×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

301 comments

Security keeps increasing... (5, Insightful)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027592)

As well as criminality. Can we see a pattern here? These measures don't seem to help at all. They are ethically wrong and have been empirically proven useless.

Bore them to death (2, Insightful)

mollog (841386) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027650)

Hey, they can look at my data. It will bore them to death.

Seriously, the internet has enabled a range of new criminal activity. This move to preserve data and mine it is to be expected. As time goes on, it will get worse.

I'm reminded of how people used to live in small towns and everybody knew everybody else's business. The only difference is that, now, police agencies and other spying organizations can conceal their activities. I vote that ISP's must reveal who asked for what.

Re:Bore them to death (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027722)

Hey, they can look at my data. It will bore them to death.

They'll find my four trillion digits of pi boring until they realize that every trillionth digit is the start of a datetime stamp followed by geographic coordinates indicating when and where I'm going to kill next. How many people have to die before they realize that it's GMT with no adjustments for daylight savings!?

Sincerely,

- Pi Killer

Re:Bore them to death (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027788)

Hey, they can look at my data. It will bore them to death.

They'll find my four trillion digits of pi boring until they realize that every trillionth digit is the start of a datetime stamp followed by geographic coordinates indicating when and where I'm going to kill next. How many people have to die before they realize that it's GMT with no adjustments for daylight savings!?

- Pi Killer

dunno how many must die. But when they start to figure out they are all politicians they will start to wonder ;-)

Re:Bore them to death (1)

clintonmonk (1411953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028186)

my four trillion digits of pi boring until they realize that every trillionth digit

a four digit timestamp? i wouldn't be too worried, since it seems like you haven't killed anyone for a loong time.

Re:Bore them to death (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027738)

It's not just that they can look at your data now, but in future too. World and politics can change really fast, especially now that US is having economical problems.

And what about other governments? Would it be good for example Google and Microsoft have a police-backdoor in China?

And the fact is, they can already subpoena data from companies and companies already have to maintain data for long time. This is just expending it ever longer, which is really worrying, coupled with the police-backdoors (imagine the fun when one of those gets hacked).

Re:Bore them to death (5, Insightful)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027774)

We need a revolution, that's all. Democracy isn't ruling the world -- politicians are. And politicians are nowhere near what we need.
Once again, we need a revolution. We need to take control. We must take control and save the world.

Re:Bore them to death (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027818)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:Bore them to death (2, Funny)

TheWizardTim (599546) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027896)

I can't wait to meet the new boss, as long as we don't get fooled again.

Re:Bore them to death (2, Funny)

Snarf You (1285360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028142)

I can't wait to meet the new boss, as long as we don't get fooled again.

There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, "fool me once ... shame on ... shame on you... if-- fool me, but can't get fooled again."

(oblig. link) [youtube.com]

Re:Bore them to death (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027976)

We need a revolution, that's all. Democracy isn't ruling the US -- politicians are. And politicians are nowhere near what we need.

Once again, we need a revolution. We need to take control. We must take control and save the US.

Fixed that for you.

However, while we here have fairly good democratic system, most people are idiots.

Re:Bore them to death (1)

Zencyde (850968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028080)

That's why the US is a republic and not a democracy. Always has been and always will be. Unless you think the average Joe should be making our laws. In which case, you're insane.

Re:Bore them to death (4, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028126)

We're a Democratic Republic here in the US. Politicians aren't running the country, special interests are. Except you're probably all for special interests when the are in your favor, but not for them when they aren't.

We can solve this problem simply and easily. A person can donate as much money to any candidate they can vote for, otherwise it is strictly forbidden.

I'd also increase the number of House members to 1000, each state getting at least two, but they only serve six months (by lottery) at a time. And cut their pay in 1/2.

I'd also make sure that EVERYONE over 18 had to write a check out to the IRS, for some amount, say $25 (or so) "person" tax. The reason for this is because people who don't pay ANY taxes (now about 50% of the population) don't care about how government spends other people's money.

