Civil Liberties And The New Reality 797
Politically, America is an intensely polarized country, where discussion of issues quickly tends to bog down in notions of what is "left" or "right," thus ideologically pure, and consideration of a wide range of issues, from gun control and abortion to privacy and surveillance -- quickly freeze people into opposing camps characterized by rigidity, hostility and absence of communication. On the Net, people with particular interests increasingly often talk only to one another and consider only their own particular values and beliefs.
In fairness, let me declare my own warped perspective at the moment. I live just west of New York City, felt much affected by a visit to the attack site, and live in a town which has apparently lost somewhere between 30 and 40 people. Elsewhere in the country, life is beginning to move on, as it should, but in greater New York, it's still all death, all the time, on TV and in other media. As bits of bodies get pulled out of the wreckage, people give up hope of finding people from the wreckage, people give up hope of finding the people they love, and disruptions continue as the funerals and memorial services increase. People here remain numb and heavy-hearted.
It's easy to be suspicious of Attorney General John Ashcroft and of the FBI he heads when they say they need broader powers to wiretap, monitor the Net and conduct surveillance of Americans. Many people worry that once these powers are granted, they will never be given back. And some of these people don't have a comforting record of sensitivity when it comes to protecting privacy, free speech and individual civil liberties. But the terrorist attack has changed the entire context of these discussions, putting the issues far beyond knee-jerk reflexes.
But there is also something reflexively knee-jerk in the automatic "they-are-taking-our-freedoms-away" response from certain quarters online. The Justice Department isn't proposing dropping all restrictions or warrants or oversight regarding wiretapping and surveillance. They propose to ease some of them. This may or may not be a good idea. But it needs -- deserves -- to be rationally and openly considered.
First- and second-generation Internet dwellers value their freedoms, and have often had to defend them. Our government, sponsors of the CDA, Carnivore, and the DMCA -- it doesn't have a noble history here. Few people in government have ever made privacy and freedom online a political priority.
But the cataclysm at the World Trade Center is a historic event, and many people do, in fact, need to "get it." We will be living, thinking and behaving differently. Many of us -- if we and our families want to live safely -- will have to redefine our traditional politics, and consider new ways of defining certain rights.
The night of the attacks, reporters asked a New York City fire official why the city put out a desperate call for gas masks and vaccines that morning. "We thought one of the hijackers might possibly be carrying Anthrax -- there were some intelligence reports about that." The official stopped. "If they had been," he told reporters, "there might be 100,000 dead people, maybe more."
My own record of yowling about privacy and the First Amendment ad nauseum is clear enough, so I feel entitled to consider some other points of view, especially this week.
Certain rights -- equality, liberty -- are considered inviolate. But almost all rights are subject to a series of checks and balances, always subject to circumstance, never absolutes granted without reservation, in perpetuity, regardless of external circumstance. Yes, people online have the right to keep their communications private and people have the right -- I believe -- to move online and travel in the real world without their movements being monitored and recorded by governmental authorities. But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too.
This is how the WTC attacks have challenged our system of rights. The thousands of dead and millions of others who work in vulnerable office towers, or travel or study or live near airports (or schools, or ports, or national symbols) have rights too, and they have been grievously violated.
The government has an obligation to protect them.
These terrorists are technologically skilled, government authorities say. They use the Net to e-mail one another, and to send encrypted files, sometimes online, at other times via Zip disks or other media. They move money online, make plans there, thus avoiding possible interception by traditional intelligence monitors listening to phone and cell calls. Is it really totally unreasonable for authorities to seek broader powers to follow these conversations? Wiretap laws are not adequate for teaching these kinds of criminals. Existing wiretap laws require warrants for each telephone, even though criminals and terrorists might use dozens of phones or a variety of communications systems.
If terrorists are proven to be using encrypted files, aren't government agents entitled -- even obligated, on behalf of the thousands of innocent victims and many more future victims -- to get warrants to intercept them? Would we really rather that our water systems be poisoned, or our cities choked with gas, or planes flown into schools and City Halls? This would have seemed silly hyperbole to me a month ago, but all of these things are now plausible in the post-World Trade Center world.
Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon, gaming sites, EZ-Pass toll systems, online retailers and other Web tracking services which have lists of our shopping, reading, entertainment habits and preferences. Corporations have abolished many conventional notions of privacy, while most Americans shrug it off as a new convenience. Is it really our position that Wal-Mart can own the details of our lives, but that government agents tracking those people who murdered 5,000 of our fellow citizens can't?
Nobody in his right mind would support a blank check for government authorities. Any new laws to fight this new kind of war ought to be temporary, and self-expiring, perhaps subject to annual review. There ought to be clear civil and criminal penalties for wanton violations of privacy and excessive monitoring.
But when something like the World Trade Center attacks occur, the challenge, it seems to me, isn't to retreat into our knee-jerk positions, but to pause and carefully consider the new reality. Any government's primary obligation is to protect and defend its citizens. The failure to do that last week occurred primarily, many terrorism experts say, because our existing intelligence institutions don't have the human resources, the technology or the laws to keep up with a sophisticated, well-funded, technologically-savvy network of murderous enemies. We might want to ponder what rights we owe the living and owed the dead -- the right to live, to be and have parents, to work or fly without being torn to bits or crushed in a collapsing inferno.
Is Katz an unregistered telepath? (Score:2)
Handing them a victory (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly, we would all be physically safer if we lived in a totalitarian regime with no privacy protection. Would that be worth the cost? No, Katz does not advocate this, but the very subject of the erosion of our civil liberties is a dangerous one. Yes, we need a national debate on this. Hopefully cool heads will prevail.
Re:Handing them a victory (Score:3, Insightful)
Although your statement is the patriotic one, the reason they attacked in the first place is because of the US' foreign policy in the middle east. It has nothing to do with our rights. If we were a totalitarism with the same policy, they'd still try the same thing (but, most likely, fail miserably because terrorism only really works in a democratic environment).
Now, before I'm flamed, realize that I don't want my rights taken away from me, either. But not because I think the terrorists will win.
The only way the terrorists will win is if we get all our influence out of the middle east for the sole reason that we don't want them to terrorize us again.
Re:Handing them a victory (Score:4, Interesting)
Think about this - the FBI rushed Carnivore into service at the "freemail" providers like yahoo, when there was no evidence that the terrorists even knew freemail existed - why would they? the internet is banned for the afgan people; the phone service barely exists there, never mind ISPs. If any communications took place outside of the original mission briefing, they were almost certainly by way of "innocent sounding" telephone conversations and/or letters with hidden text. consider the following conversation:
- Hi John! have you booked your tickets yet?
- Yes, I am flying out of boston at 8am; Hoping to meet up with Clive at the WTC around 9
- I am sure you two will make an impression there; I would come too, but I have to attend a meeting at the government place about that time..
Ok, a little contrived - but you see my point. there is *no* way someone, even suspious of one or more of the parties involved, could have guessed at their real plans from that conversation - and they would have to monitor *every* phone call in america, no matter how innocent, to pick it up at all.Similar statements could be made about almost any of the measures proposed - for each one you should be asking yourself "what will this achieve? will the cost of giving this up be matched by a equal gain in the protection I will get from my government? In this case, the answer is no. it is an attempt to exploit the grief and suffering of the american people to push though "reforms" that the american courts and people have been rejecting for years now. Would you really want the US to be the only country in the world where online banking is insecure, because you have to make sure the police can decode it, and almost any private eye can bribe his way into a couple of juicy keys?
Re:Handing them a victory - Rights (Score:2)
Would you accept more
government involvement in
your life if it meant more
security against terrorism?
