Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

DoJ Mulls Tracking Picture Uploads

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the those-game-characters-swore-they'd-been-developed-18-years-ago dept.

Privacy 169

Dominus Suus passed us a link to a C|Net article about a disturbing threat to privacy from the Justice Department. According to the article, a private meeting was held Wednesday between Justice officials and telecom industry representatives. With individuals from companies such as AOL and Comcast looking on, the officials continued overtures to increase data retention by ISPs on American citizens. This week, they were specifically looking to have records kept of photo uploads. In this way, and 'in case police determine the content is illegal and choose to investigate,' an easy trail from A to Z will be available. The article provides a good deal of background on the Bush Administration's history with data retention, with ties to events even older than the Bush presidency. "The Justice Department's request for information about compliance costs echoes a decade-ago debate over wiretapping digital telephones, which led to the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. To reduce opposition by telephone companies, Congress set aside $500 million for reimbursement and the legislation easily cleared both chambers by voice votes. Once Internet providers come up with specific figures, privacy advocates worry, Congress will offer to write a generous check to cover all compliance costs and the process will repeat itself."

cancel ×

169 comments

the cash (1)

Dance_Dance_Karnov (793804) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216552)

And just who is going to pay for the ungodly amount of storage this would require?

Re:the cash (5, Insightful)

GoMMiX (748510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216562)

No problem man, they've got it covered. See, we'll outsource the service and hosting to India and borrow the money from China.

It's all good.

hows about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216754)

Encrypt your photos B4 you upload them but a new algortihm that would allow you to enclose 2 pictures in on file use the wrong or forged key to decrypt the photo for viewing you get nowt alright maybe a picture of a cows arse use the correct key on the correct computer bingo photo is viewable ..

Not the easiest thing to implement but it would go a long way to frelling up government plans for snooping on everyone (this goes for the UK as well as the US ) cus blair is just a bad .

Not realy anon just cant be doin with more accounts here ther and every where ,,....

Pete N

Re:the cash (2, Insightful)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216786)

And just who is going to pay for the ungodly amount of storage this would require?
 
Why us of course.
 
And the next step is keeping track of what pictures you download. At that point it will be easier for each ISP to just cache the entire internet. Then finally the term "the internets" will be accurate.

Re:the cash (3, Insightful)

GnarlyNome (660878) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216924)

You are going to pay for it

Re:the cash (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217230)

Its the government.. WE get to pay.. its called taxes, remember?

Cost is no object when its not your money.

Re:the cash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18217440)

Simple the professional politicians will simply roll out a new tax program with a nice sounding name, like "POCIA Protection of Children On The Internet Act." Since the Clinton administration already built the hardware to scan E-mails and The Bush Administration has been given cart blanc to search the Internet they are all set.... The politicians can charge the POCIA to Internet providers who in turn will pass the cost onto you.
"Who pays corporate taxes?" "Wrong you and your parents pay corporate taxes, the corporations simply pass on the taxes" --My Eighth Grade Economics Teacher

Re:the cash (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217982)

DOJ data charge on your bill

How about SSL? (1)

hcobb (620982) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216570)

Won't they have to outlaw https and ssh in order to track uploads to secure sites?

Re:How about SSL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216596)

Do not freak out. This is not the end of the world.

Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216654)

and anonymous proxies, onion routing etc...

This is another stupid law that would fly in the face of both underlying technology and common sense being pushed by control freaks using their tired old "think of the children" line.

Re:Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216672)

Oh and I forgot about the data: URI scheme... [wikipedia.org]

This law would be totally unworkable.

Re:How about SSL? (1)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216682)

Pfft. Encryption-schyption. I'd like to see them eavesdrop on my station wagon trunk full of quarter-inch tapes!

Re:How about SSL? (5, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216766)

Flickr has shown us the originality is a lost art.
YouTube is for people who have a camera but lack talent.
And where exactly does that leave slashdot? A place for people with a keyboard but no original thoughts?

Re:How about SSL? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216778)

And where exactly does that leave slashdot? A place for people with a keyboard but no original thoughts?

My thoughts exactly:P

Re:How about SSL? (1)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217026)

+5 Insightful!

Re:How about SSL? (1)

obyom (999186) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217032)

Station wagons don't have trunks.

Re:How about SSL? (1)

solevita (967690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217434)

Station wagons don't have trunks.

It's more like a One-Time Pad.

Re:How about SSL? (1)

sd_diamond (839492) | more than 7 years ago | (#18218268)

Station wagons don't have trunks.

