Comments Page 2
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
snipper_cr @ 27th Dec 12:28PM:
Looking?
I am just curious as to what they are looking for. People who have signed up for websites hosting child porn? People who have sent or received large quantities of spam email (to find out who is sending them) to maybe enforce the can-spam act, some NSA program to hunt down terrorists?
I guess if its for any of those reasons, I shouldnt have too much worry. I mean, nothing I am sending would I not want the government to know (except that I am pissed at the Air Force Academy for not accepting me....and then I want them to know that anyways!)... but then again I think there is a certain amount of privacy to be allowed, even if you are not doing anything illegal.
Yet then it brings up the argument, "If you are not doing anything wrong, why hide it?" Kind of catch 22 if you are interested in national security but still want privacy.
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signal
reply
La Luna @ 27th Dec 12:29PM:
Re: So?
said by jwardl :
Anyone who's even a little tech-savvy knows there's no expectation of privacy when it comes to email. Every server your email passes through on the way to it's destination (including the destination) is a potential weak point. In a sense, email security is a bit like printing a dozen copies of a note and flinging the stack across your office toward the recipient.
As for the feds "spying" -- I don't have any problem with it. If the search for terrorists leads some g-man to check my email, hey, have a look! Since I have nothing to hide, and am not in communication with Al-Quida or any of it's operatives, I have nothing to worry about. The fact is, there are MILLIONS of emails flowing back & forth every day (most spam, unfortunately). There simply are not (and CAN NOT) be enough personnel to personally read every email from start to finish. Software scans them for patterns, and those flagged get a closer look. Even then, unless your email has specifically what the feds are looking for, it's passed over. You could admit to robbing a bank in an email, but if the purpose of the search is to find terrorists, the message will be ignored. There are specific protections built-in that prohibit agencies from sharing information in this manner. The only exception is when it comes to terrorist-related activity, which can be shared by any agency with Homeland Security.
Please don't confuse people with facts. :D
That is exactly right....maybe 1 in 10,000 emails/phone lines are tapped for further investigation by computer and even then, most are knocked out after further computer scrutiny, and rarely ever get to the point of an actual human reading or listening in. If it gets to that point, there's probably something to be concerned about.
People have this ridiculous vision of thousands upon thousands of "secret" government employees sitting around reading every email and listening to every phone conversation. :uhh:
--
~~Well, I think you're crazy, I think you're crazy, I think you're crazy, just like me...~~
reply
roc5955 @ 27th Dec 12:29PM:
Doh!
Anyone who's fool enough to not ENCRYPT their email these days, deserves to have it looked at.... By EVERYONE!!!
I have this conversation with my lusers every day. They want to know how private their email is, as I log in to the server, and read it back to them.
Then I get the "but it's confidential" bs from them, and I tell them to encrypt it with any of the many available tools out there, and they look at me like I have three heads!
Go figure.
reply
jniamehr @ 27th Dec 12:31PM:
Re: No
What makes the government circumventing google and going right in to our email? What if Bill Gates is in cahoots with our government and built a back door? I know ppl are going to blast me for saying concpiracy theory but come on these guys are out right saying we can check your email nanny nanny poo poo, slippery slope? I think were already there.
reply
Sr Tech @ 27th Dec 12:39PM:
Re: Before....
You are correct LaLuna, I do not mind if the Feds are looking at as I have nothing to hide. The problem lies when Marketing groups deep down inside want the same privilege so they can invade your life personally. This has been along and awaiting item to happen just that Bush has had the guts to actually implement these tack ticks to secure the country but in reality Bill Clinton was willing to give this country away for his own benefit. You say no I thank Mr. Clinton for brining us to the issues we have today.
reply
JazzJRabbit @ 27th Dec 12:41PM:
Re: Email Never Private
Your mail is private (except for addresses on the outside part of the envelope) even if it's not encrypted, why shouldn't your email be? It's the same thing and should be treated the same.
reply
kamm @ 27th Dec 12:44PM:
Re: Rant alert!
said by JSRoman :
I predict major marco rant before 2pm eastern on this thread.
At least he can make his case, unlike some others who can only post empty adhom provocations like this...
reply
JazzJRabbit @ 27th Dec 12:55PM:
Re: Looking?
said by snipper_cr :
Yet then it brings up the argument, "If you are not doing anything wrong, why hide it?"
How about "If you don't have any evidence of wrongdoing, why snoop in people's private lives?"
reply
PDXPLT @ 27th Dec 12:56PM:
Re: Email Never Private
said by JazzJRabbit :
Your mail is private (except for addresses on the outside part of the envelope) even if it's not encrypted, why shouldn't your email be? It's the same thing and should be treated the same.
It is not the same thing! Your (snail)mail is placed in a sealed envelope which is tamper-evident, and it is illegal for anyone other than the recipient to open.
Email isn't like this at all. I'm amazed that anyone thinks they have any expectation of privacy; it shows they don't really understand what it is: unencrypted text that is relayed, in the clear, between multiple servers, owned by multiple parties, before being delivered to the recipient. As others have pointed out, it makes about as much sense to expect email to be private as it does to expect snailmail postcards to be private; in other words, it makes no sense at all. Maybe "email" should be called "e-postcards" instead.
reply
JSRoman @ 27th Dec 12:57PM:
Re: Rant alert!
What are you his daddy? I'm sure MM can't stand up for himself. He still has an hour left.Should be good though. I bet will even include "captain bunnypants" in there. I'm impressed you were able to place a comment without cursing. That some type of New Year resolution? ;)
--
www.seabee.org
reply
Thaler @ 27th Dec 01:11PM:
Re: Email Never Private
said by cableties :
What are you hiding, there, Mr Misleading Enzyte crook?
(Funny commercials, misleading product)
Somehow I doubt it's what he's hiding, but rather looking out for his business. If government unwarranted e-mail searches were carried out, how many customers would still do business with him online? Any government search of e-mail could come up with your purchase, and I think people would be less-than-thrilled that their local government now has that information in its books.
reply
Thaler @ 27th Dec 01:16PM:
Re: OK...
said by Anonymous :
...so all of you terrorists, criminals and everyone else with something to hide DO NOT USE GMAIL UNENCRYPTED EMAIL.
Fixed. I believe this law would effect any and all e-mail servers on the internet, not just gmail. So now encryption is your only guarantee that your e-mail won't be rummaged through right away.
Regular postage for communications works, as I believe opening up and reading mail is still illegal...for now.
reply
Thaler @ 27th Dec 01:29PM:
Re: So?
said by jwardl :
As for the feds "spying" -- I don't have any problem with it. If the search for terrorists leads some g-man to check my email, hey, have a look! Since I have nothing to hide, and am not in communication with Al-Quida or any of it's operatives, I have nothing to worry about.
Well kudos for you. Meanwhile, other people actually give a hoot about their rights being eroded. Just because you are accepting about this doesn't necessarily mean everyone else has to.
Me personally, I'm not thrilled, as its historically hard enough for 3rd party e-mail servers to keep their own privacy act together. Now to hand over my inbox to the courts/government, I can nearly gurantee that the contents of my porn spam filter will be leaked/breached in the near future.
reply
Anonymous @ 27th Dec 01:32PM:
Re: OK...
Oh that was a joke :)
I seriously doubt they would use email to communicate.
reply
kamm @ 27th Dec 01:33PM:
Re: Rant alert!
said by squid7 :
And in this case will likely be a compelling rant.
As a Conservative I'm appalled, if this is the case, at the obvious disregard of the Fourth Amendment. Conservatives are supposed to be or are at least typically Constructionists but in this case the Administration is the farthest from it.