Re:Bore them to death (1)

Montezumaa (1674080) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028238)

The United States is not a democracy and it never was. It is a representative democratic republic. I am not trying to be an ass, I am just tell you what anyone(in the United States) would know, if they had taken an Intro to American Government course in college. Politicians are the elected representatives that we put into power. They are elected to make decisions for us and it is our job to make sure they are doing what we want. Our only recourse is to discuss the issues with the politician, or elect the out of office.

We do not need a revolution and it is highly doubtful that another one will occur. Our governments(federal, state, and local) are working as they are supposed to, more or less. The problem is that there have been too many idiots that have taken the majority of the vote and swung it into their wants and needs. If you want change, then you have to go after it.

Pinpoint the problems in your governmental representatives and campaign against them. That is how change will occur. Ranting about it on some internet site will change nothing.

Re:Bore them to death (2, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028374)

Once again, we need a revolution. We need to take control. We must take control and save the world.

Great idea! I'll be the leader. You all just do exactly what I say and we'll topple the bourgeoisie elites and bring about... whatever it is you wanted exactly. The important part is that you have to pick me to be the leader. Every revolution needs a good dic^H^H^Hleader after all.

Re:Bore them to death (2, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027852)

What if the USA, faced with insurmountable debt, decides to sell your state to Saudi Arabia? Then their police decide to look over all this data and see who's guilty of violating their morality laws.

Sounds wacky, but stranger things have happened.

Re:Bore them to death (1)

wwfarch (1451799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028128)

Luckily those kind of deals take time.. enough time for me to get the hell our of dodge.

Re:Bore them to death (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028208)

No, they'll keep it all a big secret while the deal is being negotiated, just like they're trying to do with ACTA. Then, when it takes effect, soldiers will march in and shut off all routes of escape before you have a chance to pack up and get out.

Re:Bore them to death (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31027870)

It's not just that they can look at your data now, but in future too. World and politics can change really fast, especially now that US is having economical problems.

Exactly! Are you sure that any data that is available now will not violate any law they introduce in the future?

Like http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/04/extreme_images_net_suspension/ [theregister.co.uk] where a man is being charged for
something he did in Aug/Sept 08 but the law he broke came into being in Jan 2009.

Re:Bore them to death (2, Informative)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028034)

FWIW, the US Constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws

Re:Bore them to death (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31028110)

It's really not worth a lot considering that it's pretty much ignored these days.

Re:Bore them to death (5, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027770)

Nobody knows how totalitarian their country will be in 5 years.
Best to assume the worst extrapolating from today's trajectory.

Re:Bore them to death (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028106)

Nobody knows how totalitarian their country will be in 5 years. Best to assume the worst extrapolating from today's trajectory.

Right, because in five years the culture of law enforcement and the country it is a part of is going to radically change. That makes sense. Most people in law enforcement serve out of a genuine desire to help the public. I know it's hard to believe, but most of this legislation is not being passed because they want greater access... They already have it, and the judicial standards for gaining that access remain largely unchanged. What this legislation aims to do is decrease the time between when a search warrant is issued and when the evidence is in custody. It's to cut down on the amount of "fucking around" time -- because right now the cost to investigate high tech crimes is too high for the police to have much effect on it. And that does need to change; They're still using investigative methods (and technology) from the 70s in these cases. That's unacceptable.

Totalitarianism is one group being given absolute authority over all aspects of its citizens lives. This country's law enforcement can't even figure out how to cooperate with each other. It's the same in the military, the different branches of government... well, pretty much everywhere you look. I don't see a "totalitarian" government springing up anytime soon.

And failing that -- consider a simple statistical fact: You're using today's political climate to predict what's going to happen five years from now. Five years ago, Bush was being sworn in for a second term, a black president was inconceivable as a concept, New Orleans was still in one piece, and our unemployment rate looked positively rosy compared to now. The "worst case" scenario for some was a conservative estimate -- and for others, they feel hopeful for the first time ever.

