Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Cops Have Got Your Number 251

Posted by michael from the ready-set-spy dept.
explosionhead writes "Salon has a nice article about the FBI's stretching their powers for phone taps under the 'Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act' and how this could apply to digital communication. The FCC tried to apply this 3 years ago, and it was fought off, but the article also comments that many of the Telcos were hesitant to argue this time around for fear of bad post Sept-11 publicity." We covered this when it happened, with a lot of good information if I do say so myself. Salon is now noting that no one is willing to challenge the revised FCC rules, running scared in the (dare I say it?) post-September 11 world.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cops Have Got Your Number More

Cops Have Got Your Number

Comments Filter:
  • When we're all behind bars. [lostbrain.com]

    As usual, a joke.
    tcd004

    • Forefathers's Quotes - They New.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:53PM (#3725759)
      "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
      -- James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

      "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
      -- Ben Franklin, Respectfully Quoted, p. 201, Suzy Platt, Barnes & Noble, 1993

      These were found at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quote s/govt.html

      People who don't care about this since 9-11 are in trouble.

  • I think... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by flewp ( 458359 )
    everyone has my phone number. Or those with a phonebook at least.
    • everyone has my phone number. Or those with a phonebook at least.

      That's not the point - RTFA. Do they know who you called and when, or who called you and when? Do they know your personal PIN that you dial for your voice mail? Do they know the bank number that you just dialed into our phone to check your balance? This isn't about a "special phonebook" that the FBI has access to.

  • Come on now.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by swaic ( 541592 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:07PM (#3725489)

    We all know that if anyone makes any attempt to challenge any Post-September 11 legislation, they are anti-American, anti-patriotic and of course support and sympathize with terrorists.

    • Re:Come on now.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by orangesquid ( 79734 )
      A helluva lot of people died for freedom in the 1700's. They believed in something... evidently very few modern "Americans" do. Increasing security is a beautiful idea but it SHOULD NOT cross the lines of the freedoms that our country fought so hard for in its early days. I believe in keeping my communications private; don't you? Security by paranoia doesn't uphold the principle of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

      And yes, if I was held at gunpoint, knowing that I would die if I said I believed in freedom, I would still say it.

      Live free or die...

  • Wiretap? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sheepab ( 461960 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:07PM (#3725496) Homepage
    As I have heard, read, and understood, the FBI has devices they can just SET near the wire/line and it picks it up via electrical waves outputted by the wire/line. So, in reality, it isnt really a 'wiretap'. I could see this as being a way to get around the law, or atleast cause a pain in the butt in courts. Of coarse Im no lawyer and Im most likely wrong. Anyone else ever hear about or see one of these devices?

    • Re:Wiretap? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Andorion ( 526481 )
      You're talking about an Inductive Wiretap. There's a brief blurb on the different types of wiretaps here [bugsweep.com].

      Now, I don't know if the fact that it's not physically connected to the wire makes it legal, but I'd think it does not.

      -Berj

    • Re:Wiretap? (Score:4, Informative)

      by yoyoyo ( 520441 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:58PM (#3725789)
      As I have heard, read, and understood, the FBI has devices they can just SET near the wire/line and it picks it up via electrical waves outputted by the wire/line. So, in reality, it isnt really a 'wiretap'. I could see this as being a way to get around the law

      No such luck. The courts have ruled that sense-enhancing techology requires a warrant. For example, using thermal imaging to see if you are using heat lamps to grow MJ is a no-no. Nice FUD though.

  • you can say it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kargan ( 250092 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:11PM (#3725518) Homepage
    ///Salon is now noting that no one is willing to challenge the revised FCC rules, running scared in the (dare I say it?) post-September 11 world.///

    Yes, you can say "post-Semtember 11 world" because the truth is, this event obviously had and will continue have life-changing, far-reaching effects and consequences on every American.

    It is our job to make sure those effects evoke positive changes in our lifestyles, not negative ones, even in the short term.
    • Feel free to use "post-9/11", hehe.

      -Berj
    • "Yes, you can say "post-Semtember 11 world"

      Well at least people stopped calling it 9/11 and confusing all of us, what the hell is important about the 9th of november.

      Onto (slightly) serious matters then: When your pres says "if we have to change our lifestyles then the terrorists have won", and now the US' view of everything changes, you rip up the constitution in favour of a police state, and turn on anyone who criticizes government as a traitor...

      so the terrorists won then? Was it really that easy?

      (-5: Unamerican troll)

    • Re:you can say it (Score:3, Insightful)

      by unicron ( 20286 )
      I think it's disgusting how some people in power now are trying to get thier ideas made into laws and if someone speaks up and says "You know, I really don't like that law, it's an invasion of privacy" then the first guy goes off on a tangent, spouting bullshit like "Oh, you don't want to protect our country, you're siding with the terrorists, when's the last time you reported to bin ladin you bastard!?"...I know I'm exaggerating, but it's gotten to the point where if you challenge ANYTHING that might remotely be beneficial to American security, no matter what the cost to civil liberties, you're anti-American.

