×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

516 comments

Really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042076)

And what is it going to do about my encryption keys?

Not that I support this, but I sure as hell don't intend to make it easy for people to invade my privacy when I'm not doing anything illegal.

Re:Really? (3, Funny)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042328)

And what is it going to do about my encryption keys?

Well, considering that you live your life with such privacy paranoia that you feel you have to post AC and therefore probably aren't much threat to the government ... probably nothing.

Re:Really? (5, Interesting)

gnick (1211984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042444)

And what is it going to do about my encryption keys?
If things go really badly, they could pass legislation similar to the UK's that makes it illegal to withhold encryption keys and passwords if you're hit with a warrant. I'm sure if anyone has tried the "I forgot" defense yet.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042524)

I sure as hell don't intend to make it easy for people to invade my privacy when I'm not doing anything illegal.

As opposed to making it easy for people to invade your privacy if you are doing things illegal?

Re:Really? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042630)

Depends on how the cases go where people have plead the 5th when they wont give them up.

If we lose the 5th amendment argument, then it wont matter what you do. If they cant read your files, you get tossed in the clink regardless of potential content. Or worse, using private encryption becomes a crime all itself.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042758)

What we need to due is move to a completely encrypted Internet. This will involve 1) sending encrypted communications to and from your DNS (so that the government can't see what IPs you are looking up), 2) encrypted IP headers (so that the government can't trace the origin or the destination from the midpoint), and 3) encrypted packets.

#1 will be simple but you need to be really careful since the government would really like to crack it. #2 would be harder. You would need to know all of the public keys of the entire pathway you are using to prevent one compromised machine from giving your destination away or you would need a couple of 'secure' systems that remember your previous request and don't pass on your information (like an anonymous IP system). #3 would just be standard public key encryption. The downside to all of this is the huge bandwidth needed, the increased processing power needed, and the increased latency. And if you really wanted secure communications you would need to use this for all of your mundane packets as well so that the government wouldn't know when you were sending sensitive information by encrypting it with this system. All of this requires a different protocol than IP so you wouldn't be safe until a large number of people started using it.

Re:Really? (1)

eosp (885380) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042856)

You could just use Tor [eff.org] ; that knocks out 2 and 3. I actually find it fast enough for most uses.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

ashridah (72567) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042840)

Taking your comment on face value, this only really works if you're communicating with a peer whom you already know, *and* whom you already have exchanged public keys with, in a trusted manner (no, a key on a public key chain isn't trusted, if you don't know why, then you fail at cryptography).

This doesn't work for public discussion lists, or even private ones, unless they're very strictly controlled.
It also doesn't help for p2p traffic, as those are between two essentially anonymous parties, and thus, have no way to prevent a man in the middle attack, even if they DO use encryption (unless the tracker mediates, which, for most implementations that I've seen, it doesn't, even if it's using SSL)

The simple fact of the matter is that encryption is the wrong mechanism to solve this problem. Removing power from your government is the right mechanism, ideally.

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042888)

> And what is it going to do about my encryption keys?

Same thing they did in the UK: Pass a law making it illegal not to divulge them, and pass another law that says if you forget or lose the keys, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you forgot or lost the keys.

Or the same thing they tried to do under Clinton I in the US: Require key escrow.

> Not that I support this, but I sure as hell don't intend to make it easy for people to invade my privacy when I'm not doing anything illegal.

When those laws are passed, "using an encryption key without divulging it to the government" will be illegal.

The Constitution... (4, Insightful)

zulater (635326) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042080)

...is sadly dying. But it's ok because if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide right?

Re:The Constitution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042154)

Sadly true as long as people are content to be bent over by the government. Lube up... we're in for a long night..

Re:The Constitution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042312)

ha ha ha stupid americans!

I like this quote. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042280)

"Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said," Wright adds. "Giorgio warned me, 'We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"

So, that would mean that the societies with the most surveillance were the most secure, right?

Like Soviet Russia.

Correct (3, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042344)

"Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said," Wright adds. "Giorgio warned me, 'We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"

So, that would mean that the societies with the most surveillance were the most secure, right?
As any one knows prisons and navy ships (i.e. the ultimate panopticon) have zero crime rates.