FYI: the so-called "Patriot" Act (I/II) violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
The last time you were entitled to full privacy was in 1977, before FISA was enacted - though FISA actually meant to be a restrictive and pre-emptive measure against reckless governmental abuse, triggered by the outrageous Watergate scandal of Nixon. FISA created a secret court with secret judges, charged to issue or deny search warrant requested by law enforcement agencies against foreign AGENTS. Not everybody, only AGENTS.
It was already an assault on the Fourth but still maintained its constitutionality by saying only a judge can issue a search warrant and by prohibiting prosecution based on evidence obtained by these search warrants. In other words these agents could be deported instead of trying them.
But government did not relax: ever since FISA was enacted they keep continuously pushing for more, keep cutting back your rights even further, ignoring the Constitution.
- 1978: Right to Financial Privacy Act
First time in history Fourth Amendment was clearly violated when federal agents were allowed to write their own search warrants, without the approval of a judge though it was limited to search warrants for records of financial institutions and still couldn't be used for prosecution.
- 1986: Electronic Communications Privacy Act
The net has broadened: now every FOREIGNER became target and the Act introduced the new form of self-written search warrants, National Security Letters (NSL), now legal for ANY financial data, in written or electronic form.
However EPA said the institution should notify you if they have received this "subpoena" targeting you and you had 10 days to challenge it before they will honor it. It wasn't the FISA judge but another federal judge and government had to justify its request for your data.
- 2001: Patriot Act
The "foreign" word disappears - now the FBI is entitled to write its own search warrants even in case of Americans, moreover the recipient of the NSL - ie financial institution - cannot tell you nor anyone else anymore it had received a request so literally there's no way to challenge it.
First and Fifth amendment, anyone?
- 2004: Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004
Suddenly literally any legal business has become 'financial institution' including the corner deli you buy your coffee and morning paper or retail stores, your insurance agent, everybody.
In other words now the government can get anything on their own without any oversight about anything and anybody.
The Constitution has been effectively dismantled by Congress and POTUS when they authorized and signed laws directly violating the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
PS: Strongly recommended literature: "Constitutional Chaos" by Napolitano and a relevant interview on this subject: »www.reason.com/news/show/36528.html
reply
Thaler @ 27th Dec 01:34PM:
Re: Before....
said by Sr Tech :
You are correct LaLuna, I do not mind if the Feds are looking at as I have nothing to hide...You say no I thank Mr. Clinton for brining us to the issues we have today.
Wow. Shifting the blame away from the administration where this is all going down, yet still pegging Clinton for all of life's ails in two steps. Quite the neo-con dream combination, I'd say. :D
reply
WileEC @ 27th Dec 01:41PM:
Re: Doh!
said by roc5955 :
Anyone who's fool enough to not ENCRYPT their email these days, deserves to have it looked at.... By EVERYONE!!!
I'm sorry, but that was a dumb, over-dramatic, sweeping statement. I don't encrypt my email, but then, I DON'T CARE IF "SOMEONE" LOOKS AT IT. I'm not sending emails containing plans for the next best selling widget or a suitcase nuke. What do I care if a cleared government agent looks at it? Or even someone at the ISP? I'm not stupid enough to email anything important. And guess what? The feds probably don't look at it as they would have no reason to... as would be the case with >99.99% of emails out there. If anything, they might just be interested in looking into your life because of your supa dupa encrypted emails though.
So here's my counter, over-dramatic, sweeping anti-anti government, anti-nerd statement:
Anyone who's paranoid (or criminal) enough to ENCRYPT their email deserves to be monitored by FEDERAL AGENTS!!!
Of course not, but that goes to show how stupid your statement is.
reply
anon @ 27th Dec 01:45PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Thaler @ 27th Dec 01:47PM:
Re: Looking?
said by snipper_cr :
Yet then it brings up the argument, "If you are not doing anything wrong, why hide it?" Kind of catch 22 if you are interested in national security but still want privacy.
How is it a catch-22? I'm interested in national security, yet I don't want the government needlessly in my affairs either. Personally, I believe we need a better border or cargo inspection currently more so than speed-pass access to citizen's e-mail inboxes, especially when its known that terrorists don't normally use such communication methods for sensitive information! The good ol' personal meet-n-greet can relay information while the feds are busy looking up terrorists' email porn spam fantasies.
reply
anon @ 27th Dec 01:47PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Thaler @ 27th Dec 01:48PM:
Re: OK...
said by Anonymous :
Oh that was a joke :)
I seriously doubt they would use email to communicate.
I know, but if you're a tech-savvy criminal, hoodlum, terrorist, etc. that insists upon using the latest and the greatest, encryption is still the way to go. :D
reply
anon @ 27th Dec 01:51PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Anonymous @ 27th Dec 01:57PM:
Re: OK...
Well I agree with that ;)
reply
bmn @ 27th Dec 02:16PM:
Re: Rant alert!
said by WileEC :
Let the moonbat paranoia begin!
Beside posting "moonbat" twice in the context of the discussion of this news item, is there anything INTELLIGENT you would like to add ? OR are you just going to throw around second grade level insults ?
--
Prove it...
reply
JakCrow @ 27th Dec 02:18PM:
Re: Doh!
It's always funny-sad to watch people give up their privacy because the government says to. Quick! Someone throw out another "If you have nothing to hide...." line.
reply
bmn @ 27th Dec 02:23PM:
Re: Email Never Private
Okay, then what about voicemail ? That would be a parallel between voice communications and what's up here. Its a stored communication and yet warrants are needed except in the case of when the person is deceased.
The law on this is pretty straight forward and it is absolutely ridiculous that so many people, especially so-called conservatives, need to be reminded of what the law is...
said by 4th Amendment :
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That law doesn't say that you should expect its protection only when said "papers" or "effects" can't be easily read or inspected.
--
Prove it...
reply
WileEC @ 27th Dec 02:29PM:
Re: Doh!
no, what's funny is how some people think that in the age of electronic communications and international terrorism that you can both have your privacy and have your life protected at the same time. People seem to think that their privacy is more important than protecting our overall way of life. I disagree. I am perfectly happy to give up some privacy in order to give the people who protect us the tools they need to keep both of us alive. You live in CA? I live in NY and I work in NYC. Those two little towers that went down used to be right outside my window. Try to remember that next time you talk about privacy.
Oh wait, I forgot... you guys think 9/11 was a conspiracy, too.
reply
anon @ 27th Dec 02:37PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Anonymous_ @ 27th Dec 02:38PM:
Re: Gmail?
said by dadkins :
Hope they like looking at spam! ;)
yes
have fun reading my 24280 pices of spam
--
Your Thread Is worth less With out Pictures :D
reply
yabos @ 27th Dec 02:40PM:
Re: Email Never Private
Email is only less secure because it travels along unsecure networks. Once it's on Google's server, which is private property owned by Google, the government shouldn't be able to get your email without a warrant. It IS the same as regular mail. In fact the government owns the mail service but they still need a warrant to read your mail. Just because it's in a simple paper envelope it's not secure either. You place trust in the mail carriers that they won't read your mail just as you trust Google can keep your information private.
reply
Anonymous_ @ 27th Dec 02:42PM:
Re: Email Never Private
said by yabos :
ou place trust in the mail carriers that they won't read your mail just as you trust Google can keep your information private.
have u hard of UPS,DHL,Fed-Ex?
--
Your Thread Is worth less With out Pictures :D
reply
yabos @ 27th Dec 02:43PM:
Re: Rant alert!
Ignorance is bliss. You think the government doesn't do anything wrong and is perfect and doesn't abuse it's power?? Think again. I bet the last time the government didn't do something illegal was probably the first year it was established. After that they realize they have so much power over everyone and can hide so much from the public that it's in their best interest to ignore the laws they expect people to follow.
reply
c0de @ 27th Dec 02:44PM:
Re: Gmail?
but even then. If i was to delete the item from my mailbox on my client/box and empty the trash that email will stay on the server for as long as the company or server own wants. I administer email servers, and some of them have recovery for up to a year for emails that have been "permantly" deleted. not to mention log files that contain header information...
reply
karlmarx @ 27th Dec 02:47PM:
Re: Rant alert!