And now you see just how brilliant his encryption scheme really is.

move along, nothing to see here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216586)

just some impossible scheme dreamt up by a clueless bureaucrat

Welcome to amerika ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216608)

So the question is if this goes through (which seems 50/50 at this point) what will the US Govt. want next in say three to five years? Maybe if people think about that this latest move won't sit so comfortably.

Re:Welcome to amerika ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216636)

The real goal of the whole thing is to some day maybe 5 years down the road be able to track uploads of sound amd video. That way they can bust people who upload viacom videos to youtube or put some movie out there. Of course they use childporn photos to set it up but how long till its tracking video too just in case. Sure it's not technically feasible now but it will be...

Re:Welcome to amerika ... (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217466)

RTFA, they already want to track videos as well.

The Supremes (1)

toonerh (518351) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216616)

At this point, I think the US Supreme Court should draw a line, once and for all.

The Supremes were a singing group. (1, Flamebait)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216648)

"... I think the US Supreme Court should draw a line..."

The U.S. Supreme Court already drew its line. It elected George W. Bush.

--
Will the U.S. government violence end 3,000 years of violence in the Middle East? Or, increase it?

Re:The Supremes were a singing group. (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216784)

That deserves a "+1 Excuse me while I go cry now" mod.

Re:The Supremes were a singing group. (1)

toonerh (518351) | more than 7 years ago | (#18218308)

"The Register" uses this cute phrase - I like it. (And liked Mary Wells).

The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (2, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216624)

The Bush administration is the most corrupt administration the U.S. has ever had. Here is my summary of the corruption: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy [futurepower.org] .

I find it scary how little U.S. citizens know about the activities of their government. Part of the reason is that the Bush administration uses the same method of abuse Microsoft uses. Both exploit the fact that it is difficult for people to defend against many, many abuses, each small in themselves. Both, in my opinion, use sophisticated public relations methods to sell their lies.

I hope you will write your own summary of U.S. government corruption and send it to your elected representatives.

--
Is U.S. government violence a good in the world, or does violence just cause more violence?

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (4, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216902)

I hope you will write your own summary of U.S. government corruption and send it to your elected representatives.

The same corrupt ones that are tacking on pet project spending bills to the "War on Terror" because they know that fucker won't veto his big project?

I find it scary that you say that Bush is the corrupt one and think that by sending the other side a letter they will give a shit.

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (4, Insightful)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217470)

Yeah, its not just Bush, this sort of stuff has been going on for years and years.. its just getting to a point where people are finaly able to see it.

Agreed: don't let Bush-hate blind you to history! (2, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217684)

Or to the present. Governments have been corrupt for as long as it's been around; it's usually just a question of "how much". I think most Republicans were well aware of government corruption in the Years Gone By, especially when Congress was mostly Democrat - indeed, it's one of the reasons why the Republicans were the Party of Small Government. But with the past 6 years or so, it seems that Democrats have opened their eyes to see corruption while the Republicans have become the oblivious ones (or complicit ones, on a case by case basis).

When you get down to it, if I have to name the nation's most Corrupt Administration off the top of my head, I'd say Andrew Jackson. Good old "To the victor belong the spoils" Jackson. Good old "Trail of tears" Jackson. Mr. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Jackson. Good old "man-of-the-people" Jackson. Good old man-of-the-people Bush is at least trying to work something positive in Iraq (though one can easily question its effectiveness) - what was Jackson doing with the Indian Removal business? That's far more criminal than the Iraq war ever was or will be. And if you wanted me to name the President that did the most to restrict civil liberties during his term in office, that's easy. Abraham Lincoln, yo. Writ of habeus what now? That's right. And the Great Emancipator walked all over freedom of speech and such, too.

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (5, Informative)

oldwindways (934421) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216978)

Corruption in Washington is nothing new. Over a century ago, the Grant Administration [wikipedia.org] was plagued by a number of embezzlement schemes involving members of the cabinet, relatives of the president and his close associates. The parallels are striking when you compare Cheney's Halliburton with the Bristow (Secretary of the Treasury) Whisky Ring, the Belknap (Secretary of War) Trading Post incident, Jay Gould's and James Fisk' triggering of Black Friday, and the Sanborn Incident.

Every time accusations were made, the Republicans would "wave the bloody shirt," claiming that the southern Democrats were trying to destroy the government just as they had in the civil war (not unlike the call to national security and invoking the fear of terrorism we see in politics today).

Some things never change, and it seems like politics is just as partisan as it ever was. For an interesting take of the chaos of the Grant years and American society, I suggest reading Gore Vidal's 1876 [wikipedia.org] , while historical fiction, it attempts to adhere strictly to the facts of what was going on during that chaotic election year. The parallels to the 2000 Presidential Election are quite interesting as well; the only thing missing are hanging chads.

