House and Senate Reject E-mail Surveillance 260
vena writes "The Star Tribune reports the House and Senate today agreed not to allow email surveillance of American citizens proposed by the Total Information Awareness program. Additionally, negotiators agreed to halt all future funding on the program without extensive consultation with Congress."
Excellent news! (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean I can stop using PGP?
Re:Excellent news! (Score:5, Insightful)
of lying to Congress about what he was up to. Maybe they can find
a good military officer, a colonel maybe, to make those reports
to Congress.
If I hold my hands in front of my face, you can't see me
yeah, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Excellent news! (Score:5, Insightful)
"The program could be employed in support of lawful military operations outside the United States and lawful foreign intelligence operations conducted against non-U.S. citizens."
Then again, how do they know that you are an American citizen without reading your email and checking you up?
Re:Excellent news! (Score:2, Funny)
In a word . . . (Score:5, Funny)
qANQR1DBwU4DFRm5nWRHfUAQCACvS5Q/HAkmsluEsbKSFhwvo
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
No.
Re:In a word . . . (Score:2, Funny)
Re:In a word . . . (Score:4, Funny)
About time... (Score:2, Funny)
Suck on that, herr Ashcroft...
Re:About time... (Score:5, Informative)
A better version of the article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/politics/12PRIV
Re:About time... (Score:5, Insightful)
TW
Re:About time... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is a quote from Echelon Watch's FAQ: [aclu.org]
So, what exactly is this article about? What have we won?
For the still-skeptical people amoung us, here is a warning from the EU government to e-mail users [bbc.co.uk], originally stated in it's original form here [eu.int]. You can also find an EU resolution on the matter here [eu.int]
If you are not of the faint of heart, you can see the highly detailed 200 page report into the system here [eu.int] [pdf doc]. This report was originally reported in the news mid September, 2001. Obviously due to other news items, it wasn't widely reported and the whole affair was convienently swept under the carpet.
Re:About time... (Score:2)
Re:About time... (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't *NEED* protection from terrorists, and the measures enacted so far have done *nothing* but strip us of the very conveniences and freedoms we would like to protect.
You might point out that we have had no real acts of domestic terrorism since September 2001. True. But how often did we experience such attacks *prior* to the WTC attack? And, even if we *did* expect something since that time, why would anyone bother? Ever seen the Twilight Zone episode "The Monsters are Coming to Maple Street"? That about covers it.
As much as I hate the "if we don't blah, the terrorists have already won", our attourney general, and the OHS, and TIA, all *embody* the ultimate goals of any potential terrorists. Why should *real* terrorists waste their time and effort doing what we will willingly, even beggingly, do to ourselves? Personally, I'd rather risk a quick death less likely than getting struck by lightning, than have the afforementioned whack-jobs supposedly "protecting" us make a long and sedate life not worth living. But then, I don't consider myself a sheep. If you like having Ashcroft herd you into a nice "secure" detention cells, by all means beg for more. But leave me the hell out of your plans.
Re:About time... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:About time... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:About time... (Score:5, Insightful)
As is your duty as a citizen of a (supposedly) free society.
Call me paranoid or a wacko
No. I'll call you a patriot since that is what you are by being "eternally vigilant".
It's sad that so many people don't realise that going along with your government right or wrong isn't patriotism. It's treason.
Anthrax? Snipers? (Score:3, Interesting)
You might point out that we have had no real acts of domestic terrorism since September 2001. True.
You probably don't live in the DC area, but we remember the anthrax attacks following 9/11. Still unsolved, aren't they? Then we had these bastard snipers killing a dozen unsuspecting people
Mentioned rarely, these attacks were likely all the work of Americans. So was Oklahoma City. The closest thing to a 9/11 follow-up was the "shoe bomber" Reid, a British subject. (Apparently they're worried about him in jail [cnn.com].) Hunting for "suspicious foreigners" would have done no good in any of these. Nor would the unpatriotic Patriot Act. I'm not certain what would have helped, but I am sure they're headed in the wrong direction, enacting the longtime wish list of certain interest groups without regard to the present problem.
We don't want to live in a police state, both because it would suck and because the terrorists would love it.
