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!

Cybercrime Treaty Pushes Surveillance Worldwide

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the man-v-state dept.

Censorship 89

bs0d3 writes "As part of an emerging international trend to try to 'civilize the Internet', one of the world's worst Internet law treaties — the highly controversial Council of Europe (CoE) Convention on Cybercrime — is back on the agenda. Canada and Australia are using the Treaty to introduce new invasive, online surveillance laws, many of which go far beyond the Convention's intended levels of intrusiveness. Negotiated over a decade ago, only 31 of its 47 signatories have ratified it. Many considered the Treaty to be dormant but in recent years a number of countries have been modeling national laws based on the flawed Treaty. Leaving out constitutional safeguards, gag orders in place of oversight, and forcing service providers to retain your data may all be coming soon."

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

Encrypt everything. (5, Insightful)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37212996)

There is no better argument for encrypting everything that can be encrypted than this.

Yeah, sure, most governments aren't going to do anything with that data NOW, but once they have it, they have it forever. And political climates can and do change. It is not inconceivable that the US will elect Big Brother bread-and-circuses socialists who model their ideas on the surveillance state of Britain, or religious whack-jobs who will simply say "God's law is higher than Man's law" and start criminalizing homosexuality, abortion, titty-pictures and religions that aren't Christian, or frothing-at-the-mouth Greenies who formalize in law the already-existing mapping of "skeptic" to "heretic". And they will be sitting upon a treasure-trove of information to identify who needs to be put in their place.

That's what ideologically-driven governments do. All of them. In the name of "social equality", God, or "global warming", it's the same.

Re:Encrypt everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213042)

and now you are on a list.

Re:Encrypt everything. (1)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37214264)

Oh, I'm on a bunch more interesting lists than "Slashdot Libertarian" :)

Re:Encrypt everything. (1)

CoderJoe (97563) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213044)

Sure, you can encrypt the data, but you still have layer 3 information showing what servers you're communicating with. And with the extensions to allow vhosts on https (with different certificates for each vhost), you might be able to tell what site is being visited by logging the handshake.

Re:Encrypt everything. (4, Informative)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213236)

Um.... extensions other than Subject Alternative Name? Because, that has worked fine for a few years now (in browsers, and a few other places anyway).

With a SAN the certificate just simply lists ALL vhosts that it supports. So, while an eavesdropper can see what site you are going to, he can only see it as one of the several sites that you might possibly be going to.

Of course, Verisign makes sure to ass rape you solidly if you want SANs, but that is almost redundant since, they always try to provide that service.

-Steve

Re:Encrypt everything. (1)

CoderJoe (97563) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213884)

No, I'm referring to Server Name Indication [wikipedia.org] .

a lot of good that encryption will do you... (0)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213430)

when the backdoor mandated by government is built right into every piece of equipment.

Re:Encrypt everything. (4, Insightful)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213052)

It's lucky they took the time to run lots of false flag operations in the name of LulzSec and Anon. - otherwise the public might be forgiven for thinking that the levels of cyber-crime didn't warrant a global government-organised snooping-operation.

Good show.

Re:Encrypt everything. (3, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213088)

Or more likely, governments in the future will just sit back and build a profile from information shared internationally. Then use a heuristic tool to assign a point core on amount of posts, wording, and other such to assign a threat factor to someone. That threat factor gets beyond a threshold, the local police get notified, the person disappears, and either a prison camp gets another hand, or an organ bank gets another set of kidneys, heart and other items to sell to a high bidder.

Re:Encrypt everything. (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213566)

See "A prime aim of the growing Surveillance State" [salon.com] .

This is the point I emphasize whenever I talk about why topics such as the sprawling Surveillance State and the attempted criminalization of WikiLeaks and whistleblowing are so vital. The free flow of information and communications enabled by new technologies -- as protest movements in the Middle East and a wave of serious leaks over the last year have demonstrated -- is a uniquely potent weapon in challenging entrenched government power and other powerful factions. And that is precisely why those in power -- those devoted to preservation of the prevailing social order -- are so increasingly fixated on seizing control of it and snuffing out its potential for subverting that order: they are well aware of, and are petrified by, its power, and want to ensure that the ability to dictate how it is used, and toward what ends, remains exclusively in their hands.

Re:Encrypt everything. (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | more than 3 years ago | (#37214974)

Or what you are saying is; "The nightmare result of a potential Liberally abusive government is only less awful than that of a "free market" abusive government" as Caerdwyn had put it earlier.

