Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Your Rights Online

ACLU Launches Echelonwatch 77

Posted by jamie from the watch-your-mouth dept.
coldfusion writes "The American Civil Liberties Union in conjunction with EPIC and others has just launched Echelon Watch, a site which tracks developments about the intelligence gathering organization. The site does a good job of collating all of the information that has spread in the last few months. It also contains a 'write to Congress' component." Update: 11/17 09:30 by J : Baccus just informed us that the NSA has applied for a patent on Echelon-related (tapping) technology.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ACLU Launches Echelonwatch More

ACLU Launches Echelonwatch

Comments Filter:

  • Okay (Score:4)

    by True Dork ( 8000 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @04:35PM (#1526656) Homepage
    That's it! I'm gonna start a site that watches the people who watch the Echelon people who are watching you watch me watch the people who watch the echelon people.

    I think I have officially lost my mind. I'll be back in a bit.
  • Doesn't this sound an awful lot like a conspiracy theory? I'm not saying it isn't true (I was not at all surprised when I first heard about Echelon), but doesn't it sound awfully like some paranoid ravings?

    Hey, maybe the end really is near...
  • Rob & Co. should start Transmeta Watch, to report about every single byte that changes on their site. They could make it a section with colors even worse than the ones I'm (trying not to be) looking at now. :)
  • Erhm, school districts _are_ government entities. Also, Echelon is perfectly legal, because it's not _US_ that's doing the spying, it's the English who are spying and telling us the results.

    Also, Congress seems willing to look into putting an end to this, so I'd say it's a little early to be starting a lawsuit, especially given the evidence, or lack thereof.

  • ACLU's "Write you congressman" (Score:3)

    by reptilian ( 75755 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @04:48PM (#1526663)
    In case anyone is worried that their representatives don't listen to electronic mail, the ACLU's website feature faxes a copy of what you write, rather than using email. I personally have used this feature a couple of times, and have always recieved a response from my congressman (though, my senators chose to ignore it, for whatever reason. probably because they have a lot more constituents).

    Even so, if you are going to write your reps, I would suggest writing a snail-mail letter as well. The style in which you write it us up to you, and probably depends on the issue at hand. If it personally affects you, hand-written might be preferable. If that's too much of a pain, ACLU's free-fax system is Good Enough - better than doing nothing at all.



    Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.

  • Re:Okay (Score:2)

    by Zack ( 44 )
    No, no, no... We're going to have to set up a meta-monitoring system to monitor everyone. We could give everyone Karma based on how the act, and when it gets above a certain level, all of their monitoring gains Score: +1!!

  • a good echelon read.. (Score:3)

    by discore ( 80674 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @04:51PM (#1526665) Homepage
    i have posted a very informative echelon article on my little webserver. please dont break it

    you may read the article here [hektik.org]

    i hope you enjoy it.

    tyler

  • GOOD! (Score:1)

    by jdube ( 101986 )
    I'm glad that someone is finally doing something other than trying to crash the damn thing. I don't know how we are going to get around this. I mean, if this is a government thing, who do we go to to make people realize this is a breach of our rights? Sheesh. And if you don't think it IS a breach of our rights, it sorta falls under freedom of speech / press. People have been sued for _much_ less, I mean come on!


    If you think you know what the hell is really going on you're probably full of shit.

  • Re:Conspiracy (Score:4)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @04:58PM (#1526668) Journal
    The meme that conspiracy theories are paranoid ravings is very convenient for actual conspirators.

    Throughout history groups of people, especially people in high places, have conspired to obtain power and wealth at the expense of others. Many of these conspiracies were exposed and are now well documented.

    Why should that have suddenly stopped in the 1960s?

    Now, any particular conspiracy theory may be bogus. But don't be surprised when some of them turn out to be true.

    Of COURSE the government spy agencies spy on everybody they can. That's what government spy agencies DO.

    Of COURSE corrupt politicians and bureaucrats have given such information to their business cronies. Of COURSE politicians and bureaucrats, corrupt or perhaps otherwise, have given the data to industries in their countries, to give them an advantage over foreign competition. That's government at work.

    Of COURSE investigative agencies have targeted politically "troublesome" opposition groups. That's where the trouble comes from, right?

    And get ready for the next "Of COURSE" revalations: How investigative and law enforcement organizations have used this information to engage in "dirty trick" campaigns against members of those out groups. "Dirty tricks" that may have turned out to be horrendously damaging and sometimes fatal. Did you think that stuff stopped after COINTELPRO?

    Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

  • And I (for one) am glad a heavy-hitter such as the ACLU is taking some action on this, even if it turns out to be unsubstantiated.

    I was sorta wondering when they might get into the act.

    Kythe
    (Remove "x"'s from

  • When mailing your congressperson... (Score:3)

    by WombatControl ( 74685 ) on Tuesday November 16, 1999 @05:09PM (#1526670)
    ...make sure to be nice and polite. Here's a sample you can work off of...