  • Sad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kupekhaize ( 220804 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:15PM (#3725536)
    You know, its pretty sad when I think about this. The terrorists have won; no matter what we say. They wanted to force us to change our lives; they succeeded. They wanted us to give up our way of life; we have, or at least part of it. They wanted us to be afraid; we are, at least to some extent. If you see somebody walking down main street with a large trenchcoat now, your afraid. What might he be doing.

    Terrorism will always succeed if we let them force us to change our ways, and give up some of our freedoms.

    • Re:Sad (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by Telastyn ( 206146 )
      Actually if I see someone walking down main street with a large trenchcoat now I wonder which bar my buddy's going to. Plus I'll also be on main street with my large black trenchcoat my folks got for me a scant 6 weeks before Columbine (thanks folks!) People forgot that, they forgot Oklahoma City, they'll forget this. People want to be free, people want to be lazy, and people want to be happy; even if it means hurting foreigners or it means forgetting something we probably shouldn't forget.

      And of course by People I mean we stupid lazy Americans. As for winning and losing? America defeated herself well before anyone knew who Osama even was.
    • Yes it is, but the fight is not over yet. Anything that is sensitive needs to be protected, and if the government won't do it, then the responsibility falls upon the user. Encryption is probably the best means of doing this (I use gpg for this purpose, and ssh is good as a transport protocol).

      For means such as telephones that offer no inherent security, one should simply not discuss sensitive information over them (voip, though, might be able to be used with ssh or ssl, or something similar).

      If I ssh into a box which has multiple users, it becomes more difficult to see what I am doing, or if I am working what other sites it is impossible to see which ones I am working with.

      Of course this assumes I am using SSH v2 and am using pre-shared keys :) (OK, I am paranoid when it comes to security)

    • You hit the nail on the head. The choice is obvious. Either we give up our freedom for a sense of security (the question still remains, however, wether this security is really what the government wants us to believe it is), or we give up our sense of security to keep our freedoms.

      Those who fought the revolutionary war knew that there were certian sacrifices that they, as well as thier decendents (us) would have to make. Will we choose to sacrifice to keep our freedoms and way of life, or will we choose this new security?

    • Re:Sad (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kibo ( 256105 )
      That's not exactly true. The world changes and we change with it. The test is can we cling to our ideals, and still extole the virtues we cherish when faced with such uglyness.

      Make no mistake, we're not really a benevolent, peace-loving people who know only sweetness and light.

      At some point it may just be too expensive to keep the ethnic groups the terrorists hide in alive. We all know what was done to the Native Americans just because our forefathers liked the idea of a country that spread from sea to shining sea. Our national anthem is about how we got our asses kicked by the british and told them to fuck-off. Even in World War II people were jailed even though they were thought to provide a nearly non-existant threat. Our ideals, are just that ideals. We frequently fail to meet them, but we never give them up, we even occasionally succeed, and exceed them. That is our might. That is the truth behind the myth we love.

      Would it be right if we used our resources to annihilate whole populations to exact a small measure of justice from a much greater injustice? No. Would I loose sleep over it? Not likely. I care for them ever bit as much as they care for me. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is fine for Buddists and 50's TV, but I find doing unto others as they would do unto you is much more pragmatic.

    • Re:Sad (Score:3, Interesting)

      by djrogers ( 153854 )
      I think you give them more credit in their goals than they deserve. They want us dead. Plain and simple, very last one of us. If we cower in fear at their mighty God in the mean time, I'm sure that'll tickle them pink.

      But when you get right down to it they want us dead.
      • No, they don't want Westerners dead--they are simply indifferent and are quite willing to sacrifice foreigners' lives to advance their own political interests.

        Most countries have pretty much the same record throughout history, if you recall.

        It is expediant for political leaders to claim that terrorists don't like 'freedom', 'way of life', etc., because politicians (and Fox News) have always attempted to co-opt these values. It also allows a greater 'freedom' from scrutiny in their own statements and policies. I'd bet al Qaeda terrorists are quite indifferent towards the level of freedom in the West--It couldn't be much of a motivator. "Down with Equality-Under-The-Law" doesn't have much of a ring to it, does it? Indeed, if the Middle East had the same level of freedom as we do, most would probably be more interested in their next vehicle, than their current cause celeb.

        Basques want their own country. The IRA wanted the English out of Northern Ireland, Shining Path wanted a Maoist state. The al Qaeda is not much different from the rest, (albeit more exotic than a bunch of Irishmen.)