>> Government is going to be there whether we like it or not -- it's just a TOOL for setting the rules.

Data collection and lack of privacy isn't good for a Democracy or free speech -- no matter WHAT paradigm you are living in. And the "free market" being allowed to pool and profile everyone isn't any better than "big brother."

>> I'm for a future that DOESN'T SUCK -- and the best way I know how to get there is transparent government with NO SECRETS and a public with total privacy -- and both government and corporations should be nervous about the Public. Right now --- we've got neither.

Re:Encrypt everything. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213098)

I'd put my money on right-wing fascists going on their next big communist/arab/black/"anti-business" witch hunt, but I guess we both agree it's a very bad thing.

Re:Encrypt everything. (4, Insightful)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213104)

True, but even that is inevitably doomed in the long run, Either governments will issue much stronger supercomputers to break all encryption available to normal citizens, or they will be pushing laws to outlaw use of encryption stronger then a certain point without a license and a specific reason (IE you can use encryption while dealing with credit card transactions, but not to e-mail your friend. Don't think you can simply use technology to make yourself invincible, Either they can beat it, or they can outlaw it.

Re:Encrypt everything. (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213458)

You can disobey physical laws... OTP encryption with a pad derived by a physical process is unbreakable without the pad.

Re:OTP (0)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213558)

It's xkcd's wrench again. (paraphrased). "Hi. Here is a wrench. I will beat you on the head with it in 4 4 time until you give me the passkeys."

Re:OTP (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213718)

the trouble with hardware otp is that there is no passkey except the hardware itself (and the otp in it).

Re:OTP (2)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213742)

but I guess that my skull will still be crushed so if I am not a terrorist (also known as freedom fighter) who value ideals more than is own life that is a bad thing...

Re:OTP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37215576)

Truecrypt?

Re:OTP (2)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 3 years ago | (#37216144)

If even 10% of the population encrypted everything, the government wouldn't have enough wrenches or people to use the wrenches.

Re:Encrypt everything. (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213754)

There's a bash.org quote that I can't find right now (at work) where the guy was doing transfers in cents to a friend with a word or two attached, and apparently managed to carry out a conversation. I'm suddenly put in mind of that - if you can only encrypt a certain class of "communication", then why not encode & communicate over that?

Re:Encrypt everything. (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#37218252)

Considering they recently reported (here at slashdot no less) that a "breakthrough" was made in decrypting AES encryption, which is pretty standard stuff, making the cracking of it twice as easy. However that said, we would probably see the heat death of the universe before that happens using current technology. Or at least several million or billion years (I am being intentionally vague here as what does it matter at these values). That is to say nothing of eventually making quantum computers, or some other magic box that can do it eventually. However the government can take all the super computers of the world, make a big pile of them and set them to the sole task of breaking the encryption on a single machine, now multiple that by a couple of million users, etc...

Not feasible. In reality, most don't use encryption anyway. However if everyone did...

Whatever (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213118)

This trend will only get more pronounced as population rises and Internet connectivity increases. The more people there are, the more impact every individual's actions have on everyone else, and therefore the greater the incentive everyone faces to put limits on what everyone else can do.

Many people love having freedom, but hate their neighbor's freedom (whether they realize it or not). This makes us all easy prey to the aristocracy.

Besides, anything that empowers the masses to the detriment of the aristocracy will be locked down. That is how the world has always worked. Human nature doesn't change, and the Internet won't make it change.

Re:Encrypt everything. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213176)

That's what ideologically-driven governments do. All of them. In the name of "social equality", God, or "global warming", it's the same.

This is wise. And I appreciate that you showed that all sides of the political spectrum act the same if they get too much power. More Americans need to realize this.

Re:Encrypt everything. (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#37220056)

That's what ideologically-driven governments do. All of them. In the name of "social equality", God, or "global warming", it's the same.

This is wise. And I appreciate that you showed that all sides of the political spectrum act the same if they get too much power. More Americans need to realize this.

It all boils down to the same old saying, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Governments are power. Ideological ones (i.e., all of them - at a minimum, a view on how they believe they should govern) will get corrupted striving for their ideologies.

There is no way to prevent it - other than having a mechanism to recognize corruption and replace it. Sort of how the US is supposed to be set up before all the checks and balances got messed up by the corrupting influence of money (which unfortunately, corrupted it all).

Socialists and/or Fascists (0)

BrianMarshall (704425) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213206)

For decades, it was socialists that were the enemy of individual rights. Fascists are now much more of a threat. They (try to) make the trains run on time. They focus hatred on some minorities, get some real emotion going. They want a STONG government.

