Law Enforcement Requests for Net Data Multiply 135
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "It's not just phone companies grappling with reported potentially privacy-intruding requests from the NSA and other branches of government: Banks, Internet-service providers and other companies that possess large amounts of data on their customers say that police and intelligence agencies have been increasingly coming to them looking for tidbits of information that could help them stop everything from money launderers to pedophiles and terrorists, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'According to AOL executives, the most common requests in criminal cases relate to crimes against children, including abuse, abductions, and child pornography. Close behind are cases dealing with identity theft and other computer crimes. Sometimes the police requests are highly targeted and scrupulously legalistic, while other times they were seen by the company as little more than sloppy fishing expeditions. AOL says that most requests get turned down.'"
Think about the... (Score:2, Funny)
From the article: 'According to AOL executives, the most common requests in criminal cases relate to crimes against children, including abuse, abductions, and child pornography.
(insightful comment deleted during self-moderation)
Re:Think about the... (Score:1, Redundant)
--Benjamin Franklin
Re:Think about the... (Score:2)
Re:Think about the... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are still far too many people who are all too willing to give up not only their liberty, but my liberty, just because some liar sells them a vague line about terrorism.
Re:Think about the... (Score:2)
Re:Think about the... (Score:2)
Re:Think about the... (Score:3, Insightful)
As to the terrorism thing, the news [fbi.gov] there seems to be rather concrete [bbc.co.uk], even if not well known [newsmax.com], and at times disturbing [nationalreview.com]. There is nothing vague about this [theglobeandmail.com] at all.
If you are worried about dying... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly which freedom? (Score:2)
Oddly enough, it in no way surprises me that you seem to think that the only reason somebody might oppose terrorism in general is that they are afraid of personally dying. (Terrorism, it's not bad... unless it effects me, eh?) By the way,
As to terrorism vs heart attacks et.al., most people recognize the difference between the nat
Re:Exactly which freedom? (Score:2)
Re:Exactly which freedom? (Score:2)
Unlikely to a 100% solution. Not only would disenguaging from Israel be very difficult with the current proportion of "Israel Firsters" in the US Government, even if it could be done US would undoubtedly become the target of Zionist terrorists.
In addition the US would need to stop threatening Iran and Venezuela.
As a bonus using less oil
Re:Exactly which freedom? (Score:2)
4th amendment to be exact (Score:2)
Specifically the 4th amendment of the bill of rights to the constitution which states:
" 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, an
Re:Exactly which freedom? (Score:1)
you ain't walking on this tripe (Score:1)
Let the Deconstruction begin!
the news
Re:Think about the... (Score:2)
Michelle Malkin [michellemalkin.com]
Claremont Institute [claremont.org]
Re:Think about the... (Score:2)
AOL!!!111 (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... wasn't the goverment supposed to be protecting the people from corporations?
Re:AOL!!!111 (Score:1)
Re:AOL!!!111 (Score:3, Insightful)
No, corporations aren't inherently evil structures we should be protected from.
The government should basically put some rules where people and the organisations they create can have mutual interest, and create a predictable repeatable processes that aid for development of life standard, science advance and so on.
And people's part of the equation is to aid the government in this process and protect themselves from governments
Re:AOL!!!111 (Score:1)
Any organization (corporate or government) with a high concentration of resources has a high probability of being "evil" (I prefer the larger-coverage term of "dangerous"), simply because minor screwups or negligent/incompetent decision-making (setting aside actual maliciousness for the monent) are magnified by the sheer amount of resources that such orgnizations have available.
When a small group of entities has the resources n
Re:AOL!!!111 (Score:2)
If you think the gov't is there to "protect" you against anything, let alone corporations, you must have been brain dead your entire life.
Re:AOL!!!111 (Score:1)
Re:AOL!!!111 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:AOL!!!111 (Score:2)
Not as "brain dead" as someone who hasn't a clue about the purpose of the FDA, EPA, and other regulatory agencies that prevent industries and self-interested corporate entities (which allow individuals to be relieved of personal responsibility for their actions in their money/power/resource grab) from destroying society.