    To The Honorable XXXXXXXXXX,

    My friends in the MILITIA are concerned about the government's Echelon monitoring system. While were were making BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS for our JIHAD, OSAMA BIN-LADEN told me about this system. I was so surprised that I almost dropped my WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM into the vat of ANTHRAX. The government shoud not attempt to monitor the private communications of others, even if they're talking about VINCE FOSTER or HILLARY CLINTON. Thank you for your time.
  • Actually it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) not the First.
  • I like the themes idea, but it would involve lots more CGI forks for Rob & Co. It'd be pretty heavy on the servers. This really is a disgusting color scheme. The brown's not so bad, but that yellowy color is nauseating.
  • At least now we have someone big that the public trusts in the US pointing out Echelon. Now it will much harder for the Government to just blame it all on "conspiracy theorists" once the general public becomes more aware of Echelon.
  • just a minute ...... I just read your post ...... now they're watching me too ....
  • Of course you're right. There are conspircay nuts who think that everything is best explained by a conspircay involving aliens and the FBI, but there are also legitimate conspiracies. I might point out the the Second Constitutional Convention was a conspiracy. The delegates, as I'm sure you all remember from US History, had been charged with revising the Articles of Confederation, which were flawed and inadequate, but instead they wrote the Constitution in secret and presented it as a fait accompli. That was a conspiracy by any definition. Just because it was a good thing in many people's view doesn't mean it was a conspiracy. I'm sure that there were lots of people in the CIA who thought it was for the good of mankind that they were overthrowing and murdering Salvador Allende, the democratically-elected socialist president of Chile, whom they replaced with Gen. Augusto Pinochet. Conspiracies are real, and some have good consequences, and some don't. In general, I think that the majority are not good, and that the way to protect ourselves is to insist on accountability and legality.
  • Also, Echelon is perfectly legal, because it's not _US_ that's doing the spying, it's the English who are spying and telling us the results.

    Don't be ridiculous. If some activity is ilegal for the government to engage in, it is also illegal for it to use data produced by somebody else doing the espionage. Besides, in this case, we're involved, too.

  • We've almost reached the point where it's less surprising to hear about a government agency that abuses its powers than it is to hear about one that doesn't. It's not just Echelon, either -- abuses abound; for example, CNN is reporting [cnn.com] that politicians of both parties regularly lean on the IRS to force audits of their political opponents. Now, I'm generally a politically liberal kinda guy, but in this kind of atmosphere it's not hard to understand why some people feel compelled to keep a firearm in their homes, just in case the Government decides to come after them.

    Of course, stocking up arms for the End Times isn't a productive solution, either. It seems to me that the big problem here is that Americans don't have a clear right to privacy in their communications -- we only have patchwork protections from case law, which provides a legal gray area where the government can fit things like Echelon. So what can we, as citizens, do? Well, maybe we should amend the Fourth Amendment, which currently protects your private property from illegal government seizure, to extend to non-physical personal property (i.e. electronic communications) as well.

    Currently, Amendment IV reads as follows:

    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.
    I'd propose adding a few simple words (which I'll denote in bold):
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, and all personal communications, regardless of medium, 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.

    Now, IANAL, and I'm certainly willing to be flexible on the wording, but it seems to me that an addition along these lines could have many salutory effects:

    • It would finally end the uncertainty as to whether or not Americans have a full-fledged right to privacy by elevating it to the same level as the right to speak freely or bear arms
    • It could bring electronic communications up to the same standard of protection as, say, letters you keep in your desk drawer, which AFAIK can't be seized w/o a search warrant
    • It would still allow wiretaps for national security or compelling law enforcement purposes, while making huge, broad-based wiretaps like Echelon clearly and undoubtedly unconstitutional
    • It would send a powerful message that we're fed up with this kind of unacceptable behavior from our government

    Now, I'm generally not a fan of tinkering with the Constitution, which has worked remarkably well for 200+ years. But I'm simply amazed that something as obtrusive, as invasive, as downright un-American as Echelon isn't unconstitutional on its face. In an age of digital communications and restrictions on hard encryption, when it's orders of magnitude easier for the State to intrude on our privacy then it is for us to protect ourselves, I think that a right to privacy is every bit as important to our freedom as are the other rights we enumerate in the Bill of Rights. And if we have to wrest that right back from the state by enshrining it in the highest law of the land, then maybe it's time to do just that.


    -- Jason A. Lefkowitz

  • IANAL. That being said, I believe governmental intelligence agencies are (barely) on the right side of the law in this . Exchanging your own intercepts for other nations intercepts is legit.

    My understanding is that no nation spys on its own citizens - they all spy on each others and share the results. Moral? No. Ethical? No. But when have those two concepts had anything to do with the law?

    ---

  • The Minister for Recurrent Ephemera, Dr Laocoon van Arkady, has already been on television here in Australia several times, slamming this entire urban legend. Her efforts seem to be for nought, however, if the reaction of /. is anything to go by. I myself firmly believed that /.ers would have no trouble sifting through the EchelonWatch site and realising that it is entirely content-free. I hope I won't be disappointed. But surely the same minds that can skilfully detect the FUD factor coming from Redmond should be able to see the same tactics in use by conspiracy theorists.

    : Eric T. F. Bat, DRE #1089 : ** DRE: Trust The Voices In Your Head. ***

  • It's nice to see that a mainstream organization has started to worry about electronic privacy. The ACLU is a well-respected organization with considerable clout, and can do much to prevent echelon-type activities and promote privacy.