As a Canadian, I have no intention of going into countries where I might disappear and be tortured to see what I might know (or just because they enjoy torture) - you know, countries like Chad, Angola, and the US.

Re:Socialists and/or Fascists (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213328)

LOL, you're confused.

It wasn't socialists, it was people masquerading as socialists. Including a few out and out fascists, such as the National Socialists of some country or another.

They also masquerade as Communists, Christians, Liberals, Libertarians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and so forth.

About the only thing they don't call themselves is anything accurate.

Re:Socialists and/or Fascists (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213418)

LOL, you're confused.

It wasn't socialists, it was people masquerading as socialists. Including a few out and out fascists, such as the National Socialists of some country or another.

They also masquerade as Communists, Christians, Liberals, Libertarians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and so forth.

About the only thing they don't call themselves is anything accurate.

I have never personally heard of a socialist who wants a small government. I doubt it's even compatible with their particular dogma. The government most socialists seem to want is a large and powerful one. That's the main problem with socialism. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong in this scenario. Even if the people who originally set it up are noble, and good luck with that, positions of authority are irresistably attractive to sociopaths of all kinds.

When I say this, bear in mind I am not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. I would rather the poor have a hard time than live in a police-state dictatorship. Even if I personally had to beg in the streets for bread and water, I would prefer that to a Nazi-style regime. History keeps showing again and again that the only remotely trustworthy government is one that's too weak to do much of anything, and I'm fine with that. I would love it if the government was small and weak to where things like roads and bridges, basic law enforcement based on strict literal adherence to the Constitution, and national defense only against an aggressor who attacks us first took up every last bit of its energy and resources. Grant me that, and I'll fend for myself even if I have to eat insects and hunt wild animals to keep from starving to death.

What's the excuse of all these people who want to be taken care of by their government as though they were toddlers?

Libertarian Socialism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213746)

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

Re:Socialists and/or Fascists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213890)

Because if it was not for the "socialist" British NHS (National Health Service) I and my farther *and* my brother *and* my sister would *all* be dead, and I did check how it would have worked in an American style system. Now it is my taxes being spent I know which way I will vote for the sake of those who are in the same predicament I was and Sod your Blasted hypothetical future dictatorship. Yes, the larger the government the more it needs watching but it is not like the proportionally much smaller American government is doing any better than ours with its warrant-less wiretaps and gps tracking.

Re:Socialists and/or Fascists (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#37215022)

Mazlow's pyramid. I'd rather deal with a larger government that can provide basic services should something happen than have to worry about if I have enough cash for the doctor, enough cash to feed family, a place to sleep, private security so some crackhead doesn't shoot me for a gang initiation rite.

There is a happy balance of a government that can provide basic security for its citizens, but not become an overbearing police state. Ideally the best government is one where everyone participates in. This is why I like the idea of a permanent draft -- if politicians want a war, the populace has a major stake in it, as opposed to "just" volunteers. Plus, a permanent draft would teach people that firearms are "just" tools, nothing more. This way, someone toting a handgun in a waistband looks just as goofy as someone toting a rake around in the public's eyes.

Regardless of government, what is needed is that the government and the citizens to completely interact. Once the town hall meetings disappear and government separates from the citizens, it becomes quite easy for it to become corrupt.

Re:Socialists and/or Fascists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37215742)

I'd rather deal with a larger government that can provide basic services should something happen than have to worry about if I have enough cash for the doctor, enough cash to feed family, a place to sleep, private security so some crackhead doesn't shoot me for a gang initiation rite.

When the US gets such a government system, please let us know....

Re:Socialists and/or Fascists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213360)

You're right, America is dying to torture you to learn your bong-packing secrets...

Re:Socialists and/or Fascists (4, Insightful)

BrianMarshall (704425) | more than 3 years ago | (#37214398)

Actually, I feel that Canada is a pretty scary place as well.

The US is scary, but at least it has a real Constituion. This constituion is being ignored in many cases, but at least some people care about this.

Canada is currently less scary than the US, particularly if you are a Canadian citizen. But I live in a city with a zillion cameras, which I hate. What I hate even more (and what scares me even more) is that the cameras went up and no one seems to care. I don't know how much debate there was about them, but Canada has very little except tradition to prevent it from turning into a police state.

Re:Socialists and/or Fascists (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#37216572)

Ditto with Australia - it's essentially the Westminster 'tradition' of good governance and accountability that keeps places like Canada and Australia free. Now to be fair, this is more than a mere tradition - it is essentially common law, and has as much strength as any other law. But you're right to say it's not formally written down in a document that is as strong or explicit as something like the US Constitution.