Now we have a code red or orange or tangerine, I forget, isn't that dandy. I understood the defcon system [fas.org] better.
Re:About time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's take privacy. Under Patriot your librarian is required to provide your borrowing record if the gov't asks -- and the library is FORBIDDEN from notifying you or anyone else.
Re:About time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Arrested and sent to Cuba, no. Greatly inconvenienced to no gain for anyone, yes. The leader of the Green party in my state cannot currently fly because of thinly veiled attempts to silence political dissent. Along with several hundred (that we know of) similarly harmless people who have no means of getting off the transportation blacklist created entirely through illegal and due-process-denying means.
What great conveniences and freedoms have you personally given up because of John Ashcroft?
Shall I go over the bill of rights one at a time? Let's see... Privacy, speech, religion, secure in my home, search and seizure, state's rights, using military for domestic law enforcement... And those just from off the top of my head. I could dig deeper.
but at least Ashcroft hasn't been murdering entire religous sects and pointing machine guns at innocent 6 year olds.
True enough. Reno seems to have made that sufficiently unpopular that Ashcroft hasn't (yet) dared continue her work.
Oh, and quit with the damn *stars* around words. You look like a damn fool.
Ah, good ol' ad hominem, the last resort of those with no better point to make. Yes, I agree, I should use actual HTML tags in this medium. Having used USENET long before the web came around, however, I have an old habit that has proven difficult to break. To go so far as saying it makes me look like a fool, however? I doubt it.
Re:About time... (Score:4, Informative)
From the American Library Association [ala.org]:
"Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association. The courts have established a First Amendment right to receive information in a publicly funded library. Further, the courts have upheld the right to privacy based on the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Many states provide guarantees of privacy in their constitutions and statute law. Numerous decisions in case law have defined and extended rights to privacy."
It includes references (four for that paragraph alone), if you want to argue with any specific point.
Re:About time... (Score:5, Informative)
IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(Hint: its not in the Bill of Rights)
It is indeed the Bill of Rights that guarantees the protection of individual liberties; you'll remember that the federalists argued that no such things is necessary, because enumerating specific rights only means that the government can find ways to infringe upon other rights, that have not been explicitly enumerated. The anti-federalists, on the other hand, were afraid of a strong central government, and wanted a bill of rights to serve as an explicit social contract between the people and the government.
This neatly covers those two in one article... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll quote the first paragraph:
Does that answer your specific questions?
Double standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Double standards (Score:4, Interesting)
Not double standards.
The double standard is if Britain watches over the U.S. similarly and then we "exchange" the information about each other's population
Greetings, from most of the world (Score:3, Informative)
In most of the world we call different standards for different classifications "different standards".
Not double standards.
Uh... not in my "most of the world". Not in Webster's Dictionary's "most of the world" either:
One group would be americans, another group would be foreigners. Double means you have two specific standards and the contradiction is when you purport them to be general.
Re:Greetings, from most of the world (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but seriously, I think there is something missing there. A double standard is a standard which is applied inconsistently among consistent parties. (It's a double standard if men and women are treated differently in the workplace because they should be judged on their ability to do their job. It's not a double standard to have more stalls in a womens bathroom, because it actually takes longer per person to do ones duty . )
Because States are -- at their most basic levels -- cooperatives to protect the security of a group of people, then one would reason that it is quite legitimate to gather intelligence about other "cooperatives" because they are not "consitent" (They differ in a way that is relevant to the standard). On that basis, I have very relevant differences from the British person.
Now, if the U.S. demanded other countries to cease their spying -- THAT would be a double standard.
Re:Double standards (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, you have to look at this in a reasonable way. First off, overseas, the laws are different. If the US could consult a foreign court in order to get a wire-tap or anything else similiar to the way it is done in the US, there might not be a need for Echelon. As it is, the laws in foreign countries are not as flexible. That means, they don't have much choice but to spy illegially.
Re:Double standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, that was one of the reasons that PGP export was allowed: American companies operating abroad had to use easily-breakable encryption, becuase it was all they were allowed to take to their worldwide offices. Of course, that meant that the government of any country they operated in could decrypt their comms, and tip-off native companies in competition with them.