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217022)

The government isnt corrupt. Its just not acting in the nation's best interests.

Which is why I'm in Australia. :)

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217350)

And the Australian Gov is not corrupt? I thought our leaders were cut from the same filthy cloth.

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (2, Insightful)

Zephiria (941257) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217030)

Okay look, is their really a need to compare microsoft, that makes software, with the USgov which activly kills its citizens and doesn't give a damn about the rest of them.

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (1)

nickmalthus (972450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217120)

Your article on the hidden history of the bush family dealings was revealing. It is a sad state of affairs when such information is only disseminated through the labors of caring virtuous citizens and is completely ignored by the corporately controlled media.

Given the administrations current track record on warrentless wiretapping one can only imagine what the executive branch would do with unfettered access to all internet access archives. Government surveillance was a key tool used to oppress dissidents in nazi germany and communist russia. Such unchecked power can only lead to abuse and corruption. Anonymity has it's place in a true Democracy.

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217254)

I always thought FDR's attempt to cram through unconstitutional New Deal laws by trying to pack the Supreme Court was a pretty underhanded, corrupt move. Wouldn't you agree?

The bad thing about this administration is that it has a cooperative legislature and largely indifferent judiciary.

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217258)

The laws restrict spying on individuals but does nothing to protect the statistical analysis of any information they may intercept. This allows the govenrnment and their agents control and insight into financial and political realms. With a corrupt administration, this is the equal to a crystal ball that can be used for personal / corporate gain.

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (1)

Scratch-O-Matic (245992) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217290)

What is your opinion of the earlier law mentioned in the article...the one passed during the Clinton administration?

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (1)

gitarman (643115) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217678)

To what end are you needing to change the subject? Are you such a panty waste that you cannot stand to see your hero denigrated that you need to see if anyone is willing to throw some crap at someone you hate or (more likely) do you feel that in some way, a little clinton bashing will make what the current administration is / has done more pallatable. Whatever presidents 1 - 42 did or failed to do is irrelelvant, as is what any other country's leader(s) have done in case you were about to make a favorable comparison between Mr. Bush and Mr Hussein or Genghis Khan or whomever (how's that a really pedantic use of a nearly obsolete use of the objective case during a rant!] Either you agree with the Administration or you don't and according to the latest polls less than 30% of Americans do agree. I can only hope that those who agree with him are those appearing on FOX's "'R' you smarter than a 5th grader (and losing miserably). Unfortunately or fortunately, we are so cowed or afraid of speaking out that the administration will continue this slide into totalitarianism and we will still be sitting here arguing when they come and take our computers away. (O.K. maybe that's a little reactionary but hey, sue me!)

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (1)

Viper Daimao (911947) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217428)

anyone else see the similarities between what the DOJ is asking ISP's to do with retaining customer data, and what is already asked of gun store owners, which is to retain all their records of gun purchases? I don't want the govt coming for my uploads or my guns.

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (1)

Prune (557140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217598)

While your page is interesting, it needs some very serious editing if it were to present an air of professionalism and authority. Consider a statement you wrote such as "7) Children of alcoholics, such as former president Bill Clinton, often have some of the same behavioral symptoms even if they don't drink. (Abusing sexuality is a common symptom of alcoholism.)" Correlation does not imply causation. There are much more plausible causes behind Clinton's infidelity, such as being married to someone like Hillary, or having a high sex drive, etc. There is also a problem of organization and consistency--you seem to have thrown a bunch of things together in a rather haphazard way. Including things like tabloid reports and some of the more extreme conspiracy theories, among other stuff, is a sign of lack of critical thinking. You really need to rework this article, otherwise many reasonable readers will dismiss it (and I don't regard the average slashdotter as a reasonable reader), which would be a shame since there is potential.

You should be writing your news media (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217692)

Look, congress will do nothing just because you wrote a letter. If they were really wanting to clean up, then they would doing such things as push to have Sibel Edmunds ungagged.

But what congress can not handle is having light put on them. If you send an e-mail to the congress man, send it to a reporter. In fact, the smart thing is to target several investigative reporters and let them know of any response from the pol. Once a congressman is looking at the media, they tend to get nervous and will push harder. Want to really make it happen? Put up a web site devoted to the letters AND the response. Now you are putting pressure on the media to respond.

Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (2, Insightful)

budgenator (254554) | more than 7 years ago | (#18218280)

Oh Bullshit, the Bush Administration isn't really more corrupt than even the Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton was a willing Bottom for Big Corporate Entertainment, now the Bushies want to track every independently produced image or video distributed. It's all the logically continuation of the previous steps; the next step will be making increasingly draconian record keeping requirements similar to the porn industry's 2257 Regulations. [wikipedia.org] At first It'll be more like having to keep model releases on all distributed images or videos, then the addresses will have to be kept current, next a "no animals were harmed" statement until finally your on-line wedding album will need a certificate saying all boobies fondled were prosthetic not real. This will keep the cost of entry high enough to keep most out and maintian the *IAA distribution monopolies.

join the EFF (4, Insightful)

gonk (20202) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216630)

www.eff.org

Re:join the EFF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216748)

Have they ever won a case? Like seriously, I know they've lost alot and set bad pecedents. Have done anything positive?

Re:join the EFF (2, Insightful)

heroofhyr (777687) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216948)

There is a difference between doing something positive and succeeding in one's efforts. Someone who works in a soup kitchen feeding the homeless is doing something positive. They aren't ending homelessness, but that doesn't make what they do pointless. If you read the timeline of the EFF here [wikipedia.org] , you'll find their "wins" and "losses." Most of the time they seem to just be writing friend of the court briefs rather than being directly involved in the case, so it's difficult to accurately claim they lose a lot in court.

Re:join the EFF (1)

chainLynx (939076) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217498)

Or, even better, donate lots of money to the EFF. Maybe around $500 million dollars to counter the effects of the money that's going to be potentially paid to the ISPs... where's Bill Gates when you need him?

Not far enough! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216664)

Why stop at uploads? Let's track downloads too! And not just images - lets do web traffic, news, mail, chat. Let's record ALL on line activity. That's the most comprehensive solution. That way no criminals can possibly get away with anything. Unless they use encryption... Or other peoples insecure wireless AP's... Or TOR... OR - you get the idea. Well, OK criminals will probably still be able to get away with a lot, but the average American will be under tight surveillance and we can make damn sure that *they* don't do anything their not supposed to. That's probably good enough, right?

That is the goal, yes (5, Insightful)

Eternal Vigilance (573501) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216862)

A few thousands, or even tens of thousands, of motivated criminals (outside of the ones who "own" the country, of course) are of no real threat to the established order - they will almost always prey on the populace.

A few million, or tens of millions, of motivated citizens are absolutely a threat to rule by the few - which is why anything that allows the populace to realize their predicament and then organize to change it must absolutely be stopped.


There's free as in speech, free as in beer, and free as in range. Americans are free in the latter sense.

Re:Not far enough! (1)

dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv (951946) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217112)

Why stop at just Americans? It could track everyone in the world who isn't a hardened criminal or paranoid.

We could make sure no 'normal' person, in the world, emails pictures of their kids, gets a bit to 'extreme' in their home made porn, or wears the wrong colour tie in photos.

A hosting issue (3, Interesting)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216688)

The article says it would be up to the web sites to store backups of the images with relevant date/time/source IP data, but what if you host pictures on your own ADSL or whatever connection, would you still be liable to store copies with the relevant source information?

just the current move in a long game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216726)

what if you host pictures on your own ADSL or whatever connection, would you still be liable to store copies with the relevant source information?

Exactly, they're making you liable. Then they'll push for "harmonization" under the pretense of a free trade agreement to close the loophole with overseas hosting.


The answer needs to be a resounding "NO" before we get to that stage, write your representatives.

Re:just the current move in a long game (1)

deevnil (966765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216796)

Why should we have to write our representatives about civil liberties?

Re:just the current move in a long game (4, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216930)

I know, our elected representatives are citizens too, and you would think that they wouldn't want to live under the bad law they make. I've come to accept that the profiteering that goes on in Congress is rewarding enough that it's worth moving the country in the wrong direction by leaps and bounds, and they must figure that, as powerful as they are, they aren't really subject to those laws anyway. For the most part they're right. Occasionally one of them gets sacrificed to make the plebs think that Washington is policing itself, but that has little apparent effect on the rest of them, fine-sounding speeches aside.

People like to make jokes about Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field". I'd like to point out that a much more powerful version of the same effect permeates Washington D.C.. I was born there, as it happens, and even as a small child I could feel it, a little. I wasn't sure what it was, but something was definitely out-of-kilter even way back then. When we returned home (to another state) I felt an overwhelming sense of normalcy so I know our leaders are driving the country while under the influence of something.

So, our elected officials go to Washington with the best of intentions, perhaps with a sincere desire to make the nation a better place ... and then they get within range of the D.C. distortion field. I believe that it's a lot like picking up a girl in a bar and going home with her. It all seems to make perfect sense at the time, but the next morning you wake up and go "Oh my God ... what have I done?"

