×

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!

Norwegian Police, Seeking Info On 2 Bloggers, Take Data From 7,000 Accounts

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the orders-of-magnitude dept.

Privacy 100

xiando writes "Norwegian police were asked by officials in Italy to get personal information about two bloggers who were using a server in Oslo. The police decided the best thing to do would be to take the server's hard drive, along with personal information from about 7,000 other users (Google translation of Norwegian original). Other ISPs say this is standard operating procedure in Norway these days."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

100 comments

Google convicts me... (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971112)

    Damn, I knew I shouldn't have Google'd Autistici to see what the hell they were about. Click one link, get a terrorist charge in Italy.

Re:Google convicts me... (0)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971124)

Being autistic is a crime in Italy?

Bad news for Slashdotters.

Re:Google convicts me... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971146)

Lame. Evidently, having sex with goats [goatse.fr] is illegal in france...

Re:Google convicts me... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971186)

Steve Jobs died yesterday afternoon. His family will make a statement just as soon as they are notified.

Re:Google convicts me... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971198)

Hahahha...dude, kinda drunk right now, but you made my night. I was just checking to see whether I was modded down, but evidently not. But even better. I get a troll like 10x more trollsome than I reply. Most extcellent sir!

Re:Google convicts me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974856)

It is, but they sure do love child rapists! Just ask convicted child rapist Roman Polanski.

Re:Google convicts me... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971178)

autistici.org has NOTHING to do with Autism...

Re:Google convicts me... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975690)

What's so bad about this website? I'm looking at it through Tor from a highly secured browser using HTTPS. I was expecting child porn or the homepage of a terrorist organization.

Re:Google convicts me... (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 2 years ago | (#34980440)

Maybe it has pictures of Mussol- err, Berlusconi on a bad hair day or something similarly incriminating.

Re:Google convicts me... (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975578)

yo dawg, I herd you like being under terror...
so I suspect you of terrorism whenever you hit a non conforming site.

And in the USA (5, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971142)

Some time back, there was a judgment that allowed police to trawl through the entire contents of a hard drive if they had a subpoena for one person's data from the drive, so I was wondering if the following scenario would work:

Police get a subpoena for electronic bank records of an individual. They go to the bank and the bank offers to provide the relevant data. However, the police say: "No, this subpoena is not limited like that. Give us all the hard drives that might contain data on the subject". The bank is compelled to hand over thousands of hard drives. Now the police can trawl through bank records of millions of people unrelated to the original subpoena.

Could this happen? Will it happen?

Re:And in the USA (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971236)

Could this happen? Will it happen?

Yes and yes, of course. In particular, invoke any of the magic words "terrorism," "national security," "child pornography," "drug dealing," or "intellectual property," and the Constitution no longer applies. The kind of large-scale fishing expedition you describe is entirely in keeping with this policy.

Re:And in the USA (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971502)

the Constitution no longer applies.

Would that be the Norwegian constitution?

Re:And in the USA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971516)

Jeez, at least read the subject field in the post you're replying to.

Re:And in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34977792)

Jeez, stop thinking a title is part of the argumentation that follows.

Re:And in the USA (3, Funny)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971712)

Would that be the Norwegian constitution?

Not for long. Norway has oil.

Re:And in the USA (0)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34973484)

Not for long. Norway has oil.

Oh damn! I think you're onto something here.

  • Ancient Norwegian myths tell of fierce apocalyptic battles were monstrous wolves fight gods and eat the Sun and the Moon.
  • Obama is going to round up conservatives into a death camp in Yellowstone.
  • Yellowstone has wolves.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!!1!1!!!!!

Re:And in the USA (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974674)

Judging from your screen name, I'd think that you'd be interested in having the easy prey made available.

Re:And in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34995274)

I'm sad that this isn't modded up, it's pretty hilariously tongue-in-cheek

Re:And in the USA (5, Informative)

sveinungkv (793083) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972192)

This thread is about the US constitution but as a Norwegian I can assure you that the Norwegian politicians ignore our constitution [lovdata.no] just as like the US politicians ignore the theirs.

Re:And in the USA (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975876)

From your sig this is welcome: you could use "just as the" or "just like the", but "just as like the" is incorrect.