Last check:
Yes 71% 44,665 votes
No 29% 18,202 votes
Perhaps part of freedom is being able to surrender rights, at best only temporarily.
Of course the question that always hangs in the air is: Who will be the watchers?
Re:Handing them a victory - Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
government involvement in
your life if it meant more
security against terrorism?
Last check:
Yes 71% 44,665 votes
No 29% 18,202 votes
Perhaps part of freedom is being able to surrender rights, at best only temporarily.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams
Re:Handing them a victory - Rights (Score:3)
More govt intervention in people's everyday lives won't stop terrorism, but it would give polititians something 'good' to wave around when the next election comes. I suppose they are just betting on people's anger lasting that long...
Re:Handing them a victory (Score:3, Interesting)
It's also important to note that, last I checked, Wal-Mart lacked the power to lock me away for 50 years.
Re:Handing them a victory (Score:5, Insightful)
I often see comments like this. I think they are inaccurate.
The terrorists' primary goal, I think, is to stop our interference in Muslim countries and the Mid-East region. They consider it sacred ground and don't want us there with our decadent Western morals. The message is "you can't interfere in our part of the world without your lives being affected."
Eventually, of course, they'd like to convert the rest of the world to their brand of radical Islam (or, presumeably, kill us). But I don't think that was the purpose of these terrorist attacks. So I don't think they care about whether our privacy is affected. Curtailing our liberties in ways which have no bearing on their radical Muslim beliefs won't affect their thinking of us as the "Great Satan."
"Letting the terrorists win" would involve lifting the sanctions of Iraq, stopping interference is Mid-East wars and politics, or halting support of Israel. Of course, since the view is "we can't give in to terrorists", it may curtain us from doing the right thing... for example, reconsidering the sanctions of Iraq (which hurt the people of Iraq far more than Saddam) or political interference (Saddam Hussien and bin Ladan were once on "our side"). There are no easy answers.
I think changing our views on foreign policy might encourage more terrorism as the terrorists will see their attack was successfull. But changing our views on privacy issues, from the terrorist's perspective, just makes their "job" harder. It may or may not discourage them, but I don't think it will encourage them.
So I think discussions of the privacy issues should be strictly based on the merits of protection vs. the merits of protecting our rights, without worrying about whether the terrorists consider them victories or not.
In any case, the overall issues are too important to let pride enter into it.
Totalitarian "safer"? (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the great misconceptions about life in a police state is that it is somehow "safer". Was Nazi Germany safe to live in? You could be arrested and killed just for angering the wrong person. Was Stalinist Russia safe? You could be sent to a concentration camp just for being the first person to stop clapping.
When we give up our rights, we're far less safe, because all we're doing is legalizing violence.
We need to all remember this cornerstone of liberty: Freedom is our strength.
Re:Handing them a victory (Score:5, Insightful)
The ideal of "freedom and justice for all" is more important than any number of American lives. That's what turned me around on the civil liberties debate; I got tired of hearing all the people whining about invasion of privacy, etc., but when it comes down to it, the ideals of this nation are what made it great, even if it meant a lack of security in some areas, as well as loss of life.
This is a great country. It's worth our blood to keep it that way.
Re:Handing them a victory (Score:2)
One of the government's primary duties is to protect its citizens. The government must do that.
Is a totalitarian regime required for that? Nope. If the government is going to be able to learn about and stop future terrorism, they must be able to snoop around a bit. I'm actually in favor of that. If dubya finds out that I read
If I have to give up some civil liberties in order to die of natural causes, so be it. I wouldn't fear of a total revocation of freedoms. Cool heads prevail in this country day after day.
Perspective, please (Score:4, Insightful)
The abridgment of our rights is in no way a "win" for terrorists. Yes, it is a loss for us, but I have trouble with the idea that a bunch of l33t h4x0rs not being able to sit around chatting about their latest music swaps in total anonymity is anywhere near the loss of, say, containment around the Monticello Nuclear Power plant, just NW of Minneapolis (leading to 7 figure death tolls in the Minneapolis area and the forced evacuation of everything between here and around South Bend). A light plane loaded down with fuel could break through quite easily, with a clean hit. That, however, requires organization and planning. They need schematics of the plant, they need access to a plane (which will either be registered or suspiciously unregistered), they need to make use of a legitimate airport to avoid blowing up on take-off with all the bouncing barrels of gas, etc. The FBI has had remarkable success preventing this sort of thing by knowing what to look for. But over the last few years, they've increasingly lost the ability to look.
And there's the big hole in the "Oh no! We're losing our freedoms!" position. Let's say that we give every single government emplyee the right to read everyone's email and access everyone's web habits and everything else. We STILL haven't lost any "privacy" that we had 20 years ago. Human's have never had anything like the ability for anonymous, private communications that we've developed in the last 3-5 years. It's NOT something inherant in the human condition. It's something we allot to ourselves, and, as such, needs to be alloted reasonably. Now, when you've aquired a controling interested in every internet backbone in the country, you can make everything private and anonymous. Until then, you have NO RIGHTS not allocated you by contract or law. You're using an artificial communications system owned and maintained by other people, for which you're not even playing close to enough to cover the costs incurred by your usage.
Re:Perspective, please (Score:3, Insightful)
"Let's say that we give every single government emplyee the right to read everyone's email and access everyone's web habits and everything else."
Does this is any real way make you safer or prevent the terrible scenerio you lay-out?
Sadly the answer is, "No." Even if you allow the government to do this you won't be any safer. If the terrorists are smart enough to use encryption over the internet now in this country (no evidence of this - but they're making laws as if it's true) then they can create ways around these restrictions. They can exchange porno pix or vacation photos with encoded messages for instance. And if they're willing to wait for years to strike then they don't need the urgency of the Internet to communicate - they can use regular mail... unless you want to give the government access to that too...
If these people can fly round trip to Spain for a 6 hour f2f meeting (as reported) they can certainly easily exchange one-time pads (unbreakable encryption technology) for completely secure communications. You lay-out a compellingly bad scenerio but you don't show how the changes you suggest make that scenerio any less likely.
The perspective you need is to consider at what level you feel safer... Should we require people to carry papers and only move between cities or states or even crosstown only with permission?
Why not? We'd be safer...
Since I feel we wouldn't be much safer under this scenerio let's ask what would be lost.
Do we really want to empower the government to know everything we do on-line? Remember J. Edgar Hoover? He kept files and ran investigations on anyone he felt like - documenting their private lives and then used that knowledge for political ends. Do we want the government to be able to do this legally? I don't...
Perspective indeed...
=tkk
It's an Old Reality (Score:2, Insightful)
The State will always use a crisis to increase its power, size, interference, control. This is old hat.
Re:It's an Old Reality (Score:2, Insightful)
Politically, America is an intensely polarized country...
America is a nation made up mostly of either moderate pragmatists, and people who are not really very engaged in politics. If it seems polarized, it is because our media is made up mostly of shrill extremists (like Mr. Katz).
don't create more terrorists... (Score:2, Interesting)
Its very simple really... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question then becomes, where is the balance. What amount of freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe?
No no no (Score:4, Insightful)
No, this could not be more wrong. Security and convenience are inversely related. Security and freedom are not. This is a very important distinction.
Nope, it's not (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a serious error to assume that because sometimes increased security reduces freedom, anything that reduces freedom increases security. Things don't work that way.
Re:Nope, it's not (Score:2)
You have to recognize that security isn't absolute.
You have to realize that freedoms aren't absolute.