But by the time you wake up, it is way too late.

Re:just the current move in a long game (2, Funny)

Aaron Isotton (958761) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217546)

So, our elected officials go to Washington with the best of intentions, perhaps with a sincere desire to make the nation a better place ... and then they get within range of the D.C. distortion field. I believe that it's a lot like picking up a girl in a bar and going home with her. It all seems to make perfect sense at the time, but the next morning you wake up and go "Oh my God ... what have I done?"

This is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. "Girl", "bar" and "morning" are not even words. I believe you wanted to say:

So, our elected officials go to Washington with the best of intentions, perhaps with a sincere desire to make the nation a better place ... and then they get within range of the D.C. distortion field. I believe that it's a lot like downloading a keygen from the internet and running it under your admin account on your main machine. It all seems to make perfect sense at the time, but after the next reboot you wake up and go "Oh my God ... what have I done?"

Re:just the current move in a long game (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217902)

"Girl", "bar" and "morning" are not even words.

Maybe not to the average Slashdotter, but you just try and explain "rooting" to a politician: you have to speak to people in terms with which they are familiar. Believe me, our Congressional representatives are very familiar with girls, and bars, and mornings after.

Re:just the current move in a long game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18218302)

Looks like you'll never earn the title of JokeMaster.

Surveillance - not just being mulled about.. (5, Insightful)

Otefred8 (1070306) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216792)

I know, 4 days old, but still rather relevant,from eff.org (http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_02.php#0051 40):

"Washington, D.C. - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against the Department of Justice today, demanding records about secret new court orders that supposedly authorize the government's highly controversial electronic surveillance program that intercepts and analyzes millions of Americans' communications.

When press reports forced the White House to acknowledge the program in December of 2005, the administration claimed that the massive program could be conducted without warrants or judicial authorization of any kind. However, in January of this year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) had authorized collection of some communications and that the surveillance program would now operate under its approval. EFF's suit comes after the Department of Justice failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records concerning the purported changes in the program (...)"

Seriously.. I echo the former post; join the EFF. Changes are ONLY going to take place through efficient lobbying (but then it also works really well, Halliburton has proved that beyond doubt..)

What else is the DOJ for? (1)

neimon (713907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216848)

Except to enforce property rights for the elite few who can afford to buy them? It's certainly not for investigating corruption in government, nor upholding the Constitution, nor, really, for anything lately. After all, Habeus Corpus isn't actually MENTIONED in the Constitution. Nor the right to privacy. Nor is the right to breathe air. Therefore these things don't exist.

Oh, there was the one thing about the purjury of one President in an endless fishing-expedition investigation into a two-bit, decade old land deal, the evidence based on illegal phone-tapping by a Repubican hack. That was a good collar.

Privacy (1)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216852)

> DoJ Mulls Tracking Picture Uploads

There's still a great deal to be said for the dialup BBS.

Yakima Cowboy spy shop (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216856)

I think this has already happened. I live in south-east Washington state, 60 miles south of the NSA's cowboy echelon site. About 6 years ago, a huge fiber install project seemed to cover every dirt road in the county. Population density here is 0-20 residents / square mile in rural areas. None of this build-up resulted in any change in the available phone service ( POTS only ). All the fiber lines seem to originate from the Fed's BPA fat pipe ( the same one The Dalles Google is attached to ) and run up these dirt roads. They seem to aggrigate at Goldendale Wa. and branch to Yakima down highway 97, Although some seem to head up into the unpopulated mountains. Urban dwellers are used to fiber on every street, but orange poles on every dirt road cutting through wheat fields seems strange. I probably should shut up now.

Re:Yakima Cowboy spy shop (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18216990)

If you look at the yakima NSA site with google earth you can see the 10 or so satellite dishes, the power plant and fuel storage, a waste treatment plant, service buildings, the one story complex and to the north, about 500 huge piles of excavated earth. A fire inspector let slip a few years ago that the installation has 100's of underground levels. Your tax dollars at work.

Re:Yakima Cowboy spy shop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18217000)

> I probably should shut up now.

Don't worry, we're sending someone around to debrief you right now.

Re:Yakima Cowboy spy shop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18218346)

So start digging it up! Cut the head of the dragon, see?

Fiber splits are soooo much fun to splice.

ASCII art (1)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18216888)

And how will they block ascii art?

Re:ASCII art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18217094)

With Unicode Ninjas.

