DoJ Mulls Tracking Picture Uploads 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."
the cash (Score:2)
Re:the cash (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cost is no object when its not your money.
Re: (Score:2)
How about SSL? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about SSL? (Score:5, Insightful)
YouTube is for people who have a camera but lack talent.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly:P
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about SSL? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like a One-Time Pad.
Re: (Score:2)
Station wagons don't have trunks.
And now you see just how brilliant his encryption scheme really is.
The Supremes (Score:2)
The Supremes were a singing group. (Score:1, Flamebait)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 relatio
Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (Score:5, Informative)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed: don't let Bush-hate blind you to history! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Agreed: don't let Bush-hate blind you to histor (Score:2)
most corrupt USA government admin (Score:2)
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.
Agreed! When Jackson forced the Cherokee living in the Carolinas, and northern Georgia, west on the Trail Of Tears [rosecity.net] he was sued in the USSC. When the Justices ruled against him Jackson said he was the commander in chief and if they wanted to stop him then they'd have to get their own army.
Mr. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Jackson.
Yeap!
Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Which is why I'm in Australia.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
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 dissident
Re: (Score:2)
The bad thing about this administration is that it has a cooperative legislature and largely indifferent judiciary.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I support this measure and I support Clinton's as well. Bush is not my hero and I don't hate Clinton. Have a nice day.
Oh, by the way...what did you think of the law that was passed during the Clinton administration?
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that where you and I differ is that I have no problem with an ISP or other service provider being PREPARED to assist in an investigation. To use the classic and obvious example, if police come across blatant child porn photos on the internet, I really and truly believe t
Re: (Score:2)
Two minor points before we agree to disagree:
if they suspect anyone of engaging in an illegal act they certainly have the right to get a warrant...
Ahhh, that's the easy part, isn't it? If you suspect a known person of wrongdoing, it is indeed easy to watch them and confirm or refute the suspicion. The tricky part is being able to find an unknown person who has committed an act that is a confirmed crime, as in the example I gave of
Re: (Score:2)
You should be writing your news media (Score:2)
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 hard
ungag Sibel Edmonds? (Score:2)
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 Edmonds ungagged.
It would be nice if Sibel Edmonds were ungagged however as with many other dreams I've had I doubt it will ever happen. If people knew just how bad things were in the FBI's translation unit they'd loose all belief in the FBI. Not having read or heard about her for some months I went ahead and News Googled her and there was all
MODERATORS, Please MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Gads, I hope it is true.
If you read the link that he points to (Score:2)
it shows that Sibel Edmunds may finally be able to testify by simply connecting the dots between known info.
Maybe I missed it but I went up to the top and didn't see a link about Sibel Edmunds, except the one I posted, which says this. Maybe someone else posted another one.
Gads, I hope it is true.
I'd love to see Sibel being able to speak out without a sword hanging over her head.
FalconRe: (Score:3, Insightful)
join the EFF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not far enough! (Score:1, Insightful)
That is the goal, yes (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
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.
child porn (Score:2)
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.
Remindes me of a case that came up a few years ago while taking a photography class in college. Some parent took photos of their child(ren) whiile in the bathtub. They dropped off the film and went to pick up up later. When they claimed the photos they were arrested for child pornography. I find this sad, growing up it was common
A hosting issue (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:just the current move in a long game (Score:5, Interesting)
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
But by the time you wake up, it is way too late.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. "Girl", "bar" and "morning" are not even words. I believ
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[screen flashing 'PWNT BY CHINESE']
Fuck fascism.
Surveillance - not just being mulled about.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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..)
Re: (Score:2)
Changes are ONLY going to take place through efficient lobbying
Efficient lobbying does nothing to cut the government off from their supply of money. History has shown that if the citizens rise up and protest then a subcommittee is formed to resolve the differences in opinion. The major talking points of the public protest are identified and the bill is restructured to neatly sidestep those issues. Five years later the same proposal is reintroduced with the modifications necessary to negate the debate points of any public protest.
