letter through the post office, unless you've physically secured it by putting a lock on it, anyone and everyone should be able to open it and toss it around the office. If you make a phone call without encrypting the voice stream, you're sending it out over an unsecure wire, and you deserve to have anyone and everyone listen in on your conversation for whatever reason their whim may dictate.
Oops, did I say dictate ?
Re:The Slashdot Hypocrisy Meter is Pegging (Score:2)
To the former, that's under the authority of the FBI.
To the latter, that's under the authority of the Postal Inspectors.
Given that there are strict laws against eavesdropping on phone calls and intercepting mail, the expectation of privacy in phone calls and mail is entirely reasonable.
Re:Privacy is worthless (Score:2, Insightful)
Courts have already ruled that who you call and who calls you is not private and that information can be collected without a warrant. The police can also follow you and film you in a public place without a warrant to see who you meet with
Everyone who reads slashdot is smart enough to know that Hatch is right on this one. THERE IS NOTHING PRIVATE ABOUT EMAIL HEADERS. It's like the address on a letter, it has to be public or it wouldn't work.
Do you believe that the FROM: field on that email you just sent is private? Even when it passes through 20 routers and 5 servers? Of course not. Since you don't resonably expect it to be private, hence you have no "expectation of privacy" and no warrant is needed to gather that information.