We enjoy the rights we do because the courts have traditionally recognised those rights, and formed hundreds of years of precedent that those rights exist. Government power in, say, the UK, is limited by Parliamentary tradition and protocol as much as it is limited by hard letter law ... but those traditions and protocols essentially do form an unwritten Constitution of sorts. In Australia it's a little more formal - the Australian Constitution is essentially similar to the US Constitution, minus the Bill of Rights. Not sure about Canada to be honest ... am I right in guessing it's probably somewhere in between the situation in Australia and the UK? (Yes I could Google it but I'm lazy...)

Re:Socialists and/or Fascists (1)

BrianMarshall (704425) | more than 3 years ago | (#37221198)

Canada had a Bill of Rights (from 1960) but (I had to Google this) it was considered to be ineffectual. In 1982, we got a"Charter of Rights and Freedoms". However, the latter has a "limitations" clause and a "notwhithstanding" clause which the government can involke if it thinks it is important enough.

What it boils down to is that we have a pretty good set of "rights" but, unlike the US bill of rights and constitution in general which (is supposed to) fundamentally limit the rights of government, our rights and constitution were provided by the government, with loop holes.

An example of loopholes: The "limitations clause" was used to uphold laws against objectionable conduce such as hate speech. I like having a few loud-mouth holocaust deniers around - they are like the canaries in the mine - if they were allowed to be objectionable and offensive, it was a good sign for general freedom - if the government can criminalize objectiionable speech.... it can criminalize anything.

So, the Canadian situation is better than places, but what the government can give, it can take away.

Re:Socialists and/or Fascists (1)

gottspeed (2060872) | more than 3 years ago | (#37222026)

I've been telling people for years now that the Charter actually deminishes peoples rights. Legal Maxim: We're born without a name and number, and are under no obligation to use one. In court, stop using the name, start remembering who you are. Calling yourself a name that belongs to the government puts you in controversy and therefore dishonor. ie. you lose every time.

Re:Socialists and/or Fascists (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#37216634)

There is one small glimmer of hope from Birmingham in the UK. The police got as far as installing a large number of CCTV cameras in a mostly Asian area of the city but the residents objected. Eventually the cameras were removed without being turned on. They had to play the race card but this is the only such incident I know of.

Re:Socialists and/or Fascists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37216998)

"As a Canadian, I have no intention of going into countries where I might disappear and be tortured to see what I might know "

Then why are you still in Canada? You know Canada helped americans' CIA kidnap and torture innocent people. And americans did these kidnappings and torture all around the planet, they tortured EU citizens in Poland, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States#Maher_Arar_case

Scary Places (2)

BrianMarshall (704425) | more than 3 years ago | (#37221546)

Yeah, well..... As a Canadian citizen I am better protected in Canada than I would be anywhere else, although our constitution and rights have been granted by the government, and what the government can grant, it can take away.

Theoretically, the US is better, in that the constitution defines roles and limitations of the government (rather than the government granting rights to people). But the US is a very scary place in some ways. The Bill of Rights in the US has, in some cases, been interpreted to apply only to citizens which (I believe) is not what the Constitution says and not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

This business with Guantanamo is very scary - holding and basically torturing political prisoners in the one(?) country that US citizens are (generally) not allowed to visit. The US used to at least have the image of holding the moral high ground; that this has been lost is tragic and scary.

One nice thing about Canada is that it is small enough that it can't be as scary internationally as the US. The US, next door to Canada, is the most dangerous country to Canada. I realize that this situation would be different if we were next door to Iran.

Everything considered, the US is a somewhat scary place for US citizens and quite a scary place for non-US citizens. It is such a shame - it used to be so different. Canada has gotten scarier too, but, all told, Canada is one of the least scary countries in the world.

Nail flyers to telephone poles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213240)

Nail flyers to telephone poles... while wearing a skimask... that you knit yourself... out of the range of camera--aw fuckit. Just shoot the sonsabitches like in Libya. More likely to lead to a permanent fix.

Re:Encrypt everything. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213312)

Don't you mean "conservatives"?

Re:Encrypt everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213382)

You really need a federally bounding administrative law controlling and limiting administrative actions scope, purpose and quality to reflect the constitution, the purpose and the spirit of the law basing the power to execute the said actions, and to reflect the right conventions US has ratified. The states will surely object such a law..