What about traffic via the US (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217006)

Damn. Now I'm going to have to be careful to run traceroute before uploading anything to a server, just in case it goes via the US and some future law change makes uploading pictures of kittens illegal retrospectively. No way do I want my pictures sitting in a US government owned database, especially with their attitude towards applying [wikipedia.org] US law [freesklyarov.org] to foreigners. [theregister.co.uk]

Republican Values (1, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217136)

Republicans bring you smaller, less intrusive government.

Re:Republican Values (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18217196)

Republicans bring you smaller, less intrusive government for business.
I fixed that for you.

Re:Republican Values (1)

ACMENEWSLLC (940904) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217430)

>>Republicans bring you smaller, less intrusive government.

One of the reason many of us Republicans don't like Bush, either. I was not pleased when he ended up being our candidate.

Re:Republican Values (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217710)

Who did you vote for in 2004?

You forgot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18217878)

They want a:
  1. balanced budget
  2. To minimize our interactions with other govs. We are suppose to just guard our shores and not interfere in other countries.
  3. against corruption.
  4. All for good morals.
The republican party that I knew as a kid (and was around with lincoln) is long gone with RRRs. I suspect that Hitler would be proud that his party won just by taking over another party.

Re:You forgot (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217938)

When were you a kid? I've been around a while, and I can't remember a Republican government (Congressional majority or president) that actually did even one of those things. Lots of talk about them, but never any action.

They should just CUT the bullshit! (2, Interesting)

andydread (758754) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217188)

Its all about terrorism, child porn, and piracy I am sick to death of them beating this dead horse. Why dont they just get right down to it and ...

1)put cameras in our homes. (They'll just check them when there is a suspicion of a crime)

2)ban all sex out side marriage

3)ban all non secular music.

4)ban all non missionary position sex

5)ban all violence on TV

6)ban all gay people

7)ban the GPL

Use installed camera to enforce all banned.

8)tag us and record where we go with gps ( they'll only check it if there is suspicion of a crime)

10)mandate car manufacturers to install tracking devices. (they'll only check it if . . . )

11)build a berlin wall around USA (to keep out terrists and drugs, and illegals and..) keep us in?

12)ban all weapons but handguns which are useless when the people wake up from Shitney Shears and Anna Dickhole Sith and try to rise up and take back their country.

I wonder who really fooled us Americans that we have the right to any semblance of privacy any way.

As far as the DOJ and law enforcement goes who needs to investigate anything anymore All we the righteous people of law-enforcement need is a great big control panel that we can monitor everyone and when we suspect them of a crime we just push a button and voila they are in prison. Who the hell needs due process anymore

Welcome people to the United States Socialist Republic. The USSR.

Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18217296)

Number 6 and 11 would do nicely.

Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! (1)

bjackson1 (953136) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217318)

3)ban all non secular music.

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me!

Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18217396)

I think you meant ban all secular music. Secular means attitudes, activities, or things that have no religious or spiritual basis. So, non-secular would refer to those said items with a religious or spiritual basis.

Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! (2, Insightful)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217458)

ITYM fascist.

Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! (1)

Nappa48 (1041188) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217522)

I agree...no really, I do.
Screw privacy.

Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18217976)


Its all about terrorism, child porn, and piracy I am sick to death of them beating this dead horse. Why dont they just get right down to it and ...
1)put cameras in our homes. (They'll just check them when there is a suspicion of a crime)
2)ban all sex out side marriage
3)ban all non secular music.
4)ban all non missionary position sex
5)ban all violence on TV
6)ban all gay people
7)ban the GPL
Use installed camera to enforce all banned.
8)tag us and record where we go with gps ( they'll only check it if there is suspicion of a crime)
10)mandate car manufacturers to install tracking devices. (they'll only check it if . . . )
11)build a berlin wall around USA (to keep out terrists and drugs, and illegals and..) keep us in?
12)ban all weapons but handguns which are useless when the people wake up from Shitney Shears and Anna Dickhole Sith and try to rise up and take back their country.
I wonder who really fooled us Americans that we have the right to any semblance of privacy any way. As far as the DOJ and law enforcement goes who needs to investigate anything anymore All we the righteous people of law-enforcement need is a great big control panel that we can monitor everyone and when we suspect them of a crime we just push a button and voila they are in prison. Who the hell needs due process anymore Welcome people to the United States Socialist Republic. The USSR.

13) Get John Carpenter to make a movie about it. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0116225/ [imdb.com]

Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18218064)

11)...Berlin Wall...keep "you guys" in: everybody else (aliens) heading South to Chavez freedom oil land:-)

The animated GIF is back. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18217202)

98 frames of kittens and 1 frame is a hidden image (delay time in GCE set to zero).

Let's all do like the fools at the DOJ and take leave of our senses.