Just because the government is ignoring the constitution, it doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy.
reply
yabos @ 27th Dec 02:47PM:
Re: Before....
Actually you're the one who brought up Bush before anyone else. There's no post above you at the time of this post that mentions Bush at all.
reply
anon @ 27th Dec 03:08PM:
Re: Doh!
That is why we have a thing called warrents. In my opinion, email should be treated like regular postal mail that it's against the law to open up someone elses mail. Think about it, having access to someone else's email account is an identity thefts dream come true. You have your bank statements, credit card statements, various online accounts linked to that account, and personal information. Yes, it's easy to just say I will give up all my privacy and security to a magical unknown force and all of a sudden world peace would come upon us and we would all be safe, but that is not the case. I don't like the idea that some guy at my local isp can sniff my private instant messages, emails, and browsing activity. Slowly our rights are being taken away from us. We live in a time where if someone even suggests that an arab is linked to a terrorist organization that his whole life would be turned upside down and ruined. But I'm sure the whole arab community in America is fine with that as long as one day they might catch a real terrorist.
reply
JazzJRabbit @ 27th Dec 02:51PM:
Re: Email Never Private
Your rant is somewhat misguided. I know how email works and I know it is inherently insecure. Anyone can potentially intercept it at any point and read it. But so are phone lines or network cables if you can tap them, they are also insecure and also relatively easy to intercept, but they are illegal to tap. Why? Because it is the expectation of privacy and confidentiality.
By your logic if it's not secure, it should be public. That's wrong because there is no such thing as 100% secure transmissions and therefore there is no hard line that you can draw to determine what should be private and what should be public. Cyphering algorithms that were developed 30 years ago can be cracked on a $300 PC today, and algorithms that are now in use will be cracked just as easily couple of decades later.
The notion of privacy should not be based on whether the data is encrypted or not, it should be based on the expectation of privacy. You expect your snail mail to be private, and it is, even though a good expert could probably open and reseal the envelope without you noticing, you expect your phone conversations to be private, even though it is insecure as I could hook up couple of cables outside your phone box and listen on your conversation, you expect to be secure and your home, and you are, even though potentially anybody could peep into your window (the actual laws here depend on your location). The fact that all of the above actions (tapping phones, network, peeping) can be easily performed does not make them legal. The same should be with email.
You say your snail mail is private only because it is sealed. So what becomes of it when you open and read it? Can anyone openly read it? I highly doubt you would agree to that. The fact that email is stored on a third party server and potentially accessible while in transit does not make it public. It is still your private property (barring EULA of the servers).
reply
bmn @ 27th Dec 02:52PM:
Re: Rant alert!
said by WileEC :
Just who died and made you guys think your opinion means anything?
The same person that died and made you think that your opinion means anything... :uhh:
Do you even know what the reference to a moonbat pertains to? I guess not.
Yeah, it is some stupid derogative used by conservatives when talking about liberals who engage in conspiracy theories... It is also used, at times, to reference liberals in general by those who, apparently, aren't aware of the full context of its meaning.
Guess someone does know what they are talking about...
You have anything intelligent to add to the conversation ?
--
Prove it...
reply
yabos @ 27th Dec 02:52PM:
Re: Looking?
You bring up probably the most important point and it's similar to the illegal wire tapping making no sense to catch so called terrorists. Do you really think the bad people are using unsecured email and gmail? Of course they aren't. They have access to the 2048 bit encryption the rest of the world has and can easily make their own vpn to exchange data. All this does is infringe on the rights of ordinary citizens.
reply
hpguru @ 27th Dec 02:57PM:
Re: Gmail?
said by dadkins :
Hope they like looking at spam! ;)
LOL! That is a pretty good reason to stop blocking spam and sign up for more! Virus, trojan and rootkit infected spam too! Send it all! :D
--
Where's Jesus?
Dear Jesus!
reply
yabos @ 27th Dec 02:57PM:
Re: Doh!
I guess you don't care if you're randomly stopped by police to check your identity. That used to happen in Nazi Germany if you remember. It starts off innocently enough, checking who you are. What do you care you have nothing to hide right? I'm not saying the US is just like that but it's going towards it and you people should be more careful with what the government is allowed to do. There are proposals to have checkpoint thoughout the US where you will have to check in when you are travelling. The govenment will be able to track you wherever you are going.
reply
bmn @ 27th Dec 02:58PM:
Re: Doh!
said by WileEC :
no, what's funny is how some people think that in the age of electronic communications and international terrorism that you can both have your privacy and have your life protected at the same time.
Well, apparently you don't know much about technology, because it is entirely possible for the privacy of people not breaking the law to be safeguarded while the "bad guys" can be wiretapped, listened in upon, etc. Modern technology provides the mean to selectively eavesdrop and monitor without impacting the communications of anyone else.
--
Prove it...
reply
JazzJRabbit @ 27th Dec 03:03PM:
Re: Doh!
And I'm perfectly fine with a 1 in a 60000 chance of dying every other 50 years due to a terrorist attack as opposed to government having access to my private live all the time on a whim without any oversight.
You want them to snoop on you, you're welcome to forward them all of your email and recorded phone conversations. Don't force others to do so.
reply
Anonymous_ @ 27th Dec 03:10PM:
Re: Gmail?
said by hpguru :said by dadkins :
Hope they like looking at spam! ;)
LOL! That is a pretty good reason to stop blocking spam and sign up for more! Virus, trojan and rootkit infected spam too! Send it all! :D
good idea
But what if they use linux or an apple computer
--
Your Thread Is worth less With out Pictures :D
reply
kamm @ 27th Dec 03:11PM:
Re: Rant alert!
said by WileEC :
Just who died and made you guys think your opinion means anything?
If you are unable to grasp a post on your own, feel free to ask for help instead of further embarrassing yourself with utterly meaningless/irrelevant posts like this.
Law isn't rocket science - with a little energy even you can get a basic understanding...
reply
Anonymous_ @ 27th Dec 03:14PM:
Re: Rant alert!
should that be rocket science and not coekt science
--
Your Thread Is worth less With out Pictures :D
reply
anon @ 27th Dec 03:20PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
major marco @ 27th Dec 03:24PM:
Re: Rant alert!
said by JSRoman :
I predict major marco rant before 2pm eastern on this thread.
Current time on the east coat: 15:24 H
How's that prediction workin' out for ya, Nostradamus. Use the magic 8-ball much?
--
The Toll
reply
WileEC @ 27th Dec 03:28PM:
Re: Doh!
oh really? and just how do you do that Mr. "I know about technology?"
You apparently live on a planet where technology is perfect and the good guys know exactly who the bad guys are. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in real life. You can't "selectively monitor" when you don't know who or where you should be monitoring. Therefore, by some means you have to monitor all of it and then investigate the tiny, tiny percentage that raise red flags.
That's reality getting in the way of your wonderful but amusing theory.
reply
WileEC @ 27th Dec 03:30PM:
Re: Doh!
don't worry, nobody is coming for you in Wheaton.
reply
WileEC @ 27th Dec 03:38PM:
Re: Doh!
said by fhdjdfg :
Think about it, having access to someone else's email account is an identity thefts dream come true. You have your bank statements, credit card statements, various online accounts linked to that account, and personal information. Yes, it's easy to just say I will give up all my privacy and security to a magical unknown force and all of a sudden world peace would come upon us and we would all be safe, but that is not the case. I don't like the idea that some guy at my local isp can sniff my private instant messages, emails, and browsing activity.
then don't use the internet, because anyone with a little networking know-how can likely sniff your connection and watch/record the traffic to and from your IP address. remember that. I already know your on optonline, so watch out. ;)
reply
JazzJRabbit @ 27th Dec 03:39PM:
Re: Doh!