All that said, there's one thing I do think: It shouldn't be the ISPs burden to keep those records. The cost of collection and maintenance of those records should be paid for by the government, either in the form of a tax credit or direct management of those assets.

Re:Bore them to death (4, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027882)

"If you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear" is exactly backwards. If you've actually committed a crime, I don't care about your privacy. I only care about the privacy of people who haven't committed crimes. I think we should care about it so much that we protect the criminals, too.

Protected rights aren't supposed to be loopholes with which to "get away with stuff." That's just a side effect of the real purpose of protecting your rights.

Just because your data is boring to a law enforcement agent, does not mean that your data will be boring to everyone that subsequently has access to it, including people who are in addition to being LEOs also people who have an interest in you, personally.

Re: not their business (4, Insightful)

mollog (841386) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027996)

I agree that until they have a very specific reason to be looking at my data, they have no business with my data. But I also acknowledge that, starting soon after 9/11, they started looking at my data despite laws that were supposed to prevent that.

And I also acknowledge that they will construe my information in ways that will put me at a disadvantage because I supported such-and-so politician, or because I looked into the side-effects of medication X. This manner of data-mining is already happening. Outlawing it is fruitless, but we can make laws that disclose who has looked at my data.

Until we have a sort of reciprocity wrt searching data, until we know who has been doing it, we will be at a disadvantage. The searching is already happening. But who is watching the watch-birds? That's what I want to know.

Really? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31028178)

If you've actually committed a crime, I don't care about your privacy. I only care about the privacy of people who haven't committed crimes.

Define "crime".

Re:Bore them to death (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027970)

Yeah mine too. Have at it, guys. Perhaps my criminal record, which consists being caught out after curfew after 10 pm riding my bike when I was 13 plus *several* failures to come to a complete stop at a stop sign and one failure to signal my intention to turn right will be of huge interest. Clearly I have subversive tendencies, at least while driving.

I'm a wild man. Grr.

Re:Security keeps increasing... (2, Interesting)

Large_Hippo (881120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028176)

Your argument may be true, but your facts are wrong: criminality has been steadily decreasing since 1993. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

Re:Security keeps increasing... (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028248)

The USA aren't the world. The article may be pointing it to the USA but I'm talking globally here. I live in a small country heading towards its end: Portugal. In spite of all statistics, I can clearly state that criminality is rising here.

Security Vulnerability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31027598)

This seems like a security vulnerability, as Google's recent issues with China were caused by this sort of thing exactly.

Because they can?! (4, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027604)

They think just because they can it's a good idea? Doesn't sabotage the principles of free and open societies at all?! Imagine if they did in real life half the things they already do online. I'd have already picked up a gun just because others already would have too.

Re:Because they can?! (5, Funny)

_merlin (160982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027844)

That sounds like the kind of thing an enemy of Freedom(TM) would say. I think we need to fast-track the retrieval of headkase's personal information, so we can find something that could be construed as evidence of support for terrorism and put him away before he robs us of our lifesytle.

You see, it's the Freedom(TM) to agree with whoever is currently top dog - not freedom to make your own decisions. (Kind of like RMS GNU/Freedom, really.)

Re:Because they can?! (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027910)

You Sir, are delicious. Exactly the kind of thought in small adjustments that prevent the bloodshed of large.

Re:Because they can?! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31027848)

I can fist your mom, which incidentally is a good idea. She likes a good fisting. She will soon be the next goatse girl.

Re:Because they can?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31028328)

According to a report I read several years back, all email is already being snooped, in the US and most of the EU. At least the "storing email" part is already possible and therefore they're doing it already, this would just allow them to transfer the burden of storage to the providers. In other words, if you're not encrypting your email, you're a blithering idiot. If you are, here's to hoping that quantum computing will make new encryption possible before decryption and that old mail is either not interesting any more due to staleness by the time they can read it, or that they haven't got the storage, which would explain why they want the providers to do it.

Probable Cause (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31027610)

I have no problem with police getting this kind of private information, as long as it is fully disclosed that they have requested it, and they can only request it with probable cause. I doubt either of these conditions will be satisfied.