Re:And in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34980314)

No. Learn to read, please.

Re:And in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971632)

How to FIX this problem.

Corrupt or misleading data is the #1 cause of royal screwups.

As an ISP load 1000,000's completely bogus sexy messages, or ones that sound like something is corrupt, and put the most sensitive names against them, Topical themes - wikileaks, sex orgies, tax evasion, blackmail, obscene pictures etc.

Have a flag file to indicate the real from the false.

Co-operate with police. Now forensics have a big headache. All the big cheeses are now corrupt law breaking rats.

Protecting a log with false data is VERY effective security, and it wont be their fault if assumptions are made.

Re:And in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974144)

How to FIX this problem...

As an ISP load 1000,000's completely bogus sexy messages, or ones that sound like something is corrupt, and put the most sensitive names against them, Topical themes - wikileaks, sex orgies, tax evasion, blackmail, obscene pictures etc.

Most ISPs have no particular incentive to protect their customers. Let's face it, if you're a businessman tasked with maximizing profit, who are you going to favor? One customer who may turn out to be a criminal, or a police agency who has the power to cause you massive amounts of grief?

(posting anon because I've already moderated)

Re:And in the USA (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971254)

Given the state of regulations that currently govern bank disclosures to the feds(ie. your banking records aren't much, if any, less transparent than your phone records, gotta catch them terrorists...), that scenario would almost certainly be counterproductive...

With a "national security letter" and some TLA dudes with guns, they probably could; but given the sort of IT systems banks use, that would probably net them a container trailer full of hard drives, in no particular order, each one containing fragments of a now-broken RAID volume in some ill-documented high end SAN vendor format. That would be a forensic nightmare and a half.

By contrast, obtaining the bank's cooperation under their existing legal powers(and, following the telco example, with a suitably generous "cost recovery" fee paid...), and getting a dump from the live systems, formatted halfway sensibly, would actually be useful before every accountholder is dead of old age...

Re:And in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34978974)

Given the state of regulations that currently govern bank disclosures to the feds(ie. your banking records aren't much, if any, less transparent than your phone records, gotta catch them terrorists...), that scenario would almost certainly be counterproductive...

before terrrrrrrrrorism, there was the whole issue with the mob we dealt with. There's no benefit to society by making banking records more private than they are now.

Re:And in the USA (2)

Raumkraut (518382) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972066)

Could this happen? Will it happen?

You forgot two questions:
Has it happened already? Will we ever find out?

The banks got a huge bailout, I'm sure they'd not complain too bitterly if they had to sign a "National Security" gag order.

Re:And in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974914)

"The banks" don't take orders from governments or government agencies. Take a close look and you'll see that its the other way around.

Re:And in the USA (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | more than 2 years ago | (#34979158)

Some time back, there was a judgment that allowed police to trawl through the entire contents of a hard drive if they had a subpoena for one person's data from the drive, so I was wondering if ....snip...

And what if the drive was a massive distributed file system like Google or Yahoo?
Not even a file system but a distributed data base. Perhaps an Oracle RAC resource.
And in EU there are data replication issues so the services may be forced off line because no live replicated data exists.
Might take the Lustre of it when the electric bill arrives.

Re:And in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34979586)

Some time back, there was a judgment that allowed police to trawl through the entire contents of a hard drive if they had a subpoena for one person's data from the drive, so I was wondering if ....snip...

And what if the drive was a massive distributed file system like Google or Yahoo?

Not even a file system but a distributed data base. Perhaps an Oracle RAC resource.

And in EU there are data replication issues so the services may be forced off line
because no live replicated data exists.

Might take the Lustre of it when the electric bill arrives.

Large entities like Google or Yahoo are forced to give police full access to their systems, at their leisure. There are also snooper systems at internet GIX:es where data can be extracted by the TLAs whenever needed.

Privacy is only for the very wealthy.

"Not something that only happens in the U.S." (5, Interesting)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971156)

"Not something that only happens in the U.S."

Wonderful sub-headline in the linked article. Great example of our worldwide reputation nowadays.

Re:"Not something that only happens in the U.S." (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971286)

It's really too bad Harvey Levin is taken, because I'd corn-hole him is a hot LA second.

