Beta
×

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!

FBI May Get Easier Access To Internet Activity

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the because-they-can dept.

Government 276

olsmeister writes "It appears the White House would like to make it easier for the FBI to obtain records of a person's internet activities without a court order to do so, via the use of an NSL. While they have been able to do this for a long time, it may expand the type of information able to be gathered without a court order to include things like web browsing histories."

cancel ×

276 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And another disappointment (4, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068456)

It seems like on civil liberties issues Obama is being almost as bad as Bush. There's something deeply wrong with my country when I read a headline and my first thought is "Well, at least this President isn't having people tortured."

Re:And another disappointment (5, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068504)

I'm a liberal, but I have to agree. Why do they constantly feel the need to bypass the current warrant system? They can get these after the fact, yet they continue to push for ways to simply bypass them altogether. I realize it's a dangerous world, but if the end result turns the U.S. into something just as bad as that which we are trying to protect ourselves from, what's the use?

The end does not justify the means...

Re:And another disappointment (4, Insightful)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068716)

This is why I am so against some of the deep packet inspection coupled with Ads some ISP's have been looking at. When charter was looking at it, you could get a cookie that would prevent the targeted ads from displaying in your browser, however, they are still tracking your every move, just don't show you the ads. (its easier to scan everything than scan selectively).

Some people are okay with that, but a few years later, and now, without a warrant, the FBI can see what you were looking at.

Re:And another disappointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068800)

Please refrain from using vulgar terms such as f@#k, s$!t, and lib$@l.

I'm a staunch conservative. Conservative to the extreme, you might say. That said I believe in freedom, freedom to choose how to live your own life, when and where, and with very little government intervention. The lines between democrats and republicans has become blurred in many areas, but one thing in which they are in complete accord, is retainment of power.

We need to vote in the opposite of lawmakers... we need people who seek to remove laws and return control to the people. We need politicians who don't really want the job.

Re:And another disappointment (4, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068950)

We need to vote in the opposite of lawmakers... we need people who seek to remove laws and return control to the people. We need politicians who don't really want the job.

You realize that these same folks you vote in tomorrow will become the same people you despise in a few years? Your solution doesn't address root cause, it only sticks a band-aid on the problem.

The only way to accomplish your goals is with term limits, public funding, and no money allowed by any public interest to be funneled to a politician. It should not take money to get an idea into congress. That's why we have representatives.

Take away the fundraising drives, "donations", and institute term limits and you remove the things that allow so much corruption and the drive to go into politics just to make money. Force them into public funding, where every candidate gets equal air time to express their beliefs, and leave money out of the equation. Do all of those things, and the only folks willing to become public servants will be those that are truly interested in doing the public good, rather than serving their own pockets.

Re:And another disappointment (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069056)

It doesn't matter. Government can not and will not remain limited. Before the ink was even dry on the US constitution the federal government was using it's new taxing power to bail our bankers and bond speculators [wikipedia.org] on the backs of farmers.

If you have a government then you will be ruled by an oligarchy.

Re:And another disappointment (1)

egamma (572162) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069242)

The problem lies not with the people who are elected, but those who are not. Examples:
Presidential secretaries-- determine who gets to speak to the president. Need I say more?

All the aides and staff to all the members of Congress--these are the people who actually write 800 page laws and tell the members of Congress "how things are done in Washington". These are the reason why simply replacing the elected officials in Washington never seems to work.

Re:And another disappointment (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069256)

>>>The only way to accomplish your goals is with term limits, public funding, and no money allowed by any public interest to be funneled to a politician

It isn't the "only" way. Another alternative is to have no government, except the bare minimum. "It is only to protect our rights, that we have any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrat Party. Let's return to a government that only exercises the powers granted to it by the Constitution, and all other powers be reserved to the Citizens.

Oh and let's not forget to revoke all corporate licenses, since their power is almost as dangerous as Congresses' power.