    It warms my heart to see that there are still people out there who actually care and are willing to try to change things. Maybe the world's not falling apart after all. :-)

  • Governments do spy on their own citizens. For example, the most well-known part of the U.S. federal government which spies on citizens of the several United States is called the "Federal Bureau of Investigation". There are also local organizations called "Police Departments" with certain domestic espionage powers. The whole (alleged) point of Echelon is that organizations which are supposed to spy only on other countries (e.g. CIA) can get dirt on Americans through an information swap.




  • Congrats to ACLU for launching the Echelonwatch.

    It is a good project, but it could be better.

    Two suggestions:

    1. Leave a space at the site, whereby visitors to the site can leave a message to those who administrating the site, with suggestions/comments - or at the very least, an email address where people can email them with questions and/or suggestions.

    2. The site listed "intelligence" agencies for Europe, USA, Russia, Isreal and China, but it leaves out secret agencies from other equally dreaded countries such as Japan, Syria, Korea, Indonesia, Libya, Myanmar, Malaysia, Brazil, Singapore; And the site also didn't list the secret police (and hired mercs) working for organizations such as the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), or the Talibans of Afghanistan.

    The fact that I have to leave suggestions over here, and not over ACLU's site means that the site could use an improvement or two.

    My hope is someone from ACLU would read this and pass my suggestions to the people who run the Echelonwatch. The site is too valuable for all, and it can be even more valuable if it is made a little bit more user-friendly, and have a wider-ranging coverage.

    Thanks.


  • I would laugh, except it's too eerily real.. The archiving of the web and usenet leads to exactly this.

    A couple years ago, I found a document from the heavensgate cult people and I found it so amusing that I posted it to a newsgroup at my college. A year later, they all committed suicide and the Associated Press somehow looked up my parents and called them and asked them if I was still alive, operating under the mistaken assumption that since I posted one of their documents I was obviously a self-castrating suicidal maniac. I can't imagine what the result would have been if I'd also posted something anti-government in the same post.. :-)

    Anyway, let them intercept my transmissions, then the UK can tell the US about all the porn i've been downloading.
  • ...is meta-Echelon. 'Watch the watchers' so to speak. Let's face it: the government has no concern of tapping into all of your personal communication. In fact, they want more and more. That's why they give us crap like Fortezza and the Clipper chip. "Wow! What great encryption! Only the government can read my mail!"

    So, what we need is even a tiny leak in the system. I mean, the gov. has no respect for your rights, have they any moral right to prevent you? When your constitution is trampled and the 'social contract' has become as one-sided as it is, do you have any obligation to obey? But I guess Big Brother is always right after all, citizen.

    But the real problem is why they want to spy. The answer lies in the great Orwellian phrase 'thoughtcrime'. If you start mentioning Iraq, biological weapons, smuggling, whatever, you can bet on someone showing up on your door if Echelon really does (has) take(n) off. Why? Not because you did anything, but because of your thoughts, your expressions. When it becomes illegal to think, which is what the gov. seems to be aiming at, you can bet I'm moving to Antarctica. 'Freedom doesn't exist, it's only what you take'.

    I sure hope they capture this with their billion dollar spy setup.

    ~~~~~~~~~
  • Interestingly, last time I said this on Slashdot it was regarding a very different issue (police on Usenet I believe) but here goes again:

    It is wrong to enforce with violence that which can be ensured with intelligence.

    The technology (intelligence) to stop ANYONE from imposing on your communication is there already. If you want to be sure that people are not imposing on your communications the choice is yours (see GPG, pgpPhone, etc). Making this a law (violence) can only be harmful, the effort is better spend allowing the technologies to mature and proliferate.

    What worries me is when governments like the American attacks the use of intelligence with violence as the have in the Crypto issue.


    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
  • I cringe to see Malaysia listed under 'equally dreaded countries', but with the way our politicians c**p on I guess we've been asking for it.
    But, as my $0.02 worth, don't worry about our 'secret agencies' doing Echelon-type stuff - right now the technology here is so bad our ISPs lose entire server-loads of email for days on end - and I have wet dreams about 99% uptime!
  • Alright,
    Everybody seems to hate the government and everybody now seems to think that the NSA is the worst thing since AIDS. Alright, let's have every one and their mother write to their congressman to have the NSA just completely shutdown. Then every slimebag on the planet who hates the US will have absolutely nothing to fear. I mean, hey, the US won't have the slightest idea what will hit them. All the Russians, Iraqs, Cambodians, Chinese, Pakistanis, etc. will just have to go to Radio Shack, buy a digital phone and nobody can hear them. Then, they can sit right outside of the White House, plan a conspiracy against the government, kill the president, bomb and kill a ton on innocent people who have nothing to do with it, and then what are we going to say??? Any guesses...oh yeah, that's right...Where was the NSA??? Pooh hooo hooo. How come we didn't see it coming, how come nobody warned us...Pooh hoo hooo. So let's understand that the NSA is there to protect Americans from threats both foreign and domestic and there job is to spy and break codes.
    Let's remember, we wouldn't have won WWII without the NSA and their British counterpart...wasn't something of that nature on /. just a couple of days ago? Let's think as people and as a nation about something as important as national security before everyone goes shooting their mouths off. I wrote a letter to my senator and congressmen in support of Echelon and the NSA, and I think you should also.


  • From 1986-1989 my family was stationed in Harrogate, England - my Dad worked (and still does work) for the Department of Defense. I went to school, and spent most of my time, on the American base there, Menwith Hill Station. [fas.org] I remember the radomes there, they were huge and we always joked that they looked like huge futuristic golf balls.