Re:"Not something that only happens in the U.S." (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972150)

"Not something that only happens in the U.S."

Wonderful sub-headline in the linked article. Great example of our worldwide reputation nowadays.

It is something that also happens in EU. The root of this is a directive [wikipedia.org] from EU, transformed to Norse law. Norway is in a position where it can oppose directives from EU, but as of yet and as a principle, it has made all EU directives into Norse law.

The Scandinavian countries has a tradition of keeping the laws on the level of an easy to understand ethical foundation and as much details as possible outside the laws in regulatory frameworks. Most of the laws are written in an easy to understand, hard to twist, plain language (those parts that aren't, are hundreds of years old "fossils", the laws gets rewritten in simpler (more modern) language as they evolve, of course, to sanitise an EU directive into something simple and easy to understand is very challenging). This makes the regulatory frameworks easy to revise when parts of them lead to unfortunate, unexpected, side effects, and to modernize when necessary, without loosing sight of the ethical principles on which they are founded. The principle of simplicity in laws and regulations and the sharp separation of what belongs where, is also the reason Scandinavian citizens take laws and regulations, both the creation of them and the duty to follow them, more serious then other Europeans. EU has a tradition of keeping as much details as possible into its directives (a.k.a. the laws of EU) and they are written in a very bureaucratic language (in Swenglish and Denglish, not real Swedish or Danish, English is mostly a sub-language of the Nordic languages and it just takes a few simple changes (mostly spelling and prepositions) to transform it into formally correct translations, but it gets very ugly and simplistic, on a level of grunts and groans, most Scandinavian EU politicians stick to reading the French and German language versions of proposed EU directives), with lots of special cases, that aim to please the opposing wills of, and within, the EU countries. Proposed EU directives can also be changed the last minute before they are accepted (I think a proposal should be in a stable state at least a couple of weeks before they are accepted, so that people have a chance to understand them). The EU directives are to abundant and to much of a mess for anybody, except experts in the field in which they apply, to understand. The politicians that approves them rarely understand what they approve. In the Scandinavian countries, this means that the full effect of what an EU directive will implicate is not understood before it is rewritten into a national law proposal and then it is already to late to stop it without leaving EU (in Sweden, Finland and Denmark, Norwegians could theoretically still refuse to adopt it), most other European countries just dump the EU directives word-by-word into their own messy laws and then mostly ignore them (as they already do with laws that comes from within the country).

At least Norway isn't in the position of its neighbours Sweden, Finland and Denmark, that are more closely tied to EU and is obliged to incorporate all EU directives into their own national law.

Socialism at Work (-1, Troll)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971172)

What can you say except welcome to Socialism at work? Trust us, we're the government, we know what's best.

Re:Socialism at Work (2, Informative)

melchoir55 (218842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971204)

Socialism is not a form of government. It is an economic model. Tyranny does derive from economic models. Tyranny derives from the way in which a government approaches them.

Socialism is extraordinarily far from causal in this situation.

Actually, Socialism is (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971280)

a theory of Political Economy, and includes both an economic model and a political/government model. In particular, it postulates government's executive powers that for "public good" can transcend many rights of individuals, not just rights to own property. Most historical forms of Socialism actually postulated the so-called "tyranny of the proletariat" as a necessary condition of enduring Socialist ways in the society.

Socialism has invariably led to expansion of government's power even where it did not result in straight-up tyranny. Just ask Julian Assange how far into Swedish bedrooms of consenting adults it currently extends.

Having come of age in a Socialist country, I heartily recommend the theory writings of prominent Socialists (the study of which was mandatory both in school and and in college). Even "moderate" Fabian Socialists like Shaw advocated government censorship, including but not limited to censorship of "harmful" scientific theories (see his take on Lysenko vs Russian genetics, http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/shaw/works/lysenko.htm

Re:Actually, Socialism is (4, Insightful)

melchoir55 (218842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971350)

Did the Op also denounce capitalism when it was discovered that America was viciously torturing prisoners at Guantanamo?

It is trivial to point out that to explore socialism one must also explore political theory. No one suggested otherwise. However, it is wrong to view it as a model of government. Governments have people in power. "Socialism" does has no comment here. Perhaps the state is a socialist oligarchy, or a monarchy, or a democracy, or a dictatorship, or even a communist state!