Re:And another disappointment (2, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069328)

It isn't the "only" way. Another alternative is to have no government, except the bare minimum. "It is only to protect our rights, that we have any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrat Party. Let's return to a government that only exercises the powers granted to it by the Constitution, and all other powers be reserved to the Citizens.

We had one of those [wikipedia.org] but the banksters found that it limited their access to OPM too much so it was scrapped in favor of the current government.

Re:And another disappointment (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069282)

>>>the only folks willing to become public servants will be those that are truly interested in doing the public good, rather than serving their own pockets.

Yeah. Like Christians and other moralists. Oh horror.
Say goodbye to internet porn, or beer, or sex before marriage, or.....

Re:And another disappointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33069524)

Your assuming these folks would somehow no longer be answerable to the public's vote?

Re:And another disappointment (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069506)

There was some sci-fi book, about the near future, where all the politicians were selected through LOTTERY. For a limited period of time. Only one term. I thought, what a funny idea.....but is it really funny?

Re:And another disappointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33069196)

We need to vote in the opposite of lawmakers... we need people who seek to remove laws and return control to the people. We need politicians who don't really want the job.

Yes, anarchists and assassins is what the US political system needs.

Arm every last motherfucker and send the fuckers out into the street. And, tell them to use all the vulgar terms they can come up with so conservatives who think they should control the use of such things can be told to go fuck themselves.

Re:And another disappointment (1, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068870)

Why do they constantly feel the need to bypass the current warrant system? They can get these after the fact, yet they continue to push for ways to simply bypass them altogether.

Because it's not a matter of conservative vs liberal, or or Democrat vs Republican, or of right vs left. It's a matter of courage vs cowardice, and the people at the top are cowards regardless of politics or at the top to begin with.

Only the power-hungry obtain power, and only the money-hungry obtain great wealth.

Re:And another disappointment (5, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069200)

"Avarice and ambition will break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

"No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session." -- Benjamin Franklin. Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects." - Dangers of a Salaried Bureaucracy, 1787

I wish people would start listening to these guys.

Re:And another disappointment (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069416)

"the people at the top are cowards regardless of politics "

Spot on. Almost everyone old enough to have in interest in Slashdot should remember the hysteria in Washington after 9/11. Invade Afghanistan (which I agreed with) invade Iraq (did not agree with) Kill Osama, he's mailing us anthrax, pass the Patriotic Gestapo Bill quickly - etc ad nauseum. Mass frigging hysteria. "If you're not with us, you're against us." In effect, telling the whole world to choose sides, because we're headed for Armageddon. (Or, Ragnarock, depending on your choice of scenarios.)

Re:And another disappointment (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069472)

>>>pass the Patriotic Gestapo Bill quickly - etc ad nauseum. Mass frigging hysteria

I saw the same thing in late 2008 and through most of 2009. "We gotta pass these Bailout and Stimulus Bills quickly, without even bothering to read them!" The Republicans almost all voted these bills down, but since the Democrats had the majority they rammed them through anyway. Hysteria.

I hate them all. I wish the Congress was run by Libertarians or constitutionalists. People who obey the 9th and 10th amendments instead of pretending they did not exist.

     

Re:And another disappointment (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069546)

>>>Invade Afghanistan (which I agreed with)

I don't. Going to war over a few deaths (~3000) is ridiculous and juvenile. Since 9/11 approximately 420,000 people have died on the highway. If we're going to spend billions of dollars trying to prevent death, let's spend it on the thing that kills the most people - cars. Not terrorists.

No torture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068512)

That you know of.

Re:No torture? (5, Funny)

Ashriel (1457949) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068984)

I believe Obama when he said there'll be no more torture in the U.S. I took that as an indicator that all torture will be carried out offshore from now on.

Re:No torture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33069490)

I believe Obama when he said there'll be no more torture in the U.S. I took that as an indicator that all torture will be carried out offshore from now on.

Yeah I think you're probably right on the money there Ashriel

Re:No torture? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069544)

There is much emotional reaction against using torture, but there is also zero inherent reason that (properly) applied stress cannot be used to (in conjunction with other information and other methods of information extraction) to produce useful intel.