Not that the US would ever sink to such depths... *cough*arms-sales-contracts*cough*
Re:Double standards (Score:4, Informative)
I really do hope you're only joking, but allow me to remind you that the Constitution and Declaration of Independance do not suggest that governments somehow "assign" rights because of national origin, but are rather established to protect the people under their jurisdiction, because these are asserted to be the inalienable rights of mankind. The equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that all people under the jurisdiction of the United States are entitled to equal protection of the law. This principle has been upheld in the landmark case Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) [cornell.edu]. The court asserted that The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality. [...] Those subjects of the Emperor of China who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States, are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws.
Finally, someone in congress read the constituion (Score:5, Interesting)
How much you want to bet this gets tacked on to the next "patriot" style bill?
TIA clothing available... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:TIA clothing available... (Score:3, Funny)
When they say they want to know everything, they mean Everything.
On second thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Too bad, they could have compared prices on herbal viagra.
No TIA? No problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Just don't lie to me, pal. Not that I'd know if you were.
not asmiable in court. (Score:2)
We all know the US monitors its citizens like it or not. the problem comes when this information has to be used in court. It is not admisable as evidence if the information was gathered unlawfully. This is the reason they are trying to get it passed as a bill.
I guess their... (Score:2, Funny)
"Perhaps a little teen sex " (Score:2)
Hell, they've got so much of it they even let their cigars in on the excess action.
KFG
Skewed perspective? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can it not be a program that snoops into American citizens privacy? From past experience, I've found that the other issue is that once databases are available, they will be tapped for a variety of purposes not originally envisioned or intended.
Re:Skewed perspective? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Skewed perspective? (Score:5, Funny)
"Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., senior Democrat on the subcommittee, said of the program, "Jerry's against it, and I'm against it, so we kept the Senate amendment." Of the Pentagon, he said, "They've got some crazy people over there."
No shit.
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing we've seen, is that terrorists are not stupid. Does Lt. Cmdr. Sewell really think that terrorists will communicate important details through e-mail? I suppose that if the threat of being discovered is there, it's less likely to be used, but there are varied ways of communicating that are not easy to track.
What worries me is that U.S. 'intelligence,' is taking the view that technology (and the invasiveness that comes with it) will offer a panacea to the current terrorist threat. I'm probably not the first to remind anyone that even WITH all the technology currently utilized by the US military, it has still been unable to bring down a man who lives in caves.
I agree with you...it's not a question of if, but when the current data surveillance/collection efforts will be repurposed to suit some other, unrelated interest.
Trading intelligence (Score:2, Insightful)
Sense at last (Score:5, Funny)
Nice (Score:3, Funny)
Not quite over yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not quite over yet (Score:5, Interesting)
And he'd be an idiot to veto his own budget bill; that almost never happens.
Good god. THINK about who you're talking about. GWB IS and idiot. Really. He is an honest to god moron. I wish I could recall the commentator who said it...in the local paper several weeks ago was an item by a CONSERVATIVE commentator who spent some time at the White House covering GW and buds. He indicated that Bush lacks any and all curiousity about anything that he is ignorant of (cultures, technology, etc). He doesn't read - except for the bible and THAT doesn't count for shit. He barely made it through college, there by virtue of his father's coattails. His FATHER, though a dork, was intelligent. Clinton, though a fool, was frickin brilliant. Bush junior, well, let's face it. He is Cletus from the Simpson's.
Re:Not quite over yet (Score:2, Troll)
moron [reference.com] - A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education.
Bush, Jr., may not be the best public speaker, but he does not fit the above definitions.
dork [reference.com] - 1. Slang. A stupid, inept, or foolish person. 2. Vulgar Slang. The penis.
Bush, Sr., was by your own words intelligent, and therefore that negates this, unless you meant the latter definition, in which case I thought he had one, but maybe I was mistaken about his particular features.
fool [reference.com] - One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
Yeah, you described Clinton well there.
Re:Not quite over yet (Score:4, Insightful)
moron [reference.com] - A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education.
Bush, Jr., may not be the best public speaker, but he does not fit the above definitions.