Re:I like this quote. (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042580)

So, that would mean that the societies with the most surveillance were the most secure, right?
Sadly not, look at the mess British based terrirists made in Germany a mere sixty years ago.

Nobody is safe nowadays !

Re:The Constitution... (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042310)

Well except that there is no proof that this is true. That story is kinda short on any proof at all.
email? Does anybody think that email is private? It is sent in clear text so I would say that it is as private as a postcard.
There is an election coming soon. So for those that really fear this find out where the candidates stand on it.
Then vote.
BTW don't focus so much on the President BTW take a hard look at your congressional reps.

Re:The Constitution... (5, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042494)

why must we have to justify privacy? it's obvious to anyone that if a letter isn't addressed to you then it's an invasion of privacy regardless of the measures we take to stop you.

Re:The Constitution... (5, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042576)

email? Does anybody think that email is private? It is sent in clear text so I would say that it is as private as a postcard.

As I say in every discussion of this nature, "private" in the sense of "can a police officer legally look at this and use it as evidence?" is completely different than in the sense of "could a malicious person who wanted to snoop on what I was saying possibly look at this, the law be damned?"

E-mail is about as physically private as a letter. They are fairly trivial to read but it does require you take take deliberate action to do so. As opposed to a post card which could literally fall out of the postman's hand text-up and be read by accident, other people's emails don't just randomly show up on your screen even if you are an email server sysadmin.

And thanks to recent precedent email is becoming -legally- as private as a letter. Which to repeat, is a different standard, and regardless of the fact that letters are easy to read, they are still considered private. So while a malicious mail man could read your mail whenever they chose, a cop who wanted their evidence to stand up at trial could not without a warrant.

We need to remember both of these. First if you want real privacy even from malicious people, you need to encrypt your email. Second, we still need to keep unencrypted email to be legally private, since otherwise the idea is that if the police -can- read your encrypted emails then they don't count as private and thus no warrant is needed.

There is an election coming soon. So for those that really fear this find out where the candidates stand on it.
Then vote.
BTW don't focus so much on the President BTW take a hard look at your congressional reps.


True that. Sadly enough it's hard enough to get specific answers on what the Presidential candidates' stances are on the subject, much less all the representatives.

Re:The Constitution... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042686)

I do understand the difference. I am not sure that a postcard can not be considered evidence since there is no assumption of privacy. Kind of like taking in a Mall. Or on a CB Radio.
I am not sure that Email is any different but that is up for debate. Even if it gets the protection of law it is just to easy to sniff a line and get email for me to ever think of it as private.

You really don't need to check EVERY rep. Just yours since those are the only ones you can vote for.
With all the complaining about the President I am shocked by how many people just ignore their reps.

Re:The Constitution... (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042820)

You are confusing the issue of security with privacy.

just because i don't send all my email with 128bit encryption, it doesn't give you or the government the right to read them.

Re:The Constitution... (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042698)

Well except that there is no proof that this is true. That story is kinda short on any proof at all.
email? Does anybody think that email is private? It is sent in clear text so I would say that it is as private as a postcard.
Not only is the above true, but you should never do this and post a line from an incriminating email in a public forum :

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
 
hQQOA0ZFx4ChzKXZEA/+IB2pj7AAHnc1VTQcbgvs1sSCdtE5quuVQt7Pj9N9SWsz
(oh noes, what have I done !)

Re:The Constitution... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042604)

Don't worry about it. If this passes, I will immediately stage an attack on the central offices of the NSA and FBI. I'll never allow this to go forward.

Wait... /. uses SSL, right? And maybe I should have loaded tor... Oh crap...

Re:The Constitution... (4, Insightful)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042636)

A new product is all the rage in the District these days:
    Bill of Rights Toilet Paper (tm)
It comes with all 10 printed on each sheet. Congress Critters find it to be heavy duty absorbent. Somehow though, that stuff you water the Tree of Liberty with seems to slip through anyway, just a little, but it slips through....