Without government, what recourse do you have against a megacorporation that is polluting your environment, creating health hazards, monopolizing resources, or encroaching on your civil lib
Re:AOL!!!111 (Score:1)
That was EXACTLY what I was thinking. What ever happened to things like judicial review and warrants? Companies shouldn't be using their own lawyers to decide whether a request is legal or not. All of a sudden, we're in very strange territory where companies are deciding when and how to apply laws, not the government who passed the laws in the fi
How would they do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How would they do that? (Score:1)
or with a russian spammer if you're in Greece?
Well we know Russian spammer and Israel now, you end up shutting down your company...poor guys.
Re:If this doesn't infringe upon 'free' speech not (Score:1)
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
Matthew
Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
*ping* - * You have 1 new subpoena(s) *
[LokkAtMeAOL] lol
[Atturny1] lollerskates
[LokkAtMeAOL] read it..
[Atturny1] lol
[Atturny1] whos it from
[Atturny1] oops
[LokkAtMeAOL] WHAT WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
[LokkAtMeAOL] MY LETTERS WON'T GO SMALL HELP
[Atturny1] noob lol
[Atturny1] o man i deleted it
[LokkAtMeAOL] ME TOO
Clinton and Nixon (Score:4, Insightful)
Both political parties decry the others abuse of governmental power but think it's just fine when they're the ones doing the abusing. Its behavior like that that drives some people to call for smaller government.
Re:Clinton and Nixon (Score:2)
I voted for Clinton both times but by 2000, I shared Hamilton Jordan's (Carter's Chief of Staff) view that Clinton is a grifter. The Marc Rich bribe/pardon was right up there with Nixon's suitcases of cash.
Re:Clinton and Nixon (Score:2)
Frankly, I'd be surprised he would have been able to get away with that, given the troubles the Republican party gave him throughout both his terms. You'd think it would have been all over the news, trumping the whole Monica Lewinsky thing. And a much better reason to impeach him.
Re:Clinton and Nixon (Score:4, Insightful)
Most everybody has heard of Nixon and Watergate and his abuses thereof, but I've not heard of Clinton pulling anything of that magnitutde. I too would like to see some kind of proof to substantiate the OP's claim about Clinton being "one of the worst abusers of governmental information gathering". Put up or shut up, it's that simple.
I don't take this stance because I have any real love for the former president (I think he was a coward and a sleazeball), but because I have love for the truth. The OP made a non-obvious claim, and now they need to back it up with proof - that has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats or party preferences. It's a simple matter of intellectual honesty. If Clinton ranks up there with Nixon in terms of government information gathering abuses, I'd like to know exactly what he did. I'd like to see verifiable proof to back up this claim, as would many others, it would seem. That's really not too much to ask from somebody making such a claim.
Re:Clinton and Nixon (Score:2)
I decided to do a little bit of searching. So far I've found a couple links that seemed credible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filegate [wikipedia.org]
http://transcripts.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/storie s/03/16/files.report/i [cnn.com]
OK Slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OK Slashdot... (Score:3, Funny)
IP Address (Score:1)
What are we? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if it's the latter, can you deny the brain the right to check its body blood levels, have a haircut and take a bath?
What if the brain decides to make a suicide in the name of all of us?
Re:What are we? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've always noted that there are herd people and loner people....as the latter I use the term cow and wolf, but a herd person might use a different analogy....say, team and terrorist.
Herd people like a herder and are willing to put up with a lot to be led. Right now, I am afraid, the U.S. of A has gotten comfortable enough that th
Re:What are we? (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly not the brain -- I'm thinking either the armpit or asshole depending on which party's in power.
Now... (Score:5, Insightful)
I see a disturbing trend in the US, based on this and other cases of domestic spying, guantanamo bay and more. That is the reduction of the judicial branch to be nothing more than courts to process individuals and corporations. The courts are not to interfere with what the government is doing or try to apply the law to the government.