        Nothing changes the fact that they all are extremely cruel, but they can join the queue along with the rest of the nasties.

        Cheers,
        -b
    • And the worst of that is that the terrorists have won by making us increasingly fear our OWN government.

      I found this statement in the Salon article most frightening, re wiretaps etc:

      "A judge cannot reject the request; the court merely certifies and files it."

      IOW, once the FBI decides they wants a gander at your phone activities, there is no legal way to deny them access, even if they don't have probable cause. This is wide open for every sort of abuse.

    • Agreed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DiveX ( 322721 ) <slashdotnewcontact@oasisofficepark.com> on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @10:42PM (#3726607) Homepage
      Go ahead and mark me as a troll or redundant, but I read this piece recently and feel it is relevant. I care not for karm but would just wish more people considered this.

      March 11, 2002

      I think the vast differences in compensation between the victims of the September 11th casualty, and those who die serving the
      country in uniform, are profound. No one is really talking about it either because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11th. Well, I just can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country.

      If you lost a family member in the September 11th attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million. If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of
      which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry.
      And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt. Keep in mind that some of the people that are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. We also learned over the weekend that some of the
      victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11th families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.

      You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over fifty years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. "Patriotism is not a short and renzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." --Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.

      Every time when a pay raise comes up for the military they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low rent housing. However our own U.S. Congress just voted themselves a raise, and many of you don't
      know that they only have to be in Congress one-time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month and most are now equal
      to be millionaires plus. They also do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system.
      If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7 you may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed you in harms way receive a pension of
      $15,000 per month. I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits
      and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.
      • You know how it is: the congressmen want every advanced weapon system they can get their larded hands on (boy, Rumsfeld had a tough time killing off the Crusader system), but when it comes time to pony up for a living wage for military personnel, those same congressmen are nowhere to be found.

        It's because military folks have no single constituency. They come from everywhere, so every representative and senator can pass the buck on taking care of them.

        I vividly remember being at the Infantry School at Ft. Benning in the early '90s, watching some of the "low impact" trainees run through their morning drill. It was really pathetic. We mollycoddled them because their parents figured we're not fighting the Cold War any more, why be so hard on the recruits?

        When there's no war to be fought, the military is just like the firefighters - nifty uniforms and an interesting way of life, but not something to pay much attention to. When the war comes, all attention focuses on the military. That's just the way it is in a republic such as ours.

        Remember also that an astoundingly low percentage of representatives and senators have ever served, even in the Guard or Reserves. I honestly think that until you've sat in the freezing mud for 12 hours, waiting to set off an ambush, or deployed to a combat zone while your loved ones worry every day for your safety, you can't know what it's like to be in the military.

        It's amazing to me that we continue to get such capable young men and women to serve, given the crap they have to put up with (and I'm not referring to their military duties).

    • When you drop a bomb on Iraq, you may be very lucky and kill a few supporters of SH. The country is not a democracy and you can guess that his Baathist supporters are first inline for the shelters.

      In a democracy, we are all responsible for our government's actions. Some may say that the last presidential elections were rigged in Florida, but that only makes a difference if they were rigged in a lot of other states too. Sorry, there was only one brother. George W. Bush was more or less democratically elected, and much more so than the Taleban Mullah Omar or Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

      So here we are in a democratic state. What does that mean? Well, not just armed forces are valid targets for the terrorist mindset. If the average US voter disagreed with current middle-eastern policy, then maybe Osama wouldn't be so resentful or attract so much support for his attacks on civillians.

      Until now, many people were not aware of the ramifications of international policy decisions. Some people who travelled were already aware, but they were a minority.

      Should people back down, well no. However think about what effects that foreign policy has and try to work out whether that policy is worth your support and tell your elected representatives. Foreign policy should be more than just who gets what juicy contract.

      Oh and a final point is that if your country has a military force made up largely from reservists like Israel, it becomes very difficult to decide who, apart from children doesn't represent a target to a terrorist. Most males between 18 and 50 or so are serving one month a year in the army, same for women up to the birth of their children. Can you see a terrorist understanding "Sorry don't shoot or bomb me, I'm not wearing my uniform"?

  • I don't see what the big deal is .. If it's going to help us keep track of who is in touch with terrorists or other crime lords, then so be it, it'll make me feel safer. I don't imagine the FBI will abuse this because i'm sure the telco's will step in and say something if they are randomly listening to calls of people calling phonesex lines or whatever. I just wish people would stop bitching about every little thing that happens in life, just let it go, it's not like they are actually invading our privacy, and if you are that concerned, then stop calling your terrorist friends..
    • So your telling us that the phone company is going to watchdog the FBI. Then it's going to second guess the FBI's decisions and inform the public when it looks as if the agency may be abusing its power. I guess the phone companies will be setting aside there own investigative team to monitor all the activities of the FBI investigators. Oh yes, you don't imagine that the FBI will abuse its power? Do you understand history? Is this flame bait?
    • "I don't imagine the FBI will abuse this because i'm sure..."