    The radomes look exactly like the pictures show, and they're huge. You can see them from very far distances.

    The radomes and office buildings were closed off from the rest of the base (with the school, AAFES market, Officers' Club, housing, etc.) but I remember seeing them every day.

    It's been ten years since I was last there and I remember so many things about Menwith Hill...it was a great place to live.

  • See The Mark Thomas Comedy Product. [menwithhill.com] A small attempt at getting back at them
  • WW2 and the current situation are not even remotely related. spying on one's opponents in a war is normal, and was directed specifically at those countries in war. Now echelon is used to spy on good people who are even supposed to be allies. If I as a person would do this to my friends, I'd soon have none left. And you wonder why people dislike the US... If you encourage this, do not be surprised if in 10 years the US is despised all over the world by every single country. But hey.. you don't care, you might have caught 1 terrorist in all those years...

    //rdj
  • Are we trying to suggest that The US government has been keeping a secret ? When was the last time that we knew that to be true ? It certainly wasn't the last time the Air force Flew their latest top secret plane. I just think that something this big (global, not big important) would have never lasted the 10 years or so that they are saying without some leaks.





    There are 3 kinds of people in today's world. The kind that can count and the kind that can't.
  • The technology (intelligence) to stop ANYONE from imposing on your communication is there already. Ifyou want to be sure that people are not imposing on your communications the choice is yours (see GPG, pgpPhone, etc). Making this a law (violence) can only be harmful, the effort is better spend allowing the technologies to mature and proliferate.

    This is actually quite elitist. I see what you're getting at, but this requires that you go to the effort to make sure that you're communications are private which assumes:
    1. You know that it's a problem.
    2. You know how to deal with it.

    Now, that's two BIG assumptions and very little protection for the vast majority who simply don't think about this sort of thing and who are those at greatest need of protection. Far better to make this sort of thing illegal without very good reason - similar to search warrants in principle.

    An interesting question re: whether this could be bypassed by getting foreign intelligence services to do the monitoring though. That's horribly against the spirit of the proposal, but a thought:

    The original amendment only covered the US government and their agencies (to my eyes, anyway) simply as there wasn't a practical risk of them calling in (say) the Canadian police and getting them to perform the search. Even if they could legally without being authorised by the US police, at which point they'd come under their jurisdiction and regulations anway?

    Anyway, this isn't the case with phones and it certainly isn't the case with the Internet. Could the amended amendment therefore be modified to:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, and all personal communications, regardless of medium, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue or information gained by outside agents be acted upon, 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.

    This is getting rather chewy but it's my best effort at covering this one.

    DISCLAIMER: I'm British, not a lawyer and don't automatically agree with all of the US constitution and its subsequent amendments. This one does make sense, though. I'm also happy if anyone wants to moan at me for interference in foreign politics, though I'd consider this a proposal for a similar law in the UK if we haven't already got one that I hadn't noticed.

    Greg

  • hmm (Score:1)

    by DryGrain ( 93543 )
    I think theres a real Echelon... probably got started around the time of ARPAnet to monitor e-mails to make sure no one was using it to plot 'evil plans'... ...
  • Yup, the colour schemes we've got recently are pretty nasty aren't they?

    The old grey for Ask Slashdot was alright - a bit tricky to read, but not too offensive. But the current YRO and BSD colourschemes (may well be others, these are just the ones I've noticed) are downright offensive and should be pulled ASAP.

    IMHO :)

    Greg
  • Isn't it nice to see a post that came first and is actually worth reading? Especially when there's two more normaly first post attempts below, both of which were beaten :)

    Greg
  • I'm glad to see the ACLU going after eschelon. I'm not going to jump into the "whether or not eschelon exists" discussion, but at least this might keep the ACLU out of areas like"school prayer", and "no religious references on town seals". Forget that stuff, go get eschelon!
    Note to eschelon, be scared. The ACLU is on your ass now. Best to just give up now.
  • It is wrong to enforce with violence that which can be ensured with intelligence.
    The technology (intelligence) to stop ANYONE from imposing on your communication is there already. If you want to be sure that people are not imposing on your communications the choice is yours (see GPG, pgpPhone, etc). Making this a law (violence) can only be harmful, the effort is better spend allowing the technologies to mature and proliferate.

    How does guaranteeing one's right to privacy equate to violence? Americans currently enjoy a range of Constitutional protections against government abuse. Amendment I guarantees that the government can't shut you up based on your viewpoints, and can't prohibit you from worshipping whatever deity you prefer. Amendment II guarantees that you can have the means to defend yourself should the government attempt to illegitimately impose its will upon you. Amendment III guarantees that the government can't seize your property for purposes of national security. Amendment IV guarantees that the government can't seize or search your personal effects without a warrant and probable cause to suspect you of having committing a crime. And on and on and on. These are not your average laws which are aimed at regulating the behavior of Joe Citizen through government sanction -- these are aimed at regulating the behavior of Big Brother by posting for all to see the list of things that he isn't allowed to do!

    How does this equate to doing violence? It seems to me that it prevents violence. Don't forget that, in many countries where the citizens don't enjoy specific written protections such as these, the only recourse against government abuse is to take up arms. We have the option of giving the government a good smack upside the head in the court system, which seems like a much more healthy way to run a country to me.