Re:Encrypt everything. (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213548)

"Addendum. If you encrypt anything that means you have something to hide and are therefore a terrorist. End of Line."

Re:Encrypt everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37214006)

It is not inconceivable that the US will elect Big Brother bread-and-circuses socialists

I hate to be the one to break the news to you....

Re:Encrypt everything. (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 3 years ago | (#37214702)

It is not inconceivable that the US will elect Big Brother bread-and-circuses socialists who model their ideas on the surveillance state of Britain, or religious whack-jobs who will simply say "God's law is higher than Man's law" and start criminalizing homosexuality, abortion, titty-pictures and religions that aren't Christian, or frothing-at-the-mouth Greenies who formalize in law the already-existing mapping of "skeptic" to "heretic".

Well, the first and last options are pretty close to inconceivable, at least for the America I lived in.

The second option, however, seems nearly inevitable.

Re:Encrypt everything. (1)

darthdavid (835069) | more than 3 years ago | (#37215708)

Or the corporations will finally finish eating the government and you'll get put on the list for being a 'disruptive non-consumer' ;p

Re:Encrypt everything. (1)

Serpents (1831432) | more than 3 years ago | (#37216332)

It is not inconceivable that the US will elect Big Brother bread-and-circuses socialists

I find it funny that most Americans who are so terrified of socialism apparently have no clue what it is

Re:Encrypt everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37216640)

Big Brother Socialists in the US? Ha ha haa.

The only 'Socialists' in the US are the Corporate Welfare Queens - US 'Socialism', like everything else in the US, is the 'Best That Money Can Buy' (TM)

Answer = Proxy Server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213036)

Business for Proxy servers will be going up. The more governments intrude, the more the people will fight back.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (4, Informative)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213124)

Then proxy server providers get told to keep logs just like the ISPs to be perused at leisure by any LEO, who desires it. The guy who got into Palin's Yahoo used a VPN server, and those guys were more than willing to burn him when the Feds came knocking.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213298)

Then proxy server providers get told to keep logs just like the ISPs to be perused at leisure by any LEO, who desires it. The guy who got into Palin's Yahoo used a VPN server, and those guys were more than willing to burn him when the Feds came knocking.

Staying under the radar hoping they won't target you next ... that's not the same thing as fighting back.

The way to fix this is to make passing these kinds of laws even more detrimental to a career in politics, than, say, destroying Social Security.

Sometimes I think we should just hurry up and implement global fascism and get it over with. I'm tired of all the suspense. We can have neighbor snitching on neighbor for thoughtcrimes. We can have full-time martial law since that's cheaper than building enough prisons to house every man, woman, and child. Maybe we can make people fight their neighboring cities to save ourselves the transportation costs of fighting pointless wars overseas. That seems to be more like the society so many people really want to live in. That's why they keep swallowing the bullshit excuses for each baby-step towards its implementation.

Then when the whole thing collapses under its own weight we can all admit what we should have known from the very beginning: that the other way for politicians to feel secure is to be noble and to truly seve the people then they won't feel so threatened by unfettered exchange of information, that there was never a justification for fascism, for the nanny-state, or for ever telling consenting adults what they may do or how they may do it. Perhaps attempting to do so could be the only capital crime on the law books.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213620)

"Sometimes I think we should just hurry up and implement global fascism and get it over with. I'm tired of all the suspense. We can have neighbor snitching on neighbor for thoughtcrimes. We can have full-time martial law since that's cheaper than building enough prisons to house every man, woman, and child."

Dear out of control alpha bureaucrat. I am bent over and my vulnerable ass is yours for the raping. Just please use lube. Please.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213704)

Posting anonymously even though it is trivial to trace. A devil's advocate's point of view:

Have you considered that a groaning police state is the normal as opposed to the exception? Look at Europe. For 1000+ years, life was so cheap that if a peasant stole more than a penny, they would be killed immediately. China was the same way -- plenty of tortures kept the proles in line. Egypt, same.

Want to know why we had some free reign? The Black Plague. Once there were too few backs for the upper class to rest their feet on, then equality actually became possible.

It can be said the only working form of government is a groaning police state that is swift and brutal. Once you get beyond a certain population point, some people wear the boot, others are the face where the boot is firmly planted.

I'm sure we have just seen the start of this. Yes, in the Middle East, some countries threw out one harsh dictator for another, but in the US and Europe, those countries are just too far advanced where revolution would ever happen. All it takes is an Apache with its standard front peashooter and any crowd would be immediately dispersed. Riots? A couple hellfire missiles and some ammo and that is the end of that. So, realistically, revolution will never happen in the US even if the government started having Hunger Games tomorrow.