I'm not.
reply
Maxo @ 27th Dec 03:39PM:
Re: Doh!
I would say that nobody deserves to have their e-mail looked at unless:
1. The person looking at the e-mail is one of the intended recipients.
2. Investigators have very good reason to believe you are engaged in criminal activity and have obtained a court ordered subpoena.
reply
Sr Tech @ 27th Dec 03:40PM:
Re: No
I still think Mr. Gates has had access to all windows machines for years which scares me even more than the feds.
reply
WileEC @ 27th Dec 03:47PM:
Re: Rant alert!
AWESOME! The head moonbat deleted my posts! LOL! I love how the liberals talk about free speech, but what they mean is free speech for liberals. HA HA!! This is so perfect!
FYI: I guess "moonbat" is a naughty word now!
reply
bigjimc @ 27th Dec 03:49PM:
Google Provides me Legal Council
When I am looking for legal advice I many times find my way to Google and search for council.
Since gmail is really google.com/mail it is really an extension of council and could be protected by privilege.
I know its a stretch but hey, its worth a shot.
reply
JSRoman @ 27th Dec 03:52PM:
Re: Rant alert!
said by major marco :said by JSRoman :
I predict major marco rant before 2pm eastern on this thread.
Current time on the east coat: 15:24 H
How's that prediction workin' out for ya, Nostradamus. Use the magic 8-ball much?
Crap. I owe you a dollar.
--
www.seabee.org
reply
anon @ 27th Dec 04:22PM:
Re: Doh!
That is true, but there should be laws enforced protected the average Joe's info, because a crap load of average Joe's makes a powerful weapon.
p.s. Don't be mad that you wish you kept OOL! lol take care
reply
JakCrow @ 27th Dec 04:09PM:
Re: Doh!
said by WileEC :
no, what's funny is how some people think that in the age of electronic communications and international terrorism that you can both have your privacy and have your life protected at the same time. People seem to think that their privacy is more important than protecting our overall way of life.
Our privacy is a part of our "overall" way of life.
said by WileEC :
I disagree. I am perfectly happy to give up some privacy in order to give the people who protect us the tools they need to keep both of us alive.
Then you're a fool. These "tools" do not keep us alive.
said by WileEC :
You live in CA? I live in NY and I work in NYC. Those two little towers that went down used to be right outside my window. Try to remember that next time you talk about privacy.
I don't give a rat's ass where you live, or your attempt to use irrational, over-emotional rhetoric when showing that you support the government being able to watch you pee. Your paranoia of the "tur'rists" isn't, and never will be, justification of the government's power grab.
said by WileEC :
Oh wait, I forgot... you guys think 9/11 was a conspiracy, too.
What a moronic comment, especially when no one has said anything of the sort. Do you always resort to putting words in peoples mouths when you get all defensive?
reply
bmn @ 27th Dec 04:09PM:
Re: Doh!
You apparently live on a planet where technology is perfect and the good guys know exactly who the bad guys are.
You don't need to know who ALL the bad guys are... You only need to know who some of them are. Once you know who some of them are, you can figure out who they communicate with and work from there. You monitor their communications, figure out who they communicate with and work along the chain of conversations.
You can't "selectively monitor" when you don't know who or where you should be monitoring.
You assume that the government doesn't know anything about the people that it needs to monitor. You are wrong. It knows enough that it can selectively monitor based on the people its knows about now.
That's reality getting in the way of your wonderful
but amusing theory.
Sorry, but you have not shown that to be the case...
Additionally, you haven't got a theory to stand on other than an overly extreme method of spying on everyone, so any alternative is better than that from a privacy and cost perspective. Welcome to the real world of facts, figures, costs and benefits.
Sorry, your method of monitor everything and sort it all out later falls flat on its face. Its not as effective as other methods that work and captures data points that should be captured in the first place. There are far more drawbacks to the wide net approach than you clearly appreciate.
--
Prove it...
reply
pnh102 @ 27th Dec 04:10PM:
Re: Email Never Private
said by bmn :
Okay, then what about voicemail ? That would be a parallel between voice communications and what's up here.
There is no comparison between voicemail and email. Email is the equivalent of sending a message on a postcard which anyone can read. Unless a voicemail is broadcast in public on a loudspeaker, you cannot compare it to email.
Besides... this sort of interception of "voice communications" was quite effective at killing a terrorist.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
reply
bmn @ 27th Dec 04:11PM:
Re: Rant alert!
said by WileEC :
AWESOME! The head moonbat deleted my posts! LOL! I love how the liberals talk about free speech, but what they mean is free speech for liberals. HA HA!! This is so perfect!
Yeah, like you conservatives are any better than the liberals... Same shit, different stink.
--
Prove it...
reply
bmn @ 27th Dec 04:17PM:
Re: Email Never Private
said by pnh102 :
There is no comparison between voicemail and email. Email is the equivalent of sending a message on a postcard which anyone can read. Unless a voicemail is broadcast in public on a loudspeaker, you cannot compare it to email.
It is, however, a stored communication, which is the context of this discussion, not how it is transmitted. Remember, in the context of this conversation, the context is the government going through stored communications, not communications in transit (wire tapping).
Either way, just because neither is encrypted, it does not exempt either of them from the expectation of privacy from government snooping granted by the fourth amendment.
--
Prove it...
reply
pnh102 @ 27th Dec 04:19PM:
Re: Email Never Private
Email is about as private as a mobile billboard. Read up on how email works from a technical level and you will see why.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
reply
pnh102 @ 27th Dec 04:30PM:
Re: Email Never Private
said by bmn :
Either way, just because neither is encrypted, it does not exempt either of them from the expectation of privacy from government snooping granted by the fourth amendment.
There is always the "probable cause" exception which is used by police when they believe that a crime is in progress, or is about to be committed. This allows for law enforcement to skip the process of getting a warrant if they believe that it will stop a crime in progress or prevent one from occurring.
There are also times when law enforcement will "bend" the rules in order to bring down a particular criminal. This includes the use of obscure laws in prosecuting offenders.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
reply
WileEC @ 27th Dec 04:30PM:
Re: Doh!
you know what? what you said may catch some of the fanatics... but certainly not all of them. the problem with what you said is that the government has to be perfect 100% of the time (and that ain't gonna happen!), whereas the people that want to bring this country down only have to be perfect once to cause serious damage.
and I seriously doubt that the feds know where all of the bad guys are - that seems rather delusional. They didn't in 2001 and they sure as hell don't know now.
reply
kyramilan @ 27th Dec 04:41PM:
Re: Gmail?
I guess the Dork has LOST his big vote of confidence and is now living LOW and Small with a scared little wife at home while the neighbors wonder when the raid is coming on his house. LOL! :uhh: :o
reply
roc5955 @ 27th Dec 04:46PM:
Re: Doh!
said by JakCrow :
It's always funny-sad to watch people give up their privacy because the government says to. Quick! Someone throw out another "If you have nothing to hide...." line.
In this case, I don't think that you are 'giving up' anything, because it wasn't there to begin with!
reply
roc5955 @ 27th Dec 04:51PM:
Re: Doh!
said by fhdjdfg :
That is why we have a thing called warrents.
WTF are *WARRENTS*? Or do you mean warrants?
Sure they can use warrants, but they don't have to. The FISA court has seen to that.
Look at the constitution, or any other law, or other document. Please tell me where a right to privacy is guaranteed?
Quote it to me. Give me a source, anything. I can't find it anywhere.
reply
WileEC @ 27th Dec 04:56PM:
Re: Doh!
if you want 100% privacy, maybe go live in a cave in Afghanistan? I understand real estate is very reasonable there.