Re:The Constitution... (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042730)

...is sadly dying.
But it's ok because if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide right?
Gaaarh, you'll get my Viagra from my cold dead, uh, thingy !

didn't they invent the internet? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042082)

I mean really, it's a DOD project right?

Luddite revolution (5, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042092)

I guess we'll just have to do this the old-fashioned way. Now accepting (paper) applications for the next Paul Revere.

Old news. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042118)

They already do (and have done) this for many years. Seems strange why they'd want to bring it to light now. Maybe it's more plausible since the country is in a post 9/11 atmosphere of fear.

He's just stretching the constraints (4, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042120)

so he can get through something we would consider "less onerous" but is still an affront to the Constitution.

Re:He's just stretching the constraints (1)

Bobzibub (20561) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042370)

Or simply legally justifying what they already do ex post, as before.

Diminishing returns (3, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042126)

If they're really trying to tap all that nonsense, it'll end up being a bit of a pain trying to pull the noise out of the signal at that point. It'd be relatively trivial to generate vast quantities of legit-looking noise to hide a small covert signal--and while data analysis algorithms and computer speeds have been steadily increasing, it's a bit of an arms race to keep up with the regular legitimate traffic, much less any obfuscation attempts.

In the end, it's probably a lot more trouble than it's worth to go about things this way, rather than doing the 'traditional' sort of real-life investigation leading to a warrant &c.

Re:Diminishing returns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042258)

*ahem* NSA *ahem* Echelon *ahem*

Re:Diminishing returns (2, Funny)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042326)

This is one case where I think an enterprising spammer could have a ton of fun. Just start spamming emails through all the bots that have an "interesting" generator for keywords and phrases. Considering the volume of spam it would be very difficult to watch.

Re:Diminishing returns (2, Interesting)

thanatos_x (1086171) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042908)

One would think that this wouldn't be too hard to stop, seeing just how 'ingenious' current spam e-mails are. I rarely get e-mail spam that gets by spamassassin, and I don't think i've ever gotten a spam message in my g-mail account.

Still I suppose this would open up the avenue of attack that you could communicate in 'spam' code, trying to make your e-mails look like random spam generated, or you could send out a massive spam e-mail that actually contained information in it...

All said and done though, I don't believe there is much of a problem getting secure e-mail IF one has the knowledge to do so. Once again, one would think the terrorists who could plan an attack on the US would be able to figure some way of safe communication.

It is interesting to note that on one hand many people think we have a government that can't handle some fairly simple tasks, and yet on the other hand those same people expect the government to be able to effectively execute a more complex task. I'm not quite sure what word I'd use to describe it... it's almost like double thinking.

Re:Diminishing returns? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042434)

This might be a good cue to invest supercomputer stocks.

A good analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042442)

Spam vs. Spam Filter.

Spam seems to be winning. The bad guys (spammers and terrorists alike) have shown that they are as good at using the available technology as the good guys.

The Brits are becoming a full bore surveillance society. They have video cameras everywhere. Their civil rights are diminishing even faster than ours. It hasn't made them one bit safer.

In return for no discernable benefits, we are giving away the freedom our ancestors died for. Just pathetic.

Re:Diminishing returns (1)

mincognito (839071) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042450)

You are naive. Google indexes over four billion Web pages (~40 TB), searches this data a thousand times every second of every day, and with response rates measured in milliseconds.

Only instead of providing links to Web sites, the government's in-house search engine would provide links to users.

Re:Diminishing returns (3, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042778)

Which is only a scratch on the surface of the amount of data that is generated and transmitted daily. Above and beyond the web pages searched and indexed, there's the vast morass of Usenet, Email, P2P and other media traffic, and the various and sundry other things that are on protocols other than http.

Other respondents have pointed out the arms race between spam and spam filtering; I had that in mind when I made my response. In essence, as a detection tool, this is going to be more or less useless, outside of the occasional one in a million lucky strike; really, the only way to use it would be to go mining it once you've already detected something nefarious and you want a more solid case--something that could easily be handled by a warrant and seizure of the suspect's computing assets.

Re:Diminishing returns (5, Insightful)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042516)

I think you miss the point. The data will be mined after the fact or to build a case against someone the gov't doesn't like.