Yes, this is sad, but welcome to the future -- this is how mankind has lived life through 99% of history, with the time from the Rennaissance to the present only a brief respite due to depopulation from disease. Expect to see every single thing on the Internet monitored with groups planted to be "hacker-terrorists" so there is always an excuse to pass tougher laws at any moment.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (3, Interesting)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213814)

You assume that the U.S. military would be used by the government to put down any significant rebellion, but I do not think this is very certain; it may seem counter-intuituve, but the U.S. military culture has a strong streak of distrust of high authority. There is a lot of thought and language devoted to classifying orders as lawful and unlawful. Some few will no doubt go along with any order, but as a whole I think it's hard to say where they would come down in the long run.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (2)

mikael (484) | more than 3 years ago | (#37214290)

The police seem to be getting kitted up with all the military hardware:

Why do the police have tanks? [alternet.org]

Then there is Operation Fast and Furious [wikipedia.org]

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (1)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 3 years ago | (#37216086)

SWAT teams are well equipped, but still a very long way from Apaches and Hellfire missiles.

The order is there already (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#37217498)

If an american citizen is brought before the International Court of Justice, the USA has threatened beforehand to use military force. Isn't that unlawful? Would the US army disobey?

Mind you, the army would off course not be asked to fight civilians. They would be asked to fight terrorists. That the individuals meant by the two words are the same does not matter.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37222352)

Shooting Hellfires at civilians would be fucking retarded and set the whole country and probably world against whomever did it. They have plenty of tech for dealing with riots and demonstrations that doesn't involve blatantly setting off a civil war.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (3, Interesting)

jnpcl (1929302) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213352)

The guy who got into Palin's Yahoo used a VPN server, and those guys were more than willing to burn him when the Feds came knocking.

I went to college with the guy who ran that VPN server.

The only reason he cooperated with the Feds so readily is because he didn't want them flagging him as a Person Of Interest.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (2)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213448)

The guy who got into Palin's Yahoo used a VPN server, and those guys were more than willing to burn him when the Feds came knocking.

I went to college with the guy who ran that VPN server.

The only reason he cooperated with the Feds so readily is because he didn't want them flagging him as a Person Of Interest.

Thanks for clearing that up. None of us could have imagined that our own federal government would find ways to make someone's life miserable when that person stands between them and someone they'd really love to apprehend. That's so unprecedented.

Sarcasm aside, I would never consider running a VPN sever or a proxy of any kind unless I had a log retention policy of 30 seconds, and/or all personally identifying information was scrubbed from all logfiles prior to their being written to disk.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (2)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213762)

Sarcasm aside, I would never consider running a VPN sever or a proxy of any kind unless I had a log retention policy of 30 seconds, and/or all personally identifying information was scrubbed from all logfiles prior to their being written to disk.

Why log at all?

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213772)

Keeping logs means that the VPN server is essentially useless.

However, on the other end, not keeping logs means that you have claimed complete responsibility for every single packet going through your system. Some guy looking at child pr0n? You will be the one who answers charges in front of a judge for each and every single kiddy piccie downloaded or uploaded. Same with the RIAA and MP3s copied. Court precedent shows this, and precedent supersedes even the Constitution in the real world.

Better have the logs to point to someone, or else you will be farting mayonnaise in a PMITA joint.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#37214820)

any source for proxies being charged for criminal offenses? surely a "no evidence of any actions on that persons computer" mixed with "an open proxy available to all on the internet" would be a sufficient defense for anything serious, you might get nailed with "miss use of computer" charge though

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (1)

jnpcl (1929302) | more than 3 years ago | (#37222862)

Thanks for clearing that up.

Clarification: He has done things that would get him in more trouble than hacking Palin's e-mail.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (1)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 3 years ago | (#37217858)

TOR. Enough said.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37217936)

Sounds all good until ICE seizes your exit node as per a recent /. posting, and then looks at the logs to see where the traffic came from...

Plus, TOR is not made for heavy duty traffic, and can leak DNS queries. With ISPs logging traffic, all it takes is a couple UDP packets doing a hostname to IP request, and that is enough evidence for a criminal conviction in the US, or to be harvested for organs in China.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37217948)

He used a commercial VPN? Haha I didn't realize he was an idiot.