Just So Everyone Is Clear (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027628)

Aside from internal 1984 style abuse of this proposed system, the fundamental concept (and all existing implementations of it) introduces a new level of security risk [technologyreview.com] and it is this exact interface that is said to be the weakness that was exploited in the Google China attack [computerworld.com]. From a computer security perspective, this is wrong on many different levels.

Re:Just So Everyone Is Clear (3, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027706)

I agree. In the name of liberty, we should continue to limit the processing of these requests to post-it notes.

Re:Just So Everyone Is Clear (1)

Noren (605012) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028012)

Absolutely. These are the only two options [wikipedia.org] we have.

Anyone who has a specific objection to a proposed expansion of govenment powers is advocating the only other option, anarchy.

Re:Just So Everyone Is Clear (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027836)

But didn't you know that

War Is Peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is Strength?

One of my favorite books btw. too bad people generally aren't paying attention :/

Re:Just So Everyone Is Clear (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028280)

You shouldn't be that upset, a key aspect of the book is that most people aren't paying attention.

Re:Just So Everyone Is Clear (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028050)

The penalties will probably be lower for gaining physical access to the systems and stealing the log drives. This surely will lead to the data being compromised over the internet, but it will almost as surely lead to increased physical intrusion against ISPs.

Okay, but on one condition (4, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027634)

The police have to pay for the storage. Since the amount of online data is constantly increasing, I figure having to lay out funds for that many terrabytes of storage should bankrupt them, and then they can focus on doing the job they *should* be doing (picking up garbage), instead of the one they *want* to be doing (invading privacy without probable cause).

Re:Okay, but on one condition (3, Funny)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027782)

oooh, good idea. I vote for using SSD's to store the data, so we can access it quickly if the need ever arise.

Re:Okay, but on one condition (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31028246)

You're modded funny, but...I'd angrily mod you "short sighted" if I could.

If the police had to pay for storage, you know they'd just raise taxes to do it. And then they'd hire their inept DBA, backups, and lose them to some intern unencrypted in the back seat of his car.

But it is a great observation, that aside...

I have a hardware random number generator. If there's anyone in a country/location that does log all traffic, I'd be more than happy to dump 50% of its entropy into netcat at the port of your choice, at the (reasonable) rate of your choice. TCP, UDP, strange looking HTTP ...whatever

If you really want, I'll even have it send the XOR of the webpage of your choice with that output just so you can actually identify what it is (even if you don't know the key)--that way you can produce the plaintext if you're ordered to in Britain.

Anyone interested--leave a reply with contact method. I've got lots of bandwidth...and I really love the notion of filling up drives at some defense department with truly random numbers for giggles. Maybe I should use DES or RC4 on a counter key just to be sure some CPU cycles are wasted cracking it...

CAPTCHA = "bluffing"

Re:Okay, but on one condition (1)

RiffRafff (234408) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027826)

Pay for storage AND maintenance of said storage. The ISPs shouldn't be forced to spend a dime on this, even if it does pass.

Re:Okay, but on one condition (5, Insightful)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027932)

Pay for storage AND maintenance of said storage. The ISPs shouldn't be forced to spend a dime on this, even if it does pass.

ISPs pay, increase rates to make up shortfall. Result: The average joe pays to lose his privacy.

Government pays, increase taxes to make up shortfall. Result: The average joe pays to lose his privacy.

I'd like a third option, please. How about "we don't do it and no one pays"?

police-only encrypted portals (1)

Lowen_SoDium (1338503) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027642)

>police-only encrypted portals Oh good. Those will never be exploited, hacked, cracked, or otherwise compromised.

A road paved in good intentions (2, Insightful)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027662)

Just where is it taking us?

Re:A road paved in good intentions (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027754)

Hell. We're all going to hell.

Re:A road paved in good intentions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31027988)

Hell. We're all going to hell.

I was wondering why I was in this hand basket.