Governments work to expand their powers regardless of the economic model being applied. Conflating the two is dangerous because people end up thinking like the OP: that socialism results in police grabbing power.

Socialism has no causal force here beyond the fore common to all such systems. The problem is that people are willing to trade liberty for security, which results in police forces being granted far more power than is necessary or safe.

Socialism in America (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971680)

The problem with socialism in America is this: It only applies to the rich. Socialism is allowed and indeed encouraged for the rich with "too big to fail" bailouts, TARP, lowering the "burden" on the top 1% through both tax breaks and the looking the other way at tax dodges like the "double dutch". But socialism for the poor such as free or low cost medical care, ensuring that all have adequate food, shelter, and clothing, help for the indigent, these things are frowned upon and looked upon as somehow bad or evil. Personally after seeing how bad the corporatist mindset has run this country into the ground I'd be all for socialism of the second sort.

As for TFA, cops do what they want, film (and excuses) at 11. Here in the USA we have ICE and the FBI used as a private "copyright police" while being paid for by the taxpayers, we have cops that do truly heinous crimes (just look up "police abuse" on Youtube to see how prevalent it is) and walk away with a slap on the wrist if they get anything at all, and thanks to 9/11 we now have Constitution-Free Zones [aclu.org] that cover 2/3rds of all US citizens.

News flash: All cops WILL abuse their authority if left unchecked, full stop. For every decent cop you probably have 4 "bully with a badge" types that thanks to the code of silence will be protected by their fellow cops no matter what they do. Until we demand of our elected officials and the MSM that police have to follow the constitution and laws we citizens have to abide by along with REAL punishment for those that run roughshod over peoples' rights then stories like this will sadly be all too common.

Too many have been allowed to get away with too much for too long and it is time to start reining in their power or ALL of us in the west will end up in police states.

Re:Socialism in America (2)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972516)

The problem with socialism in America is this: It only applies to the rich.

Except that it doesn't. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Unemployment, welfare, disability. Tax breaks for families with children. Drug programs for senior citizens.

But socialism for the poor such as free or low cost medical care, ensuring that all have adequate food, shelter, and clothing, help for the indigent, these things are frowned upon and looked upon as somehow bad or evil.

Go ahead, try and touch any of the above programs. In particular, "Social Security" is the so-called third rail of politics. About the only program that the people can get behind hating is welfare, and that's because it has a reputation of people just sitting on their ass and collecting a check just because they can. If you told people that you were going to cut a program and stop giving food to children you'd be crucified politically.

Re:Socialism in America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34975914)

Notice how the first we all pay into though. The funds aren't taken from the rich and distributed to the poor or the other way around. Corporations though are rich and the people have effectively bailed them out. Even if it is the rich or share that majority of the bailing out from a numbers perspective. The poor it has a harsher effect on as it is the poor who can't afford the taxes.

Re:Socialism in America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34978086)

I think it should be mentioned that the people running corporations make wayyyyy more money than the people working for them.

I'm the first to think the people at the top deserve more money and for several reasons. In fact I don't even mind a CEO making a few millions per year.
But I also think that there's a point where the difference between what the people at the top earn and what the employees earn is so big that it's unfair. Employees, after all, are largely responsible for the success of a company. Take a corporation, remove all employees and keep only the people at the top. No way the corporation keeps making lots of money without workers.

Most of the time, the people at the top figure out ways to convince employees that their work is not worth that much money. There's all kinds of arguments for that, such as "If you don't take the salary I'm offering you, there's five immigrants outside this door who will gladly work at that price". Laying off a few people to make everyone else believe that the company doesn't have that much money is also used sometimes. Those are all tricks used to convince employees to work for less than their work is worth.

A strategy needs to be found that employees can use to earn what they actually deserve. The guys at the top certainly have strategies to make them work for less, so there must be a way to counter that. Lots of important social problems would be solved if that happened.

Re:Actually, Socialism is (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971544)

Government always seeks to expand and entrench itself. Socialist policies are a means of accomplishing this. If the people come to depend on social programs, they will invariably depend on the government as well.