But security and freedoms adversely affact each other since these are NOT ABSOLUTE. You take away ones freedom, that is security for another. You tay away security in a "sense" from someone and that is anew freedom.
NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE. So yes, "things don't work that way"
and remember "Things never go ABSOLUTELY as planned"
Re:Its very simple really... (Score:2)
Quite frankly, you just made that up.
Re:Its very simple really... (Score:2)
What the hell do you think you are securing with "security" if not freedom?
What amount of freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe?
None!!! The key is simply to be more diligent in areas that are outside of the scope of individual rights.
If you supply probable cause, expect to be targeted for monitoring. That's hardly new. We just need to monitor those people harder and with more fluidity. If you travel through an airport, expect have no privacy. Old hat, there. Just expect more technology and human attention to be pointed in your direction. If you want to come to the US on a visa, expect to have a background search. It's always been considered a priviledge for non-citizens to come, so I don't see anything wrong with greater diligence there. If you are from a nation that harbors or even contains known terrorists, expect the priviledge of entry to come at a high price.
These things do not infringe freedom, they simply represent greater scrutiny in areas where it was already reasonable to scruitinze.
The encryption key escrow stuff is NOT in this category. Stripping people who have given no probable cause of their privacy not only violates their freedom, but it harms the interests of security.
Re:No (Score:2)
To some people, owning a gun is a freedom, and to others, having guns removed is a sense of securityl. To the gun owner though, that is a loss of security and freedom.
It insn't inversely related in a perfect sense since everybodies views are different and justifiable by there own means.
Just like the old saying security through obscurity. The the terrorists, this is how they win, through obscure networks of non trackable paths, hence security. To an instutution this is a liability since they can't protect and gurantee service and levels of reliability. To the terrorists any "service" is a win, and a liability is a loss but not to a degree where it impacts bottom line, to corporations service is the revenue and liability is a loss to the bottom line.
no one is right. If we had freedoms to smoke pot then the freedoms to drink may be adversely affected.
I wish we could have freedoms of humanity and work our way up. I'd rather have the freedom to walk around naked at a beach then the freedom to own a gun. I'm not a hunter, murder or soldier. I have no use for a gun, but being myself and being naked is a god given freedom that is illegal. Having a gun is not a god given freedom. Hunting is a part of life, i don't dispute that, as all creatures on this planet hunt in some form or fashion.
I'd rather have the freedoms to eat, drink and divulge in acts of expressions and unity that are illegal. I'd like to be able to go to a field and play drums and have a powow without being arrested for tresspassing, public meetings without license, noise polution and having to worry about municipality rules, laws and regulations.
Going back to guns. I would give up the freedom of a right to own guns for the safety of my children and there right to go to school without fear of guns and without metal detectors and the invasion of privacy for search and seizure of guns. To me the freedoms we loose by another right are just as important in this discussion as anything else..
Again, no one is right.. for you can claim having a gun is safety and protection..
oh well.
Re:No (Score:2)
Say we buld a forcefield and everyone within that forcefield has all the securities, rights and liberties they feel they need and they feel protected by that forcefield. What happens when someone inside that forcefield does something and now everyone has lost that "Sense" of security?
Security is never absolute, neither are freedoms. That is my only point. For sense is everything. Sight, Sounds, Smell and Taste are our only "Senses" to describe, envision and live within this planet.
Re:Lack of self-defense rights produced 6000 death (Score:2)
Uh huh.
Tell that to the passengers of flight #93.
Re:Lack of self-defense rights produced 6000 death (Score:2)
I was pointing out that the passengers of Flight #93 were able to defend themselves to the extent that they were able to thwart their kidnappers. Yes they died, but they had the choice and they took it. And I'm sure that we're all thankful that they had the resolve to do so.
If they'd all been armed would it have come out differently? Perhaps. Perhaps the terrorists wouldn't have tried taking over the plane in the first place. Perhaps the passengers would've restored order. Perhaps half the passengers would've died due to friendly fire on the plane, and the plane would still be hijacked. Maybe the plane would have been explosively decompressed due to some idiot taking a loaded weapon onto a plane.
You (in general) don't know what might/might not have happened, and to tell you the truth all the 'Monday Morning Coaching' that's going on is slightly disgusting.
Re:Ban all carry on's (Score:2)
Byond modisty and religion, planes are too cold to go without clothing.
Of course as I've been telling people, banning knives isn't the answer, the next terrorist who trys something like this will know karate. I'll take on a terrorist in an airplace if he has a knife, gun, or karate as a weapon, so long as I have a gun, but I won't take on a black belt with anything less. (Assuming I'm a passanger the terrorist won't know I'm dangerious until after I've killed a few of them, and I'll act like an unarmed passanger until I can kill at least one, from a distance)
This was a well planned attack. they took the time to learn to fly in real planes, they have no problem next time learning martial arts if that is what it will take.
This is a War (Score:2, Interesting)
This was true in the Civil War, certainly. It was also true in World War I and World War II.
I have no objections to temporary measures designed to prosecute this war against medieval extremism.
What I fear, and I think what most people fear, is "mission creep." The "temporary changes" made during the war would become permanent.
We saw that in the aftermath of WWII. No one objected to the measures of that time (although there was, later, guilt over what happened to Japanese-Americans). But the attitudes of us vs. them, of absolute war, were carried over for political reasons into the horror we now call McCarthyism.
Any suspension of any of our rights, then, must be a war-time measure, part of the government's war-time efforts, aimed solely at prosecuting this war the President has declared. (Personally I'd like a Congresssionally-approved declaration, but they're having difficult defining the enemy.)
I have no objections to measures enacted with the aim of winning this war. I do object, strongly, and will lay down my life, against their being made permanent.
Primary argument I see around (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem I have with the current batch of liberties to be thrown away is that they aren't that apparent. Sure wiretapping laws are making news right now, but 4 or 5 years from now they won't be slapping you in the face in the same manner that gas rationing would. (Does that make sense?)
Past liberties given up have been so apparent that as soon as the crisis/rationale was over, people would've clamored for those rights back. However with wiretapping/backdoor encryption/etc the process is so transparent that I can't see enough people even realizing that they're still in place to create enough of an outcry to get them back. (whew... thank god for runon sentences)
But all that being said, if that's what it actually takes then I'm for it. If it's just the FBI using the current crisis as a free ticket to push the same agenda that they've been pushing for the past few years... well...
More insanity from people who do not understand (Score:5, Interesting)
How far behind are ID cards and strip searches to get in the mall. Screw that, I say we actually enforce the laws we already have and cooperate with other countries. That is the best way, not trampling the rights of everyone.
Friendly
Sense of security (Score:2, Interesting)
They would rather restrict certain rights (because they aren't terrorists, so they have nothing to fear).
What's wrong with this idea is that in countries where there are armed guards in airports, malls, etc., the people do not consider that to be infringing on their rights, or to be evidence of a police state.
Most of the people I've talked with would definately give up their liberties (privacy, etc.) for a sense of security (not having armed guards). I guess WE, collectively, deserve neither.
P.S. One woman in my PhD program is a former judge, she was one of the people I've spoken with who see this propblem, so, hopefully, the cheques and balances may actually prevent this.
tee hee (Score:2)
I do hope you're referring to "checks and balances" and not, um, influence peddling...
Re:Sense of security (Score:2)
Yeah, i've talked to such people and I don't get it either. Appearently they have never been falsely accused of something.
I still have not forgotten being written up for fighting in first grade, when I wasn't fighting or even doing something even remotely connected with fighting. I have not forgotten that situation and I no longer trust anyone with athority.