    And to presume that "intelligence" can preserve your security against these threats is silly and naive. Do you honestly believe that PGPfone will protect you if the National Security Agency decides they want to listen to your phone calls? Remember, no encryption scheme is perfect and every cypher can be broken given that enough resources (man-hours and computing power) are thrown at it. And the NSA can bring a colossal amount of resources to bear on the problem of getting around the defenses you "intelligently" mount -- a much larger amount than you, as someone who presumably has some job in life other than encrypting all your communications, can muster. Not to mention the snooty elitism of assuming that it's somehow OK if the government listens to private communications as long as it's only those dumb people who don't know how to set up PGP (in other words, about 98% of the population) who are affected.

    I know that you're trying to articulate a libertarian viewpoint, but it seems like you're taking it to a ridiculous extreme. If you're truly a libertarian you should love the Bill of Rights. You should memorize the thing! It's not some silly law taking your freedoms away -- it's guaranteeing your freedoms, right there in writing! And how can it be bad, from a libertarian standpoint, to add "privacy" to the list of specificially protected freedoms?


    -- Jason A. Lefkowitz

  • I think you're confusing the NSA with the CIA. We already have an intelligence/spying/etc agency here. What purpose does No Such Agency have, other than fun stuff like Echelon?

    --
  • Do what I do.. Only view /. on a 8 bit colour X-server, running Enlightenment with the 'Chrome' background, and DO NOT assign Netscape its own colourmap. Everything is sort-of gray green once you stray into the YRO or BSD sections, and not offensive at all.

    Anyone know if you can force Win95 to take the old 3.1 schemes? Or does that take a major tweak? (I'm not a Win guy.)
  • Everybody seems to hate the government and everybody now seems to think that the NSA is the worst thing since AIDS.

    Governments, like corporations and individuals, have the reputations they earn by their conduct.

    All the Russians, Iraqs, Cambodians, Chinese, Pakistanis, etc. will just have to go to Radio Shack, buy a digital phone and nobody can hear them.

    Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Laws restricting privacy, by definition, violate only the privacy of law-abiding people. This lesson has been brought to you by the letters "N", "S", and "A".

    Let's remember, we wouldn't have won WWII without the NSA

    You mean the techcorp in Timeline is really an NSA front?

    Let's think as people and as a nation about something as important as national security before everyone goes shooting their mouths off.

    I think about something even more important: the Constitution. Lose that, and national security becomes irrelevant; it will matter naught whether the bandits who rule you are based in Washington or elsewhere.

    I wrote a letter to my senator and congressmen in support of Echelon and the NSA, and I think you should also.

    By all means, write your senators and congressman, pointing out that somebody who doesn't know which one comes one to a district and which one comes two to a state is hardly likely to bother showing up at the polls.

    Stupid People Shouldn't Breed

    The unintentionally hilarious .sigs are always the best.
    /.

  • He's right, but I think we can do better then just Echelon though. Think of happiness as a fraction. If we can reduce the denominator of the happiness fraction to zero, then the fraction will be magnified infinitly. Infinte happiness! So how do we reduce the denominator to zero? Easy, get rid of freedom. Think about it, we can either have freedom without happiness or happiness without freedom.
  • Actually, in a world where technology can make a totalitarian-leaning government (or any other large organization/company with control-freak tendencies) nearly omniscient when keeping tabs on its own populace, the only hope that the populace has to preserve its own rights is to cooperate with each other & use technology to keep tabs on the "surveiller".

    The many various little consumer advocacy/corporate/government watchdog groups are a beginning to this kind of self-defensive reaction, but they will have to cooperate with each other in the same way that the government agencies & the big corporate lobbies do in order to be truly effective.

    While it's true that those agencies & lobbies have a LOT more money than any of the advocacy groups, almost by definition there are a LOT more of us "non-rich" people than otherwise, and if there was more cooperation going on, we could provide enough balance to their power to keep them from running amuck.
  • Have you thought about sending this suggestion to a US congressman? I'm sure that Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont) [senate.gov] would take an interest in this idea.

    He has been one of the opponents of the CDA since day 1. Perhaps we should bring something from Slashdot to the Senate floor. Wouldn't Taco be proud??
  • This is actually quite elitist. I see what you're getting at, but this requires that you go to the effort to make sure that you're communications are private which assumes:

    I find your idea of what is elitist deeply disturbing. By extension, anything that gives the person willing to think and work towards an end an advantage over he who doesn't is elitist. It figures you are European (disclaimer: so am I) because this is a very Euro-Socialist way of thinking.

    Personally, I find your attitude towards this arrogant. I do not presume myself to be any more intelligent than most people, and I don't give myself the right to decide who of the stupid people(sic) is most in need of my forcing protection on them. The "vast majority who do not think about these issues" do so by choice, they are perfectly capable of behaving intelligently regarding issues that are important to them. It is not my place to tell them that privacy should be.


    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
  • Echelon technology is being patented? I can't imagine anything bringing out the pitchforks and torches here faster than that.

    Except maybe "SCO ridicules KDE and GNOME's disagreement about implementation of Microsoft's patented Echelon technology."

  • the link to Rep. Barr's remarks [aclu.org] on the Highlights page?