Re:A road paved in good intentions (3, Insightful)

Xelios (822510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027984)

I wouldn't even call this good intention, it's nothing but an attempt to bypass some paper work at the expense of privacy.

They argue that e-mailing a court order is too slow. Well no, e-mailing it is nearly instantaneous, it's the response that's slow. That's a problem that shouldn't require unfettered access to private data to fix. A simple piece of legislation stating ISP's must respond to legal requests by law enforcement within x days should do it.

As for data not being retained long enough, 20 years ago police departments didn't have any web data at all, and they still managed to do their jobs. I'm sure they'd like to have 5 years of retained data to mine, but considering the implications for privacy and security I don't think this convenience is worth it.

F*ck that sh*t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31027666)

The electronic version of No-Knock, and we all know how well that worked.

Why is it that LE types always think speed will improve action? Don't they know speed kills?

Kevin Mitnick needed (4, Funny)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027676)

Where is Kevin Mitnick when you need him?

Yo dawg we heard you like wire taps so we put a wire tap in your wire tap so we can hear while you hear.

A million internets to the first person to crack this system.

NO! (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027682)

It's no great surprise the cops want this. But can you imagine the response of banks (and customers) if the police were to demand a special door in every bank so they could waltz in and search the safety deposit boxes at their convenience? Of homeowners if the cops were to demand a master key to every house to make search warrants easier to execute?

Unfortunately, when it comes to electronic records, lawmakers seem to think expanding the AT&T NSA rooms to access portals for every cop in the country is a great idea.

Well if they're encrypted... (2, Interesting)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027686)

These "police portals" are logistical nightmares. Keep in mind that there are hundreds of police forces in the US then take into account security services and other interested parties are we might be talking about the population of a city who need completely secure access to a great deal of private information.

Then we need to talk about audit trail and legality of these searches. Who monitors the police/security services to make sure they're acting within the law? How do we know someone isn't spying on their ex' or getting stock tips?

I think the best system for all involved is a dedicated department at large ISPs/hosts who responds to requests, reads the warrant and grants/denies it. If they grant it then they're given a portal for JUST that request which disables when the warrant expires.

Re:Well if they're encrypted... (1)

jayemcee (605967) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027850)

FTA: "A system like this should have strong logins, should require that the request be documented fully, and should produce statistical information so there can be strong oversight," he says. "I think that's a good thing to have." This is Declan McCullagh, who apparently has some dead bodies that these 100 police inspectors know about :)

Re:Well if they're encrypted... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027904)

You pay for the ISP that has a legal department that spends money trying to block warrants.

I'll just encrypt sensitive information before it leaves my damn computer (please note that I do not expect to send any 'sensitive' information from my personal computer anytime in the next 5 years).

S-MIME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31028056)

Time to break out S-MIME. That should slow 'em down a bit.

Tyrants... (2, Insightful)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027700)

need to put to death.

There are going to be a lot of jackasses that comment with "so what you should have nothing to hide" or "that's what you get when you don't run your own email server" etc.

My question is, how many people would it acceptable if the USPO opened all your mail and made photocopies of it to store for their own use? What about UPS, or FedEx?

The solution everyone is too afraid to talk about is simple: kill the tyrants.

That will send a message to the other tyrants that we are no longer in the position to have our privacy, our freedom, and our liberty trampled upon.

Re:Tyrants... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31027780)

Sounds like you are making a very good case for the police to monitor YOUR communications - you speak exactly like a terrorist.

You sound like someone who might want to bomb government buildings in the name of liberty.

I hope the authorities ARE keeping a file on you. :-)

Re:Tyrants... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31027862)

Or, in a much earlier age, he would be called "a patriot". Sadly, unlike our founding fathers, we have no new land to move to in order to re-establish our freedoms. So in effect, the OP's argument is the only recourse left.

Re:Tyrants... (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027982)

Antarctica. But it doesn't have readily accessible natural resources, so you're going to have to figure out how to sustain an economy sufficient to enable you to bring in most of your foodstuffs.