Separate the issues... (Score:3, Interesting)
But it's important that we think about each liberty, each law that goes through Congress, instead of writing a blank check for the gov't to cash. Some things make sense; wiretap procedure could be cleaned up slightly. On the other hand, there are issues like the potential ban on strong (un-backdoored) crypto. How does a single country banning this tech hurt the terrorists, and is it anything more than a knee-jerk reaction?
I'm not worried about compromising on a few areas, especially when they make sense. I am concerned that we're going to give the green light to every sort of incursion on our freedoms, even if it does little to stop terrorism.
Re:Separate the issues... (Score:2)
We do have a reprsentative republic. Unfortunately, most people that it represents are morons, thus, the government will do what they ask. Right now, the moronic populace wants backdoors in all crypto. The "we" in the previous post refers to the "we" as in "we who know what in the hell we're talking about, and prefer to think instead of watching Jerry Springer".
It's a Basic Failure (Score:2, Insightful)
You'd think that the CIA could track the enemies that it created itself, such as bin Laden.
I can't believe that people are beating the drum to increase funding for the CIA, or to cut the CIA loose. Heh, they set bin Laden up to start with, and encouraged Islamic fundamentalism in the anti-Soviet cause. Now he's Blowback. And what about that fundamentalist terrorist group, the KLA, that we've funded and supported? And we want the CIA to get _more_? To do _more_? Of what? The same old thing? No, thanks. No people who truly love liberty would tolerate such a vile organization like the CIA on its own shores.
Losing Privacy OK, Within Reason (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm totally with you here. Absolutely.
If terrorists are proven to be using encrypted files, aren't government agents entitled -- even obligated, on behalf of the thousands of innocent victims and many more future victims -- to get warrants to intercept them?
Yup. And you used the magic words: "to get warrants." This warrantless-wiretap stuff is scary. It would be one thing if it were windowed (a sunset date, say, 90 days from now), which I think we could tolerate for the purpose of the immediate crisis. But to forever and ever have wiretaps without a court order? That's no good.
But here's the part about your statement that makes me uncomfortable. I assume that by "intercepting" "encrypted files," what you mean is not merely for federal officials to possess the encrypted data, but to be able to decrypt that data. And I can't say that I agree with that. Firstly because of the technical problems: any encryption with a backdoor is much, much easier to crack. (IANAC [I Am Not A Cypherpunk], but this is what I gather to be the case.) Secondly because what that really is, is a law against secrets. "There can be no secrets." And a law against encryption is as worthless as a missle defense shield. If people want to tell secrets, they'll meet in person in a dark alley. But to fatally weaken electronic secrecy for this purpose, I think, is going too far.
I'm willing to give up a lot of privacy on a temporary basis (and some on a long-term basis) to prevent this from happening again. But to permanently surrender electronic secrecy? I think that's asking too much.
JM2C,
Waldo
Anyone notice this? (Score:2, Informative)
http://msnbc.com/news/631008.asp
That makes me just a tad uneasy.
Re:Anyone notice this? (Score:2)
The Justice Department has drafted legislation allowing the U.S. attorney general to lock up foreigners deemed to be terrorist suspects and order them deported without presenting any evidence.
Why is this a problem? America belongs to those of us who are its Citizens. Spontaneous deportation of foreigners is really no different than if someone visiting my home gets unruly and I throw him out.
Let's try not to confuse the issue here. There is a far cry from treading on the theoretical rights of those to whom none are guaranteed, to treading on the real, established and manifested rights of those from whom power is derived.
Re:Anyone notice this? (Score:2)
Fallacy Alert (Score:2, Insightful)
That is a fallacy Jon, or at least a distortion. The implication is that people have a right to be protected from bad things by society, and I strongly disagree.
If the government were dropping buildings on people, then clearly that would be as criminal as if a terrorist were to do it, and I would expect some consequences. But in much the same sense, I do not have a right to be free from disease. I do not have a right to be ensured that my car will not be stolen. I do not have a right to not be robbed by a criminal.
Think of it this way: a particular sort of crime -- that is, an act defined societally as a crime -- does not imply that potential victims have a right not to be victimized. Society condemns and punishes perpetrators of crimes, and on popular agreement puts in place systems and mechanisms to make perpetration of crime more difficul. None of that implies that citizens have unlimited rights to safety.
Re:Fallacy Alert (Score:2)
But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too. [...] That is a fallacy Jon, or at least a distortion. The implication is that people have a right to be protected from bad things by society, and I strongly disagree.
I think what Katz is saying (in his vague way) is that people expect to be able to go to work and be defended by attacks by foreign powers. The most basic function of the federal government is defense of the nation. I understand that you are focusing on the word "rights", but I think in this context, he is not referring to "inalienable rights", but to expections of competency by the government.
Wal-Mart? (Score:2)
As Jon knows, but ignores, the difference is, we willingly give our details to Wal-Mart, or they illegally bought them after we opted-out. The government should be in the same position: they can ask me to give up my details, or they can buy them from someone violating my having opted out, same as anyone else.
The government is not a knight in shining armor, and they don't deserve any extra priveliges over me.
Don't tread on me.
Polarization (Score:2)
This is most true, as seen on many arguments here on
It's a mixed bag. even though we lose certain rights to privacy especially through wiretapping, hopefully it will only be used when there is probable cause to wiretap. Therefore, most "personal" conversations will likely go unmonitored. Not a total loss of the right to privacy by any means.
The root of this matter is, how much privacy do we forego to reduce the chances of this tragedy occurring again?
One problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
I never thought I'd see the day... (Score:2)
It just sucks it had to be somthing like this to wake people like JonKatz up. I was surprised (though, not offended) at the level of security in customs when my family would fly back and forth to Europe during my father's assignment in Italy. Since then, I was always amazed at the lack of true security at most US airports. When's the last time you saw a team of dogs searching every suitcase?
Let someone have their suitcase sniff-free and remain zippered to agents, but please don't put him on my plane.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day... (Score:2)
1986, when I was leaving Korea.
Remember J Edgar Hoover (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this shows that the dangers are very real and that the government can not be trusted to only use spying powers for good. They'll use it however they please.
Of course, spying technology has advanced immensly since then.
abuses (Score:2)
Though these abuses are rare, they are not as rare as a hijacking.
I do admit on a wiretap order a person versus a phone makes sense.
If these things change appreciably (Score:2)
I will leave the country and not look back. It will stop being the America I believe in.
I guess what I'm really saying is that I do not have the right to go to work without a building falling on me.
To me, rights are inviolate principles of interaction that are firmly based in ideas of what it is and is not possible to do. The constitution doesn't outline a right not to be murdered because that right is not a reasonable consequence of being alive.
I think the rights the constitution outlines are as much to protect the government from doing stupid things in an attempt to achieve the impossible as they are an attempt to protect people from government.
I need to read John Locke, and a few of the other philosophers from around the time the constitution was crafted. I don't think I have the intellectual tools to articulate my argument effectively without their words.
Perhaps it's just that I shall always be a freelance bacterium instead of a cell of a body. But, I think the organism of a state can exist without every little manufacture of a signalling chemical being noted by the brain.
Where will you go? (Score:2)
If you want to live at a lower technological level, then you can find places where the people have more rights, at least as far as their government is concerned.
Minimum necessary (Score:2)
Take for instance the old example of identity cards, which have always been viewed with suspicion in the UK, where I am from.
What harm would it do to have them I have heard ask? Well of course it depends on what is on them and when you have to carry them.
For instance we already have identity cards whilst flying on commercial flights anyway. They are called passports. I don't think that anyone has any real problems with this. This is follows the idea of the mimimum requirement. On a plane there is an overridingly good reason why ID is required. This is different from saying we should have to carry ID all the time.