Let's say you do something to piss some mucky-muck off and you get on the monitor list. It's only a matter of time before you mention in passing that you copied a DVD or any other heinous crime and bingo! The FBI/Federal marshals/etc are at your door.

Paranoid? I grew up in a communist state. I hate to think I've escaped to one, too....

Re:Diminishing returns (4, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042826)

That's really the only way it could be useful at all; as a method of detection, there's no real way that one could find anything useful with that sort of shotgun approach at all.

But if the government really wants your hide, then they'll have it whether they have any real evidence or not--witness Cardinal Richelieu's words: "Give me four lines written by the most innocent of men, and in them I will find something to hang him." That was just as true then as now.

why are we still arguing over this? (1)

Nudo (1118587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042132)

why are they still trying to get my e-mails? I don't understand why they want to read my boring e-mails. The poor people who have to read my stuff...

They found a way to make encryption mainstream! (4, Insightful)

Drake42 (4074) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042172)

Because you can be damn sure that if they pass this law people will finally make sure to heavily encrypt what they say on the internet.

Then again, it's almost certain that they're already reading all the e-mail. This law is probably just to prevent them from getting sued about it later. Ug

 

This is bad journalism (2, Interesting)

polgair (922265) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042174)

Article links to another article which is paraphrasing some report made by a reporter who has seen this alleged draft Mike McConnell has a part in authoring, whilst the link to said report is dangling. I don't buy it. Seems like wacky journalism to me.

It's in the New Yorker's print edition (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042336)

As re-reported in Raw Story: [rawstory.com]

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for cyberspace spying that would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a "walk in the park," according to an interview published in the New Yorker's print edition today. ...

McConnell is developing a Cyber-Security Policy, still in the draft stage, which will closely police Internet activity.

"Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the autority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search," author Lawrence Wright pens.

"Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said," Wright adds. "Giorgio warned me, 'We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"


MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042352)

Its sad what fucking RAGS of made up shit stories get posted on /. now.

Amendment IV to the Constitution (3, Informative)

BWJones (18351) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042182)


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:Amendment IV to the Constitution (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042314)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"It's just a fucking piece of paper." -- US President George W. Bush on the Constitution

Re:Amendment IV to the Constitution (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042418)

that was pretty much violated soon after the ink dried... The latest stuff is just a continuation of the last 200 years

Re:Amendment IV to the Constitution (1)

Great_Geek (237841) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042448)

How quaint. You think this particular amendment will hold up better than others? Even in the face of the new statistics on the new Supremes? Even after Number 43 pulls a Musharraf? Remember, they have already wiped out habeas corpus, a little amendment is going to slow them down?

Re:Amendment IV to the Constitution (2, Funny)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042526)

The Fourth Amendment? That's so Eighteenth Century. In America, only old people use the Fourth Amendment.

Re:Amendment IV to the Constitution (1)

BWJones (18351) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042592)

For all of your cynics posting in reply, all I have to say is that these documents (the Constitution, its amendments and the Declaration of Independence) have shaped who we are as a country. The last time I visited them [utah.edu] was an intensely powerful experience, and I suggest if you are ever in the area, do stop by and reflect on the history of these documents and what is, what was and what is to become.

Re:Amendment IV to the Constitution (1)

DogFacedJo (949100) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042712)

Fat lot of good that does for the rest of the world. It's not like the US refrains from archiving every bit they can afford to that passes through a US pipe, passes through a satellite who's footprint comes too close to the US - or just might have passed _outside_ the US at some point...
    Your fourth doesn't apply to the other 5.8 billion people. As your gitmo makes pretty clear, we have _no_ rights.

Re:Amendment IV to the Constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042748)

I love the Slashdot cognitive dissonance on email.

At the very same time, Slashdotters say that if you don't encrypt your email, you should expect it to be read - but apparently, not by the government, just by random hackers.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
And since when was an email a person, house, paper, or effect? The first three are right out, email being non-physical. So what's an effect? Well, according to the legal dictionary I checked, it's a physical belonging, key word physical. So email fails that one too. Email has absolutely nothing to do with the fourth amendment, since the fourth amendment only covers physical things.