    --
  • Man. That nixes my plans for my open source eCSHln project. Crap.


  • Sometimes the term "legal," especially with respect to issues involving CIVIL matters, is somewhat subjective. Based on legal precedent, there are definite activities or behaviors that we can classify as "illegal" in the sense that they violate someone's rights (discrimination, for example). Here's the deal, though- it's not illegal until it's deemed as such by a court of law. Just because a court hasn't declared Echelon (or certain related activities) illegal, doesn't mean that this is something that will never happen. For one thing, due to Echelon's shroud of secrecy, the courts have never had the opportunity to make any such determination.
  • Explain something to me. Why is it government agents barging into private individuals homes is considered X-Files material yet immigrants, coming in and stealing jobs, Russians, Iraqis, Cambodians, Chinese, Pakistanis, etc(whover that is? Hello etceteranians here? Hello?) are not.

    What's so believable about terrorists, and so unbelievable about domestic violence (double pun intended).

    Have we forgotten the Spanish American War, the Western Expansion, the McCarthy Era, Manzanar, Kent State, the gov't spying on Martin Luther King, NIXON.

    You've been watching too much television. You have become a racist and a nationalist. You're the danger not the outside world.


    "Computers should be ... tools... (siglim 120 chars)" Like cars... to the office no more no less.
  • Thank you for taking the time to write a very insightful post. I just want to take a minute to point out one thing that you overlooked; basically, that no amendment should be necessary, because the Constitution as it stands already forbids anything that your proposed amendment would prohibit.

    The Constitution is designed as a framework for the Federal government. It explicitly states the powers and responsibilities of said government; the government cannot do anything that is not described therein. The Bill of Rights is tacked on at the end simply to ensure that no possible interpretation of the constitution could ever possibly infringe upon certain rights; but, those rights are not necessarily the only ones we have.

    IIRC many of the signers of the constitution were strongly against having a Bill of Rights at all, because they knew that people would eventually acquire the meme that the Bill was an absolute statement of what rights they possess, instead of an assertion to a set of principles of which the Bill was a mere subset. Witness the people who claim the second amendment as an impediment to gun control for an excellent example of people who just don't "get" America.

    In my first paragraph I say 'should be' instead of 'is' necessary because so many of these people exist. It may in the future become necessary to place more of the individual freedoms that seemed so apparent to our forefathers into concrete, to prevent people who subconsciously or consciously attack freedom from succeeding.

    Scudder
  • I've never needed to claim a violation of my rights... but thanks for informing me I should really learn them better than I know now :)


    If you think you know what the hell is really going on you're probably full of shit.

  • Hmmm (Score:1)

    by kjack ( 99031 )
    When you think about it Echelon isn't all that much of a surprise. In many ways the government is about as paranoid as anyone else. If you think about it, it's a beautiful catch twenty-two. If they don't spy on everyone, someone might oh say blow something up. What happens, some government agency gets blamed for screwing things up. If they do spy on everyone, the moment people find out their up in arms about their privacy. I personally would rather have the privacy which adds the inability to abuse the system rather than the safety, others probably disagree. Fine but it should be a public debate, not some politician's call.

  • I see you probably read the History of World War II from the bottom of a Crispies packet.

    I think you one the war because of the combined economic power of the United States and the Military strength of the Soviet Union (they had people dying like flies over there.)

    What where American troop loses in WWII can you say 23 million people....... that's how many the Russians lost. Not to mention that a good section of the Middle East was liberated by Australian Light Horsemen and Infantry.

    But that is right the only people who really won WWI where the United States.

    Grow a brain you ignoramus read alittle history before you start frothing off at the mouth on topics that you have no idea about!!!

  • I see you probably read the History of World War II from the bottom of a Crispies packet.

    I think you one the war because of the combined economic power of the United States and the poulation strength of the Soviet Union (they had people dying like flies over there.)

    What where American troop loses in WWII can you say 23 million people....... that's how many the Russians lost. Not to mention that a good section of the Middle East was liberated by Australian Light Horsemen and Infantry.

    But that is right the only people who really won WWII where the United States.

    Grow a brain you ignoramus read alittle history before you start frothing off at the mouth on topics that you have no idea about!!!
  • I find your idea of what is elitist deeply disturbing. By extension, anything that gives the person willing to think and work towards an end an advantage over he who doesn't is elitist. It figures you are European (disclaimer: so am I) because this is a very Euro-Socialist way of thinking.
    Interesting - I'm not a socialist by any means. I'm a Liberal Democrat.

    Anyway, to get back to the main thrust of the argument, no, that's crazy. What you've just said is that it's better to only give the protection to the intelligent and computer literate. Which is discriminatory in the extreme and exactly why this sort of law is needed. There are plenty of people out there, blissfully ignorant of the threat of eavesdropping. You and I are paranoid souls who know very well what is possible and so can judge for ourselves whether we want the risks, but apply the mother test here: would you expect your mother to be have thought of this and then to know how to solve it? Sorry if this offends anyone as a test - purely that IME men tend to pick up computers more quickly than women, while the older generations tend to pick up more slowly full stop. Hence mothers are a fairly good test that most of us can use for a standard baseline user.