When one fights cultural enemies who don't play by the rules, it becomes reasonable to abandon the rules which only exist for ones own benefit (expectation of reciprocity).

Re:And another disappointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068514)

There's something deeply wrong with my country when I read a headline and my first thought is "Well, at least this President isn't having people tortured."

Emotional/Mental torture can last be more devastating than physical torture.

Re:And another disappointment (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068618)

So he shut down Camp X-Ray on Guantanamo Bay? I must have missed that in the news.

Re:And another disappointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068622)

Well, at least this President isn't having people tortured.

As far as we know. Reporters and others still aren't allowed in certain areas of Guantanamo, and Obama maintains the right to imprison indefinitely without trial. So yeah, "Bush III" isn't too far off.

Re:And another disappointment (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068672)

Had you instead written "It seems like on civil liberties issues Obama is worse than Bush" -- IOW, the truth -- you would've been modded "Troll," not "Insightful," for sure.

Damn right I'm posting this A.C.!

Almost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068702)

You're showing your partisan slant

Re:Almost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068760)

so are you.

Re:And another disappointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068746)

It seems like on civil liberties issues Obama is being almost as bad as Bush.

Almost?

Re:And another disappointment (1)

bckspc (172870) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068834)

"Well, at least this President isn't having people tortured."

He just gave the people who sanctioned the torture a free pass [nytimes.com] , instead.

I've said it before, Obama is the New Bush [tumblr.com] !

Re:And another disappointment (5, Interesting)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069042)

Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (1, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068976)

My girfriend was convinced that Obama was going to change everything (she's so naive, but it's kind of cute in a girl). I told her that he would just continue 90% of Bush's evil shit once he got into office, and even the 10% of change would be moderate/token at best. It's the one point on which Dick Cheney and I agree [huffingtonpost.com] . Obama is like every other politician. He only hates the police state when he's not the one in charge of it.

Re:And another disappointment (2, Insightful)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069050)

It seems like on civil liberties issues Obama is being almost as bad as Bush

Almost as bad? Try worse and just continuing what was done by Dems under Clinton. You didn't really think Dems have less love of power and ability to intrude and control than those big bad Republicans did you? Maybe by 2012 you won't be so naive and eat the sugar coated campaign slogans.

Re:And another disappointment (1, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069052)

"Well, at least this President isn't having people tortured."

You think the CIA isn't doing that in black camps across Eurasia? Was there an executive order to that effect?

To top it off, Obama has ordered the execution of Americans overseas suspected of participating in terrorism, without even a trial.

Re:And another disappointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33069262)

It seems like on civil liberties issues Obama is being almost as bad as Bush. There's something deeply wrong with my country when I read a headline and my first thought is "Well, at least this President isn't having people tortured."

We still do things that most UN observers would classify as torture, it's still government policy, but we just do it outside of our own geographical boundaries, and we've stopped talking about it.

The correct statement is "At least the new guy isn't *bragging* about torture!", which, as far as improvements go, is even more depressing. :)

Really? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068464)

FIRST HISTORY

Proxies, https, SSH (4, Funny)

MoeDumb (1108389) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068480)

The usual solutions . . . unless they're planning to outlaw those too?

Re:Proxies, https, SSH (4, Insightful)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069138)

You are a fool if you think those can protect you from the three letter agencies. Hope this [networkworld.com] doesn't spoil your day.

Re:Proxies, https, SSH (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069388)

Oh SSH etc can protect you from three letter agencies (unless you piss someone off so much that they're willing to prove that they can crack RSA.... assuming they can)but only if you can't trust third parties like signing authorities, you can swap keys with a friend personally and you're as safe as the OS's you're using.
(ignoring Van Eck phreaking of course but if you're that scared just build shielding into your home and sleep with the server and your guns)

But as long as you trust a third party who can have their arms twisted your communications can be intercepted.