Yes of course, it would be great to have all the privacy we want, but that ideal is no longer practical. Concessions have to be made in order to deal with the current world situation of technology, travel, immigration, communication, mixed with those who are organizing in plain sight and behind the scenes to kill innocent people in order to advance their religion. I guess the train bombings in Spain and India, the bus bombings in London, the blasts in Bali, 9/11, the current jihad in Somalia, etc., etc., etc., aren't enough justification for my "paranoia." Your right, I must be nuts! That's funny, because I would say that you sir, are the one with an irrational paranoia. You are one worried about the US government spying on you, not I. THAT is irrational. FYI - People who blindly cling to inflexible ideals end up living in caves. It's a fact.
reply
rahvin112 @ 27th Dec 05:14PM:
Re: Doh!
said by WileEC :
no, what's funny is how some people think that in the age of electronic communications and international terrorism that you can both have your privacy and have your life protected at the same time. People seem to think that their privacy is more important than protecting our overall way of life. I disagree. I am perfectly happy to give up some privacy in order to give the people who protect us the tools they need to keep both of us alive.
So what other freedoms are you willing to give up in the name of fear?
Are you willing to surrender your DNA so that they can track down any criminal? How about fingerprinted as well? How would you feel about a camera in your bedroom? How about camera's in every room of your home accessible by any governmental employee for any reason? Are you willing to have a digital angel chip installed under your skin that can remotely monitor your position via GPS at any time?
After all, you have nothing to hide, right? Freedom of privacy is about far more than you are apparently able to comprehend. J. Edgar Hoover used the power of an unrestricted FBI to snoop on everyone he dealt with, he kept files on nearly everyone and used his information to blackmail and control people. Have you ever done anything that embarrassed you? What if you are vocal opponent of the local democratic candidate and he uses access to your personal information that "you have nothing to hide" and discovers something that he can use to blackmail you? What if he arranges to have your DNA sample placed on a murder weapon to discredit you? What if he turns your DNA over to your health insurance and they dump you because of a genetic precondition? Are you ok with that? Because when you talk about NOTHING to hide, you must mean NOTHING, no dark secret, no skeleton in your closet, no secret sex chat on the net and no enemies, future or present. NOTHING. Because as soon as you assume that you are willing to trade your privacy for a false sense of security you have surrendered your ENTIRE private life to public view.
Any sane person would realize that you aren't going to catch a single terrorist by having open access to email or private communications. Terrorists aren't caught by reading 8 billion emails without judicial oversight, terrorists are caught using LEGITIMATE police WORK, warm bodies following people, collecting evidence and watching associations. Terrorists are caught by infiltrating their ranks and conducting real human intelligence, not SIGINT.
You aren't trading privacy for security, you are giving your privacy away in fear with nothing to show for it. Basic freedoms established in the bill of rights were put there because our founding fathers knew of the abuse government and individuals acting in the name of government could make of them.
And can you explain to me why you think judicial oversight is some evil concept that prevents the police and authorities from catching terrorists? judicial oversight prevents abuse of power by the executive, yet people like yourself have this opinion that it blocks law enforcement from being able to catch anyone. Why? Did someone tell you that and you automatically believe it?
said by WileEC :
Those two little towers that went down used to be right outside my window. Try to remember that next time you talk about privacy.
And you honestly believe that if the government had unrestricted access to information that they could have stopped it? That being able to read 8 billion emails without a court order would have given them the ability to block 21 men from coming to America and living here for a year while they learned to fly planes? (and IIRC they only made about 4 phone calls, not email, outside the US while they were here)
I personally believe in real police work, not unrestricted access to the personal information of anyone for ANY reason. And I don't believe a single word of any politician or police official that says they need this access to stop terrorists. They want this access so they don't have to do real police work anymore. The patriot act privileges haven't been used in a SINGLE terrorism case. NOT ONE.
If you really supported ending terrorism you would support America ending it's dependence on oil. You would support a halt to the use of military and governmental intervention that our country engages in. And above all you would support a turning back inward of American interests and a neutral stance of foreign policy. We have played to long in other peoples business and it's time we returned our foreign policy to one of neutrality.
reply
bmn @ 27th Dec 05:17PM:
Re: Doh!
said by WileEC :
you know what? what you said may catch some of the fanatics... but certainly not all of them.
You don't need to catch all of them. You only need to catch enough of the information traveling between them to create a picture of what operations are going on.
the problem with what you said is that the government has to be perfect 100% of the time (and that ain't gonna happen!), whereas the people that want to bring this country down only have to be perfect once to cause serious damage.
Of course... the problem is that the government will never be able to catch them all of the time. Using the technique you propose generates FAR too much information to sort effectively and quickly. Done correctly, collecting data by focusing solely on known targets and their connections, you can get more accurate data without having to sort through mountains of chaffe.
and I seriously doubt that the feds know where all of the bad guys are - that seems rather delusional. They didn't in 2001 and they sure as hell don't know now.
No, but when you find one, you can locate other using the one you know about. Anyone he associates with becomes a person of interest and is monitored. Eventually the government can tell if they are a bad guy or not.
--
Prove it...
reply
bmn @ 27th Dec 05:24PM:
Re: Email Never Private
said by pnh102 :
There is always the "probable cause" exception which is used by police when they believe that a crime is in progress, or is about to be committed. This allows for law enforcement to skip the process of getting a warrant if they believe that it will stop a crime in progress or prevent one from occurring.
Probable cause, however, has oversight - probable cause hearings. The concern here is that records are being turned over and servers are being accessed without those hearings, meaning that the executive branch of the government is being given carte blanche access without any oversight from the judicial branch.
There are also times when law enforcement will "bend" the rules in order to bring down a particular criminal. This includes the use of obscure laws in prosecuting offenders.
And I will be the first to say that bending or breaking the rules to make an arrest violates the ethics of their profession. If they can't make the bust without resorting to such practices, they need to work harder at getting more evidence. Those rules aren't there to help the guilty, but to protect innocent.
--
Prove it...
reply
wtansill @ 27th Dec 05:54PM:
Re: Doh!
said by WileEC :
you know what? what you said may catch some of the fanatics... but certainly not all of them. the problem with what you said is that the government has to be perfect 100% of the time (and that ain't gonna happen!), whereas the people that want to bring this country down only have to be perfect once to cause serious damage.
and I seriously doubt that the feds know where all of the bad guys are - that seems rather delusional. They didn't in 2001 and they sure as hell don't know now.
The problem here is twofold:
•The approach that you favor tramples all over the civil liberties of every American. Maybe you don't care about that, but I do, and the excesses of our history (Japanese Interment, Joseph McCarthy, J. Edgar Hover and Richard Nixon to name a few) suggest to me that blind trust in the government is usually misplaced.
•The approach that you favor will lead to fewer terrorists being caught and a diversion of scarce money and manpower due to the overwhelming number of false positives generated by such an approach.
See these links for some details:
»www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2···for.html
»www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6784
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony.
reply
wtansill @ 27th Dec 05:59PM:
Re: Doh!
said by WileEC :
You live in CA? I live in NY and I work in NYC. Those two little towers that went down used to be right outside my window. Try to remember that next time you talk about privacy.
I live on the outskirts of Washington DC. That little hole in the Pentagon wall? Right down the street, as is Regan National Airport where the plane took off.
And I do care about my privacy, thanks for asking.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony.
reply
bent @ 27th Dec 06:14PM:
Re: Rant alert!
So, out of all the BS replies to this post, there's not a single refutation of anything the OP said?
Didn't think so.
I didn't even hear the worn out "won't somebody PLEASE think of the public safety" justification.
edit for typo
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau
reply
anon @ 27th Dec 06:16PM:
govmt or google?