Gee, you think it's possible he wasn't using the above definitions?
dork [reference.com] - 1. Slang. A stupid, inept, or foolish person. 2. Vulgar Slang. The penis.
Bush, Sr., was by your own words intelligent,
But that doesn't prevent him from being inept or foolish.
fool [reference.com] - One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
Yeah, you described Clinton well there.
Cute. My side's wise and intellegent, but your side's full of fools and idiots. Maybe you should open your eyes and actually look at these people; there's fools and idiots, wise men and geniuses on both sides.
Thank god... (Score:5, Funny)
ALL e-mail is archived (Score:5, Informative)
Storage is cheap, and tape is cheap. The one protection you might have is that they only have backups on tapes and that the tapes go bad after a few years. But if they back up onto optical media, they basically have a record of all your e-mails for all eternity.
Heck, I run a mail server and a backup server for my company. It's really handy when an IMAP user accidentally deletes an e-mail. I can just go back and restore that mailbox for them. Even for something a year old.
The point is, just because the law says you are safe this instant doesn't mean squat. All that you do is recorded. If you don't like that, then use something like nonymouse.com and/or PGP.
not too sure... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:not too sure... (Score:5, Informative)
It called "ex post facto" and it is a major part of the US Constitution. No law can be passed to make that provision irrelevant either, it would take a Constitutional amendment to. Ex Post Facto (latin, roughly translated: after the fact) is one of the basic parts of our freedom, and what seperates us from non-democratic societies.
The goal of the FBI in wiretapping isn't to arrest terrorists, its to find out what is being planned and attempt to prevent or derail it. Many of these individuals *could* be exported as enemy combatants anyway (quietly, Im sure) if they are not US citizens.
Doesn't make it right to wiretap everyone, but that is the goal.
that's the one (Score:2)
Re:not too sure... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to say it, but I would characterize your definition of "ex post facto" as the reassuring version. What I worry about is the redefinition of crimes that already exist. For example, treason is currently illegal. It seems all too plausible to suppose that at some future date, acts which are not now considered treasonous may be redefined as high crimes. In fact, an argument can be made that this has already happened in the case of the so-called American Taliban. That poor confused idiot went over there to fight the infidels for Allah back when our government was praising the Taliban for stopping opium cultivation. Our government was cheerfully giving those freaks over 40 million bucks and a bunch of attaboys.
Next thing he knows, he's arrested for treason, even though it's really doubtful he had anything to do with the terrorist attacks, and so far as I know, no one saw him shooting at Americans.
I know, I know. It would still be unConstitutional to arrest a citizen for things that weren't technically illegal when he did them. Unfortunately, this seems not to matter too much to the Justice Department these days, since the Supreme Court has become a rubber stamp for various political agendas. Expedience seems to be more important than justice. After all, We're At War tm.
Please stand up... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this amounts to more of "ignoring the massive amounts of nothingness" than a privacy win
Re:Please stand up... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, but that's kinda like saying that the majority of phone calls are personal and of no consequence to national security. That may be true, but you still don't want anyone listening in. Privacy is privacy. Would you let the government put a camera in your house, even if it was only trained on a dusty corner of the floor? Just because the information is inconsequential, doesn't mean its not yours alone.
Meanwhile... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2, Funny)
Who? Didn't Hussein blow up the Maine, shoot Archduke Ferdinand, stage the Munich Beer Hall Putsch, invade Poland, sneak attack Pearl Harbor, drop nukes on Japan, invade South Korea, cause the Gulf of Tonkin incident, run drugs into the US via Columbia, blow up the Marine barracks in Beirut, and shoot down TWA 800?
the best part about this story (Score:3, Funny)
Re:the best part about this story (Score:2)
Yay! (Score:2)
Great news! But why am I still worried? (Score:5, Informative)
But there are still many, many other ways in which personal information is aggregated and analyzed, without the benefit of an oversight committee, or even significant regulation. So I'm still worried.
And I have another creeping worry: what if convicted felon Poindexter might have actually done some good with his (admittedly grotesque, and probably wildly impractical) database?
I mean, I'm always the first to howl about how those who give up freedom to gain a little security deserve neither, but does anybody else wonder about this? I mean, things are getting a little tense in the world these days.