      Trust us. We're from the government, and we're here to help.
    • with their refreshing naivete!

      You are aware that a large part of the reason that FBI was, until recently, so well handcuffed was *because* they abused their powers by spying on and entrapping people who had nothing to do with terrorism?

      While the agents out in the field are hard-working, good people, the bureaucracy that directs the FBI has proven itself, time and time again, to be not just untrustworthy but incompetent as well!

  • I dont get it at times (Score:5, Insightful)

    by q-soe ( 466472 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:17PM (#3725553) Homepage
    Not being american i have to admit i have trouble understanding the post september 11 issue.. It amazes me that since that date the number of basic rights and civil liberties that have been ignored or thrown away in the cause of 'Patriotism' are so big.

    it seems anything can be dismissed as post september 11 and be justifiable on the grounds of the war against terrorism...

    meanwhile in palestine the IDF moves tanks back into refuge settlements to 'supress undesirable elements' and no one blinks ?

    Tragedy that sept 11 was its no excuse to allow your rights and freedoms to be taken away from you and no excuse to not stand up for yourselves or others - America is supposed to be the land of the free and home of the brave - it seems worryinh that these days its increasingly not so free and only brave when backed by superior firepower.....

    And am i the only one who thinks that the post septmeber 11 comment has been a great way for the FBI and CIA et al to get around all those niggling civil rights and civil liberties issues? just how long have they been able to do this anyway...

    • Re:I dont get it at times (Score:5, Insightful)

      by captain_craptacular ( 580116 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:25PM (#3725588)
      It scares me almost to the point of not sleeping at night. I see it happening time and again and can't help thinking that once taken, civil liberties are never given back. I fear my generation will spend the second half of our lives in a constant battle attempting to bet back to where we were a year ago. People don't see the big picture, every civil liberty we lose is a win for a terrorism and a loss for us, we're losing the battle badly.
      • Never? That's a long time. Can't black people vote? Women? 18 year olds? I'm not so sure things started out that way. What about Miranda warnings? There's a reason its named for a court case and not an amendment.

        You're the kinda guy who'd call fuel rationing during WWII unconstitutional. All's fair in love war and hyperbole, no? :)
        • None of those things were rights that were removed and then restored. They are all rights that had never existed, that were granted after varying degrees of protest, including outright civil unrest.

          "Never" was a little strong; I'd have said "rarely" and added "without a fight".

          Cheers,

          Tim
          • Well then why would you expect to just recieve boons you want, but never made an effort to aquire? Hell, even with lotto I have to get off my ass and buy a ticket. And rarely? Well that's ambigious in our society, a great many people already think they have a right to not be offended, the fact that they have not had this amended into the constitution is hardly a cause for lamentation.

            Ultimately, I think you're trying to stongly state that sometimes our government makes decisions that are bad, and make people unhappy, or less happy with no or painfully little justification. But what I thought was ammusing was you also added that the government never makes decisions to make people happy for the sake of nothing more than a job well done. Well that of course was silly. Don't worry, you're allowed. Who doesn't love hyperbole?

            But it all reduces down to "Our government is powerful and doesn't work perfectly." Hardly a doomsday scenario :).

            And FWIW, nothing, the Miranda case decided that people did have that right all along, it was provided by the constitution itself, and the Miranda warnings were a remedy. Of course in cases like that one wonders what the point of having police is. Since if they're too busy intimidating and confusing innocent people into confessing to crimes to go out and find the guilty parties how protected is a community?
      • I see it happening time and again and can't help thinking that once taken, civil liberties are never given back.

        you have a good point, but I think you're taking it just a bit too far. Wartime enroachments on civil liberties are generally repealed (or ruled unconstitutional) after the hostilities cease. A good example would be the Sedition Act during WWI or any number of the police-state/ command-economy acts of FDR during WWII.

        The fundamental problem is that since these 'hostilities' are extra-national, it's going to be very hard to have a cessation in hostilities, much less one as simple and discrete as a German surrender eg. Furthermore, in supporting particular national governments against 'terrorists' the US has a very poor record. Ask Peru or Nicaragua or Afghanistan or Indonesia. I am more and more thinking that this problem will only really be solved by (get your tinfoil hats ready here) a fundamental upheaval in the way the world is governed and how wealth is distributed.

    • Re:I dont get it at times (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bigbadwlf ( 304883 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:43PM (#3725704)
      No kidding.
      Check out this article. [chicagotribune.com]

      American citizen and suspected terrorist confederate, is arrested May 8 at O'Hare International Airport. He is held for a month in the criminal justice system, then transferred by presidential order to military custody for an indefinite period, not charged with any crime and cut off from contact with a lawyer.