The only real solution is to quit fu
What else is the DOJ for? (Score:1)
Oh, there was the one thing about the purjury of one President in an endless fishing-expedition investigation into a two-bit, decade old l
Habeus Corpus isn't actually MENTIONED in the (Score:2)
Constitution
Maybe not but at least one USSC ruled Habeas Corpus is a right and that denying it is unconstitutional:
1861: Abraham Lincoln detains thousands, ignores court [csmonitor.com]
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus, arresting anyone who expresses sympathy with the South and holding them without presenting evidence against them or giving them a trial. Hundreds of draft resisters are imprisoned, along with newspaper editors, judges, lawyers, and legislators. By so
Privacy (Score:2)
There's still a great deal to be said for the dialup BBS.
Yakima Cowboy spy shop (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
ASCII art (Score:1)
What about traffic via the US (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Who did you vote for in 2004? (Score:2)
Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org].
FalconRe: (Score:2)
But I am curious. Were you a registered Republican in 2004? Did you vote in the primaries? For whom? Did you support Badnarik's lawsuit challenging the Ohio results?
You're not ACMENEWSLLC (Score:2)
I don't know what ACMENEWSLLC means so I can't say whether I am or am not.
But I am curious. Were you a registered Republican in 2004? Did you vote in the primaries? For whom?
Since the first tyme I registered to vote I've registered as independent or no party affiliation. I prefer to do my own thinking and not what some party wants. I've voted for candidates from 5 different parties, Democrats, Green, Libertarian, Reform, and Republican. And as I've only been registered in two states and both require
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that you didn't hear that Badnarik and Cobb sued for an Ohio recount in 2004 [google.com]. There was quite a lot of discussion, especially after House and Senate Democrats forced debate on certifying Ohio's Electoral ballots [wikipedia.org]. I'd think a true independent, who'd even temporarily join parties just to promote individual candidates, would have heard if their candidate were suing for a recount. Especi
Badnarik's lawsuit for Ohio recount (Score:2)
I'd think a true independent, who'd even temporarily join parties just to promote individual candidates, would have heard if their candidate were suing for a recount.
I don't pay as much attention as I should I admit. Right now I'm just trying to live day by day, it's been a struggle for me since I survived a terrible accident which left me with a diability. While I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived but I'd argue with them now.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you make it, (Score:2)
and eventually thrive. Sounds like you've already gotten thru the worst. Good luck.
Thanks. In a sense some say I was thriving, after going through my medical records the docs and therapists I saw said it was amazing I was doing so well. However most things are a struggle for me.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
That region was stable for hundreds of years until Britain carved it up and partnered wi
Maybe it's Texan Values (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should just CUT the bullshit! (Score:2, Interesting)
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 che
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like a pretty good idea to me!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
- Wait.
2)ban all sex out side marriage
- Effectively done is some of the redder states.
3)ban all non secular music.
-
4)ban all non missionary position sex
- non-*procreative* sex. See last week's story on a proposal to check prospective married couples for evidence of procreation abilities.
5)ban all violence on TV
- except for coverage of our glorious war against Terror
6)ban all gay people
- see 2
7)ban the GPL
- not an issue
Trail from lobbyist to law will be available? (Score:1)
In Soviet Union government demand airbrushed picture leave no trace of you.
US Law (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about the DOJ; It is TIA (Score:2)
One of the problems with TIA(Total information Awareness) was the idea of taking in ALL the data and processing it. What
freefall (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another very serious problem is that it is so difficult to maintain a chain of evidence in an electronic world. Will the ISPs take proper precautions to secure their data and logs from attackers and forgeries? If the DoJ drags you into court claiming you uploaded an illegal file two years ago, how do you defend yourself? Logs are just data, data is easily edited. Without electronic signatures on every log entry, it is easy to just add a new one or modify an existing entry. Who would be able to tell?
A digi
The DOJ only seeks to control the sheep (Score:2)
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. Ter
Make them look stupid (Score:2)
Make Gonzales look stupid. What terrorist who's a real threat is going to upload pictures to a web server. Hello? Write to your congressman.
Tor (Score:2)
A slippery fish (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)