I will be honest, I much rather prefer the government having access to my email than Google. I mean, at the very least, I know that the bureacrats are incompetent. :D
--
Don't you love it how people who know how to use computers also think they know how to run governments? :)
reply
bent @ 27th Dec 06:28PM:
Re: OK...
Yeah, the way to raise a flag on yourself. People who encrypt their e-mail are asking for it, unless it's some sort of subtle cypher that doesn't involve encryption of the data of the message itself. In fact, I would bet that people who use PGP are drawing just the attention they are trying to avoid.
The NSA has computing power that a lot of us have wet dreams about. It's a really simple matter for them to "look at" huge amounts of e-mail, and guess what? The ones that they can't read are going to interest them the most.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau
reply
Anonymous @ 27th Dec 07:03PM:
Re: OK...
So be it. People have every right to privacy.
reply
SSidlov @ 27th Dec 07:23PM:
Citations for 'Right to Privacy'
said by roc5955 :
Look at the constitution, or any other law, or other document. Please tell me where a right to privacy is guaranteed?
Quote it to me. Give me a source, anything. I can't find it anywhere.
»www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Privacy
FWIW: Privacy is mostly restricted to your own home, and mostly described as the right to 'be left alone' and not unduly interfered with by government agencies prying into the intimate matters of your person. Various federal agencies are responsible overseeing the 'privacy' of your transactions, financial or otherwise. Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of the 'right to privacy without undue interference.'
OT Comment on email:
While I agree with what you have posted technically (25+ years in IT), it is not a good policy to prove to someone's face that their email is so accessible, IMHO. It's fine to remind them that no email on the company's servers are private and that various policies of the company and perhaps laws (depending on the business) require that all emails be kept, etc. As someone who worked for banking organizations where individual and corporate financial information was easily available, you must not betray the customer's or users' trust, act on any communications that pass your eye by accident or in the course of business (e.g., buy/sell stock) etc. Most companies don't realize the extent that IT makes their businesses work, and the information that many IT employees have access to. It's unfortunate that most also just see IT as a cost center, and not a profit center that makes everything work together.
--
»www.Warpstock.org
reply
Thaler @ 27th Dec 07:23PM:
Re: OK...
said by bent :
The NSA has computing power that a lot of us have wet dreams about. It's a really simple matter for them to "look at" huge amounts of e-mail, and guess what? The ones that they can't read are going to interest them the most.
That's fine by me. I'll get a kick out of wasting taxpayer's money being blown in computer time for the NSA to read...my conversation to a college professor.
Plus, what happens when all those outraged by this begin to encrypt their messages? If a good chunk of internet traffic is encrypted, then how would one "stand out" then?
reply
RR Conductor @ 27th Dec 07:42PM:
It's time to do something about this!
You have to have a Search Warrant to open First Class Mail, the same should be applied to email. My dad was a US Postal Inspector for 20 years, and he had to have one to search mail, why should this be any different?
reply
jansson_mark @ 27th Dec 08:18PM:
I dont really mind that much... ;)
All what they can get from my Gmail account is this...ROTFLOL! You know, it really helps them a lot ;) of knowning that I have sent email to johndoe@gmail.com who happens to read hes emails via secure proxy...
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----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=8ICk
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
--
My computer security & privacy related homepage »www.markusjansson.net
Use HushTools or GnuPG/PGP to encrypt any email before sending it to me to protect our privacy.
reply
whatevrzclvr @ 27th Dec 08:20PM:
Re: Email Never Private
Good to see there's 1 rational thinker in this threat! Well said Jazz
reply
JakCrow @ 27th Dec 08:21PM:
Re: Doh!
said by WileEC :
if you want 100% privacy, maybe go live in a cave in Afghanistan? I understand real estate is very reasonable there.
Ah yes. The "leave the country" excuse. How quaint. Why would I want to go to another country to have privacy when I should have it here in the good 'ole U.S. of A.?
said by WileEC :
Yes of course, it would be great to have all the privacy we want, but that ideal is no longer practical.
Sez you and an over zealous administration. Sorry, I'm not willing to sacrifice my right to privacy, especially to such untrustworthy people.
said by WileEC :
Concessions have to be made in order to deal with the current world situation of technology, travel, immigration, communication, mixed with those who are organizing in plain sight and behind the scenes to kill innocent people in order to advance their religion.
Feel free to make those "concessions" on your own and leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves. I'm sure we can manage.
said by WileEC :
I guess the train bombings in Spain and India, the bus bombings in London, the blasts in Bali, 9/11, the current jihad in Somalia, etc., etc., etc., aren't enough justification for my "paranoia."
See above.
said by WileEC :
Your right, I must be nuts!
Indeed.
said by WileEC :
That's funny, because I would say that you sir, are the one with an irrational paranoia. You are one worried about the US government spying on you, not I. THAT is irrational.
No. That's the appropriate response to a government that has shown itself unable to act with any kind of responsibility when it comes to the privacy and civil rights of its citizens, and believes there is no accountability. It's not my fault you are willing to roll over so sheepishly.
said by WileEC :
FYI - People who blindly cling to inflexible ideals end up living in caves. It's a fact.
Oh grow up already. It doesn't matter how much idiotic rhetoric you try and dredge up, it's not going to make you right, it just makes you look like you can't think for yourself.
reply
totamak @ 27th Dec 08:25PM:
BS! But then unconstitutionality never stopped them before..
Interesting that the federal government feels it can search data stored on PRIVATE property (servers) owned by a PRIVATE enterprise (ISP) for another PRIVATE party (You the e-mail recipient) without warrant and/or notification just because it is sitting on someone else's equipment. By that logic, the LAPD could search a car merely because it's parked at the mall or in a parking garage not owned by the owner of the car.
reply
antdude @ 27th Dec 08:34PM:
Re: I dont really mind that much... ;)
said by jansson_mark :
All what they can get from my Gmail account is this...ROTFLOL! You know, it really helps them a lot ;) of knowning that I have sent email to johndoe@gmail.com who happens to read hes emails via secure proxy...
I decoded it and it said: "I am the best!" [grin]
reply
wifi4milez @ 27th Dec 08:35PM:
Re: So?
said by La Luna :
People have this ridiculous vision of thousands upon thousands of "secret" government employees sitting around reading every email and listening to every phone conversation. :uhh:
I can see it now; all the tin foil hat nutjobs on this site probably think that there was/were/are a bunch of guys in NSA baseball caps furiously scribbling notes while in some storage closet at AT&T. :p
--
я люблю медведей!
reply
Nerdtalker @ 27th Dec 08:41PM:
Re: Gmail?
said by dadkins :
Hope they like looking at spam! ;)
Hope they like looking at nothing, since I go through the long ritual required to actually delete something on Gmail.
Hope they also love browsing my spam-account.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.
reply
PolarBear @ 27th Dec 08:50PM:
Re: Email Never Private
Personally, I could care less if the feds find out I'm using a pill to enhance my h@rd on. My wife didn't get pregnant on her own!
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del.
reply
NJxxxJon @ 27th Dec 09:10PM:
Re: BS! But then unconstitutionality never stopped them before..
said by totamak :
Interesting that the federal government feels it can search data stored on PRIVATE property (servers) owned by a PRIVATE enterprise (ISP) for another PRIVATE party (You the e-mail recipient) without warrant and/or notification just because it is sitting on someone else's equipment. By that logic, the LAPD could search a car merely because it's parked at the mall or in a parking garage not owned by the owner of the car.
and WHO KNOWS if they would make LA a better or worse place to be.
--
{ { { If donating blood was TAX - DEDUCTABLE; I DO IT! } } }
reply
whizkid3 @ 27th Dec 09:39PM:
Re: I missed it
I missed it too. However, the web link provided, unfortunately does not display all of the code sections to get a full sense of the related code. I could not find section 2518, which is listed as one of the exceptions to section 2501 (a), 'Unlawful access to stored communications'.