Re:Socialism at Work (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972484)

Unfortunately you're incorrect on both counts. Socialism is both and economic theory and a political theory. There are many varieties of socialism but several of them abolish the concept of "Private Property" and assert that all property belongs to the people (the state.) This concept has been adopted by most of the "Big league" socialist states over the years and is what most people are referring to when they suggest some heavy handed government tactic is socialist. Like you, they do not realize that socialism is a huge collection of ideas that encompass many forms of government. In fact, the United States relies heavily on many socialist concepts for its laws and governance despite the common view that we are somehow the polar opposite of a socialist state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Re:Socialism at Work (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971218)

If you think that only "socialists" do these things, you are desperately naive. Unless of course you're using the definition of socialism which seems to be quite popular among so-called conservatives these days, "any policy I currently don't like."

Actually, this definition of Socialism was popular (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971300)

all across the Eastern Bloc. If you do not know this, *you* are hopelessly naive. The difference between Socialists and others is that under Socialism the overwhelming power of the State (which it supposedly wields for the "public good" and in the "defense of the commons") rightfully supersedes individual rights, which are presumed to proceed from the "society" anyway. Other theories of government recognize other sources of rights, such as natural rights of the individual.

Re:Actually, this definition of Socialism was popu (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971526)

all across the Eastern Bloc. If you do not know this, *you* are hopelessly naive. The difference between Socialists and others is that under Socialism the overwhelming power of the State (which it supposedly wields for the "public good" and in the "defense of the commons") rightfully supersedes individual rights, which are presumed to proceed from the "society" anyway. Other theories of government recognize other sources of rights, such as natural rights of the individual.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Is it the Bush era and legacy of expanding government and trampling on rights of the individual in the name of "public good" (war on terrorism). Was he socialist?

Re:Socialism at Work (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971318)

GP's simplistic drivel about "socialism" certainly does sound like what contemporary conservatism has reduced itself to; but there is an incongruity: empirically speaking, contemporary conservatism practically worships the power and authority of the state security apparatus. The people who trust the state to run prisons; but not schools. Who think that taxation is tyranny but torture is not.

Maybe he is a larval Randroid, or one of those people who thinks that "libertarian" means "authoritarian who hates paying taxes"...

Re:Socialism at Work (5, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971648)

Conservativism today means: I take any govermental service as long as my boss doesn't have to pay taxes.
It's the completely fucked up idea that one has to protect the rich and the powerful, because one could one day be rich and powerful too, and then one might not like to pay taxes. But the idea that one day one could be poor and unable to help oneself gets refused because if that is something that only happens to other people.

Re:Socialism at Work (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975856)

A lot of ex US conservatives have said that this is exactly what's happening, they know they're hurting themselves and putting themselves in more danger, but they all continue with it because they think they'll all be fortune 500 CEOs one day and they want to make it easier for themselves.

Re:Socialism at Work (2)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971942)

Funny thing, though, is that his kind of thinking is the result of 60 years of McCarthyist brainwashing.

Re:Socialism at Work (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971246)

the only difference in a capitalist economy would be that the ISPs would be paid a "small" fee for handing over the data.
Handing over data about people is not a moral question, it's a business decision.

Re:Socialism at Work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971256)

What can you say except welcome to Socialism at work? Trust us, we're the government, we know what's best.

Hunh? Socialism? Are you serious? It's just your basic garden-variety fascism/authoritarianism/sociopathy, which doesn't give a shit what ideology you paint it with. It's just lipstick on a pig (no neo-hippy pun intended).

Re:Socialism at Work (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971262)

Your quote:

What can you say except welcome to Socialism at work? Trust us, we're the government, we know what's best.

I'll counter your Troll with a fact from the article:

In pursuit of two bloggers who have been critical of a right-extremist group in Italy, the Norwegian police seized about 7,000 people.

So no, this is not about socialism, this is about Conservatism. People who join the police and the military tend to be Right Wing, so it's not surprising that anybody critical of the Right Wing would be targeted by police. This is why anti-war and human rights activists are often harassed and spied on by governments and police forces around the world.

Re:Socialism at Work (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971536)

That seems to be the only explanation for law enforcement around the World.