Re:Tyrants... (2, Insightful)

RiffRafff (234408) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027920)

They probably ARE keeping a file, but not for the reason you hope. Mostly because citizens who understand the Constitution, and remember that Thomas Jefferson once said, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," are a stumbling block to wider and wider police powers. That that makes them a threat.

Re:Tyrants... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31028086)

I really really really hope this is sarcasm

Didn't we just learn this lesson? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027716)

>A system like this should have strong logins, should require that the request be documented fully, and should produce statistical information so there can be strong oversight

You cannot make a system strong enough to protect this attractive of a data store. That's how China accessed Gmail accounts, and that was fucking Google. If it can happen at Google, it can happen anywhere.

Wasn't this what caused the Google hack? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31027778)

Wasn't a system very similar to the proposed encrypted portal responsible for the Google hack, where the email accounts of many human rights activists were compromised?

And now they want EVERYONE to have such a system? Lovely. Because it's not like those will be hacker-bait or anything...

Nothing can stop them now. (0)

djfuq (1151563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027800)

hey pig
yeah you
hey pig piggy pig pig pig
all of my fears came true
black and blue and broken bones you left me here I'm all alone
my little piggy needed something new

nothing can stop me now
I don't care anymore
nothing can stop me now
I just don't care

hey pig
nothing's turning out the way I planned
hey pig there's a lot of things I hoped you could help me understand
what am I supposed to do I lost my shit because of you

nothing can stop me now
I don't care anymore
nothing can stop me now
I just don't care
nothing can stop me now
you don't need me anymore

Bad bad Idea. (2, Insightful)

Asadullah Ahmad (1608869) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027868)

Anything that gives too much centralized and easy access to thousands of users' data is a terrible thing to even consider, be it for Police or whatever.

Law enforcement agencies are not filled with angles who will just stick to a line if they have access like this.

Police want... (2, Insightful)

pluther (647209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027876)

And criminals want to be given everything they want without having to work for it first.

They both need to grow the fuck up, and leave the rest of us alone.

Smacks of Corruption. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31027888)

"...via police-only encrypted portals at all ISPs and webmail providers.

Er, why don't you just hang a big sign over this system that says "Hack Me!"? And "police only"? Like we've never put the words "Police" and "Corruption" together before. I also like how they use the term "speed up" when referring to the process of obtaining search warrants and subpoenas. I think what they really mean to say is "go around".

I can just see it now. Users with access to this "all-seeing" system bankrolled by lawyers to either "clean" users data, or create some "evidence"...

The corruption smacks harder than S&M porn.

A real boon for the bad guys. (2, Insightful)

OFnow (1098151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027906)

The bad guys are way better at getting this sort of data out of the ISPs
than the ISPs are at protecting it. The scammers are going to love
this new data, nicely collecting valid IP addresses, email addresses,
and more in convenient form to steal.

We've seen the prices wireless companies command (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027916)

for cell traces and wiretaps....
0
it's OBSCENE-- why wouldn't this law automatically include payment for such service/record keeping?

(yes, I realize that shifts the cost to taxpayers (everyone) instead of consumers (local customers) only)

but seriously- when LEOs ask for information they pay the major carriers for the taps....

why isn't this requirement reimbursable-- what is the different theory?

Why is it... (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027926)

Why is it that these intelligence gathering entities always seem to think that the problem is not enough information? They already have way too much info, and collecting even more isn't going to help. Sifting through the info they have to weed out the useless stuff is what they really should be concentrating on. And hasn't law enforcemnt ever heard of the Wayback Machine?

Need to cut police spending (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027928)

We can't afford all the police. Time to just decriminalize some stuff, have speedy death sentences for other stuff, and just have a cheaper justice system. And, if someone shoots a burglar or a would be home invader, don't give them a bunch of crap.

Re:Need to cut police spending (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028014)

Why not just put people to work instead of simply locking them in a box? Let them all do something useful, and I don't mean breaking rocks into smaller rocks. If they're later found to be innocent, pay them for their time.