DSL Tech, while a court order is indeed different from a search warrant, this code specifically lists the reasons and actions necessary for either to provide access to the stored documentation.
That, merely a court order is valid enough to access one's stored information, seems to me like a clear violation of the fifth Amendment of the US Constitution - which discusses one's innate right to 'be secure in their persons or papers', unless of course a warrant is issued. I don't know if this is just semantics, but its evident that the Federal Government simply (and secretly) decided that it wanted all of the stored data; including that of US Persons not suspected of being related to terrorist and/or criminal activities.
It seems to me that there are numerous serious, intentional breaches of the Constitution of the United States being secretly enacted by the federal government - nothing less of treason; something you could expect from the KGB, the Stasi or the Gestapo. Its about time bring the un-American, un-patriotic perpetrators of this Orwellian crime against the American people, including the head-rat himself, to answer impeachment proceedings in a court of law.
reply
whizkid3 @ 27th Dec 09:50PM:
Re: It's time to do something about this!
»www.impeachbush.org
reply
whizkid3 @ 27th Dec 10:09PM:
Nothing to hide?
Bruce Schneier on the subject:
"The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information."
Must read: »The Eternal Value of Privacy
reply
whizkid3 @ 27th Dec 10:11PM:
Re: So?
said by jwardl :
As for the feds "spying" -- I don't have any problem with it. If the search for terrorists leads some g-man to check my email, hey, have a look! Since I have nothing to hide, and am not in communication with Al-Quida or any of it's operatives, I have nothing to worry about...
»The Eternal Value of Privacy
reply
whizkid3 @ 27th Dec 10:13PM:
Re: Before....
said by La Luna :
.....the usual suspects show up to jump on the "Bush spying on citizens for no reason/conspiracy theory" bandwagon, let's keep in mind this law was enacted in 1986, during Ronald Reagan's tenure.
Good for Ronald Reagan! The point is, that this law, and the Constitution are being broken, by your hero, George Bush.
reply
whizkid3 @ 27th Dec 10:17PM:
Re: Looking?
said by snipper_cr :
Yet then it brings up the argument, "If you are not doing anything wrong, why hide it?" Kind of catch 22...
This argument, is the worst response. You're right it results in a catch 22. But this argument is simply that - an argument, (and a bad one). There is no argument with »The Eternal Value of Privacy
reply
Transmaster @ 27th Dec 10:47PM:
Here Goverrment snooper sniff on this
:D
reply
whizkid3 @ 27th Dec 11:12PM:
Re: Here Goverrment snooper sniff on this
The juxtaposition - amazing!
reply
Flake1120 @ 27th Dec 11:17PM:
Re: It's time to do something about this!
Uh, OK. Was bush president then? duh. :uhh:
reply
RR Conductor @ 27th Dec 11:30PM:
Re: It's time to do something about this!
No, another Repub was, ole Ronnie. I started High School that year too, woohoo!
reply
pnh102 @ 28th Dec 01:22AM:
Re: So?
said by wifi4milez :
I can see it now; all the tin foil hat nutjobs on this site probably think that there was/were/are a bunch of guys in NSA baseball caps furiously scribbling notes while in some storage closet at AT&T. :p
Personally I wish the NSA would ice some of these people... it gets tiring hearing them complain about things which are not happening!
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
reply
gh4456 @ 28th Dec 01:22AM:
Re: I missed it
I agree their are reasons, however you can not hold the executive branch (FBI) responsible if a judge signs the order.
I will not pretend to be a constitutional expert, so I don't know if they are violating rights. The email is on someone else's server. Are we still protected when it is being handled by a 3rd party? I don't know, but that is why there is a court system. Sure it is flawed, but ultimately they will decide and we will have to live with it. It's not a perfect system, but it is one of the best :-)
reply
jwardl @ 28th Dec 01:28AM:
Re: It's time to do something about this!
It's amusing when some people go batting-around the "impeach Bush" line. I'm a Bush supporter, though, I'm not happy with EVERY decision he's made. On the other hand, if he really were guilty of everything he's been blamed for, he'd deserve to be convicted of treason and executed, not simply impeached. He'd also continue to deserve this AFTER leaving office.
Somehow, I'll bet that after 2008, all the "impeach Bush" crowd will fall silent. It's truly all about taking out a political enemy and giving his party a black eye, not punishing a supposedly guilty man.
reply
viperpa33s @ 28th Dec 01:32AM:
Just think
We are all worried about emails, just think about all the people who want Universal Healthcare. Think about how much the government will know about you then. You will have Uncle Sam right in your back pocket.
reply
RR Conductor @ 28th Dec 01:33AM:
Re: It's time to do something about this!
Oh he's guilty, and if he didn't have the power, money and influence he does he would end up like Nixon. This is about justice, and Gwbuh is getting away with murder. To me, he's about as evil and slimy as politicians come, and Cheney is even worse.
Even if he weren't guilty, the guy is just plain unintelligent, has poor timing and is about the worst public speaker every. The leader of the greatest nation on Earth should choose better words than "Thumpin'" in press conferences.
Oh, I'm curious, were you so outspoken when the Repubs were crying and screaming to impeach Clinton? He made a mistake with a woman, Bush is making mistakes with an entire nation, and killing young men needlessly by the bucket full. He has lied to an entire world, and we will be suffering for it for years, I just hope North Korea doesn't decide to invade South Korea, or Iran doesn't decide to attack Israel, because we are so strained now they'd probably be blown to kingdom come before we could help.
--
See the BOOMING railroads »www.gorail.org
See MAJOR freight&passenger action@ the Galesburg, IL RailCam! »205.245.189.161:1100/
THE BEST way2travel-
»www.amtrak.com
»www.modocrailroadacademy.com I start school here 1-1-07!
reply
jwardl @ 28th Dec 01:38AM:
Re: So?
said by Thaler :
Well kudos for you. Meanwhile, other people actually give a hoot about their rights being eroded. Just because you are accepting about this doesn't necessarily mean everyone else has to.
Me personally, I'm not thrilled, as its historically hard enough for 3rd party e-mail servers to keep their own privacy act together. Now to hand over my inbox to the courts/government, I can nearly guarantee that the contents of my porn spam filter will be leaked/breached in the near future.
Didn't say anyone HAD to do anything; this is simply an opinion forum.
As for rights, I'm all for them, and for them all. I simply don't see this as a violation of those rights, that's all. As originally posted, email in of itself is unsecure. I wouldn't recommend emailing someone a credit card number or SSN for that very reason. There's no law that declares it private or mandates any particular protections. Frankly, there's little difference between an email and a message sent via walkie-talkie or amateur radio.
reply
rawgerz @ 28th Dec 01:40AM:
Re: Gmail?
said by Nerdtalker :said by dadkins :
Hope they like looking at spam! ;)
Hope they like looking at nothing, since I go through the long ritual required to actually delete something on Gmail.
That doesn't mean that Google doesn't have them archived after you delete them ;)
reply
anon @ 28th Dec 02:36AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
whizkid3 @ 28th Dec 08:08AM:
Re: So?
quote:
There's no law that declares it private or mandates any particular protections.
How about this one, for starters?
UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED
TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 121--STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS
»www.cybercrime.gov/ECPA2701_2712.htm
(I suppose you haven't read it.)
reply
whizkid3 @ 28th Dec 08:12AM:
Re: It's time to do something about this!
said by Flake1120 :Uh, OK. Was bush president then? duh. :uhh:
Then? When?
This forum is about what the Executive Branch of the US Federal Govt. is doing now. Perhaps read a little more about the topic of this thread, before blatently showing your support for our Furer-in-Chief.