The United States is moving away from the ideals it was founded on with a division of power into the executive, legislative and judicial branch. The judicial branch is being reduced to nothing more than a tool to enact the law without oversight of the other branches. The legislative branch represented by Congress has been granting more and more power to the executive branch to act without oversight both from them or the courts. The "Patriot" act is a good example of that. Even when there are issues that seem suspect at best, Congress don't want to touch the issue.
So two branches are in bed with each other, the last shoved out on the street. Few if any "checks and balances" within the government. What about the final check, the democratic oversight through the free press, public information and such? For one there's so much information that's no longer accessible, the media is completely unreliable (I've seen the stats on what Amercians think happened in the Iraq war) and third the people are so afriad there's a terrorist lurking at every corner to think it's okay anyway.
And just to invoke a certain law - remember how 'na' in nazism stands for nationalism, and that the terrorists serve much the same purpose as the jews did - according to the government, there's this large and dangerous network/conspiracy out to destroy your way of life. You'd better put all power in the hands of the government and chant "USA! USA! USA!". Or was that "Sieg Heil"?
Re:Now... (Score:2, Insightful)
Same thing with AOL, if the cops wants information, they need a warrant, or a subpoena to turn over information. Without those, its up to AOL to decide if they want to release the information VOLUNTARILY.
Now go away and learn the law, become a lawyer and knock some sense in those judges.
Most Get Turned Down (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm - phone records and postal mail are covered by law. It's against the law for the post office to turn over your mail, or the phone company to allow a wiretap, without due authority. Hence the EFF lawsuit against AT&T.
That is not the case (AFAIK) with, for example, credit card records (unless you've filled out the privacy request form). What about email and surfing records? "AOL says that most requests get turned down." Is that just their choice? Should it really be just somebody at AOL's choice? What if your ISP is run by one of the, "If you're not doing anything illegal, you've got nothing to fear" people? Do they have the right to just turn over your information?
As for the credit card records - those are already for sale, I think. Advertisers buy them, right? That's why casinos I've never been to send me stuff in the mail. So... if there's a bunch of data that is already legally available - what do you think the odds are that the gov't already has it? Good, I'd say. That is - I'd bet size cash the gov't already knows about my occasional trips to Las Vegas and my penchant for cheesy spy novel audiobooks.
Just my random tinfoil hat thoughts.
Re:Most Get Turned Down (Score:1, Interesting)
wtf? I can fill out a "privacy request form" and thereby ensure privacy of my credit card records? I've never heard of this; it must be the best-kept secret around! Could someone please elaborate further?
Not all got turned down? (Score:1, Informative)
I understand if there is an official investigation and the much needed paperwork that is required by law. However never-ever should they hand over any information voluntaily.
I have worked at a Internet Provider in Belgium and either the police came with the paperwork, or they got noting. Once
Re:Not all got turned down? (Score:3, Interesting)
I work part-time at a mid-sized family inn in Rhode Island, and one day while I was working the front desk, I answered a call from (supposedly) a police investigator from a nearby town attempting to ascertain if a particular person or her aliases had been a recent guest. Being a small family inn with a cantankerous old lady who doesn't put up with crap and isn't a particular respecter of authorities other than herself as the owner, we take privacy quite seriously and so I asked if he had a warrant. He said
The issue is, what is public record information? (Score:2)
I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but its NOT a troll. Its a serious question and a real world situation. I've already put on my virtual gnomex bunker gear and SCOTT pack (it matches my real gnomex bunker gear and SCOTT pack) and am "fully encapsulated" so don't bother with the flame throwers.
Here's a valid concern --
Re:The issue is, what is public record information (Score:1)
I believe they do, because no matter how revolting the search terms that lead someone to your site may be, you can never expect to stop someone from looking at normal pictures, nor should you be able to.