Trail from lobbyist to law will be available? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217264)

In Capitalist West government demand picture easy to trace back to you.
In Soviet Union government demand airbrushed picture leave no trace of you.

US Law (2, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217320)

One peculiarity of US law is its way of breaking down different forms of communications, a system that is based on archaic technologies.

IANAL, but this is pretty much my understanding of the situation.

Privacy of electronic communications is protected mainly by the Electronic Communication Act of 1986, which consists of three parts:

Title 1, Wiretap Act: protections communicaiton that have some kind of audio component (paradigm: phone calls)

Title 2, Stored Communications Act: protects electronic communiations while they are in transit or in temporary storage (paradigm: email held in spools, e.g. the old arpanet mail which often sent email through UUCP over 300 baud phone links to reach computers that weren't directly connected)

Title 3, Pen Register Act: prevents placing devices on phone lines to record phone numbers.

Each title of ECPA was written with electronic communication technology as it stood ca 1985, which means that by 1990 it was clearly obsolete. But there is no such thing as an obsolete law, or at least obsolete laws continue to operate in unexpted ways. In this case, the provisions of ECPA have been extended by process of analogy to many situations that weren't even considered in 1985. Many curious questions arise. For example, it would appear that the government cannot rifle through email spool directories without a warrant. But what about when it is delivered to your in box? Many people use their in boxes as filing systems. It would be one thing if it was stored on your computer, but what if it is stored at an ISP?

Or this: the government can't put a pen register on your phone lines -- basically a mechanical device that records the electrical singals on your phone line and makes a paper tape of the numbers you call. Constitutionally they are not prevented from doing so because you are disclosing the phone numbers to a third party -- the phone company. So what about email logs? They are covered by the same constitutional doctrine, but don't appear to be covered by ECPA, which envisions installing a device to reocord transient signals.

Or this: what if there were an image format that included audio commentary? Would this trigger the Wiretap act? Is this why the AG is talking about picture uploads and not movie uploads? Note once again the capriciousness of US law.

As a non-lawyer, I don't really follow all the ins and outs of the developments in information privacy law, because it's not really worth my time. There's no way a nonspecialist can keep track of the twists and turns of case law. The bottom line is this: unlike the EU, we do not have a fundamental, legally protected right to information and communication privacy in the US. The strategy of US lawmakers has been to avoid the recognition of any new rights, but to curb specific abuses when they reach the outrage level.

The result is the capriciousness we have seen. A non-lawyer can't really know what is rights are vis a vis the government, because it depends on a rather haphazard patchwork of statues, viewed through the series of lenses that are judicial analogizing.

The courts have to operate this way, because people who feel outraged by violations of what common sense tells them is a right of privacy keep bringing lawsuits trying to employ a broken down system of statues that implicitly assume those rights, but don't explicitly secure them.

We have reached the point in the US where an ordinary person really can't know what his rights are. Special interests, and officials of a statist bent, have found so many ways to violate the spirit of individual and community liberty embodied in the Constitution, while avoiding technical illegalities. Constitutional law has been stretched to its limits to cover rights clearly implied by the Constitution (e.g. substantive due process), but this process leaves protection of individual and group rights thin and patchy.

I believe is time for a new declaration of human rights in the US along the lines of the excellent European Convention on Human Rights. In fact, we could do worse than to adopt ECHR wholesale. Adopting the EU Directive on Data Protection along with it would not only secure American's individual rights, it would protect US trade interests with Europe.

Such a declaration would eliminate the capriciousness of US law. An ordinary person could understand what his expectation of privacy should be in anything he did, and under what conditions the government could intervene in those expecations. The government would operate, not through a network of loopholes (e.g. the audio component in the Wiretap Act), but through explicit and rationally chosen guidelines covering any situation.

Re:US Law (2, Informative)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217512)

Stop thinking about your constitutional rights, and start thinking that the constitution doesn't give the feds the ability to tap our phones. If it's not specifically called out, they can't do it.

photo nonsense (0, Flamebait)

no.no.notorious (1047414) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217340)

good, incarcerate those involved with child pornography.

What pisses me off (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217354)

Is that none of the big political blogs care one bit about this. Sure, they'll write volumes about things like the NSA wiretapping program, but it's so far been largely up to smaller blogs to track this issue. I've been following it [codemonkeyramblings.com] now since the first serious proposal about a year ago. What gives? Why is it so hard to get non-geeks to care about an issue that amounts to one of the biggest police state advances in the last twenty years?

The only problem with this issue is that it will cost them a lot of money to support all of the services affected by it. It won't be like the telecoms with just a few companies affected. Potentially tens of thousands of businesses will have to be compensated if they want similar compliance.