What should be on them? We could just have names for instance. Okay that's probably reasonable. But what if they had addresses? Okay you say whats the problem. Well if you live in a region where you are likely to be mugged you probably would not want to carry something with your address on it. What about religion? In the light of recent attacks on Mosques in Manchester where I live, I can see many people who would have great worries about this.
The danger at the moment is that every time some one criticises official policy, suggests that they might be wrong, they get accused of being supportive of terrorism. Its a very dangerous state of affairs. We need criticism more now, and not less. We need to ensure that any curbs on freedoms are necessary, that they are likely to effective in what they are supposed to achieve, and that they are proportionate to the threat.
News that Bush has decided to launch a crusade on a terrorist jihad do not fill me with hope that this will be the case.
Phil
A question of Balance and Trust. (Score:2)
Those who are currently pushing for massive secret surveilance are wrong, those who are pushing for no survelkiance ever.. are also wrong.
A balance must be struck, and one we can trust.
At present I do not trust the branches of government that want to erod my freedom and I'll fight them all the way. By taking an extreme position myself, I help balance the scales a bit.
This is despite the fact that I'd actually accept some erosion of specific liberties if rights were given -back- in some other areas, and accountability and trust became something other than a NSA spin campaign.
Re:A question of Balance and Trust. (Score:2)
I agree (mod the parent up please). No one is sure that the internet was used for this attack. What is certain is that the constant kibbles between the different agencies did not help to solve the problem.
Before asking for free access to more information, what about a debate on how the agencies handled the data they had. I'm pretty sure that better coordination between the agencies and non US agencies can do a lot more against terrorism that reading people's emails...
would it even help? (Score:2)
Bad laws are inevitable... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh (Score:2)
These terrorists are technologically skilled, government authorities say. They use the Net to e-mail one another, and to send encrypted files, sometimes online, at other times via Zip disks or other media. They move money online, make plans there, thus avoiding possible interception by traditional intelligence monitors listening to phone and cell calls.
I have yet to see any proof of this; there is no evidence so far that any of the terrorists involved in the WTC disaster relied on anything more technological than a telephone to plan and execute their plans. The idea that the Internet is a terrorist medium seems to be mostly played up by a bored media.
I actually find the idea that someone like Bin Laden (who is probably living in a cave right now) would jump aboard the Internet as the ultimate terrorism organizational tool highly questionable. The concept of encryption is familiar to us on Slashdot, but to most other people it's really voodoo. The Internet is primarly an American invention, it would be prudent for someone to be wary of placing so much faith in the device of his enemy.
It's about time. (Score:3, Insightful)
You look back, and you can clearly see that the US and other governments were heading this direction.
It's little surprise, then, that they are taking advantage of this opportunity to achieve their goals much, much faster, with far, far less trouble from the masses.
We'll soon have a passively numb population who have no expectation of privacy, no desire to become informed, and no passion for influencing the direction of government.
Baa! Baa! Baa!
Sheep are good. They buy consumer products without questioning their value, quality, or necessity. They pay their taxes without questioning where the money goes. They go to work and meekly accept lousy pay and lousy conditions. They don't challenge the laws. They don't cause trouble.
That's what the corporations want. That's what the governments want. And that's what we're going to get.
Who should spy on whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Very well thought (Score:3, Insightful)
Katz is forgetting something. (Score:2, Insightful)
Then what ? Make encryption illegal ?
But nothing will stop any governement once it has taken the first step on restriction ladder : it will ask for more : Drug dealer are using encryption too, right ? And they do more death pro year. And then it will be another group and so on.
In the evry End the terrorist are using "terror" to paralyse, cripple the population or throw the opposition into incosiderate steps. By just implementing the above , Katz, not only you do not rise the chance of getting terrorist caught on security alone, but you acknowledge their terror and show them that they have WON. Their ACTION pushed YOU into COUNTERREACTION.
less of two evils (Score:2)
My wife asked why, I explained to her that generally one considers the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus [freedom.org] to be Marshall Law. Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on T.V.
However, it raised the question in my mind last week, are we going to be compelled by current circumstances to forgoe some freedoms in exchange for not loosing them all ? Opinions ?
Freedom (Score:2)
If I don't have the freedom to travel in my own country to a football stadium, then my other freedoms aren't worth a damn. Your freedom has already been curtailed by the terrorists in reality far more than the government ever will in theory.
I think some people need to clue that life is a bit different than a week ago. To be honest, I think that is the root of the problem here... too many people think it's a movie, and it hasn't really sunk in that it really happened, there really are evil people in the world whose only goal is to destroy democracy, and that there come times in history when the world has to stand up to evil.
Re:New Reality (Score:2, Informative)
Second there are lots of open and readily available algorithms for encryption, ones that are very difficult to crack and have no back doors, you don't think that they will be able to write their own encrypted communications software?
Have you ever seen an individual who suffers from paranoid delusions. My aunt does, she started off as a fairly normal person, but over 5 years with 9 deaths in the family she slowly slipped down this slope to near insanity. After nearly ripping apart our family with paranoid acusations of attempted poisonings and sewing discord in her immediate family leved at the rest of the extended family and generally distrusting everyone, she saw a psychologist and is now on some meds that have sort of turned her into a zombie.
As well has anyone noticed that China was granted entry into the WTO yesterday. No fanfare at all, you would think that it would make at least a bit of a splash!
http://news.excite.ca/news/ap/010918/05/
Will it help? (Score:2)
Banning unbackdoored strong crypto will have a devestating effect on world commerce. Except for a short (few months, maybe) period following 9/11/2001 most people will be more concerned with the security of their bank account than with a potential terrorist attack.
The National Counterintelligence Center (http://www.nacic.gov/) is well aware of the legitimate uses of strong crypto: banking, commerce, protecting trade secrets, etc. The U.S. loses billions of dollars a year to industrial espionage -- much of it State sponsored.
The entire world banking system relies on strong crypto.
Terrorists can easily switch to something else -- like code words; written instructions; steganography.
How many BILLIONS of web pages are out there? Does anyone really believe anyone can monitor them all for "suspicious" traffic? Sift through them for hidden messages; code phrases; etc.
Yes, the gov't has to do something. However, that something should be an intelligent, well thought out response, not knee-jerk feel-good legislation that really won't solve the problem.
band of freedom fighters... (Score:2)
Hrmmpf.. (Score:2)
Anyway...
I don't think giving up our civil rights is a good thing. I was just reading the book Secrets & Lies by Bruce Schneier and he said the Supreme Court has said we have the right to privacy. Well, we all have to agree. Just as I have a right to encrypt the love note to my mistress, a terrorist has the right to encrypt a confirmation of attack of some suicidal extremist... despite the *nature* of the contents of the e-mail.
Coming in from the other side of the argument, the problem is that the gov't does NOT have the resources to track every phone conversation and every e-mail sent in the world... or even the U.S. Just the amount of spam transmitted at any given second on the Internet would keep the CIA up for days filtering through it. The likelihood that our individual rights would be violated is highly doubtful just from the sheer magnitude of information.
Honestly, I personally feel we cannot come up with a definitive end to this arguement. Arguements can be made from both sides.. both being valid. Any person that can not see the validity of arguements from both sides is just plain ignorant. (Many posts I have seen so far go against Jon, and prove ignorant). Maybe it's time for investigators to find new ways of gathering vital information... maybe the old ways need to be modified to work with modern public-key encryption... who knows....