Perhaps there were a few sickos looking at pictures of girls playing soccer and getting off on it. Perhaps not. There may have been people watching in person while the game was being played and having perverse, impure t
Re:The issue is, what is public record information (Score:2)
The "If youre not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument doesn't fly here. I don't believe in it as a valid argument for or against anything. My statement is that "I have nothing to hide so I don't bother trying to hide anything, and if I did have something
Re:The issue is, what is public record information (Score:1)
You are under no obligation to publish a blog, and that goes doubly so for posting pictures of your underage kids. You're the one putting your private life and your daughter's image out there for anyone to see. There are plenty of ways to make a subscriber-only blog or password protected photo albums. Hell, it's pretty easy to keep your site out of search engines in the first place. How can you genuinely claim concern over what
As a society, we have decided it is unsupportable (Score:2)
I'm not going to debate morals and laws. The two are only marginally connected. I found the searches offensive, personally. That'
Re:The issue is, what is public record information (Score:2)
Is that statement, unasked for, private?
I'll conceed the syntactical point -- (Score:2)
You're making valid points here. (Score:2)
I'll ignore the troll 'over overprotective parent' tag. As a parent of three, I find the term redundant.
Yes, I know more about how the scary intraweb works than the average user. I've made a living on my own, solo, as a consultant and conference speaker on the subject for fifteen or so years without a big daddy corporation to look out for me.
You're the first in this chain to actually address the question. You say most people who don't know how computer networks work have a reasonable expectation of priva
you know (Score:1)
Corporate America
Avg Joe American
Corporate America
Avg Joe American
Corporate America
Avg Joe American
Corporate America
now, refer back to TFA.
Online the methodone of pedophiles? (Score:4, Insightful)
Others say it satisfies their need. Take it away and more adults will be in bed with young people.
My guess is it's a little of both.
Re:Online the methodone of pedophiles? (Score:1)
Over the course of a year it's unlikely that it's the same 30,000 each day, so I'd assume a large per
of those 30,000 (Score:1, Insightful)
Of the remaining, how many are from people trying to figure out what all the hubbub is about or 14-year-olds who are about to get their computer privilages yanked when mom and dad find out?
The intersting number is not 30,000, but how many people are looking for illegal sites for illeg
Re:Online the methodone of pedophiles? (Score:3, Insightful)
An organization called the "Internet Watch Foundation" has got a contract from BT to censor their customers' web access. They are lobbying the government for a law that would force every ISP in the country to use their censorship service (and, presumably, pay for it).
Of course no one would take them seriously if they said there are only 2 or 3 child porno sites on the web. So it is in their own interests to spread FUD about this subject by blocking as many
Re:Online the methodone of pedophiles? (Score:2)
Well, you might finding a few facts about the Norwegian blocking then. The block lists are managed directly by the Norwegian police, which don't have any economic incentive to spread FUD. But perhaps it's easier to come up with a good conspiracy theory than accept the most obvious answe
Re:on Good Conspiracy Theories (TM) (Score:2)
Evidently the answer is "yes" in Norway and China, and will soon be "yes" in Britain too.
Re:Online the methodone of pedophiles? (Score:1)
Re:Online the methodone of pedophiles? (Score:2)
What would childrens' exposure to kiddie porn be, if it was legal? (Oh right, we've got laws on porn today so nobody gets to see porn before they're 18. My bad)
Tracking of actual perps, today you can use the kiddie porn laws to make people rat on their sources. If it's legal, you have no leverage.
Legal films would also change the whole distribution to bring in real companies that could make money on distribution. More money in dis
Which "online pedophile activity"? (Score:4, Insightful)
If by "real KP" you mean pictures or films of children engaged in sex, I don't think there is any such stuff. Even in the Freenet, which has been accused of being a pedophiles hangout, you don't see any authentic child pornography. The closest you get to child pornography in the internet are women with small breasts and shaved pubic hair who could be any age between 16 and 30.
This "pedophilia in the internet" meme is actually more disgusting than adults having sex with children. Because a true pedophile can only harm a limited number of people, whereas the people who keep bringing the fear of pedophiles are the meanest evil bastards one can find in the world. They want to turn the natural instinct of any normal human being to protect their children into a tool for domination.
Politicians who keep insisting on this subject are only trying to find a way to become dictators. Just check them, they are the same kind of people who insist on any possible safeguard against "terrorism" and people who keep calling file copying "piracy" and want to enforce DRM by legislation.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot open a door to censorship, because once you have it, who will be able to verify if a story was banned because it went against morality laws or because it told an embarassing truth about someone in power?
