Seriously thoughtful They want to know all about you

[SameOldStory]

Lets forget that a lot of what you do online may end up in Google.

And, most certainly lets forget about the outrageous violations of the Bush wiretapping of terrorist suspects.

Lets talk about the benefits of wiretapping. And there must be many.

I've read here or there about the ability of Amazon to track your reading thru the Kindle. That seemed to concern some. Not me, I've got a clear conscious.

But some who don't may want to think of amending their ways. Your big brother wants to look out for you.

Obama wants unfettered access to your Internet activity _ Access is a little slow, as you might guess.

"Despite outrage over George Bush's limited ability to wiretap into American phone calls, Obama wants to take it a step further and be able to monitor every single form of communication any American citizen uses.

The same kind of authority the government has to wiretap into phone calls could be coming to Facebook, instant messaging, and every American's browser history, thanks to a push from the Obama administration.

The White House plans to introduce a bill into Congress next year that would give Obama the ability to tap into literally every communication any citizen makes online."


The New York Times is a little faster.
U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

"Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally."

And people were woried that Amazon could track what books you were reading.

[happy_terd]

They are already tracking us.

This bill just means that they have to publicly admit it.

[SameOldStory]

The difference is that if they monitor what you do illegally they can't do anything to you.

But if it becomes legal to do so, they can punish you for whatever it is that they don't like.

It could make the country a better place.

I mean suppose someone had a Kindle that they knew was stolen. They could track down the sorry --- thru MR and raid his home to arrest him.

Think "Minority Report". Now you've got the idea. It's a wonderful world.

[dsvick]

Isn't Bill Gates already doing this? How the heck am I going to get my money for all the emails I'm forwarding?

Seriously though, I've always been of the opinion that if you're not doing anything wrong then this should not concern you too much.

I understand the potential for abuse and whole privacy thing but seriously, the chances of some poor government schmuck recording and reading your IM conversation with girl in accounting, or, even worse, the long email complaint your mom sent about aunt Milly and her scandalous ways, are slim to none.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

But if it becomes legal to do so, they can punish you for whatever it is that they don't like.

No, because they can still only punish you for things that are illegal. Ok, that is not exactly true, but anything they did to you for something that was not illegal would, in itself, be illegal. And I don't think that were so far gone as a society that they could get away with that sort of thing for very long.

[LCF]

I'm frankly frightened. It looks too much like 1984 to me...

[SameOldStory]

I have a theory.

The US economy really is going downhill.

This could be a great way to increase employment.

Just think. You are being watched. Someone is watching the watcher. And someone has to watch them.

And then you have all the support personnel.

[poohbear_nc]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

I have a theory.

The US economy really is going downhill.

This could be a great way to increase employment.

Just think. You are being watched. Someone is watching the watcher. And someone has to watch them.

And then you have all the support personnel.

The now-unemployed census takers?

[GeoffC]

Just as long as you keep it across your side of the water ....




Eh !





What .... wait ......

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Just as long as you keep it across your side of the water ....

Why would we want to do that?

"To counter such problems, officials are coalescing around several of the proposal’s likely requirements:
...

Foreign-based providers that do business inside the United States must install a domestic office capable of performing intercepts."



Look at it this way - Suppose there was someone in the US conspiring with someone in the UK to break the law by removing DRM from an ebook?

THAT is international crime! Something must be done.

We have a law in the US that allows for the confiscation of all your property and any assets that we can find. It's called the RICO laws.

It was once intended to be used sparingly against organized crime in situations where they know that you are guilty of something, but just can't get the evidence. You know, people keep dying, suddenly can't remember anything, gone camping deep in the jungles of New Guinea. That kind of stuff.

Technically it must involve at least two people to be considered "organized crime". It doesn't have to be more than two, though. But that email you sent to your buddy in Biloxi, Mississippi? The one where he asked you to strip out the DRM and send it back to him? International organized crime.

"NO," you say. That can't really happen. That's a law to be used against BIG crime syndicates.

Not really. In Unrepentant Whore: Collect Works of Scarlot Harlot we have this quote - "My case was the first time the RICO laws were used (for prostitution (added by me))...." - page 150.


And they say that the "old west" was lawless.

[nekokami]

There's a pretty big difference between "wanting unfettered access to online communications" and "requiring all services that enable communications... to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order." A court order is not "unfettered access." I would oppose warrantless taps of any form of communication, but we have a system of court warrants for a reason. I don't want anyone, including the government, going around the warrant system. As far as I can see, this would strengthen the warrant system and the courts, by setting a clear standard for law enforcement to meet if they want to investigate private electronic communications, just as they are supposed to meet a certain standard to search my house or stop my car.

But then, I believe the rule of law is an ideal worth pursuing, and better than any other systems I know of in use in the world. Some folks might prefer to believe that anarchy would be better, because if people didn't have someone trying to enforce rules, they'd automatically behave better. Or something like that.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by nekokami

There's a pretty big difference between "wanting unfettered access to online communications" and "requiring all services that enable communications... to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order." A court order is not "unfettered access." I would oppose warrantless taps of any form of communication, but we have a system of court warrants for a reason. I don't want anyone, including the government, going around the warrant system. As far as I can see, this would strengthen the warrant system and the courts, by setting a clear standard for law enforcement to meet if they want to investigate private electronic communications, just as they are supposed to meet a certain standard to search my house or stop my car.