Considering... (Score:2, Insightful)
not quite... (Score:3, Insightful)
This can still be over-ridden by an executive order of the president... which sounds likely in the "name of national security" and our orange alert level [whitehouse.gov].
What I really want to know is... (Score:5, Funny)
Wonder what the Whitehouse thought? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice to see some soundness of mind (for a change)
Ummm, what? (Score:2, Interesting)
*cough* Bull$hit *cough*
Of course it "snoops" into American citizens' privacy, that's the primary mission of DARPA and TIA.
It's like saying the gun I'm pointing at you won't kill you.
Congress doesn't care about you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Congress doesn't care about you (Score:4, Insightful)
Senators and Congresspersons are just as vulnerable to these insane surveillance proposals as anyone else. And since the military is answerable to the executive branch, if I were a minority member of Congress (Democrats now, perhaps the Republicans in four or eight years) I would be particularly worried that these tools would be used to prop up whomever held the White House, now or in the future. They're just as concerned about their rights as you are about yours.
I've known a few Representatives; they really do try to do what they consider as best for their constituents. Sometimes, it's just that the most visible of their constituents are big corporations and special-interest groups. But they're certainly not interested in giving up their rights to some giant Pentagon surveillance apparatus any more than you are.
Pessimistic (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they did it not in the interests of the public but simply because they don't want the FBI reading their email. It just seems more likely to me that, as a group, they are motivated more by self-interest than anything else.
John Poindexter (Score:2, Funny)
"One important factor in the breadth of the opposition is the fact that the project is headed by retired Adm. John Poindexter. Several members of Congress have said he is an unwelcome symbol because he was convicted of lying to Congress when he was President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser. That his conviction was reversed on the grounds that he had been given immunity for the testimony in which he lied did not mitigate congressional opinion, they said."
Oh, suuuure you promise it wouldn't be used to violate citizens' privacy. We believe you.
Uhmmm.... what are "lawful" military operations? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a middle-eastern last name, does that mean I'm going to be watched?
I would say more, but I'm liable to start on a rant that could start a whole mess of arguments I'm not interested in pursuing.
Big Brother never Sleeps (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't like this (Score:2)
Frightning indeed
Action (Score:4, Informative)
I just got done writing 4 letters to my Congressmen about the Pariot Act 2 and war with Iraq. I know it is easier to post online about how something should be done, but it only took about an hour to go out, get stamps and envelopes, and write.
Perhaps take this as a chance to thank your Senator/Representative for voting against this (if they did!), and maybe even let them know your views on the Patriot Act 2, etc.
Find your Senator [senate.gov]
Find your Representative [house.gov]
Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
The only obstacles to the provision becoming law would be the failure of the conferees to reach agreement on the overall spending bill in which it is included, or a successful veto of the bill by President Bush.
Is therefore safe to assume the Pentagon feels entitled to surveil the rest of the worlds population on the off chance they may spot a terrorist at some point ? I'm not trying to flame here but the article seemed a little short on fact and I am unclear as to the levels of surveillance the bill supports in its current form. If I understand it the overall plan has not actually been killed, just subjected to more congressional oversight and currently exempts American Citizens
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes they do feel entitled, and they have been doing it for some time - at least since the end of WWII. How do you think they get all those voice intercepts that have been playing at the UN recently?
Really it shouldn't be that surprising that the rights established by the US constitution, or US legislation, don't apply to non-citizens who are not in the US. It would be kinda weird if they did. The US is not the world government yet.
For once, a reason to thank my senator (Score:5, Interesting)
I appreciated his quote from the article,
"Protecting Americans' civil liberties while at the same time winning the war against terrorism has got to be top priority for the United States. Congressional oversight of this program will be a must as we proceed in the war against terror. The acceptance of this amendment sends a signal that Congress won't sit on its hands as the TIA program moves forward."
WHAT THE FSCK? (Score:4, Interesting)
Greeeeeeeeeeat. I LUV this country.
Re:WHAT THE FSCK? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite, it just means that they still need to get search warrants before they start reading their e-mail (inside the US anyway - once it leaves the US it's fair game for the NSA).