Email is just information, and according to Slashdot, information wants to be free. As long as it isn't a Slashdotters' information.

Re:Amendment IV to the Constitution (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042762)

While we're at it, let's stop calling this "big brother" (as if goverment loves you underneath all the abuse) and "erosion" of rights (as if it's a natural process we should adapt to), and start referring to these attacks on human rights for what they really are: oppression.

Re:Amendment IV to the Constitution (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042830)


Damn, beat me to it, the 4th amendment is in my buffer waiting to be pasted.

Also, what I don't get is if the government is after somebody sooooo bad, why is it such a burden to get a warrant?

I mean, many of my emails (and /. postings) could have other meanings when taken out of context.

So, Big Brother, what is so difficult about getting a warrant? Also, I don't want you wasting your time reading people's email. When there is a crime, there is always evidence after the fact. Take said evidence, get a warrant, and abide by the law, like everybody else is supposed to do.

I can't believe it's come to this... (2, Interesting)

w.p.richardson (218394) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042186)

Oh, wait. Yes I can. Not enough people are particularly willing to stand up for these egregious violations of civil liberties. In fact, there is generally a louder and larger throng who say things like "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then what are you worried about?".

The US is well along the path to becoming a police state. Personally, I am not concerned about a 1 in 1 billion chance of being murdered by terrists, but I clearly remain in the minority.

A likely scenario with this could also be to propose something outrageous initially, with a nearly as bad "back up" plan which seems benign in comparison and can sail through approvals and marginalize dissenters.

Re:I can't believe it's come to this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042340)

I agree 100% the "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then what are you worried about?" argument only works if you believe that the law is 100% right. If the law is 100% right, why do we have a legislature, to constantly change it?

Re:I can't believe it's come to this... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042728)

The problem is not enough people threaten to make their states and districts unlivable for their representatives. Not enough people vote. Not enough people show up on their Congressman's or Senators front doorstep. Not enough people give a damn. As long as they have the boob tube and Internet porn, what do they care if a bunch of whores in Washington buy into the crapola from a bureaucratic community which has continuously demonstrated over the last fifteen years that they are incapable of doing their part.

Let's remember. People get the government they deserve, and the people of the United States have been sending the message for some time now, and in particular since September 11, 2001, that they actually think a pack of idiots, whores and profiteers can make them safer. So, it turns out, the biggest pack of idiots is the majority of the American people.

Ah well, I suppose this is how an empire declines. What's sad is the up-and-coming empires seem to have even less faith in liberty than the American aristocracy does.

The saddest irony of all is that, a decade ago, the Information Age was going to liberate us, and all it's doing is giving the power hungry and the cowardly even more power to oppress.

I got an idea.... (5, Insightful)

bherman (531936) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042192)

When the White House produces their missing emails, we'll produce ours
That should sufficiently prevent this from becoming law!

Re:I got an idea.... (4, Insightful)

EriDay (679359) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042458)

The Ass Hats running our government have it backward. We're supposed to be able to read their communications, and they aren't supposed to be able to read ours.

Sounds like FUD (5, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042194)

This article is entirely speculation. The only source it links to is an article that was not printed, and the link points to a 404 page.

time to outsource (1)

Dillenger69 (84599) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042218)

It looks like it's time to outsource everything this bill covers to a more secure location.

I'm sure some enterprising person could rip off google and set up shop in the third world to offer secure searching and email.

Email Taps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042226)

Throw in a mandate for everyone to have web cams and to leave them turned on all day and you have "1984".

BAH! (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042228)

They can have the e-mail from my system sure...if they can break the encryption I set on it. Then we will truly see if they have those "Uber hacking" machines that the public believes they do. Good thing Exchange stores the files in flat files rather than useful ways, makes for easy right click encrypt :)

Of course my grand plan gets fuddled up when they just stick a sniffer on the outside of my network. But maybe by then I will have figured it out and set my firewall to deny traffic containing the terms that incriminate us.

Then I guess the worst thing they can do is cut off my access to the int......._carrier lost_.........