Attorney General != head of FBI (Score:2)
Yes, it is easy to be suspicious of Ashcroft, but he doesn't head the FBI. That is someone else.
Re:Attorney General != head of FBI (Score:2)
I think, John... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the first thing that needs to be asked about all these proposed new laws is, "Would they have done anything to stop the WTC incident had they been in effect before it?". For example, would the new wiretap powers have done anything given that the government doesn't seem to know that communication between the terrorists was going on at all? If US-made crypto tech has back doors or key escrow or other access mechanisms installed, do you think the terrorists will give up what they already have and switch to it? And if they don't, will those access mechanisms help one bit? Will additional restrictions on checked luggage and manifest checks stop someone who walks past a bored security guard carrying a knife in his pocket and boards the plane?
This is my heartburn with a lot of what's being proposed. Not that it may restrict our rights, but that it will restrict our rights without doing anything about the problem being used to justify it.
Re:I think, John... (Score:2)
I think the first thing that needs to be asked about all these proposed new laws is, "Would they have done anything to stop the WTC incident had they been in effect before it?".
That's a reasonable question to ask, but I don't think it's the most important question to ask. I don't care about preventing attacks as much as I care about annihilating terrorism and winning the war. I don't think we can eliminate every suicidal maniac with a stick of dynamite, but we can destroy the world wide organization. We can eliminate their funds. We can target their leaders. Without leadership and financing, not to mention without countries that sponsor terrorism, the problem will substantially go away.
All of these measures are cheap, but not right. (Score:5, Insightful)
All of the changes being suggested and argued about have one thing in common--they provide a cheap alternative to actually solving the problem.
It would be possible to solve the problem of security in our skies without taking away any of our liberties. Make sure there are (frequently) law enforcement officers on board flights. Yes, this is being considered, but it is expensive. It's cheaper to build a database and track each person flying. It is an invasion of privacy, but it is cheaper.
It would be possible to solve the problem of Middle Eastern terrorism, but it is expensive. It would require assistance to the desperately poor parts of the region, to build schools, hospitals, and the other things they need to support a decent life. It would require us to be willing to pay a higher price to get oil that is not purchased from tyrants. It would require us to give up our notion of "client states" and recognize that the people who are considered too poor and powerless to worry about today will be desperate enough to follow a madman tomorrow. But it's cheaper to try and spy and assassinate our way out of the problem. It won't work, of course, and will create bigger problems down the line, but it is cheaper than solving the problem.
The world didn't change last week, really. Many innocent people lost their lives in a senseless tragedy. The tragedy will be compounded if we don't start educating ourselves about the world we live in, and if we don't realize that there is no person on this planet too poor, too different, or too desperate to be important.
What new reality? (Score:2)
There is no new information here, nor has the nature of the enemy in fact changed.
The only thing I can see that's new is that this thing has made it more difficult for people in the US, and maybe some other places, to maintain their illusion of safety. Is a change in illusions now considered enough to be a "new reality"?
In fact, I'd argue that one reason some of the things that are proposed are counterproductive is that all people really want is something that restores precisely the illusion of safety. Reality is less important; as long as, by avoiding thinking too hard about it, they can convince themselves that something helps, that's good enough. People don't want to look too hard at what they're suggesting, because they may find something wrong with it... and they're afraid they may not come up with any better idea.
I'm not sure I give a damn about privacy any more myself, but that's not related to this incident.
The political system is NOT polarized John (Score:2)
When you talk to real people in the world you get a much better sense that we aren't so polarized. We all care about our personal liberties, we all care about safety, we call care about having a good government. Sometimes we may disagree on what those things mean, but overall I think most people aren't as polarized as we've been lead to believe.
We are constantly seeing opinion polls about people's stances on issues, and the very nature of these polls leads to an apparent polarization. Polls, in order to be statisically useful, must limit the possible answers to a question, such as, "are you for or against a woman's right to choose?"
This is yes or now, 1 or 0, left or right. Really, most people have much more subtle opinions. Where's the room in this question for somebody who believes that women need to have a right to choose, but only because there exist no adequate alternatives (fully subsidized day care, college education, etc). That perhaps given a better alternative, the right to have an abortion would be rendered somewhat irrelevant.
The problem isn't that we are a polar society, but rather we choose to frame our perceptions in terms of binary questions. Why? because it's easier that way. I think if we got beyond trying to measure things statistically using simplistic questions we'd rediscover the fact this this nation isn't as polarized as some would like us to believe.
A False Dichotomy, and a Strawman (Score:2)
This is not the case. There are many ways in which the security of this country can be improved without infringing upon our liberties. To take just one example, we have all heard many times in the past week about the lax security in airports. Security could be significantly improved if existing security procedures were implemented the way they were supposed to be.
"Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon, gaming sites, EZ-Pass toll systems, online retailers and other Web tracking services which have lists of our shopping, reading, entertainment habits and preferences." A strawman. For the most part, these involve people voluntarily giving up privacy. If you prefer not to give up that privacy, you don't have to do business with Napster, Amazon, etc. The thing that makes a world of difference is that some of the proposed measures invade citizen's privacy without the consent of those people. Likewise, when a corporation violates a customer's privacy without the customer's permission, slashdotters (rightfully!) complain loud and long.
Now I'm scared (Score:2)
So you say. I say that we hold certain rights to be self-evident and unalienable, creator-granted. While you can pretend to take these rights away from me, you can't actually do that. Even if a majority believes in violating those rights, the rights themselves do not change. They are inviolate. What you are in effect doing is demanding to violate these rights.
You can make yourself feel better by saying that it was necessary. You can come up with catch-phrases, nightly news encouragement, pop culture peer pressure, even the words of elected officials, and you can make yourself feel better. But understand this: it does not diminish these rights, not one bit.
Is it really our position that Wal-Mart can own the details of our lives, but that government agents tracking those people who murdered 5,000 of our fellow citizens can't?
Unless I give my consent, that is exactly my position. As far as I can see, and I have been paying attention, nobody has ASKED for my consent yet.
We might want to ponder what rights we owe the living and owed the dead -- the right to live, to be and have parents, to work or fly without being torn to bits or crushed in a collapsing inferno.
If our rights are collapsed, it will be a bigger collapse than if all the towers in every city were downed.
And when you think about such matters, think about this. Every patriotic song, every homily memorized by school children, every wartime slogan in US history basically says the same thing: we fight to protect the rights that we enjoy.
If we end up protecting the country the "easy" way - the way that doesn't work, if you take a look at what other countries have experienced terrorism - we will be defending it from a principle that no longer exists. When we sing "the land of the free" as the second-to-last phrase in the song that defines our patriotism, we will be hypocrites.
What rights do we owe the living and the dead? The very rights the country was founded upon, of course. If you believe that you are "safe" in a country that ignores not only its founding principles and the words of the document that describes exactly what the country is, what it can do and what it can't, you aren't paying attention.
6000 dead? Danger of 100,000 dead? It's a drop in the bucket -- and please, I am NOT being heartless here -- compared to the numbers of people killed by their own governments during the last century. We're talking into the hundreds of millions.
And if you want defended, let me tell you this. I personally am VERY willing to die to defend FREEDOM and LIBERTY. I would do anything to defend those principles. I am, however, completely UNWILLING to die to defend "the American way of life" where freedom and liberty are so easily given up as a part of that life.
Jon, Republicans are least likely to curtail speec (Score:2)
The key here is not that they have more powers to obtain information, but what is done with that information, especially if it does not further the investigation. I have no problem expanding the wire tap laws to allow these groups more leeway, but I want them balanced by the requirement of utmost sensitivity of what is collected, and the requirement of destruction of said documents within 30 days if their value is shown to be non existant. (for non-Americans I think this rule could be extended to 90 days or ignored).