      --snip--

      "Saying you can take an American citizen, arrested in the United States in a non-combat situation, far removed from a war zone, and lock him up indefinitely with no access to a trial and no access to a lawyer raises fairly chilling questions under the Bill of Rights," said Doug Cassel, director of the Center for International Human Rights at the Northwestern University School of Law.

      How does this happen in a "free" country?

      • How does this happen in a "free" country?

        It doesn't, America isn't one.

      • -plain and simple. 99% of all actions done by the government and people of the US since 911 have been based on a reflex due to fear.

        It has been many generations that the US has fought a war on its mainland. The idea that anyone could hurt the nation so much was horrific - that's why the media keep saying that "We'll never be the same."

        While the fear has a basis, the trick is to balance the reactions to the fear so that the cure is not worse than the malady. We also have to be watchful that not every single pork barrel projects or favorite political initiatives get shoved through on the tide of such fears.

        Fortunately, there are still some principled and rational journalists and organizations who are brave enough to speak out for such balances. So BE SURE TO SUPPORT THEM. Send in that donation to ACLU and others fighting for your rights!
  • I have no problem at all with the FBI and whoever (law enforcement wise at least) looking at call logs without a warrent. I think that would help a lot in crime fighting.

    I DO have a problem with easier wire taps, the listening kind. For better or worse, at least when they record a call, it has to be important enough for an officer/agent etc to spend time listening to it. Manpower alone seems to me to be a significant level of check and ballance. They are not going to devote a "person" to listen to calls, unless they think it is important enough.

    -Pete
    • I'm sure they have a way to transcribe it directly to text then run some pattern matching algorith to search for certain words and phrases.. so its computing power not man power, and it doesn't take much of a machine to run grep..
    • Ever heard of operation Shamrock? No? In the 40s and 50s the NSA in co-operation with the FBI monitored ALL domestic and forgin communications with the help of the major wire services of the time.
      How did it start out? Traffic analysis. And it was a slippery slope thaqt lead to watch listing all sorts of people. Especally those that dissagreed with the goverment.
      They were forced to stop by congress, but as they have alreay abused this kind of power once do we really want them to have it again?

  • To use DHCP with our phones. Throw in a little no-ip.com and we're all set. :-)
  • The article brings to mind organizations like the ACLU who find themselves protecting some of the worst people out there (white supremacists, drug dealers, etc) in order to fight for the Bill of Rights.

    In the end, I think /.ers and other techies who fight for privacy will not, in the greater scheme of things, be villified for appearing to protect terrorists for the sake of safe email accounts. That's a shortsighted argument. If the FBI wants extra powers to fight the bad guys, they should have no qualms about fighting for those powers in Congress or in our Court System.

    That's the great thing about our system. It's supposed to have the same rules for everybody.

    Neat, huh?

    -FC

    • Actually our system doesn't have the same rules for everybody. For one if you have been convicted of a felony in the past, then you give up some of your rights. This is in the constitution. Also the constitution grantees no specific rights to non-citizens of the United States.

      I am by no means a fan of the ACLU (I think they're rotton to the core), however, the system is the way it is to prevent inocent people from being convicted of crimes. This does, however let guilty people free. One man (a judge I think, but I can't remember) said that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. If an innocent man is convicted then there are two wrongs done: the innocent man is punished for a crime he committed, and a guilty man goes free.

      Now of course the system isn't perfect; innocent men are convicted sometimes. But, is it really good to keep track of everything so that if someone says the wrong word (just think of how many uses b**b has that don't refer to any kind of terrorist activities) they are investigated and harrased by the FBI/CIA?.

  • After all, last March the FCC declared that cable broadband was an information service and not a telecommunications service.

    gigowiz
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    Pushing the zamboni envelope one mile an hour at a time
  • Someone posted a comment that more or less said "Why is this a problem? They're not after *you*, as such; they're after the *bad guys*."

    Well, yes, it is a problem. I'm all for going after the bad guys, but remember, if this crisis ever ends, these powers will *not* be retracted.

    Government usually only gets bigger, not smaller. And they don't easily give up powers once they've been granted. Perhaps the way Congress should be drafting these laws is that they need to come up on periodic review (kind of like the statute for Independent Counsels). At least if we have to tolerate this potential invasion now, then it could be repealed after a few years when things calm down.

    I think it's important not to bind the hands of the FBI too much, but at the same time, someone needs to be looking ahead to when this crisis ends.

    Another potential glimmer of hope is that the next administration might be influenced to cause a review to be done as part of his getting elected.