Re:BAH! (1)

filterban (916724) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042600)

Of course my grand plan gets fuddled up when they just stick a sniffer on the outside of my network.
This sounds a lot like Carnivore [wikipedia.org] . The FBI has been indexing and searching emails for a long time. They're sent unencrypted over the wire, and the majority of Americans have no clue how easy it is to intercept email.

The Bush Administration has been requesting search results [searchenginewatch.com] for a long time, too.

Which begs the question - WHY ARE WE LETTING THESE OPPRESSIVE JERKS GET AWAY WITH THIS?

Re:BAH! (1)

Meski (774546) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042780)

Thinking of what SPAM does to avoid detection (or tries to) by Bayesian poisoning, it'd be interesting to devise one that has a 'guaranteed to set off' section for security. Yes, I know of one or two ppl that do this kind of stuff today, but it tends to be a fixed sig-like paragraph, rather easy to code around. And there aren't enough ppl doing it. Or use a one word trigger in plain text, with the body encrypted, to force resource wastage decrypting it.

You can't let the terrorists win (4, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042248)

You need to have this sort of thing because you can't let the terrorists win, so what if you have to give up basic fundamental rights like privacy at least the terrorists won't have won.....

Oh hang on we were fighting for freedom and liberty weren't we? So you need to give up all your freedoms to protect your freedom? You'd almost thought that the government was a repressive regime that wanted to subjugate people.

Re:You can't let the terrorists win (4, Funny)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042664)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As this applies to regular mail, I think that it applies to email as well despite the government not getting a cut of the money.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Self Explanatory, encrypt. Also as the beginning states they cannot do anything to you unless they bring you before a Grand Jury. The wording is clear that the only exception are members of the Military. Which brings me to a fun story.

When I was in the Army deployed to Iraq they told us that they had to scan our computers before we left to look for secrets and obscene material. Well this made me very angry so first I offered my services to a few friends and setup truecrypt volumes for them. Then I took a picture of myself flipping off a camera, labeled them things like Fuck Me hard(several different variations on that theme) and distributed 30,000 copies all over my hdd. Let's just say that when they put in the scanning disk the person performing the scan got really tired of seeing me flip him off and they didn't find anything. I know it was petty and he really wasn't doing it because he wanted to, but I think that I made a point even if it was in a very small way. The leadership never ever scanned anything of mine again.

Re:You can't let the terrorists win (2, Interesting)

kcbrown (7426) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042886)

Oh hang on we were fighting for freedom and liberty weren't we?

Why, yes, we were/are. But apparently you didn't get the memo. See, "freedom" and "liberty" here aren't referring to yours, it's referring to the government's.

Of course, not many people got the memo, so don't feel bad.

Joy! (1)

N Nomad (1198231) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042272)

Ha! You are more than welcome to access my email Mr.Sam! I'm sure you'll find the thousands of people wanting to enhance my penis and my tits quite mesmerizing!

Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042338)

They are already reading your email even if you are not a US citizen. And they don't care about you. They may care about the terrorist living next door. But you are completely uninteresting. What will the government do with the stalker letters you send to your Chinese ex? Nothing. With the bank account information you send to a Nigerian prince? Nothing. Take your tinfoil hats off.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042612)

But you are completely uninteresting.

Yeah, I guess all those completely uninteresting people out there are why the FBI agents misuse national security letters and embezzle thousands of dollars from the wiretap tip jar.

Who cares? (4, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042358)

Regardless of the laws, we've already seen that the telecoms will grant the government whatever access it wants. If they get busted, they'll go cry to Congress for retroactive protection. Same results with or without legal protection of your privacy.

everyone knows (1)

Yold (473518) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042382)

this has already been happening for years. I guess their mentality is, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, reminds me of this surveillance society [wikipedia.org] . Secret police and indiscriminant surveillance practices are always conceived to protect against enemies of the state, real or perceived, however they always seem to become a tool to squash political-dissent when things turn bleak. It scares me to think about what our government will do in the name of protecting our "freedom".

Banks (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042408)

According to a 2007 conversation in the Oval Office, McConnell told President Bush, "If the 9/11 perpetrators had focused on a single US bank through cyber-attack and it had been successful, it would have an order of magnitude greater impact on the US economy."