    Personally, I find your attitude towards this arrogant. I do not presume myself to be any more intelligent than most people, and I don't give myself the right to decide who of the stupid people(sic) is most in need of my forcing protection on them. The "vast majority who do not think about these issues" do so by choice, they are perfectly capable of behaving intelligently regarding issues that are important to them. It is not my place to tell them that privacy should be.
    I don't presume myself to be automatically more intelligent than others either, but I do automatically regard myself as more computer literate than the average person based on simple experience. That isn't disciminatory in the least, nor arrogant as I'm not making claims to be the best, merely above average. Considering I'm a Computer Science undergraduate with A-level and GCSE computer qualifications, I think I'm justified in making that claim. Now, I say again - you and I know what we're doing broadly. Our very presence on this site suggests that as a possibility, certainly our participation in this thread suggests marginally more knowledge about this sort of topic than most. Would we gain from this sort of rule? Sure, everyone would. Our gain would be less, though, as we're more capable of using the available barrier technologies. But imagine your example average user again. Do they know this sort of thing is possible? Unlikely, based on my experience. Are they going to know what to do to protect themselves, should they desire such protection? Equally unlikely.

    I'm sorry if you think I'm being elitist or arrogant here - I'd consider that I'm mostly trying to defend civil liberties, and this seems to be a way to do it. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that the government and their agencies should be permitted to eavesdrop on our private communications whenever they want for whatever purpose they want, and it's up to us to protect ourselves should we desire. Which I would see as being on a similar level to suggesting that we abolish the police force and hire private security to cover ourselves, though on a knowledge rather than financial elite.

    Sorry, but this attitude is repugnant to me and suggests that you simply haven't thought this one through properly - or that you are so blinkered that you don't understand the average user.

    Greg

    • I don't presume myself to be automatically more intelligent than others either, but I do automatically regard myself as more computer literate than the average person based on simple experience. That isn't disciminatory in the least, nor arrogant as I'm not making claims to be the best, merely above average. Considering I'm a Computer Science undergraduate with A-level and GCSE computer qualifications, I think I'm justified in making that claim. Now, I say again - you and I know what we're doing broadly. Our very presence on this site suggests that as a possibility, certainly our participation in this thread suggests marginally more knowledge about this sort of topic than most. Would we gain from this sort of rule? Sure, everyone would. Our gain would be less, though, as we're more capable of using the available barrier technologies. But imagine your example average user again. Do they know this sort of thing is possible? Unlikely, based on my experience. Are they going to know what to do to protect themselves, should they desire such protection? Equally unlikely.

    Don't underestimate the market. Were there a broad public interest in secure communications, it would not be as difficult to send secure email as it is today. You cannot get around the fact that the problem here is not one of computer litteracy but one of attitude, people just don't care. Maybe that is because they are under the illusion that they are not being spied on, but my suggestion of simply ending the hypocracy on this subject goes a lot farther towards solving that then passing another, unenforceable, law.

    I made my mother get an account on Hushmail so I could communicate with at least moderate security (of course she is using an export netscape, so) for discussing matters that call for it. She had absolutely no problem doing that, but we continue using normal email for most communications, because we just don't care if people are reading.

    As for me, I do not agree that I would have anything to gain from it. Another hypocritical unenforceable law for our overbaring behemoth governments to not give a shit about, is not something I consider positive.

    • I'm sorry if you think I'm being elitist or arrogant here - I'd consider that I'm mostly trying to defend civil liberties, and this seems to be a way to do it. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that the government and their agencies should be permitted to eavesdrop on our private communications whenever they want for whatever purpose they want, and it's up to us to protect ourselves should we desire. Which I would see as being on a similar level to suggesting that we abolish the police force and hire private security to cover ourselves, though on a knowledge rather than financial elite.

    In theory, I do believe that (private security over authoritarian forced upon policing), but I am also pragmatic in my anarchism. I am not naive enough to believe that we can just tear down the disfunctional mal-implemented system of society we have built around us (sort of like a bad routine in software, it isn't working but instead of fixing it we have implemented exception after conditional after hack for every new problem) and expect that something new and working would pop instead. But that does not mean I cannot say no to further movement in the direction of laws to patronise over us rather than being honest and giving the individual responsibility (and don't fool yourself: responsibility == freedom) in a matter where it is so readily available.

    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
  • You cannot get around the fact that the problem here is not one of computer litteracy but one of attitude, people just don't care. Maybe that is because they are under the illusion that they are not being spied on, but my suggestion of simply ending the hypocracy on this subject goes a lot farther towards solving that then passing another, unenforceable, law.
    This was my point, TBH - most people simply don't realise that it's an issue so market forces don't kick in as the market is entirely unaware of the possibility. As for suggesting that this is unenforceable, pardon? This sort of law - well, constitutional amendment if you check back to my original proposal, and I'm well aware that I'm debating within the terms of reference of a foreign jurisdiction and I'd still support what I said for the UK - would make evidence gained by such means inadmissable in court. There's certainly been suggestions that the NSA's lstening station at RAF Menwith Hill is being used for commercial espionage, too, which I accept that this wouldn't help hugely as it's not very easy to prove this sort of thing. But ATM it's legal, however undesirable it is. Even if you know they're doing it there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. Make it illegal and you can at least censure them if they're found doing it.
    In theory, I do believe that (private security over authoritarian forced upon policing), but I am also pragmatic in my anarchism.
    Ouch. The idea that we should all be responsible for our own law enforcement is abhorrent to me and, I would hope, the majority of others here. PLEASE don't let this actually happen.