But then, I believe the rule of law is an ideal worth pursuing, and better than any other systems I know of in use in the world. Some folks might prefer to believe that anarchy would be better, because if people didn't have someone trying to enforce rules, they'd automatically behave better. Or something like that.

I agree.

There doesn't seem to be anything to suggest this law is about giving the government unfettered access to all your communications without oversight or the need for a warrant. It is simply about ensuring that if there is a need for monitoring then the technology is capable of allowing the monitoring.

Now, if the government is routinely abusing it's monitoring laws by circumventing the court warrant system, that is an entirely different matter.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by nekokami

But then, I believe the rule of law is an ideal worth pursuing, and better than any other systems I know of in use in the world. Some folks might prefer to believe that anarchy would be better, because if people didn't have someone trying to enforce rules, they'd automatically behave better. Or something like that.

And when the "Rule of Law" is unjust, or applied with malice?

Slave Law in the American South
"Slavery in the American South could not have existed without the authority of law defining slaves as the property of their masters."

Slavery in modern Africa
"Slavery in Africa continues today. Slavery existed in Africa before the arrival of Europeans - as did a slave trade that exported millions of Africans to North Africa, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf. In comparison, there are more than twice as many slaves in Modern Africa than in Pre-Civil war America"

The Nuremberg Laws
"rallies at Nuremberg; on September 15, 1935 the "Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor" was passed, preventing marriage between any Jew and non - Jews. At the same time, the "Reich Citizenship Law" was passed and was reinforced in November by a decree, stating that all Jews, even quarter- and half-Jews, were no longer citizens of their own country."

[SameOldStory]

So, can I assume that the two of you supported Bush's Patriot Act?

Not only did Obama think it was a good idea, he wanted it extended, almost before he did anything else.

March 26, 2009 - Obama renewing Bush's Patriot Act Provisions


What are we worried about? Organized crime and terrorists. State supported terrorism and Organized crime have the resources to develop effective countermeasures to what is proposed.

U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet
"But as an example, one official said, an investigation into a drug cartel earlier this year was stymied because smugglers used peer-to-peer software, which is difficult to intercept because it is not routed through a central hub. Agents eventually installed surveillance equipment in a suspect’s office, but that tactic was “risky,” the official said, and the delay “prevented the interception of pertinent communications.”"

The best way to guarantee the ability to have access when they want/need it is to have it built into ALL computing devices that are capable of sending OR receiving information.

These laws may be needed. But there will be times when they will be misused.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

So, can I assume that the two of you supported Bush's Patriot Act?

I neither supported nor opposed it as I do not live within the USA and it has nothing to do with me.

I only commented on what I know of this proposed law. There does not appeart to be anything in the proposed law that seems to suggest your government wishes to be able to covertly monitor everyones communications without the need for any oversight or warrant etc. In other words, it does not appear they are trying to pass a law giving "unfettered" access to all your internet communications.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

These laws may be needed. But there will be times when they will be misused.

There may well be times the laws are misused. As I said in my original post, that is a different matter.

Are you suggesting the law enforcement of your country should not have any power to conduct surveillance of suspected criminals? Because if you oppose the idea of giving them power to monitor internet communications then logically you should oppose all forms of communication surveillance. What is the difference between monitoring your skype conversation compared to monitoring your telephone conversation?

Just my two cents of course.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by dsvick

Seriously though, I've always been of the opinion that if you're not doing anything wrong then this should not concern you too much.

Why should it not concern me? The UK law (I know the original article is about changes in US law, but the whole "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality is not limited to any one country) still has a presumption of innocence; monitoring my conversations "just in case" presumes that I am being considered potentially guilty.

No, because they can still only punish you for things that are illegal. Ok, that is not exactly true, but anything they did to you for something that was not illegal would, in itself, be illegal. And I don't think that were so far gone as a society that they could get away with that sort of thing for very long.

You can be punished under suspiscion of doing something that may be illegal, as well; even if you are later found innocent at trial, or even released without charge before trial.

OK, you may not get a jail sentence, and your name may end up being officially cleared, but the simple act of being investigated could have devasting effects. Some accusations, it seems, don't easily shift once the suspiscion has been planted.

For example, imagine people you knew - family, friends, employers, co-workers etc - found out you were being investigated for paedeophilia because your credit card had been used to buy child porn. That as part of the investigation the police had conducted a raid on your house, seized your PC etc. You may lose your job, the support of friends and family. There will be that suspiscion attached to you. And this before a trial has even taken place.

Then imagine that it is discovered that your card has been used, but not by you - that you are a victim of credit card fraud, to be precise. Even if at this stage your name is cleared you have still been punished for something you didn't do. And because many people subscribe to the "no smoke without fire" mentality, you may continue to be punished by parts of society for a crime you didn't commit.