A commercial VPN is only slightly better than a direct connection from home. A random Proxy server would be a better option. Tor is a good option. A proxy chain with Tor in it is an excellent option and costs nothing.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#37219594)

It depends on VPN providers. Some are explicit in their SLA that they keep logs for "x" amount of time, and what they keep logs on. This is done to prevent abuse, as well as look for intrusion attempts or malicious activities. After a period of time, say 6-24 hours, the logs get erased via a wipe command in the rotation script and life goes on.

There are multiple levels of security a VPN provider provides, and there are trade offs. Couple examples:

VPN provider 1 is fast and US based. However they have a policy to turn any and all logs over on request of any LEO who asks. For defending against FireSheep attacks, this provider is decent, same with making sure no ISP is using Phorm-like tools to mess with traffic. For anonymity or posting controversial stuff, definitely not the case.

VPN provider 2 is slower, and offshore. They are in a country where if someone does something really bad, the LEOs can pull the logs. However, it takes an actual due process. This provider is good for when you need to hit a P2P site for some reason. However for normal use, they are too slow for everyday Web browsing.

There is always the option of VPN chaining. You can use a http proxy over a PPTP/L2TP connection for example, or use a VPN proxy on the physical machine, with another VPN running in a VM.

With all the snooping and Phorm-like attacks on Web traffic, VPNs have gone from something to use if one wants to discreetly use a P2P service to something that is a must use to protect one's privacy, and even one's security (as ad injectors can easily inject malware which the destination website would be blamed for.) Especially with the bar so low to do attacks on unencrypted connections with tools like FireSheep.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (1)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#37215964)

Business for Proxy servers will be going up. The more governments intrude, the more the people will fight back.

Or maybe there will be an increase in TOR usage.

Re:Answer = Proxy Server (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37218048)

Check the other story on the front page.

Oh the naivete! (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213058)

Do we expect anything less? Who couldn't see this coming from a thousand miles away? So let's start hearing some good news about real ad hoc networks that can actually keep us out of reach.. And please, if you all are gonna squeal about using encryption over their wire, save your breath. It won't work

Alas! (2)

AMoth (1151295) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213086)

Orwell will start rolling again soon enough...

Re:Alas! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213296)

I keep remembering the monologue from 'V for Vendetta' [imdb.com] :

And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you,

We're on our way. Very few will object and those that do, will be branded as "paranoid' or 'conspiracy theorist' or some such rot. And they're will be others who will cling to the fantasy of 'do nothing wrong and you have nothing to worry about'.

I see horrible things coming our way.... and the people who can hold the moral high ground - Jews and African Americans - are silent. They of all people know for a fact where this will lead.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest should stop being the clowns and media whores that they are and go back to their roots in peacefully fighting for justice for all people.

Re:Alas! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213408)

I use to think Alex Jones of infowars.com was a hoot to listen to. Now days, I find myself surprisingly shaking my head in agreement sometimes.

Re:Alas! (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213774)

I use to think Alex Jones of infowars.com was a hoot to listen to. Now days, I find myself surprisingly shaking my head in agreement sometimes.

Most people who are ahead of their time and can see things coming from a long distance away are regarded with ridicule and contempt. Especially when they were right.

But don't worry. The fact that this has happened so many thousands of times never stops anyone from climbing up on their high horse and dismissing without examination anything and everything that doesn't fit their personal orthodoxy. The satisfaction of feeling for two whole seconds like they're better/wiser/smarter than someone else is much too precious to them.

Also they sure as hell won't question their personal orthodoxy or how it came to be. That's too painful for cowards who derive their security from conformity to a group. The really scary thing is what they might discover: that it's not really theirs at all. If you want a biological model, consider a virus that injects itself from without and takes over a cell from within.

Taking over a nation by force is the old, outdated, obsolete method and it's much too messy and risky for the modern tyrant. The sophisticated aristocracy of today simply brainwashes the masses by exploiting their ignorance and laziness and anti-intellectual culture. Then not only can you take control without firing a single shot, but they will actually elect you themselves. Eventually they'll have to because no one else will be on the ballot.

I've been called a tin-foil hatter etc. plenty of times. I am only too familiar with the shallow narrow-minded mentality that never has the guts to put forth its own viewpoint, or attempts to do so and can only come up with some regurgitated talking points that came from a sound bite. That mentality is the foremost reason why nearly every major Western nation is decaying from within.

Re:Alas! (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#37213770)

*again*? I think he's been rolling steadily faster since the mid-nineties.

It's the JEWS, stupid... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213460)

Who is behind all these attempts to destroy freedom of speech?

Who is terrified of public debate?

Why, it's the Eternal Jew... running our governments and media, running our banks and courts, and telling us that we have 'democracy'...