Here in the States, when the Rev. Martin Luther King was organizaing peaceful protests and never having promoted or encouraged violence, the FBI were watching him like he was some violent militant revolutionary.

And yet. some big mouthed psycho who publically preaches violence slips right on through and shoots up the place.

John Lennon was watched too for being a peacenik.

The lesson I'm getting is, if you want to change the World, act like a conservative right winger and then slowly poison them from the inside.

I think that's what Sarah Palin is doing.

Re:Socialism at Work (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34973590)

I don't believe her having the cerebral ability for an inside job, sorry.

Re:Socialism at Work (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34973824)

Ah, but maybe that's because she's so good at it!? (though in fairness, the best mule / etc. is an unknowing one)

Re:Socialism at Work (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975880)

Why have I seen these theories about Palin but not Reagan? Reagan was right-winger Jesus, but Palin is a plant? Is it some kind of sexism, or are the right-wingers just less extreme these days? The tea party's still enamored with her.

Re:Socialism at Work (1)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 2 years ago | (#34979010)

The lesson I'm getting is, if you want to change the World, act like a conservative right winger and then slowly poison them from the inside.

I saw that cartoon [salon.com] too. ISTM both parties are trying to destroy themselves from within. Either that or they are both working for the corporations that pay for their campaigns. Nah, that couldn't be it because that's blatant bribery.

Re:Socialism at Work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34979018)

Here in the States, when the Rev. Martin Luther King was organizaing peaceful protests and never having promoted or encouraged violence, the FBI were watching him like he was some violent militant revolutionary.

He stirred up strong feelings in LOTS of people, why wouldn't the FBI _watch_ him? MLK was responsible, intelligent, and stayed true to his message. The masses did the same, mostly. Just because everything ended up peachy, in most ways I mean, isn't a reason to say the FBI shouldn't have done due diligence.

Actually... (5, Insightful)

RCC42 (1457439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971340)

What can you say except welcome to Socialism at work? Trust us, we're the government, we know what's best.

Actually it sounds like fascism to me.

One of socialism's (purported) goals is to reduce levels of government and government power overall in place of individual or collective power.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971704)

Actually it sounds like fascism to me.

One of socialism's (purported) goals is to reduce levels of government and government power overall in place of individual or collective power.

Mod this Comrade up!

Re:Actually... (2)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972366)

One of socialism's (purported) goals is to reduce levels of government and government power overall in place of individual or collective power.

No, prefering individual power is liberalism
Prefering collective power over 'the powers that be', is socialism
Prefering 'the powers that be' is conservatism.

You can also extend socialism to prefer collective power over individuals, then it becomes stalinism.

This gets particular complicated in the US where socialism and parts of liberalism both share the "liberal" label, and the conservatives at least publically pretend to support liberal values like small government, but label incorrectly label it conservative.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972928)

One of socialism's (purported) goals is to reduce levels of government and government power overall in place of individual or collective power

Honest question here -- how exactly do you plan to do that with the pyramid structure in place (which all governments require)?

Let's call a spade a spade. In order to put "the people" in charge, you need to turn the pyramid upside down, which (surprise) would destroy the concept of government that human beings have known for thousands of years.

Kingdom of Norway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971758)

Welcome to the Kingdom of Norway. Oh, wait, did you notice that part about us being a Kingdom? Not very socialist is it?

Oh, well, I guess I'll go complain to my democratically elected parliament, apparently we're a "socialist" republic. /sarcasm

Re:Kingdom of Norway (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972508)

Denmark, Great Britain, and Spain are all constitutional monarchies that are largely socialist. They all have an elected parliament and prime minister/president, and they all have either a king or queen.

Socialism isn't a system of government, it's a direction of government.

Re:Kingdom of Norway (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972512)

(that said, this has nothing to do with socialism, and has happened even in that great bastion of capitalism of the world, China. Oh, and the US, too.)

Re:Socialism at Work (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34973566)

Dude, if you say that we're living in a socialist world, you should go and do a little reading about the various economic and social models. We're about as far from socialism as we'll ever be.

Re:Socialism at Work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34975428)

Exept that this whole situation is a result of an EU directive, that Norway has to follow. So much for your theory.