The terrorist won't win if we allow more investigative powers, the system will win. Criminals are gradually reducing the ability of our Police and government from protecting us. Did you see the case in Washingston state where they ruled the local police could not use taps and undercover investigators because it wasn't "honest". What kind of crap is that? I'll tell you, when you put don't allow these people a chance to protect you they will not be able to.
Its a small price for freedom, just as 5500+ we lost on 9/11 was a small price. Freedom costs lives, unfortunately most of this generation never understood that. They do now.
You really think it's effective? (Score:2)
So he uses SpeakFreely, an encrypted telephone program that runs on a PC with a 14.4 modem or faster.
All right, you pass a law requiring him to give his keys to the government. He refuses to do so, and he's arrested for violation of the new "Big Brother Protects Americans Against Evil Encryption Act". He's sentenced to ten years under the BBPAAEEA.
As he's being led into the jail, another terrorist, this one acting alone and having planned everything outside the USA, detonates a car bomb right outside the first suspected terrorist's cell.
Any expanded power on the government's part will give the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. only a temporary advantage at best. Terrorists have spent their entire lives adapting and reacting to government actions-- why should this be any different?
And putting an "annual review" clause into any proposed legislation is bullshit. It will be miraculously amended out. If not, we'll get speeches every year about how there haven't been any planes flown into the WTC since the law was passed-- and it will be renewed by near unanimous votes. Maybe a senator will, in his infinite wisdom, pass more legislation that amends the expanded wiretap legislation to waive the annual review requirement.
What's it going to take to get the point across that violating civil liberties simply DOESN'T solve the problem? Do we have to institute a police state, and watch as the Empire State Building is bombed before we realize that freedom doesn't cause terrorism?
Come on, Jon. At the risk of sounding like the typical
Perhaps an extreme view but one to consider... (Score:2)
Personally I feel that we need to draw that line, to be willing to take that risk. Granted I say this from a perspective of not having lost anybody close to the attacks, so I might not sing the same tune if I was there. But I don't know, what do others think?
Investigation vs. surveillance (Score:2)
Previous suspensions of civil liberties eventually went away because they were too expensive to keep up after the threat was over. The new ones being proposed won't have that drawback - if we give up oversight this time, we'll never get it back.
Not a black and white issue (Score:2)
American Notions Of Privacy (Score:2)
Our protections against unreasonable searches and seizures is an area of the law that the Supreme Court has been actively involved in for at least the past four decades. The Supreme Court defines the minimum level of rights that must be observed. Government is not allowed to respect less, although it may respect more. The goverment is currently being pressured by events to grant only the minimum it must to its citizens.
A packet does not, by being a packet define an appropriate level of privacy rights. A packet destined for a public IRC channel should probably not have any more privacy before arriving at the server than after being distributed by the server. The sender's reasonable expectation of privacy upon transmission is zero. However, it is generally illegal for anyone other than the recipient to read unencrypted email. Therefore, there is a reasonable expecation of some privacy.
The reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic media, is then defined by social norms regarding the application that generates or receives the packet, but not anything much else about the packet itself.
One would think that the use of strong encryption would lead to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Which is to say that when someone reads the packet and sees that it contains encrypted data, while the headers might or might not be deemed private, encryption sends a signal about privacy apart from whether or not it really is effective.
In the end, privacy (as defined socially rather than technologically) requires establishing a public norm that can be understood by legislators, law enforcement, prosecutors, and, in the end, judges. Political and social isolation is a recipe for losing privacy in an evolving electronic world.
Absolutly Not! (Score:4, Insightful)
millions more are in danger of losing certain rights because of the new wiretapping and surveillance authority the Justice Department is seeking.
That is correct. The way Americans have been talking, they are ready to sign away the constitution. "Sure, search my email, scan my phone calls, whatever it takes" has been the rally cry of the people. The government doesn't have to try too hard to justify the removal of privileges. Don't you ready your own message board? In a different article (search is down), a representative in congress said "Once your rights are taken away, they are rarely given back. No one in Congress wants to seem soft on terrorism or soft on Crime." We are talking about amending surveillance rules, and they may never be amended back.
Many people worry that once these powers are granted, they will never be given back.
Yep. See the above. Laws made in the heat of passion stay on the books. Law makers won't change the law for the appearance it makes. Try reading the article that was posted by CmdrTaco about the subject of liberties and the rush to have them taken away.
These terrorists are technologically skilled, government authorities say. They use the Net to e-mail one another, and to send encrypted files, sometimes online, at other times via Zip disks or other media. They move money online, make plans there, thus avoiding possible interception by traditional intelligence monitors listening to phone and cell calls. Is it really totally unreasonable for authorities to seek broader powers to follow these conversations?
The short answer is Yes, it is unreasonable. "Here is a good idea. Let's ban crypto. And screen cell calls. And read all email. And Faxes. What? You are against this? You must have something to hide!" I can see it now. Besides, if you implement the above, the bad guy can always use another system. The Bad guy will figure out a way to communication. Meanwhile, the good guy (you too Jon) will have all our private communications analyzed and recorded. (sarcasm) Sounds like a peachy system to me! (/sarcasm)
Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon, gaming sites, EZ-Pass toll systems, online retailers and other Web tracking services which have lists of our shopping, reading, entertainment habits and preferences.
Damn, looks like you don't read slashdot after all. Most of us are FAR from happy about giving up our rights. Most of us hate to register (which is why every time there is a reg. required link in a slashdot story, someone always posts a way to get around it). You are really out of touch Jon if you think the people are happy about our losses of privacy and the sharing and selling of personal information.
. Any new laws to fight this new kind of war ought to be temporary, and self-expiring, perhaps subject to annual review.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Yea right! Even if they were self-expiring or needed to be reviewed, no one would ever dare vote against a proposal that "fights crime." They wouldn't have a job any more. Even if the law did go away, you are still talking about a couple of years of impeding MY and YOUR freedoms. I don't remember a suspension clause in the Constitution........
I will NOT support any measure to take away MY freedoms, even for a little while. If the CIA (or whomever) wants more power to spy over seas, I can support that. I will NOT support any measure that increases the government's ability to spy on Americans like myself. ABSOLUTLY NOT!!!
Sounds like pretty good words to remember at a time like this. What price are you willing to pay for freedom. I will protect the security of the United States, but I will NEVER agree to ANY SUSPENSION of FREEEDOM!
Why Do We Need Privacy? (Score:2, Insightful)
If we are not ashamed of our actions, why do we care if anyone observes them?
If we are ashamed of our actions, shouldn't we change our behavior? (Either don't do it or don't be ashamed of it.)
Don't you think this world would be a better, safer place if everyone behaved as if they were being watched?
Zen
Too easy to circumvent... (Score:2, Insightful)
The terrorists apparently (according to media reports) used the NYC public library and Hotmail to communicate. Neither place stores such messages in any way beyond what the users keep. And there's no indication that they used encryption for these communications - they just used public access and free accounts to fly "below radar". You can also encode messages into the content - as a series of text messages or encode it inside images or MP3 tracks - rather than simply encrypting text.
Going lo-tech like this (and using phone cards like the OKC bombers did) drives law enforcement crazy trying to recreate/retrace steps. If the terrorists are as tech savvy and wiley as the Justice department paints them to be then they'll just shift tactics giving them the same protections they have now - but stripping Americans of their personal privacy protections..