    I guess we'll see...
  • Well, for those of us who are still on narrowband of 56k or less, and only have one phone, have no friendss that call you, and always squatting on-line talking on voice chat via Yahoo! or AIM, I don't know how easy it would be for the feds to phone tap a bunch modem sounds... :-)

    Who said narrow band doesn't pay off :-)

    Wheeeeeeeeeeee!
    • It's not that hard... it would be similar to a serial cable that puts the Rx/Tx lines onto a pair of Rx lines so that another computer could listen to both sides of a serial exchange. Not hard at all... it would just be a demdem instead of a modem.

  • Come on (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How long are you going to use 9/11 as a crutch? You seem to think it's an excuse for anything, good or bad. Get over it! Innocent people die every day all over the world. Suck it up and stop letting the government walk all over you. Osama is laughing at you all.

  • Out of context & giving the police another cro (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HD Webdev ( 247266 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:30PM (#3725619) Homepage Journal
    The biggest problem with the pen register type tap (the one that doesn't need probable cause) is that an innocent party who has conversations on the telephone with a criminal could easily find hisself threatened with being a conspirator to commit crime X.

    Police would use that threat to illegally force innocents into gathering information about someone. They will do that....after all, these are the same people I've seen threaten to take a woman's children away if the woman would not gather information about an in-laws drug use and connections.

    All of that because of calling the wrong person at the wrong time.

  • History repeats itself (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Discopete ( 316823 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:31PM (#3725632) Homepage
    If I remember my history correctly, this has all happened before. A little different skew, but pretty much the same.
    Lets see, it's the early 1930's, Hitler has not yet come completely into power. There is a major fire that destroys the Reichstag (the equiv. of the capitol building), immediately, Hitler gets the German parliment to pass a law that allows total unrestricted tapping of all forms of communication. Telephone, Mail, etc...
    Once that was done, all he had to do was have his people watch for red flags (non-nazi actions) that he could then send the Brown-Shirts (what would eventually become the Gestapo) in to "Maintain the peace".

    I saw a tagline a few months back:
    Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it,
    Those who study history are doomed to know it's repeating

    Hopefully the American people will come to their sense before we have made too many more steps down the Facist path....

    • We all know what this means. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dmaxwell ( 43234 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @11:41PM (#3726863)
      Could this possibly be the terminated end of a thread?
    • While I agree about the tendency for the government and law enforcement powers to gain an inordinate amount of powers I must disagree that it is inevitable we end up in a dictatorship.

      First, we aren't paying foreign countries massive reparations for a war we lost. Our trade imbalance and national debt don't count. We aren't running massive inflation. We don't have limits on military force. In short we don't have massive limits forced upon us by foreging governments.

      Second, we still have a tripartite constitional government. Until Congress is abolished and the judicial system completly under the sway of the President there's little need to fear the President.

      Third, until the media agrees totally with the government's positions every time, there will be some voice of dissent. While I would agree the media generally agrees with government policy, its main job is to distract attention, not drum up support (although Fox news seems to be an exception).

      Finally, I don't think we'll see the nationalization of industry anytime soon.

      You're more likely to see a corporate-friendly system with a smily face than anything remotely close to Hitler and the Nazi regime.
      • I have to agree with every one of your points, but do you think that a government that exists to support corporate interests above the interests of the individual or public is any better than a Fascist regime?
        We've already seen the freedom of expression and acceptable use abolished by corporate interests (Skylarov & E-books, 2600 & DeCss), whats next?

        An interesting note is that the right to bear arms was put into place with the intention not only of protecting our country from external invaders, but also to allow the people to fight against an oppressive government. Is that the next right they'll take away?
        Only time will tell...

        • Given Ashcroft's recent brief reinterpreting the rights enshrined in the 2nd Amendment I'm not as worried as I was. Besides, I can always get a gun, legal or not. Rebellion is never legal in the eyes of those in power.

          Is corporate rule better? Probably not. It's more insidious to be sure, but at least I can (theoretically) ignore or minimize its authority by a variety of means. I can't simply ignore or deny the authority of the government though.
  • I don't know about you guys, but phones have always been known as an insecure way of transfering information. The terrorists of today, I hate to say it, are probably much more educated in technology than the average American. They use encryption, hidden messages in files, etc...

    Tapping a phone might be a good way to catch the average dumb criminal such as a drug dealer at the low end of the crime pyramid, but terrorists know better. Most if not all the tools they use are freely available to the public, and the really smart terrorists might even use their own custom code or open-source software to prevent any backdoors.

