| 10:53 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|So tempting. You can snoop without a warrant. So why stop with terrorists? Criminals, political opponents, activists, freemasons, rotarians, feminists, students, bloggers, geeks; bug them all, then we'll all be safe. |
Not 'til we get all them damn webmasters!
| 11:01 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|With over 100,000 people dying each year from prescription medicine.... |
1 - More people die from falling coconuts than from shark bites
2 - More people die from heart attacks while having political debates that those who die from caffine allergies while coding websites
old_expat .. who lives in a high alert coconut zone
| 12:56 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>I would imagine that there are many members biting their tongue.
I have been spanked a few times for voicing a political opinion on WebmasterWorld. There are forumns where I do voice my opinions (if you find one of them, you will see that I am brilliant and a political genius ;-)). That is why I am shocked it is allowed. And look, we have people from two countries that are allies critising each others country.
Anyways, I can see how this has a huge impact on internet privacy, and it is relavant in my opinion. Plus the government involved here is intercepting email that has never intended for the country in question. That seems wrong too.
[edited by: Rugles at 12:57 pm (utc) on Aug. 18, 2006]
| 1:13 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|It seems to me that after this ruling data-mining to get useful intelligence information from large blocks of data is more restricted for the US government, than it is for US businesses. |
I think there would be much more talk about this outside of tech circles if people actually knew. The internet in particular gives people a dangerous false sense of anonymity. Let's say the US government can't use the data. Can they buy it after some business mines it? Once gov has an accuser (the company) and some evidence (provided by said company), I'd imagine they could take some sort of action.
We could wind up with several large companies trying to be police and government without the same restrictions placed on government.
|It's rather that there is a belief that the technologies that can protect us can't be allowed because governments will missue it. |
I expect a government to use this information secretly, no matter what anyone says. Fortunately, they can't use it a lot and keep it secret. Getting government to regulate the buying and selling of such data by businesses might be a step in the right direction.
| 4:29 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Lorel, you are correct people don't remember Sept. 11. The naivete of the Constitution huggers is that they assume the government wants to snoop on the average person. Government (NSA) resources are so stretched trying to chase the bad guys that snooping on every day phone callers is simply out of the question. Plus from personal experience let me suggest the analysts want to catch the bad guys, it's why they go to work in the morning!
Seriously, who here wants to take such important tools from the terror hunters? Is it going to take another Sept.11 before the utopians get it? God bless President Bush and the hard workers at the NSA, FBI, CIA and our brave Marines and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I agree with the other poster who wondered why this political subject is even on here.
| 4:40 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Seriously, who here wants to take such important tools from the terror hunters? |
Again, please stick to the facts; the US government has the ability to conduct electronic surveillance now in the form of FISA [www4.law.cornell.edu]. This ability is in no way threatened.
This case--and the larger issue--is about the federal government's apparently wilful disregard of the applicable laws and the constitution from which its authority derives in the first place. No country can safely allow its government(s) to behave in this fashion.
| 4:59 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> I agree with the other poster who wondered why this political subject is even on here.
First, this impacts what we do. If this is allowed to stand, then the Feds can easily tap into the net, or come and demand the server /email logs without a warrant. If they do it now, just imagine how much more intrusive they can get with a positive rulings in an issue such as this one.
Second, as far as political issues, I think Brett's main concern was statements like "Bush sucks; Hillary rules" or viceversa. This is not a Republican vs. Democrat or US vs. the world type of issue IMO.
| 5:20 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I agree with the other poster who wondered why this political subject is even on here. |
First, this impacts what we do.
This is a good point as well. Locally, I've observed a small but significant move away from webhosts/data centres based/physically located in the US to hosts/data centres based/physically located in countries whose laws and government practices are perceived to be less troubling.
Whether or not they are a) warranted, or b) effective, these actions--which directly affect US internet businesses--are the direct result of the issue at hand. Seems reason enough to discuss it here...
| 5:24 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, here's one reason why it's here.
How far down the list of crimes/violations/local ordinances including *internet-related* laws can information obtained in a FISA surveillance be used...
"FISA surveillances must have an intelligence purpose. 50 U.S.C. §1804 (a) (7)(B). But courts allow FISA-obtained information to be used in criminal trials. See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 12,333, 3 C.F.R. 200, 211 (1982), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. § 401 note (1994) (allowing the dissemination of information incidentally obtained during intelligence gathering that indicates activities potentially violating any law)."
Notice the phrase "potentially violating any law."
Could spammers be prosecuted using FISA data?
How about future versions of the CDA, if there is one?
Bogus domain name registrations?
| 5:24 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
FISA lets them do what they want. I don't see how this ruling changes anything, all they have to do is file the paperwork AFTER the fact. Our privacy still isn't.
| 7:43 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>are so stretched trying to chase the bad guys that snooping on every day phone callers is simply out of the question.
What if they want hear what their political competitors are saying? Or what about the press? Or what about somebody trying to get the upper hand on the stock market?
They can easily get a warrant, that is what the FISA court is for.
I just assume everything I say on the phone, everything I type on this board is recorded. What is that expression, just because you are paranoid does not mean you are not being followed.
| 8:03 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|FISA lets them do what they want. I don't see how this ruling changes anything, all they have to do is file the paperwork AFTER the fact. Our privacy still isn't. |
That is exactly what I thought when this issue first came up. I couldn't understand why the US government was not willing to comply with FISA -- I think they get 72 hours after the fact, or something like that.
And then it dawned on me. The surveillance is done on such a massive scale (have you read about AT&T's special room [wired.com]?) that all the required paper work for just one day's listening would take years to fill out. And since it is really data mining rather than surveillance of one specified target, there is no probable cause for all the random people whose words are being taken from the Internet data stream to be mined.
This is the issue in my mind: the surveillance infrastructure is in place for security purposes, but the possibility of it being used for other purposes (including business espionage) is inherent in both the set-up and the secrecy. We do need a balance of powers here, a real and functioning watchdog system to move into the future with this kind of exposure of all our communication. The exposure itself is not going to go away.
| 1:51 pm on Aug 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
All I know is that I'm getting on a airplane tomorrow (Sunday) and going the Philadelphia. If silent and anonymous snooping by the feds helps me get there and back safe and sound – fine. In fact, I will spread my cheeks for them at the airport if they ask me too.
I believe this world would be a better place filled with privacy and morally sensitive individuals. Unfortunately, there are many people lurking around UNDETECTED plotting to take everything you and I value the most. Until these folks can be proactively detected, and stopped with other methods I strongly suggest everybody consider the value of the search and stop methods currently employed.
| 4:22 pm on Aug 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
An extinct species that was hard to identify when it did exsist. Churchill is often characterized as one of the last great statesmen, but not everyone shared that view when he was in office.
A myth. Anyone attend defcon? It isnt just the Feds spying.
One can go back as far as the invention of gunpowder to see that the evolution of technology has always been a two-edged sword. We havent been able to put the genie back in the bottle since. Not going to happen now, regardless of how loud the debate is.
| 12:01 am on Aug 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I see this whole thing comparable to why Google won't tell us specifically what causes spam and other penalties--because the Spammers will use that information to circumvent the penalties.
In the same way if Bush is forced to relay how he manages to gather information on Terrorists and the Gov. is put under tight restraints so they can't track terrorists then the Terrorists will find a way to circumvent it.
| 3:15 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It seems probable that whoever is listening would be obligated to report any crime, not just terrorism. This could become a whole new police tactic.
| This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 46 ( 1  ) |