Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Communications Government Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Police Want Fast Track To Get At Your Private Data 301

An anonymous reader writes "According to this story on CNET, police again are pushing for new laws requiring ISPs and webmail providers to store users' private data for five years and also want a new electronic way of speeding up subpoenas and search warrants via police-only encrypted portals at all ISPs and webmail providers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Police Want Fast Track To Get At Your Private Data

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:01PM (#31027628) Journal
    Aside from internal 1984 style abuse of this proposed system, the fundamental concept (and all existing implementations of it) introduces a new level of security risk [] and it is this exact interface that is said to be the weakness that was exploited in the Google China attack []. From a computer security perspective, this is wrong on many different levels.
  • Re:Tyrants... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:19PM (#31027862)

    Or, in a much earlier age, he would be called "a patriot". Sadly, unlike our founding fathers, we have no new land to move to in order to re-establish our freedoms. So in effect, the OP's argument is the only recourse left.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:19PM (#31027870)

    It's not just that they can look at your data now, but in future too. World and politics can change really fast, especially now that US is having economical problems.

    Exactly! Are you sure that any data that is available now will not violate any law they introduce in the future?

    Like [] where a man is being charged for
    something he did in Aug/Sept 08 but the law he broke came into being in Jan 2009.

  • by david_thornley ( 598059 ) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @06:33PM (#31028034)

    FWIW, the US Constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws

  • by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Thursday February 04, 2010 @07:21PM (#31028536) Homepage Journal

    Totalitarianism is one group being given absolute authority over all aspects of its citizens lives. This country's law enforcement can't even figure out how to cooperate with each other. It's the same in the military, the different branches of government... well, pretty much everywhere you look. I don't see a "totalitarian" government springing up anytime soon.

    You're imposing an absurdly high standard for what constitutes "totalitarian" here. Nazi Germany and the USSR were both characterized by a plethora of government agencies, law enforcement and otherwise, which never managed to cooperate with each other, and which often fought each other at every opportunity. Never at their worst did they achieve "absolute authority over all aspects" of ... well, anything, really. And yet they are, with good reason, the canonical modern examples of totalitarian states.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, 2010 @08:30PM (#31029240)

    It also guarantees protection against cruel and unusual punishment, unlawful search and seizure, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, and a right to an attorney/trial by jury.

    How's are those working out for you? Excuse me while I go get fingerprinted for my CCW.

    The constitution only has as much weight as the conviction of it's citizen's to enforce it.

    They created a crisis of criminality by outlawing drugs and then used that crisis to persuade the people to give away their rights.

    What people don't understand is that those rights are inalienable. The supreme court can wave their hand all they want. No judge, cop, or politician can change what rights you, me, and every other person on this planet are born with.

    The constitution was a presidential pardon by the founding fathers to ignore any law that violated these god given rights. This pardon was supposed to be enforced by jury nulification, however your countrymen have failed you. When not 1 in 12 people care's enough about justice to over-rule the law, judges, and lawyers: of course the constitution has no hope of enforcing squat!

    We've finally made it: we're living in a tyranny of the masses. Don't allow anyone to tell you the problem is a lack of education. That problem is forgiveable. The problem is that these United States have been divided, and the Constitution is the canvas where we cut off our nose to spite our face.

    When principles give way to partisanship of course you lose. You stand divided.

  • by ls671 ( 1122017 ) * on Friday February 05, 2010 @12:57AM (#31031250) Homepage

    The only real private data you have is the one you keep in your head or write on a piece of paper as long as nobody has access to the said piece of paper.

    Don't get me wrong here, I still encourage privacy online defenders to continue their efforts but the above statement will always remain a fact when you think about it carefully. Electronic data goes with inherent risks for privacy in my humble opinion ;-))

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.