  • I got it covered. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:35PM (#3725657) Homepage
    It's OK by me. See, I copyrighted, trademarked, and patented my phone number. So now, any time I get tapped or called, the person or organization trying to reach me owes royalties and licensing fees. And of course, the implicit EULA they agree to by dialing the number has clauses prohibiting suing me and provides immunity from criminal prosecution.
  • The thing that bothers me most is that egregious violations of personal liberties are going on every day and now we trot out one line of Supreme Court caselaw to say it's all okay. Just because one justice once said "the constitution is not a suicide pact" does not make it okay to break the rules that our social fabric is supposed to be based on. The funniest thing is that fear of terrorism (which is the whole reason you attack a country that way) has led us to give up our liberties. We're fighting for "freedom" in Afghanistan, but losing it all at home. If, with the clues they had, the CIA and FBI couldn't figure this one out how are we supposed to expect that with new powers they'll be able to do anything else? They won't. It's not commie-pinko bs like others would suggest. This is just straight talk. Police agencies can't do their jobs with the considerable leeway with regards to the law they are currently granted. Expecting that throwing more (mostly unconstitutional) powers in their hands will somehow make them do their job better is ridiculous. Not only that, but attacking the people who hate us is not a good way to show we're a tolerant nation. It makes us look just as bad as they say we are. Osama bin Laden shouldn't have much trouble finding recruits in Afghanistan or anywhere. The Great Satan has shown once again that we suck just as bad as they've always thought we did. So whatever. I guess we'll let good old Bushie decide for us. If not, we're probably terrorists anyway.
  • They make take our numbers, but they will never take OUR FREEDOM! ALBA GU BRA!

    Er, wait.

  • The Big Deal.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The big deal is when Feds decide that you're partaking in certain "un-American" activities (like thinking for yourself, donating money to the ACLU, writing posts like this, etc) and decide to wiretap you. Big deal, right?--You're a good American, you go to work, pay your bills, buy stuff from Wal-Mart; there's nothing for them to find.

    But then you say something...Something controversial. It may be personal, politcal, sexual, or mildly criminal; it doesn't really matter because all it takes is a quick phone call to the local constabulary to have you hauled in front of the inquisition and black-listed for life. You'll find that certain opportunities are no longer available to you at this point.

    God forbid that you're somebody important (somebody with enough money/power to matter), because it's a simple matter to convict someone in the media these days--just say the word "pedophile" and your career will evaporate.

    I realize that some of this reaks of "Pinko-Liberalism" as my history professor once put it, but just remember that this has already happened before (Martin Luther King being the most prominent example with McCarthyism a close second).

    Just remember that power is an end unto itself, and individuality is not a virtue in government.

    I lost my /. password, sorry.
  • hmmm...I'm curious, in what way does this make sense to you? This is from the second page of the article on salon.com

    "The industry-advocate coalition won a key victory in August 2000. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington blocked four of the six changes the FBI sought and the FCC had ordered, sending them back to the FCC with instructions to better explain why the changes were necessary and how they would balance the needs of law enforcement, the public's right to privacy, and industry's right to a cost-effective way to enforce the law. The FBI took no further action for over a year, and it seemed possible the agency would admit defeat and let the issue die."

    then they go to quote much later on:
    " We're essentially under siege," Berman said, ticking off issues that had recently come up: the new Homeland Defense Department, new FBI data-mining rules, the Patriot Act. "Would we be challenging this if it were September 10th? Absolutely. The problem is priorities and resources, but don't count us out yet."

    I see that Americans are now making everything they do in the excuse of "the September 11th incident"....okay that may have been a huge wake up call to us telling us how slack we have become thinking we are secure in our defense system, to only realize we cant handle the issues within America itself.

    "Would we be challenging this if it were September 10th? Absolutely. The problem is priorities and resources, but don't count us out yet."

    To Berman, no i dont believe if you've shut your mouth after being asked "what do you exactly plan to do", that you are actually going to do it before something like September 11th (dare to say, hope it doesnt) ever happens again. Precautions are a bit late dont you think...but its an awefully nice gesture...even though he is right in that priorities are the main issue here..unfortunately it is too often that American priorities are on other countries instead of on their own affairs...after all they should be trying to answer the question on how they are to make this a "cost effective way to enforce the law" arent they?

    just one persons opinion i guess....pretty much same ol' shit just a different day...

    -Alicia
  • "[...] many of the Telcos were hesitant to argue this time around for fear of bad post Sept-11 publicity."

    That list certainly couldn't include Qwest, as they've never yet shied away from any acts that got them bad publicity.
  • I'll just set up a quantum information link. If anyone tries to tap into my line, they'll collapse the wavefunction! If anyone tries to spy on me, I'll know that they've tampered with my qubits. All I need is an underground network of dedicated fibre optic links so I can talk to my good friends Alice and Bob. Who says quantum cryptography was a half-baked idea?
  • If I had to choose between death and loss of privacy, I choose loss of privacy. Even if it is just a significant chance of death, my choice is the same.
    • The choice you're making is between the possibility that an otherwise successful investigation might be slowed down by the necessity to obtain legal authorization, and the certainty that oversight covering scrutiny of your personal life will be removed.

      Essentially, they're selling you a false dilemma.

  • There is no such thing as the "Post Sept-11 World" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hayden ( 9724 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @09:10PM (#3726148)
    The only difference between the pre Sept-11 world and the post Sept-11 world is that America has noticed that it is there. Terrorism wasn't born on Sept-11, it just got serious CNN coverage for the first time. Nothing else much has changed.

    Well, that's not entirely true. Now any government around the world can follow the US's lead and exterminate any group that opposes them with impunity and call it "War on Terrorism" and say they are doing their part. Also you now have no right to be assumed innocent. You can be assumed terrorist without any real proof. Aint it grand?

  • I've been thinking about this. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have to post as an AC because I work in Law Enforcement, but please hear me out.

    We all know the problems that American intelligence agencies had before 9-11. They had information pointing towards the attacks, but compartmentalization meant the pieces were never put together.

    As strange as it may sound, wouldn't an Open Source approach to intelligence have worked better? Think of we had used the peer review method on the intelligence reports? Millions of eyes looking at the data would have certainly connected the dots.

    We don't need a secret "proprietary" approach to National Security, we need to Open Source what we know and let the tried and true methods of the Open Source community do its work.
  • I hear a lot of people complaining that their Civil Rights are being lost in this forum even a few losing sleep over it! Outside of being molested by an old lady with a metal detecting wand at the airport, I can't think of any civil rights I have lost since 9-11. Yet, there seems to be no end to people griping about their Civil Rights being taken away. Which is ironic since if they were, how could they bitch in the first place? Can someone list the rights we have lost?

    The only people I can think of that have had their "Civil Rights violated" are illegal aliens with existing deportation orders from Al Qaeda based countries and a guy that looks like John Doe #2 who was planning to set off a radiological bomb after returning from the Middle East. People that do not deserve protection that an American Citizen is afforded in America. They are illegal combatants, they want you dead. They couldn't give a damn if you had Civil Rights in the first place. You are an American. Your country supports Israel. You live a decadent lifestyle. You are a legitimate target in their eyes and they don't follow the Geneva Convention.

    As long as you are not a member of Al Qaeda or hanging out with Al Qaeda members at strip clubs and pilot training, you have nothing to worry about. The FBI, CIA and Homeland Security have more important things to do than tap your phone so they get the time and place of your next LAN party. Besides, you probably aren't important enough in the first place to warrant their attention.

    Remember folks, we are in a war and the war zone is the United States. A war not against a nation state but a terrorist group that knows no borders. We are not going to win by making our law enforcement agencies toothless and blind.

    • Well, lets see there is a recent act that got passed, the patriot act, that all they have to do is consider you a terrorist, and they don't need a warrent for anything. . . .

      "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
      --Samuel Johnson
      • Well, lets see there is a recent act that got passed, the patriot act, that all they have to do is consider you a terrorist, and they don't need a warrent for anything. . .

        So don't behave like a terrorist. Is that too much to ask from a fellow citizen? Please don't travel to terrorist supporting nations to gain information on radiological bombs so can explode one in a major population center in the US.

        Like I asked, name one Civil Right you have lost. Not some theoretical situation. Give me some concrete loss of freedom beyond getting through an airport unmolested.

        • early americans was thought to be "terrorist" when fighting for our freedoms no? Ther is no clear cut yes no as for the meaning of the word. It is way to broad.

          This could be used against me, you anybody they wanted to. It has nothing to do with bombs.

          I did name one, all they have to do is consider me a "terrorist" of any sort, and they do not need any warrants, etc. That my friend, is a HUGE one. And every politican who voted for it should be on the ned of a rope.

          Do you want me to name more? I could go on and on about privacy, or about the fedreal government becoming to strong and over stepping the limits that was set in place to preserve our natural rights.
          • I did name one, all they have to do is consider me a "terrorist" of any sort, and they do not need any warrants, etc. That my friend, is a HUGE one. And every politican who voted for it should be on the ned of a rope

            The Government is not going to get away with calling you a terrorist unless you are involved in terrorist activity. We have an activist press corps in this country that is salivating for the opportunity to pounce on President Bush. If you were nabbed by the Government on false charges of terrorism, you would instantly become a millionaire and a media darling. As long as the right to free speech and the Press, it is virtually impossible for the Government to detain you without merit. The Government is not just saying these people are terrorists, they are giving proof.

            Do you want me to name more? I could go on and on about privacy, or about the fedreal government becoming to strong and over stepping the limits that was set in place to preserve our natural rights.

            Actually I would. Tell what you can't do today that was legal before 9-11-01. What right that you had, that you don't today. Not couldas, wouldas, shouldas, but something that has actually happened to you as a US Citizen.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nobody said computers were going to be polite.

Close