Re:WHAT THE FSCK? (Score:2)
Actually that isn't as bad as it might sound at first. Foreign governments do not have the same opportunities to spy on you, it is illegal for them to do so, so you can seek legal redress if they do, and intelligence gathered that way cannot be used as evidence against you in your own country. All things considered, if the Feds really wanted to know something about you then it would be easier just to get a search warrant.
That is unless (Score:2)
Does this mean I can stop running spook? (Score:5, Funny)
Does that mean I can stop doing this now? My coworkers think I chameleon man SWAT PGP JFK ANZUS top secret Cohiba USCODE Delta Force ASDIC virus assassination Noriega World Trade Center cryptanalysis have Tourettes.
Doesn't Go Far Enough (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough (Score:2)
Only the Supreme Court can do that, and even they can change their minds about it.
Darn it all! (Score:5, Funny)
Jihad to Microsoft! Linux has risen in an explosive blaze of fury! I like VX works. Food tastes good with ricin it. Death to BUSH using new hedge trimmers. 90% off swedish made penis enlargers! (Which is what they're really looking for)
I hope this doesn't mean... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.computerbytesman.com/tia/ [computerbytesman.com]
(Link for creepy logo only! Well, the cached pages are kind of interesting too.)
Good - I don't want them seeing... (Score:2)
Americans ?! (Score:5, Interesting)
So, American agencies have some limitations on how they may spy on American citizens. Likewise UK agencies may not spy on UK subjects. Fair enough, until those two agree to swap notes, so US spies on Brits (freely and legally) and the Brits spy on the yankees (freely and legally).
I think we need some international treaty, on the level of the Geneva convention, that limits the sharing of "intelligence" information to the level that would have been legal to obtain if it had been done by local authorities. And strong (death?) penalties to those who break the convention.
Well, I am (still?) allowed to dream...
yea, right (Score:3, Insightful)
So Ashcroft wants to read my email? (Score:3, Funny)
If he really wants to read my email, I'm going to sign up for all the pr0n spam I can get. Let that puritanical a$$hole freak show and his Christian Soldiers(TM) sort through all the live cams, teen fetishes, fisting sessions, and goatse.cx pics they can get :)
What happened to this forum? (Score:5, Informative)
Apparenlty few read the article (including the poster) before replying.
If all take a moment to read any of the 3 articles published today reporting the conferees agreement, it should be clear that the agreement does not prohibit surveillance of electronic communication between US citizens.
The agreement addresses the use of the data collected in prosecuting citizens and includes congressional oversight of further funding and reasearch but does not prohibit the evesdropping.
How laws are passed??? (Score:2)
Doesn't the house propose laws, then vote on weather or not they should be sent to the senate, where they are voted upon to become law? Isn't this how it's been done for over 200 years in the US?
Granted, it's really hard to pass a law if either the house OR the senate are in disagreement. Of course, it can be voted in if there's an overwhelming majority in the other direction. Of course, given the state of American political parties, that would be highly unlikely.
Dont Jump To Conclusions (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress has been known to often go back on their decisions, when the american peoples rights are concerned... and rarely the correct direction.
I don't get what the big deal is... (Score:3, Funny)
The New Cold War (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, What I am saying is that now only is this the new cold war, but the Old Cold War Warriors are back witha vengence. Rumsfield, McNamara.
The only good thing I can see about all of this is that the country will experience another revolution (like the 60's following the 50's) and maybe this action that congress took is a first step.
I would like to hear comment from the rest of you
I like UserFriendly's take on it... (Score:3, Interesting)
You may keep strong encryption out of the hands of the general public, because they have no real interest in it. But for a determined group, the cat is out of the bag many years ago. Throwing together some AES + SHA + Diffie-Hellman reference code I could probably make a secure tool before the end of business today. And I'm hardly an expert on the subject...
Kjella
Re:The Original Article from Last Night . . . (Score:2)
I hate to point out the obvious, but come on - there are links to Jesse Ventura, Paul Wellstone, Minnesota poll, Minnesota House and the Minnesota Senate on the left side.
Re:A sigh of relief (Score:2, Interesting)