Re:Which "online pedophile activity"? (Score:2)
No, it exists [cbsnews.com], hence the arrests:
Re:Which "online pedophile activity"? (Score:1)
The situation with reference to child pornography is consistantly grossly overstated by the press and officialdom, as can by show
Re:Which "online pedophile activity"? (Score:2)
This also turns the natural instinct of genetic preservation on its head. The following is not restricted to humans; it takes place in basically all species which have two sexes, and two stages of development (i.e., species in which females cannot be impregnated immediately after birth).
Males want to procreate with females as soon as the females reach reproductive age.
1 day soon
Re:Which "online pedophile activity"? (Score:1)
When you have the ridiculous situation of pre-schoolers being carted away in handcuffs by police simply for engaging
Re:Which "online pedophile activity"? (Score:2)
I've often suspected (being far too lazy to do any research and instead relying on pure conjecture) that the primary reason age of consent laws and statutory rape were established was to protect minors from the difficulties of an actual rape trial. No reasonably sane person can say that a fourteen-year-old girl can't consent to sex (although people like to say so on the internet often and say so in the media non-stop), but w
Protecting kids (Score:1)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:1)
Re:Online the methodone of pedophiles? (Score:1)
Of course, the argument goes... (Score:2)
So you're saying that child pornography has no net effect. Huh.
The argument, of course, goes that if pedophiles were to get organized and spread an idea that would preseve and even increase their access to child porn, it would be precisely the second one above. "No, really, it helps me."
That doesn't discredit it, of course, but it certainly raises suspicions...
Re:Here they are at it again (Score:2)
Re:Here they are at it again (Score:1)
Good thinking.
Re:Here they are at it again (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe if we sent them to North Korea [wikipedia.org] instead?
Seriously though, the scenario where some "undesireable" sect of a society is to be scooped up and stuck on island/all killed/all put in jail/etc. is ignorant.
To quote Nietzsche: "Even the most harmful man may really be the most useful when it comes to the preservation of the s
Re:Here they are at it again (Score:1)
Good call. We should quarantine all those sickos who are attracted to teenage girls and keep them away from the rest of our virtuous society.
All those perverts lusting after nubile 16 year-old girls. Disgusting.
Re:Here they are at it again (Score:2)
Re:Here they are at it again (Score:1)
Re:Here they are at it again (Score:2)
This is interesting, and the first I've ever heard of this. Do you have a reference for that? I can't find anything on the official gov't site about it (although that's hardly a surprise).
Re:Here they are at it again (Score:1)
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/April/03_ag_266.h tm [usdoj.gov]
Quote:
"Problem #3: Past Legal Obstacles Have Made Prosecuting Child Pornography Cases Very Difficult. Last year, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a federal law that criminalized the possession of "virtual" child pornography, i.e., materials whose production may not have involved the use of real children. This decision has made it immeasurably more difficult to eliminate the traffic in real child pornography
Re:Here they are at it again (Score:2)
Re:US Air Marshals "Company of the Month" (Score:2)
"Anonymity of the air marshals in our No. 1 concern," Adams said. "But the boarding of air marshals is set by federal regulations, which Congress sets."
Talk about CONgress being the opposite of PROgress...
sighs....
Re:US Air Marshals "Company of the Month" (Score:1)
1 the current Brass Band and Parade version
2 a covert/sleeper version (in this case would only act if the BBP one got taken out)
3 the MIF deep cover version (would be trained to do take downs quietly)
it would be a big surprise for #criminal if he found out that the cute little angel he just grabbed just happened to be an Air Marshall.
Re:US Air Marshals "Company of the Month" (Score:2)
Re:US Air Marshals "Company of the Month" (Score:2)
You fail to see the clearly illustrative IRONIC point here: The government and law enforcement are reigning over people and reigning in individual control over privacy data and demanding more access.
The government agencies are trying to clean up the public and yet don't even have their OWN HOUSE in order. Have you missed the subtle irony?
Yet, they are NOT doing much to protect THEMSELVES from the obvious: an air marhall p