Cloud computing (3, Interesting)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971190)

If your data is stored in a cloud, then it is bound to get trawled through multiple times per year due to subpoenas for other people.

Re:Cloud computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971268)

It already is. IF you haven't already read the Microsoft's guide to police, they basically allow any data more than 60 days old to be "public" w.r.t. authority searches..

Of course, public information only goes one way. See wikileaks as example. The puppet masters must remain hidden, only the public is exposed. The difference is that public figures are only "officially" public, and public is "officially" private. The opposite is true these days.

Re:Cloud computing (3, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974094)

If your data is stored in a cloud, then it is bound to get trawled through multiple times per year due to subpoenas for other people.

I'm comfortable with that. I'll let as many policing forces trawl through my Gmail as the government agencies desire, provided that I'm allowed to use (PGP) end to end encryption to my heart's content.

The FBI has been looking into requiring online services to be able to comply with a wire-tap order (and decrypt any encrypted data) -- Google can't comply with a demand to decrypt my data as long as Gmail lets me send arbitrary textual data and/or attachments -- The next step will be outlawing end to end encryption; Mark my words.

My cloud has a silver lining -- an envelope of end to end encryption.

Re:Cloud computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974736)

>The next step will be outlawing end to end encryption; Mark my words.

Dude, that was the -first- step, y'know, over twenty years ago? They're still trying it, but they never actually -stopped-.

Re:Cloud computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34975524)

There is likely to be good grounds to fight it in the states under the 1st amendment, but you are absolutely right in the chances of them trying.

Let's pay our respects to the late Steve Jobs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971270)

Steve Jobs died yesterday afternoon. He left a statement wishing to thank Slashdot and all its fanbois for all their support over the years making him the richest dead man in the whole world. And Woz, you can have the vase.

R.I.P.

It's like you can't browse the internet anymore... (1)

bartwol (117819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971338)

...without the government getting in your way.

Anywhere.

Anymore.

--
The principles of Free Software are built atop the principles of intellectual property.

Re:It's like you can't browse the internet anymore (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975186)

That's what my sig means. It's a nice little garden. But do NOT touch the link of knowledge of good and evil! If you do that you will be TOS'ed out of the cozy little garden.

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971362)

a popular 'news ink splashes acroos SAtan's Dick And

Only not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971388)

This has nothing to do with socialism. But I wish the happiest of trollings to you!

Re:Only not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971992)

This has nothing to do with socialism. But I wish the happiest of trollings to you!

The Devil's greatest trick was convincing the world it has nothing to do with him.

Was all the data sent to the Italian police? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34973266)

I first had that impression, but thinking more on it, that sounds pretty stupid. There’s also nothing in the original Norwegian article to suggest that all of the data was sent. It says that it was simply more convenient to copy the hard drive and analyse it later, than to extract the relevant data on the spot. I’m not sure if I see either as more appropriate, but I’d probably prefer whatever option that put the police under the most scrutiny.

Possible? (2)

Geminii (954348) | more than 3 years ago | (#34973298)

How hard would it be to rig the systems so that pulling the drives physically out of the servers rendered them unreadable? I'm thinking some kind of encrypted striping on the individual drives, and the whole array running through a second hardware encryptor hooked up to GPS and a passphrase... maybe also an internal sensor linked to something inside the wall of the server room. Move the encryptor box out of the room and it scrambles the key, rendering the array useless even if the correct passphrase is given. Restore it to the room, and re-enter the passphrase, and it can be used to read the array again.

Anyone wanting to access the data on the array would have to either do so with the hardware in situ, or demand a copy be run off for them. Confiscating the hardware would net them nothing. And unless they demanded that the keys to the kingdom be handed over, they couldn't trust the information they were getting.

There could also be a system set up so that if an organisation's access to its own data was compromised in this way, one of the required decryption keys could be remotely scrambled and the original only known by someone overseas and outside of the local authorities' jurisdiction. Run that link through sufficient obscuration methods and it might become impossible to find out precisely who has that key and where they're located, or at least extremely difficult and time-consuming.

Re:Possible? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34973630)

Well, they could be rigged in such a way that NOBODY, not even the rightful owner, could decrypt the data garbage on them anymore.