This is not about the DOJ; It is TIA (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217492)

If you ever work with the feds esp the DOD or other organizations, you will find that the best way to hide things is in the open as something else. In addition, leave all sorts of nonsense data to make it hard to find (steganography). It is actually how we do the bulk of our work. Such as most secret facilities are amongst the general public and looks like a store or a general building.

One of the problems with TIA(Total information Awareness) was the idea of taking in ALL the data and processing it. What is needed to make it work is to have groups store part of it and then process it as needed (data a implies b implies c). But to do it openly will mean that groups will fight it. So tie the military and the doj together closely and then make it happen. What is interesting is that member of congress have to know that this happening or W. is operating totally rouge. If so, then he has other plans then simply info about terrorism.

freefall (5, Insightful)

moxley (895517) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217526)

Unfortunately the Supreme Court isn't going to help us.

We live in an authoritarian capito-fascistic state. You can choose to ignore it, you can tell yourself that it doesn't affect you personally (yet); but that won't change the fact. We have government that reinterprets laws and standards to mean what they decide they need to mean to fit their agenda at the mmoment (which usually, in all moments, is CONTROL), it's a system of institutionalized corruption.

Electing someone from the either large party isn't going to help us - I mean, there are a few exceptions in both major parties, but none of the big names really.

I think that the people are going to have to find a way to organize and save our constitution. The system will not save itself because it is compromised. It could be hacked or manipulated and forced to work for us should large groups of people be willing to stand up for their rights - but unfortunately that's not going to happen by voting or by any of the rigged or tilted mechanisms in place.

What people who say things like "I don't mind, I'm not doing anything illegal" fail to realize is that it doesn't matter - because once the entire system of surviellance and control is in place, once you have no privacy or anonimity it is too late - because then the definition of what is legal and what is illegal can be changed.

It's not like they ever give your rights or your expectations of personal liberty back once they have been taken away - even when these things are promised (like sunset provisions) at the time such legislation is proposed.

  Aside from that, what if you were at one time in drug rehab - or are a member of a group like AA and all of these records are stored forever and then down the line the whole world can find out all of your private personal stuff.

The slippery slope is no more - we're almost in freefall.

Re:freefall (1)

Cheeze (12756) | more than 7 years ago | (#18218102)

What? I can't hear you over American Idol playing on the Comcast DVR in the background.

The DOJ only seeks to control the sheep (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217580)

My favorite part of the article: Only universities and libraries would be excluded, one participant said. "There's a PR concern with including the libraries, so we're not going to include them," the participant quoted the Justice Department as saying. "We know we're going to get a pushback, so we're not going to do that."

They don't have time to deal with entities which give a "pushback" when there are so many companies, politicians, and citizens who are ready to roll over, bark, and beg on command. Terrorism and kiddy porn are such effective justifications because most people don't even bother to examine the issues, much less debate a proposed law.

The U.S. has been whipped up into such a senseless frenzy over terrorism and kiddy porn that it's going to be a long time before Congress becomes rational about the subjects. Privacy and (pseudo)anonymity are some of the things that made the internet so popular, but unfortunately this type of emotional hype and scare tactics will make the internet far less private than the postal system and telephone network.

Copyright/ownership? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18217596)

What affect will this have on copyright/ownership? I mean text and images on a public site is one thing, but what about premium content from online vendors? I imagine they would be a little mad to find out that their material belongs to someone else. Perhaps the porn industry will fight this. Didn't they sue Google for linking to their images?

The DOJ is broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18217604)

The US Justice system is already broken. They have prescribed life sentences for free speech, as in Dr. Ali Timimi [wikipedia.org] 's case, who is a US citizen [hvk.org] .

You may excuse that case because he's a muslim, but it won't be long before similar convictions are carried out in general.

The NSA FAB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18217610)

From the NSA employment web site: "You may also be working in our microelectronics fabrication facility, including a 20,000-square-foot "Class 10" clean room. In this setting, you will be performing such tasks as electron beam maskmaking and "direct write" wafer lithography." They have their own FAB? We're fucked.

Never thought I'd say it. (1)

bguzz (728614) | more than 7 years ago | (#18217662)

DRM would fix this.

Re:Never thought I'd say it. (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18218160)

Please explain. The statement "DRM would fix this" does not compute.

Just use Snoopblocker.com anonymous proxy server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18218082)

or many other https proxy servers located outside of the US. The DOJ can suck my dick!

Re:Just use Snoopblocker.com anonymous proxy serve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18218120)

Uh, until they block access to those, fucknut. Not that hard to do. "You will only access servers within the US, citizen ...".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...