Said it before, I'll say it again (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068482)

Always treat every single thing you do online as if anyone could see what you are doing. If you don't want people to know you are visiting certain sites, then don't visit them. If you don't want people to know your opinion about something, don't write it on Facebook.

Treat everything you do online as if you have zero privacy. That way, in case something goes screwy, you have no surprises waiting for you.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again (-1, Flamebait)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068810)

Always treat every single thing you do online as if anyone could see what you are doing. If you don't want people to know you are visiting certain sites, then don't visit them. If you don't want people to know your opinion about something, don't write it on Facebook.

Treat everything you do online as if you have zero privacy. That way, in case something goes screwy, you have no surprises waiting for you.

Hi sheep!

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068892)

Hi sheep!

I'm a sheep because I use discretion in what personal information I put on the Internet? How do you figure?

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again (3, Insightful)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068918)

The opposite of sheep, I'd say. This sounds like sound advice for the intelligent and careful.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again (2, Informative)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069128)

The opposite of sheep, I'd say. This sounds like sound advice for the intelligent and careful.

Only if your creative limitation are within the boundary of the current social moral.

For everyone thinking outside of the box, it's a tragedy.

The world is a dynamic environment, where we always have to question our moral and knowledge.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069434)

>>>>>>Treat everything you do online as if you have zero privacy. That way, in case something goes screwy, you have no surprises waiting for you.
>>>>
>>>>Hi sheep! - Krneki
>>
>>The opposite of sheep, I'd say. This sounds like sound advice for the intelligent and careful.
>
>Only if your creative limitation are within the boundary of the current social moral. For everyone thinking outside of the box, it's a tragedy. The world is a dynamic environment, where we always have to question our moral and knowledge. - Krneki
>

Wow you have mastered the art of writing Bullshit in a way that sounds thoughtful & intelligent, but actually says nothing at all. Maybe we should audition you for Penn & Teller. As far as I'm concerned the previous two posters are correct (be careful when online), and you Krneki contributed nothing of value.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068866)

If you have said it before, why not save us all the trouble and just keep your mouth shut then?

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again (2, Interesting)

metiscus (1270822) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069018)

Storage is so cheap anymore that it is quite reasonable that any agency (or entity for that matter) that had the desire to monitor the complete transaction history of any particular individual on the internet could do so easily and very cheaply assuming they had the proper access. Mind you, ISPs and phone companies could already be doing such things, I don't think that there is a particular law against doing so. If that is the case, then true privacy is, since telephones have been around forever, and has been an illusion for many decades. The only real question that remains is what are the permissible use cases for the data that is collected.

Incoming fucktard sopssa/SquarePixel trolling ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068490)

sopssa = SquarePixel = fucktard troll! Remember it moderators!

Peace out!

Re:Incoming fucktard sopssa/SquarePixel trolling . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068562)

why aren't you banned yet?

Re:Incoming fucktard sopssa/SquarePixel trolling . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068752)

I think you are sopssa.

So screw our Privacy right? (3, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068502)

I'm sorry but I have a sense of Privacy in my life and the thought of some bureaucrat being able to snoop on my traffic or anything they want without a warrant is to damn Orwellian for my taste.

We have laws to protect our rights, among those are the rights to Privacy. Why the hell then do we allow the Executive Branch of government trounce on those rights because of National Security? Just because
I use technology to communicate doesn't mean I subrogate my rights to keeping those communications confidential unless I decide to make them public. Yes, the Internet is public but what I have on my computer
is private. If they have a suspicion of illegal activity, get a warrant, make the case in front of a judge and then and only then can they do these things.

Frankly, I think I'll be like Johnny Depp and get my own Fuck Off Island if these damn so-called security experts keep pushing our Privacy into the trash.

Re:So screw our Privacy right? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068552)

While I agree with your overall message, if you have sensitive stuff you don't want the government (or anyone else, for that matter) finding out, keep it on a system that doesn't have access to the Internet. Transfer stuff to it via external hard drives, an ad-hoc connection, or flash drives.