Re:Need to cut police spending (1)

Therilith (1306561) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028192)

Yeah, we can't trust the government with our data, but we can trust them to decide who lives and who dies.

"He was in/near my house" is not a reasonable answer to "Why the hell did you shoot that guy?".

And of course (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#31027990)

They want provisions to pay for all the extra storage and have provided a mechanism to verify a judge's sign-off and create a public record of the judicial process, right?

What are all those crickets doing in here?

Where to draw the line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31028082)

We are supposed to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure but where is that line? We're now told we should have no assumption of privacy on the web. The GPS devices in our cars can be used to track us at times with no court order. What privacy rights do we have left? Our thoughts? Even that is limited. I heard of a guy being sued because he had an idea for a piece of software he didn't write down and the company he worked for sued to get the idea. Isn't that "unreasonable"? 'Dear Supreme Court. Please define "Unreasonable" because apparently we all have different definitions of what constitutes unreasonable.' If I post on-line that I think I know what happens on the last episode of "Lost" can I be sued for what's in my head and if I reveal it and I happen to be right have I broken laws and can I be sued?

Cypherpunks ho! (1)

spinkham (56603) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028124)

I guess it's time to bring back the cypherpunks.. Somebody light up the Phil Zimmerman beacon! ;-)

Only upside I can see is more willingness to use GPG or S/MIME if a law like this gets passed..

This is a surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31028228)

Police (or, equivalently, their political masters) ALWAYS want ways to make their job easier or more convenient for THEM, meanwhile YOUR rights be damned!

Duh (1)

DeanFox (729620) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028270)


tl;dr: Stumbled upon or unsolicited - fine. Active investigation targeted request - search warrant.

What I'm told (IANAL) is they don't need a search warrant if they walk into a hardware store and ask to see all the receipts for January 12th - so long as the business owner says "sure - here you go..." So, 99% of officers responded that they would like to login and search a site's entire database from their desk. Duh, oh course they want it. Who wouldn't?

In other news 99% of the employees I polled in my office would like to have unfettered access to our payroll system.

I would like to see the rules of evidence tightened to exclude data requested in this manner whether by a generic FAX up to and including a sticky note with the suspects name on it. If police stumble upon evidence in the course of their duties or information is offered to them unsolicited that's one thing. But if they're actively requesting information about a particular suspect - my opinion is it should require a search warrant that's fully vetted by the courts stipulating the search parameters.

This has always been a sticking point with investigators. They want full access to anything and everything at their discretion with zero oversight. No surprise when polled that's what they want. It's my opinion the state should not be able to buy a subscription to a private company like LexisNexis and be able to use that information. Not without a search warrant.

-[d]-

Hey, coppers, first do this! (4, Insightful)

haruchai (17472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028314)

You want the keys to the kingdom? Prove you can be trusted

1.) All police officers, all employees of all police forces that may have any kind access to confidential data and any contractors or consultants
          must submit to annual interviews including polygraphs regarding their activities, private and professional, past and present.
          The Canadian Mounties have a process like this for applicants but I don't think it's done once you become a constable.
  2.) No question is off-limits; all questions must be answered.
  3.) Failure to submit or answer a question will result in dismissal.
  4.) All interviews are to be observed by a panel of witnesses of which several are private citizens
  5.) All (unedited) interviews will be available to the public upon request.

If those conditions are met, then I'll gladly comply with your requests for private data.

Email the President (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028324)

Let the administration know what you think. He has some control over policy and direction. He should know what this community thinks.

How to setup private e-mail server ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31028330)

Everything looks nice on paper however like we learned systems like these are abused and used for unlawful requests.

Can someone please recommned solution for offline email server. Which provider would be the best? Offshore maybe?

Is the email stored as it passes through the intermediate servers?

This will work (1)

passim (1437941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028370)

as well as the police demand for complete access to GPS data on automobiles. As soon as someone said "we'll track the police cars too, for efficiency" - which actually makes sense - they raised hell and and claimed it was unfair.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...