What utter twaddle. Banks get cyber-attacked avery minute of every day. Banks are quite consistently successfully cyber-attacked. It happens and they deal, no differently than any other company. The fear of financial panic is always legitimate, but it was quite clear shortly after 9/11 that all that such attacks could reasonably ever be were "weapons of mass annoyance".

Bush turned to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, asking him if it was true; Paulson said that it was.

I dearly hope Mr. Paulson is called to account for that remark. But he won't be.

I'd like to get all bent out of shape... (1)

n0dna (939092) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042432)

While I'm not for the idea of codifying nanny-state monitoring, realistically I just don't care. I've always tried to take the approach (and educate others) that if I wouldn't write it on a postcard, then I don't type it on "the internet."

This has nothing to do with the government collecting and reading my emails (or anything else for that matter), I have just as little faith in the network of mail servers and search engines. I know google/aol/microsoft all say they're not doing anything I wouldn't like with the data they collect, but I'm more comfortable knowing that the data they collect on me is useless.

If I need something to be private, I can encrypt it.

WWBOD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042452)

What would Barack Obama do?

Yes, the government should be allowed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042464)

With a properly-justified *warrant*!

And what about foreign nation TLD's? (2, Interesting)

popo (107611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042482)

So my email from a .co.uk email address to a colleague at a .br address is going to be searchable by the US? ... We'll see what our governments have to say about that.

Re:And what about foreign nation TLD's? (4, Funny)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042584)

> We'll see what our governments have to say about that.

Something along the lines of "More! More! Harder! Deeper!" is my guess.

Make your voice heard (5, Funny)

cohomology (111648) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042560)

Tell the highest levels of the intelligence community what you think about this idea by picking up a phone and calling any number.

I know, it's not original.

Zero sum, my ass. (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042562)

I hear Soviet Russia was pretty safe too. Looking at my (and everyone elses) email makes me about a zillionth of a percent safer. It alsomakes me several times less free.

This is NOT zero sum. The magnitude of damage caused by this kind of stuff far outweighs any even theoretical increase in security.

Ron Paul (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042578)

There is only one candidate who would *not* allow this to go on. He is not any more un-electable than Regan was...twice elected was He?
But if you really feel strongly about personal freedom, and if you think the constitution is a good thing. (most folks did during the federalist party vs democrat-republican party race oh so long ago)

Support Ron Paul now. Otherwise you share the blame and shame of all those who are afraid of the big bad "terrorists"

40 million neocons think that everybody should have all their business hung out on their front door for anyone to inspect. Don't fool yourself, Hillary and Barack don't care about your rights either. It makes you feel dirty to register republican, but getting Dr Paul into office would fix (or at least delay) the big brother take over for a few years.

Re:Ron Paul (0, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042906)

Do you retarded Ron Paul cultists actually think that spamming online forums is going to get this historically-ignorant, economically-naive twit into the White House?

Nazi Germany (1)

angryfirelord (1082111) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042620)

Yes and soon the governmnet will get the idea that placing us all in concentration camps would be better since we wouldn't be able do anything bad.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

I assume this happens already (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042656)

Its relatively easy to do and the NSA/HS are so nosey. My email is lost in billions of others.

What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22042670)

If they want to check my spam, let 'em. After 50 billion messages advertising p0rn and cheap prescription drugs without actually getting a hit on anything relevant the program will fail. Anyone up to no good and 2 clues to rub together will have encryption on all their communication.

As dangerous as the Soviets and Al Capone? (1)

Toddlerbob (705732) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042824)

It seems to me that we somehow got through the cold war, and two world wars, with our eavesdropping rules on the telephone lines intact. Why are we so afraid as to give up our freedoms to a bunch of terrorists who happened to get lucky one time eight years ago? It's sad. Besides, we're not really at war anyway. Last I checked, congress never declared a war.

PGP to the Rescue! (2, Insightful)

flajann (658201) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042862)

My friends, it is high time we start encrypting everything. We'll just have to make PGP/GPG easier to use by the masses.

GPG mandatory? (1)

stm2 (141831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042878)

How many time for strong encryption as default feature in all email clients?
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...