Re:So screw our Privacy right? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068832)

Sure, I can do that and use sneaker net. But let's say I send a GMail to my wife and we're having marital problems. We're not, but let's just pretend.

GMail is using HTTPS but some nice guy at the FBI says "Humm, I wanna look at this he may be a terrorist!"

He then intercepts the traffic from My PC to the GMail servers. Then he leverages those nice big computers at the NSA and decrypts my message. Where does it go? Does it go into a file on me? My Wife? When does it disappear? When I'm 90 is somebody going to come back to me and say "Hey, back in 2010 you and your wife were having problems, how did that work?"

  Is there some other chode in the works buying this stuff so now Divorce Lawyers start calling me?

I know, I know, Google will already be sending me targeted ads for Lawyers, the Psychic Friends Hotline and Marriage Councilors but still, I signed up for that in their terms of service. I didn't sign up for my government doing it to me.

They need to get a Warrant and F-Off until then!

Re:So screw our Privacy right? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069014)

He'd need a wiretap to intercept it, not an NSL. At that rate, it'd be easier to obtain a subpoena to get the information directly from GMail. That way it won't tie up the imaginary computers at the NSA that can decrypt everything.

Re:So screw our Privacy right? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069140)

people seem to think that the NSA needs supercomputers to crack your encrypted connections.

Why bother when they can just sent a nice polite letter to google(or any other company) telling them to hand over their private key(and also forbidding google from telling anyone about it).

then they can intercept and snoop anything they like.

Or use the tried and true (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068884)

eat it, burn it, or flush it after memorizing it

oh wait, I forgot, they will soon be able to read your thoughts by analysing neuro-electric activity,
at least enough to be sure you're hiding something, at which point, it's the rubber mallets.

Re:So screw our Privacy right? (1)

exhilaration (587191) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068660)

This is way beyond privacy - after all, how do they get your web browsing history? Not from your provider, they don't log every DNS request, but by breaking into your home and cloning your hard drive.

Re:So screw our Privacy right? (1)

jridley (9305) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068714)

Actually it's apparently not difficult to get your browser to reveal your browsing history. Most browsers are going to fix that in the next major release, but it's still no guarantee there won't be another way.

Also, logging DNS isn't good enough anyway - that doesn't really reveal history, only sites, and then only that something referenced them - could have been an embedded ad or anything. What they'd have to log would be HTTP requests.

Re:So screw our Privacy right? (2, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068736)

No, as TFAs clearly cover, this applies only to obtaining records from your ISP.

Re:So screw our Privacy right? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068804)

They can't snoop on your traffic with an NSL unless your ISP is recording your network traffic. Nor can they access what is on your computer. An NSL only enables them to obtain records from your ISP (subscriber information, toll billing records, ISP login records, and electronic communication transaction records). It's not a wiretap, nor is it a warrant that gives them access to information stored on your property.

Lesson for big-government cheerleaders (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068554)

Power cannot and will not be compartmentalized. A government that has the ability to give you everything you ever wanted also, by the simple reality of power, has the ability to take everything you ever had.

Do not ignore the big picture. A government should not only be measured by individual laws and mandates, but as a single entity in reference to its power over the people. In other words, the reason the FBI is able to enact this form of oppression is because government is big enough.

Re:Lesson for big-government cheerleaders (3, Insightful)

lwriemen (763666) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068956)

Trouble is the small-government cheerleaders voted some of the worst oppressors of civil liberties, Reagan and Bush2, into office.

Re:Lesson for big-government cheerleaders (2, Interesting)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068962)

We have exactly two choices for how to organize society: oligarchy or anarchy.

Re:Lesson for big-government cheerleaders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33069520)

We have exactly two choices for how to organize society: oligarchy or anarchy.

Already given up on democracy then, have we?

So, when the US goes around saying they want to free the world with democracy they really mean enslave the world to its oligarchy?

Fuck you.