The question is, what ISP would do that? After all, they'd pretty much kill their own business model that way. So, they will buy new HDs, restore from backups and go on with their lives.

Re:Possible? (1)

ciabs (1972918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975154)

I could do it with a DRILL and a large rubberband, the DRILL(s) plural? would be aimed at the DRIVE with a large rubber band holding the pressure, then if the cover is removed without disabling the security switch, the drill(s) plural? would start drilling (The drills would be on battery not on mains) Afterwards only an electron microscope would be useful.

Re:Possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34976440)

I guess the easiest method would just to have a shotgun standing by the server rack and an armored door, and as soon as you see the police arriving on your CCTV you start blasting the hard drives.

The legality of it is however another matter.

Re:Possible? (1)

Geminii (954348) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982734)

Well, they're your drives. I guess they might be able to get you on discharging a firearm in an unsafe manner and obstruction of justice, although that last one could be tricky to make stick.

Maybe have the drives poised above an industrial shredder running off a lot of batteries, and the whole thing wrapped in armor? Of course, you'd have to figure out how to proof it against physical intrusion when you were offsite or asleep, or if you were manhandled offsite before you could trigger anything, or if you were drugged and made to reveal the admin passwords, or any one of a number of other scenarios.

Re:Possible? (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 2 years ago | (#34978770)

a) You can feed fake data to a GPS receiver, or fake receiver data to the running computer.
b) Moving a running machine from a wall outlet to a portable power supply is not hard. Think about the problem for more than two minutes and let me know what you come up with. :)

Re:Possible? (1)

cronius (813431) | more than 2 years ago | (#34979840)

A fairly simple solution would be to use a large encryption key that only existed offsite (and offline), so that whenever the power goes, you have no way of decrypting without the key.

That means you have to physically show up at the data center whenever the power goes (cumbersome), but with uptimes these days that shouldn't be a problem.

If the police gets a warrant and comes home to your house by surprise, you better have a plan for that though. If you're really paranoid you probably could get a hold of "paper thin" CDs I once heard that crackers were using (the idea being that when the police is at the door you just tip over the cd-rack, destroying all the evidence [by "accident" or whatever], or in this case your decryption key).

Re:Possible? (1)

Geminii (954348) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981376)

Depending on the paranoia level, it shouldn't be too hard to rig up what looks like a standard home PC or server room (depending on requirements) tricked out so that several standard confiscation or takeover actions result in a silent, invisible datapocalypse or disks full of slightly encrypted junk data.

Who needs a hard drive when you p0wn communication (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974380)

Of course using the library statute the NSA, FBI, etc trolls though the entire collected electronic surface communications of the entire world on a constant and ongoing basis.

Unnecessary hard work (ObXkcd) (1)

tonique (1176513) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975282)

From TFA:

Kopierte hele harddisken i jakten på to brukere
Copied the entire hard disk in the hunt for two users

Apparently, the Norwegian politi doesn't know regular expressions. See http://xkcd.com/208/ [xkcd.com]

Outlook not so good (1)

audunr (906697) | more than 3 years ago | (#34976258)

It's nice to see that our police force already wants to protect law-abiding citizens' rights in the search for criminals, now that the data retention directive will most likely be implemented in Norway as well.

The legal loophole that makes this happen (2)

Kanel (1105463) | more than 3 years ago | (#34976402)

The norwegian police was asked by the italian police to retrieve this data. The norwegian police is eager to comply with requests from foreign police, as they themselves may need that kind of help abroad later. The loophole is that apparently no norwegian court is involved in the decision and norwegian laws are not consulted.

The bottom line is that you are not protected by your own country's laws when it comes to confiscating data. It's enough that someone in one of a hundred countries can get a police officer to send a request. Charges that would never hold in your own country is no barrier. Low corruption in your own country is no barrier. Bribe an italian police officer, hire an american lawyer and you can get at anything on servers in the western world.

RAID 5 or 6 (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 2 years ago | (#34979580)

Disclaimer: Can't read norwegian and the translation is blocked at work for some reason.

So if the disk was part of a raid 5 system the cops would have been screwed? If they only took 1 harddisk...
Check for New 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...