    It might explain why we're having this argument, though, if you would dismantle official law enforcement structures and require us all to make our own provisions. Which is exactly what we have on this issue ATM and exactly what I was opposing, simply as it means you only get rights and protection for an elite. Not good.

    That does not mean I cannot say no to further movement in the direction of laws to patronise over us rather than being honest and giving the individual responsibility (and don't fool yourself: responsibility == freedom) in a matter where it is so readily available.
    No, I really don't see that parallel in the least. I can accept that you don't like this law, but responsibility == freedom and freedom always being best? No way. While we live in a society governed by human nature, there will always be people who want to abuse something like this. Why is this even being discussed? Because we feel our freedom is being infringed by this system. Do we agree that this infringement is wrong? Yes. So why is it that you are happy for them to continue infringing your right to privacy?

    Let's put this another way. Theft. Is it right for me to break into my neigbour's house and steal their posessions? No. So is it legal for me to do so? No. Yet, by extension, you are arguing that I should have the freedom to do that while my neigbour should protect their freedom to retain their posessions by hiring a policeman to stand outside their door or keeping them all locked in safes when they'r not being used. Which is patently ludicrous.

    We are (almost) all agreed that we have a right to private communications unless there is strong grounds of suspicion that we might be using such communications to facilitate illegal acts. So why on earth should the various law enforecment agencies have the right to intercept my communications, which they currently do?

    Greg

    • Let's put this another way. Theft. Is it right for me to break into my neigbour's house and steal their posessions? No. So is it legal for me to do so? No. Yet, by extension, you are arguing that I should have the freedom to do that while my neigbour should protect their freedom to retain their posessions by hiring a policeman to stand outside their door or keeping them all locked in safes when they'r not being used. Which is patently ludicrous.

    The extension does not (yet) cross the border from the world of mathematics and information to that of physics and meat. The analogy with the car is just as flawed as the same analogy regarding intellectual property (that copying a cd is like stealing a car). Fact is, it is mathematically possible to secure my communications, it is not mathematically possible to secure my car. In one case, the law is necessary, easily verified (you will know if your car has been stolen) and enforceable through finite effort, in the other it is the opposite of all that. I do see a possible future where it may be possible to apply mathematical laws to our physical world, and while I look forward to and strive towards it, I concede that it is far off.

    • We are (almost) all agreed that we have a right to private communications unless there is strong grounds of suspicion that we might be using such communications to facilitate illegal acts. So why on earth should the various law enforecment agencies have the right to intercept my communications, which they currently do?

    Most of the things that Echelon allegedly does are clearly not legal (such as the NSA keeping tabs on Americans). I have no doubt in my mind that they laugh in the face of the laws and consitution. What makes you think that this law will be any different? Which will be your method of ensuring this? Enforcing it?

    I am against it simply because we could spend all our money trying to enforce obedience to this law, start spy agencies to spy on our spies ad inifinum and still not be sure that it is working: or simply encrypt our communications and be sure of it at no cost and ten seconds time spent.



    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
  • The analogy with the car is just as flawed as the same analogy regarding intellectual property (that copying a cd is like stealing a car). Fact is, it is mathematically possible to secure my communications, it is not mathematically possible to secure my car. In one case, the law is necessary, easily verified (you will know if your car has been stolen) and enforceable through finite effort, in the other it is the opposite of all that.
    Speaking as a musician here, why should copying a CD be different from stealing a car? I'm no fan of the record industry either, but it's still taking my work without permission or reward.

    To get back to the main point, though, I agree about the effort to enforce. Hence my earlier comment: make this illegal and such evidence becomes inadmissable. So what if we can't tell whether they've actually done this? Why would they bother if they couldn't sumbit this as evidence in court or as a justification for a search warrant? The effort then becomes disproportionate to the reward for them. I'd still like to see it as a fundamental right regardless, but I can't see how it's impractical.
    Most of the things that Echelon allegedly does are clearly not legal (such as the NSA keeping tabs on Americans). I have no doubt in my mind that they laugh in the face of the laws and consitution. What makes you think that this law will be any different? Which will be your method of ensuring this? Enforcing it?
    Actually, as long as the current situation where our data transmissions aren't legally protected remains, I can't see that this is actually illegal. Immoral, sure and against the spirit of the law perhaps, but illegal? No. My point, again, was simple: make it illegal and the evidence becomes inadmissable. At which point they can search as hard as they like, but it's not worth anything other than amusement value to them. So why should they bother?

    Greg
  • >Based on legal precedent, there are definite
    >activities or behaviors that we can classify as
    >"illegal" in the sense that they violate >someone's rights (discrimination, for >example).

    While I agree with the general claim, I'm not sure about your example--wasn't discrimation made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or something similiar?

    I don't imagine the courts were too quick to recognize a right to force someone to hire you or do business with you before then. Not that I'm any kinda legal scholar or anything.
  • ...right now the technology here is so bad our ISPs lose entire server-loads of email for days on end...

    Are you sure that's not due to the secret agencies trying to steam open the mail servers and read the mail? ;o)

Slashdot Top Deals

"In my opinion, Richard Stallman wouldn't recognise terrorism if it came up and bit him on his Internet." -- Ross M. Greenberg

Close