There's a reason for warrants (5, Insightful)

alexo (9335) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068580)

Things that can be abused, will be abused.

This is especially true when people working for law enforcement agencies have a sense of entitlement and no real accountability for their actions. There's a reason for warrants.

Re:There's a reason for warrants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068856)

Things that can be abused, will be abused.

They already are:

http://www.eff.org/issues/foia/07656JDB

I'm all for catching the bad guys.... (4, Insightful)

realsilly (186931) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068584)

.... but this, along with a lot of changes made with the last few adminstrations is getting ridiculous. Why must those of us who are law abiding put up with our civil liberties being stripped away piece by layered piece until we are truly in Orwell's "1984". I know that the reason that is being touted is to help the FBI and other agencies catch those would mean to cause harm upon us, but this is not the right way to go about this.

To counter the arguement "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide", I have done nothing wrong and I simply would like to continue to have my privacy that is part of my civil liberties. Just because someone does no wrong doesn't mean they wish to be an open book.

I prefer my habits via driving, phoning, texting, or web surfing to be my business, not yours or anyone else's.

Re:I'm all for catching the bad guys.... (1, Insightful)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068934)

Terrorism is the pointy end of fascism.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin.

The problem with "If you have done nothing wrong" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068940)

The problem with "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" is that we all,
every one of us, has done something wrong in someone's eyes. Anything might be mis-construed
by an over-zealous watcher, mis-interpreted, mis-represented and mis-applied, the
simplest of innocent actions might be used to convict us.

Re:The problem with "If you have done nothing wron (1)

SpongeBob Hitler (1848328) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069536)

The problem with "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" is that we all, every one of us, has done something wrong in someone's eyes. Anything might be mis-construed by an over-zealous watcher, mis-interpreted, mis-represented and mis-applied, the simplest of innocent actions might be used to convict us.

Cardinal Richelieu: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

Re:I'm all for catching the bad guys.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33069376)

Interesting - My reply to this post seems to have been deleted.

Weep for America .... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068596)

I weep for the freedoms that America once enjoyed.

Enjoy your fascist state, the rest of the world is laughing. You've lost the war on terror, and now sit huddled in a corner.

And, fuck you FBI, with your domestic spying and stupidity.

Hope & Change (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068604)

How do you like your change now?

Re:Hope & Change (1)

steve buttgereit (644315) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068926)

As the old song says... ..."meet the new boss; same as the old boss"

Re:Hope & Change (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068996)

Two quarters, Three dimes, a nickel and four pennies. That's 89 cents of change I can believe in. I like it just fine.

Re:Hope & Change (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069238)

It's hopeless.....

It's ok. This is government... (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068662)

...not vile corporations. They have your best interests at heart. The infallible, incorruptible regulators must have information to do their job of protecting you from the evil businessmen (and, of course, from yourself). Just cooperate and no one will get hurt.

Re:It's ok. This is government... (1)

LordSkout (1427763) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069120)

Somebody made you eat a SarcMark for breakfast this morning, didn't they? ;)

Re:It's ok. This is government... (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069250)

Your illegal, unlicensed use of that trademark must be punished immediately!

Re:It's ok. This is government... (1)

LordSkout (1427763) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069504)

Hehehe Oops! I meant uh.... Open Sarcasm's alt+U0161!! Honest!

Musing about encryption and privacy rights (5, Interesting)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068700)

Here are some awkward related questions:

1. What do you think the US government's encryption-breaking capability REALLY is these days? e.g. for example,
are common encryption protocols and key-lengths used in, say, online banking and e-commerce readily crackable by the Feds?

2. Do security agencies of the federal government automatically flag for further investigation all people who use "an excess
amount of encrypted traffic"?

3. Does the FBI, a "domestic" intelligence agency, have the right to spy on foreign residents whose net transactions
traverse the US border? If they don't have the right, are they doing it anyway, or is that some other agency?