Yes, there is a law created when Reagan was President. No, it does not permit unlimited Govt access to the email of US Persons. Yes, the Govt. is breaking this law, and your Constitutional protections. Now.
I think the way to deal with this, is to give GWB his due process - something he is not giving you.
reply
squid7 @ 28th Dec 08:14AM:
Re: I missed it
said by gh4456 :
I agree their are reasons, however you can not hold the executive branch (FBI) responsible if a judge signs the order.
The Executive swears and oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. They should know better.
reply
gh4456 @ 28th Dec 09:15AM:
Re: I missed it
You are correct, however (and I am not defending the law) this law has been on the books for 2 decades without Supreme court ruling. I am sure it has been used many times. If the legislative branch (which I believe was democratic at the time) is going to enact it, and the executive branch signs off on it, and the judicial branch has yet to strike it down, then you can't blame the officers who used it as a tool for thier investigations.
reply
squid7 @ 28th Dec 10:03AM:
Re: I missed it
Agreed.
reply
roc5955 @ 28th Dec 10:10AM:
Re: Citations for 'Right to Privacy'
said by SSidlov :FWIW: Privacy is mostly restricted to your own home, and mostly described as the right to 'be left alone' and not unduly interfered with by government agencies prying into the intimate matters of your person. Various federal agencies are responsible overseeing the 'privacy' of your transactions, financial or otherwise. Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of the 'right to privacy without undue interference.'
OT Comment on email:
While I agree with what you have posted technically (25+ years in IT), it is not a good policy to prove to someone's face that their email is so accessible, IMHO. It's fine to remind them that no email on the company's servers are private and that various policies of the company and perhaps laws (depending on the business) require that all emails be kept, etc. As someone who worked for banking organizations where individual and corporate financial information was easily available, you must not betray the customer's or users' trust, act on any communications that pass your eye by accident or in the course of business (e.g., buy/sell stock) etc. Most companies don't realize the extent that IT makes their businesses work, and the information that many IT employees have access to. It's unfortunate that most also just see IT as a cost center, and not a profit center that makes everything work together.
Well I am a civil slave.. I mean servant, and everything that they email is a matter of public record, under NY law.
If they don't know this, they should, and as far as I am concerned, it should be made as clear as possible to each and every one of them. If this means reading their own e-mails to them, than so be it, IMNSHO!
reply
kamm @ 28th Dec 10:16AM:Re: Rant alert!said by Anonymous_ :
should that be rocket science and not coekt science
Yes, of course, thanks.
reply
Packeteers @ 28th Dec 10:35AM:sniff ebay&paypal too while you're at itanyone representing themselves as a government or law enforcement agency can get ebaY and paypal to hand over records on your transactions, so why does it surprise anyone they can do it for gmail too; a system that by definition already sniffs your emails for marketing purposes. I don't like it either, but that's the current reality - deal with it.
reply
hpguru @ 28th Dec 03:15PM:Re: Gmail?said by Anonymous_ :
good idea
But what if they use linux or an apple computer
Then they will have far fewer choices of software titles with which they can analyze my email. See there are very few who bother to create robust easy to use applications for these OSes and it is for the same reason very few take the time to expose and exploit vulnerabilities in the same. It's just not worth the bother. :)
--
Where's Jesus?
Dear Jesus!reply
snipper_cr @ 28th Dec 05:18PM:Re: Looking?Unfortunatly, there are people who follow it. I dont follow the argument but declaring it the "worst" might be incorrect because its other peoples beleif (that their information should be public since they are not doing anything illegal).
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signalreply
bigjimc @ 29th Dec 09:55AM:Re: Just thinkI thought that exact thing. You hit the nail on the head. Nothing will be private anymore.
Doesn't anyone remember Carnivore
»
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(FBI)reply
PDXPLT @ 29th Dec 03:33PM:Re: Email Never Private said by JazzJRabbit :
By your logic if it's not secure, it should be public.
No. I'm saying if there it is not reasonable to have an expectation of confidentiality, then one should not expect something to be confidential. Once again, the analogy to postcards is appropriate.
quote:
That's wrong because there is no such thing as 100% secure transmissions...
If you can explain how to crack quantum cryptography, I guarantee there's a Nobel Prize in it for you. For that matter, if you knew how to crack the crypto the NSA used for classified transmissions, they'd pay you alot to explain it to them. Heck, Fortune 500 companies are willing to ensure secrets worht billions to 2K-bit long keys, so they consider them close enough to 100%.
quote:
...and therefore there is no hard line that you can draw to determine what should be private and what should be public.
That's silly; courts draw lines based on reasonable expectations all the time.
quote:
The notion of privacy should not be based on whether the data is encrypted or not, it should be based on the expectation of privacy.
I think you're inventing new law here: "I expect prviacy, therefore privacy is legally required." The courts have disagreed with you numerous times; e.g., many people think their trash is private, and have received rude awakenings when the police, the press, etc., search through their trash without a warrant.
quote:
You expect your snail mail to be private, and it is, even though a good expert could probably open and reseal the envelope without you noticing,...
At least they do in Hollywood movies. How possible that it is in realty without leaving evidence of tampering, I'm skeptical. In any case, the law has deemed it is so unreasonable that you have to pro-actively prove that the envelope was opened and re-sealed without leaving evidence of tampering.
quote:
You expect your phone conversations to be private, even though it is insecure as I could hook up couple of cables outside your phone box and listen on your conversation,
Telephony is not a stored communication, so I don't think the analog applies. But if I was using a VOIP application that ran over the public internet, or it was relayed over public airwaves like HAM radio guys sometimes do, then no, I would not have an expectation of privacy.
quote:
you expect to be secure and your home, and you are, even though potentially anybody could peep into your window (the actual laws here depend on your location).
Not if I don't close the drapes! Which is the key point here. There is no concept of an "envelope" with unencrpypted email; in other words, a device which prevents disclosure of contents by the mere possession of the item.
You want email to be confidential? Simple, use PGP. If you do, then I'll buy all the arguments about expectations of privacy.
reply
anon @ 30th Dec 03:17AM:Re: Gmail?said by rahlquist :
Bottom line is according to this EVERY server is subject to email monitoring without a warrant. Especially those ISP's who farm out their email services.
Not IF you run your OWN.
reply
anon @ 30th Dec 06:27AM:Re: Email Never Private :huh: You've never seen WWII movies? Mail was (and who know if it still is) censored. Some people think they need privacy. I got nothing to hide, so if you want to read my garbage, go ahead! :D
reply
dadarkside @ 30th Dec 06:03PM:Re: Gmail?said by rahlquist :
Bottom line is according to this EVERY server is subject to email monitoring without a warrant. Especially those ISP's who farm out their email services.
Like....Comcast?
reply
PhoenixAZ @ 30th Dec 06:06PM:Re: Gmail?No need to worry, MS has our government locked down tight :)
reply
anon @ 31st Dec 10:41PM:gmailI've really enjoyed both sides of this discussion.. but there's a part of the gmail argument that's seems to have been overlooked. GMAIL is free, and the expectation of privacy from this free service may be entirely different than the email you pay for from a local ISP. I have not read the EULA and have no intentions of devoting that much time to this discussion :)
Think of it the same way as the locker you had in highschool. It was free, and the school owned it... so there was no expectation of privacy and searches could take place at any time. If we had paid rent for those same lockers, a warrant may have been necessary.
I may be oversimplifying the argument here, but I thought I'd thrown in my 2 cents.
Happy New Year!
reply
anon @ 1st Jan 10:38AM:Email privacy Lets make them get search warrants. I am sick to death of government doing just what they please when and how they please.
If government can do this today what is to stop others including maybe even my-self from doing the same in the future, just because I want to pry into someones business.
This Is just NOT right in any stretch of the imagination. Lets make them change the law it's time the average citizen got some privacy and protection from our government instead of violation of our rights
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC
