Security and Privacy in the US 18
wbm6k writes "The New York Times recently ran an article entitled, "In the Name of Security." The author basically summarizes the current governmental challenges to privacy (most of course already reported here at /.) and contrasts consumer fear of corporate information gathering with citizen willingness to accept government intrusions in the name of 'homeland security.'"
irony (Score:2, Funny)
Re:irony (Score:2, Insightful)
But first I'll need to tell the NY Times my gender, age, zip code, income, and occupation
Ummm, there's nothing stopping you from providing the NY Times false information. It's not like they're going to check.
Re:irony (Score:1)
Actually, there is. As part of the registration, you agree to provide accurate information:
6.1 As part of the registration process, you will select a password and a subscriber ID. You also have to give us certain registration information, all of which must be accurate and updated.
That's a license agreement, every bit as binding as, say, this one. [gnu.org]
Please don't argue that it's not "good" or "fair" for the NYT to have such a license. But please do make any argument about the NYT license that you are also willing to make about the GPL.
tc>
Re:irony (Score:1)
Password: cypherphunks
Re:irony (Score:1)
Besides, lying to the NYTimes is really easy. Go here [majcher.com]
Here ya go (Score:2)
linkie [nytimes.com]
Obligatory Free link... (Score:1)
For all those who can't/won't/don't register... the registration free link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/24/weekinreview/24priva??? (Score:2)
The only thing 'private' in the US is certain body parts. You will almost always get in trouble for showing them in public.
What the hell was that? (Score:3, Interesting)
On the whole, the whole thing seemed rather lightweight - a summary of other news items, and a vague comparison of commercial-vs.-gov't data gathering pros and cons.
So where is the deeper journalism on these issues, anyway?
OK,
- B
Proof that government look for dirt on citizens (Score:2)
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", they may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
The government want a surveillance society - for doing things like checking your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe - I shall also disprove that is fallacy below.
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all.
Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington rail crash survivors group. It was lead by Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after being badly injured in the 1999 crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all quite legally. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people with good intent.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to smear the character of these good people.
The government arrogantly presume she and the rest of group would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
You want the Truth about Government Surveillance on the Internet?
Then ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face-to-face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from CNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
I explained why you should worry above. As I say, this could be anything - all your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes. You are then a crook.
They try make everything they say all sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world"
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not - So then, is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually, it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender that they have to keep track of. Would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything.
Americans (as a backhanded compliment) - with the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware - are you really that easily lead?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, and then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) and the United States Department of Commerce (DOC.gov) are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys. Please visit my WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] site - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org. The United Nations WIPO deal with these conflicts - but are without honour and too cowardly to directly answer my easy questions (as are the US DoC).
Good Point (Score:2)
I've never understood why people are so naive in thinking that the government's not going to use the the laws against them or that one day these broad sweeping bills aren't going to affect their lives. It's just a matter of time. Sure they're going to protect us, but only after their own agendas have been pushed through.
But what can we expect? There are so many contridictions in public opinion that its not even funny. For instance, in the most recent election people say they are satisfied with the Republicans and the way the election turned out, but don't like the Republican policies or stances on many issues. They want spam to be curtailed, but don't want any infringement on their rights to free speech. And the list goes on...
Sorry to rant and get off topic.
Re:Good Point (Score:2)
about is that the job pays money to buy
a good home, retirement, cable TV and enough
McD's meals. Not that it's bad, but if someone
wants to pursue something beyond that, like
express a thought that maybe challenges this
and may be deemed unamerican - nobody really
gives a shit. How do ya fight that, eh?
Us vs. Them (Score:2, Interesting)