I fully support the right of (and agree with the needs of) law enforcement to protect us and pursue people who break the law - but I don't trust law enforcement to "police" themselves when given wide berth to perform their duties.
While I sympathize with the idea of feeling a deep personal loss that is the wrong time to enact laws, strike back blindly or make rash decisions. (I admit that other than finding out that one of the terrorists lived about a block and a half from my house my personal involvement in the tragedy is relatively limited.) The law is suppossed to be the fair handed and impartial enactor of what society views as necessary - that's why the state can execute someone but you can't - even if you're the aggrieved party.
Anyway - I didn't mean to go on like that... this is my first post since last Tuesday - suddenly my karma points seemed unimportant... The bottom line is - remedies NEED to address REAL problems and provide REAL solutions to those problems not just band-aid fixes that hurt in the long run and don't help - even in the short term. I don't trust our (largely) tech-ignorant Congress to pass good laws on difficult issues on such short notice when they have (mostly) law enforcement as advisors and consultants.
=tkk
Uh-oh (Score:2)
Now he will refer to everything as "post-WTC."
Spot this phrase and win $10!
:)
What worries me... (Score:2)
Worry #1, we are making the assumption that we CAN identify encrypted communications. We've seen a number of posts on
Worry #2, "it starts when you're always afraid, step outta line, the man come and take you away, we better stop..." Will the simple act of sending and encrypted email make you a suspected terrorist?
Stonewolf
Quotation from "For What It's Worth" By Stephen Stills
What do we value more? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is easy in what is perilously close to being a time of war to think of nothing but getting a bigger hammer. If he hits me, I will simply hit him back harder. Perhaps, in fact, we ought to have hit him back first. Maybe that would solve everything? Or maybe not.
It would be easy for us to slip right back into the Mcarthy mindset of the 1950's, having learned absolutely nothing in the past half a century. It was 1949 when George Orwell wrote about what happens when government interferes too much with the citezens' private lives. Do we want for him to have been right after all?
We Americans are now being called on to look into our hearts and weigh our freedoms against protecting our national identity. A difficult proposition for a country whose national identity is freedom. A country under attack because of our freedoms. Now more then ever it is vitally important that we not let go of those freedoms. That is just what the terrorists want us to do.
"Freedoms" (Score:2)
However, some of the things being proposed on the technology front, (specifically Encryption Backdoors), will do absolutely nothing to make us more secure, and will in fact, make us less secure. All it does is show us how ignorant our legislators are w/r/t technology. Terrorists won't upgrade to the Govt-approved Crypto software, or will encrypt their messages before using it (just using Pronouns can go a long way.). Non-terrorists will have traded some security for absolutely nothing. When terrorists find the back door, we'll all be in trouble.
I know this and you know this, but I just don't have the heart to write Hillary or Chuck (my senators) and tell them this while the state and the country mourns.
A few observations (Score:3, Insightful)
Those who are shouting loudest about freedoms are those who were least (physically) affected by Tuesday's catastrophe.
Note that I emphasise the physically part. Everyone on the planet (well, maybe with the exception of some stone-age tribes in the Amazon jungle) was emotionally affected. The biggest distinguishing factor was the physical impact. The loss of a family member or friend; or even just being in New York has altered some people's worlds drastically.
Yes, I really do believe it's that polarized, and yes, I really do believe that many of the arguments are entirely selfish ones. Me, me, me. Give it a rest! There happen to be 5,999,999,999+ other people who happen to be affected by all of this. For once, humanity needs to think on a GLOBAL scale, not merely on what they can personally get out of it.
To those who advocate the loss of freedoms -- exactly what is this supposed to achieve?
Ok, now to those who argue that freedoms should be protected at all costs...
The bottom line is that NEITHER approach works. No great surprise. You cannot add an unbalanced approach to an unbalanced situation, and get a balanced society.
It is impossible to prevent these kinds of hostilies by adding yet more hostility to the equation. The maths is very simple, but those in England and Ireland learned that it is also painful to accept. The only answer to war is peace and the only answer to factionalism is unity.
Sure, there's still violence in England and Ireland, but people aren't living in fear that pubs in Birmingham, or shopping centers in London or Manchester are going to turn to smouldering rubble the next day. Disarmament on a real scale has become a very real possibility. A BIG change from the last 20 years, where bomb drills were routine in schools, celebrities got gunned down or blown up, and transport systems were regularly targetted.
There may very well be "sleepers" in the American population, agents from all sorts of countries. America has probably more than a few of its own in other countries. The ethics and international legality of such agents can be debated to the ends of the earth, with no solution likely.
But if there ARE "others" amongst us, how are they remaining others? How are they able to have zero empathy for those they live around, every day of their lives? (After all, if they DID have empathy, they could not do anything to harm those they cared about. Empathy is a far stronger force than all the agencies in the world.)
In short, why are Americans so bloody frigid that Afghans can live here for many years and not gain one iota of compassion? Sure, they're the ones who flew those planes, but ALL OF US are responsible for creating a world in which they were emotionally capable of doing so.
THAT is the key to all of this. Meaningless phrases and turgid responses don't bring people closer. They are the wall we hide behind, to avoid people. We avoided them, alright. We avoided them so bloody well that 18 of those people decided to wipe out 6,000+ others.
Pink Floyd has it absolutely right. Our callousness, coldness, cruelty, emotional abuse, our entire self-centered perspective, are just bricks in The Wall. And, as their video described, The Wall leads to militancy, extremism and violence. Just as we've seen in Afghanistan.
The choice would seem to be simple - polarity and the continued building of The Wall, or tolerence & peace.
I know which I'd prefer, but I also know which way the world is heading. Does anyone have a spare cryogenics facility they can lend me?
Re:Just get rid of the Muslims and Islam lovers (Score:2, Insightful)
The Muslim religion does NOT breed violence and hate... that seems to have more to do with the geography and history of that religion. My roommate of 4 years in college was a Muslim, and he's told me a good deal about his religion. It doesn't preach hate or violence. That's a human trait. Hell, look at the things the Catholic church has done.
Don't group all Muslims together. They're as varied as any other group.
Re:One example. (Score:2)
You're right, though.
Re:Franklin (Score:2)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
The thing you need to read there is essential. Then you need to remember that Ben Franklin lived during a period of history where (compared to what we've had) terrorism was the equivalent of an Amish couple throwing old fruit at people from a moving buggy.
You look at the images from New York, think about that fact, then think about how essential it is that no one can read that email between you and your wife.
Re:Franklin (Score:2)
Then you need to remember that Ben Franklin lived during a period of history where (compared to what we've had) terrorism was the equivalent of an Amish couple throwing old fruit at people from a moving buggy.
Tell that to Guy Fawkes. Had the Gunpowder Plot succeeded, we might very well be carrying on this discussion in French, if at all. Not that Fawkes was any supporter of the French, but it's hard to picture them NOT capitalizing on the results had he been successful.
Re:Franklin (Whoops) (Score:2, Insightful)
It takes on a interesting shade of meaning when fully and correctly quoted doesn't it? Consider the word essential.
What is an essential liberty? Is freedom of movement? Yes. Is boarding an airplane essential? No. Is the freedom to associate? Yes. Is using electronic communications? No.
The difficulty is when you attempt to live in world full of artifical dichotomies. "It's this way or that way." The world is fully of shades of gray, but many people insist on black and white.
Dropping the word "essential" from Benjamin Franklin's quote is a convenient way to force the discussion into black and white terms.
No (Score:2)
Re:We EFF types knee-jerk too (Score:2)
Re:Walmart vs. the U.S. (Score:2)
Enough (Score:3, Insightful)