Do some research - before the JEW blocks the facts that they don't want you to know about.

the internet is the dream of tyrants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213528)

And it is so with the cooperation of a public that doesn't give a shit. I've watched the internet go from something that only ran FTP and a few other basic protocols, to what it is now, and what the Eternal September brought is a massive influx of people who don't know the first damn thing about how the internet works (it's magic!) and don't give a shit about it.

An aware population can defend the internet against tyranny, but an tyrants will always beat an apathetic population. That's what we have. Try to argue that massive monitoring is a bad idea, and people look at you like you're paranoid. It isn't until things become unbearable that the vast majority will see the light, and by then, it's too late.

Re:the internet is the dream of tyrants (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#37214900)

An aware population can defend the internet against tyranny

there is significant awareness on the Internets population about this sort of thing, why do you think groups like lulsec and anonymous are being so aggressive lately?

as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213676)

As usual, nothing posted here that is of any use to anyone ...

If we lose the internet, what's next? Seriously... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37213830)

I know serious questions usually aren't asked in slashdot comments, but I do have one. If the internet keeps going this way, and all the things that made it great are slowly taken away, what is the next technology that the original early-adopters are going to move to?

Was privacy something that was always dead, only it took a few years to realize that fact on the internet? Or are there other ways of communicating beyond the internet that nerds/geeks are starting to look into?

Re:If we lose the internet, what's next? Seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37214034)

Distributed networking, but you need to be able to trust your neihbours.

Re:If we lose the internet, what's next? Seriously (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 3 years ago | (#37214778)

Distributed networking, but you need to be able to trust your neighbours.

Which is how it started, back in the day, albeit with a different definition of neighbour. I expect it'll be wireless and encrypted this time around though.

Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37214236)

I think that it would do great things for the internet to censor anything that might be considered offensive to anyone. i don't feel that i should have to tolerate something because i don't like it, and i should be treated with absolute respect unconditionally. Cyber bullies are stupiud and mean and ir don't like them because tehy make fun of me.

Treaty Now! (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#37214664)

Australians may recall the "Treaty" song :)
Well I heard it on the internet
And I saw it on slashdot
Back in 2011
All those posting privacy advocates
Words are easy, words are cheap
Much cheaper than our priceless profits
But your indivisible rights can disappear
Just like bloggers in the night

Treaty Yeah
Treaty Yeah Treaty Now

This net was never given up
This net was never yours
The planting of the flag with 12 stars
Never changed our view at all

Now multiple legal systems have run their course
Separated for so long
I'm dreaming of a red letter day
When the patent laws will be one

Why? (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#37214894)

I don't understand how people can possibly defend this? it does nothing to protect you from the dangers of the "wild west" internet, all it does is add more surveillance to your citizens. I mean, what do they expect this to actually achieve?

the internet is not like "the wild west" the internet is like more like international waters of infinite dimension.

Re:Why? (2)

BrianMarshall (704425) | more than 3 years ago | (#37215102)

You got it: "add more surveillance to your citizens"

Re:Why? (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#37216632)

I honestly think it's apathy. Those in the government pushing this agenda want it. Noone else does, and frankly most would object if they knew or cared.

But they don't know, and they don't care. They use the internet, but don't really know how it works. What they do know is that they hear the scare stories in the media about crime ON THE INTERNETS (omg) and thus anything directed at stopping that must be a good thing, right?

Which brings up the second thing they don't care/know about. The vast majority of people have no interest in law, politics, or the future direction of their society in general. The level of knowledge in most countries about how that country's political system even works is shockingly bad. The old bread and circuses applies quite well - keep people relatively happy and entertained and frankly they just don't care what the government does. Hell, in countries with non-compulsory voting (like the US), half the population doesn't even vote (and half those that do probably have no idea about the policies the people they are voting for actually have).

So yeah, I don't think anyone really 'defends' things like this. It's just that they don't care. Or in fact, they don't even know (think of the percentage of the population that doesn't even watch the nightly news, let alone tech/privacy/law-oriented articles in from more respectable sources).

Re:Why? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#37216726)

The political parties get the "we are doing something bounce"
Ex spooks and their supporters get to flood the federal bureaucracy with security cleared offers of best new logging and tracking systems.
A tax payers funded dream for the insiders and their political supporters. Fresh cash and only a select few can bid for it :)
People who get the funding recall the parties and individuals who helped them, later in life, very nice jobs open up.
Astroturfing is used where needed or real small time one issue pressure groups are found and groomed.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?