Re:Musing about encryption and privacy rights (1)

batquux (323697) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068796)

1. No comment.

2. No comment.

3. No comment.

Re:Musing about encryption and privacy rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33069016)

2. Do security agencies of the federal government automatically flag for further investigation all people who use "an excess
amount of encrypted traffic"?

Follow up question.. how; without knowing what "type" of encryption a person is using, do you determine the amount of encryption a person is using at all? doesnt a 1024 bit look like the same gar-baldy gook a 4096 would look

Re:Musing about encryption and privacy rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33069038)

1. Yes, but not without a very large expenditure of effort and resources. They aren't going to do that casually.

2. No.

3. I don't know.

Re:Musing about encryption and privacy rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33069110)

+1 Chilling

oh you want the log of my internet activity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068704)

Why didn't you just ask? Here you go:

SSH
Tor

Politicians say whatever it takes to get your vote (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068806)

Politicians say whatever it takes to get into power, then they do what they wanted to do all along - until 6 months before the next election when they change tune just long enough to get a forgetful electorate to vote them in for another four years. And you fall for it every time. Sucker.

It doesn't matter whether you vote Republican, Democrat, Labour or Conservative (in the UK), you will get much the same thing.

If you want change, vote for another party or become a politician yourself. Failing that, you are wasting your time.

Good for them, but... (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068816)

Who's internet identity will they get?

Suspicion (1)

spleen_blender (949762) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068874)

I suspect what he is asking for has been and is happening currently. They know it is illegal and they do it anyway and are pushing for this to retroactively cover their asses.

Slashdot User Tip Of The Day +2, Helpful (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33068920)

EVERYTHING is intercepted [wikipedia.org] .

Yours In Akademgorodok,
Kilgore Trout

FUD (4, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#33068964)

From the NSA link:

In the post 9/11 world, the National Security Letter is an indispensable tool and building block of an investigation that contributes significantly to the FBI’s ability to carry out its national security responsibilities by directly supporting the furtherance of the counterterrorism, counterintelligence and intelligence missions.

Don't you just love that "In the post 9/11 world" bit? They use that qualifier for everything that infringes on privacy. Its the "Think of the children" of the Military Industrial Complex. Yes there are bad people. Yes there are folks that want to do bad things. But again, trading privacy, and hence freedom, for security, well you know the rest.

Re:FUD (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069026)

*NSL* I meant, but eventually the alphabet soup [onvia.com] of organizations and what-have-you boggles the mind. NSA, FBI, CJIS, NCIC, DOD, CIA, etc..etc...

Re:FUD (2, Insightful)

autocracy (192714) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069272)

In this post-Reichstag world... (Soviet Russia secures YOU?)

Re:FUD (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069458)

If we destroy everything that America stands for to fight the terrorists, haven't the terrorists already won?

Various law enforcement agencies have a history of doing what they want until they get caught at it. You don't really hear about that in school. You don't hear a lot about the assorted shenanigans of the past in school, really. It can be somewhat jarring when you get out and you realize that our ideals aren't as clear cut in practice as they are in theory. Problem is the government and the law enforcement agencies are made up of people. Just because they're in the government doesn't mean they crap daisies and unicorns.

If you want to make the system better you have to go in there and try to fix it yourself, but I'm pretty sure a lot of freshman congressmen think the same thing when they go in, and then they're crushed by reality within a couple of years.

Obligatory Office quote (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069028)

"I have to erase some stuff. A lot of stuff."

Terrorists! (3, Interesting)

LordSkout (1427763) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069188)

It seems to me that this is just moving further in the FBI's renewed interest under Obama to go after file-sharers without the need of the courts prove their need. Everybody knows file-sharers are terrorists in disguise, anyway.

ACTA is failing on a worldwide scale, so why not make sure they can move forward in other - easier - ways?

Why don't they just ask? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33069208)

Why don't they just ask?

Do Something About It (5, Insightful)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069234)

Stuff like this is why I joined the Electronic Frontier Foundation: https://www.eff.org/ [eff.org]

Hooray!!! (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 4 years ago | (#33069352)

I feel safer already!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?