John Ashcroft Strikes Again
HappyEuler
Join Date: 2004-06-14 Member: 29314Members
Join Date: 2004-06-14 Member: 29314Members
<div class="IPBDescription">This time Internet Privacy is victim</div> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> U.S. regulators on Wednesday ruled tentatively in favor of an FBI and Justice Department proposal that would compel Internet broadband and VoIP providers to open their networks up to easy surveillance by law enforcement agencies.
At issue is the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), a federal law that mandates surveillance backdoors in U.S. telephone networks, allowing the FBI to start listening in on a target's phone calls within minutes of receiving court approval. Last March, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration jointly petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a ruling that cable modem companies and other broadband providers are also covered by the law.
"Our support for law enforcement is unwavering," said FCC chairman Michael Powell, reading from a statement at a public meeting of the commission Wednesday. "It is our goal in this proceeding to ensure that law enforcement agencies have all of the electronic surveillance capabilities that CALEA authorizes to combat crime and terrorism and support homeland security."
The 5-0 ruling is open to public comment before it takes effect, and the FCC is seeking guidance on some implementation details, including the issue of how much time to allow service providers to wire their networks for spying.
Though the ruling was unanimous, two commissioners expressed concern that the FCC's interpretation of the 1994 law was precarious, and might later be overturned in the courts. "There are better was to build a system that will encourage judicial approval," said commissioner Michael Copps." As it is, the ruling is "too flush with tentative conclusions that stretch the statutory framework almost to tear," Copps said.
The decision is a milestone for the Justice Department, which first began lobbying for CALEA's application to the Internet over two years ago.
Federal law already compels ISPs to cooperate with law enforcement in court-approved surveillance of customers, but as police rely more on Internet snooping -- with tools like the FBI's "Carnivore" DCS-1000 packet sniffer -- they've begun to crave the speed and ease-of-use of the wiretapping infrastructure that CALEA grafted onto the modern telephone network.
The EFF, ACLU, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Democracy and Technology all filed comments opposing the plan, and an ACLU letter-drive generated hundreds of mailings from citizens against what the group called "the New Ashcroft Internet Snooping Request." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I only have a few questions: <ul><li>How do you feel about this?</li><li>Is this how the U.S. Government should run itself</li><li>Is this too much power for one sector of the U.S. Government to have?</li><li>Do you fell this is an invasion of privacy?</li><li>Do you think this is consitutional?</li><li>Etc notes one might like to add...</li></ul>
If you want the web address this news came from it is this address: <a href='http://www.securityfocus.com/news/9263' target='_blank'>http://www.securityfocus.com/news/9263 </a>
At issue is the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), a federal law that mandates surveillance backdoors in U.S. telephone networks, allowing the FBI to start listening in on a target's phone calls within minutes of receiving court approval. Last March, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration jointly petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a ruling that cable modem companies and other broadband providers are also covered by the law.
"Our support for law enforcement is unwavering," said FCC chairman Michael Powell, reading from a statement at a public meeting of the commission Wednesday. "It is our goal in this proceeding to ensure that law enforcement agencies have all of the electronic surveillance capabilities that CALEA authorizes to combat crime and terrorism and support homeland security."
The 5-0 ruling is open to public comment before it takes effect, and the FCC is seeking guidance on some implementation details, including the issue of how much time to allow service providers to wire their networks for spying.
Though the ruling was unanimous, two commissioners expressed concern that the FCC's interpretation of the 1994 law was precarious, and might later be overturned in the courts. "There are better was to build a system that will encourage judicial approval," said commissioner Michael Copps." As it is, the ruling is "too flush with tentative conclusions that stretch the statutory framework almost to tear," Copps said.
The decision is a milestone for the Justice Department, which first began lobbying for CALEA's application to the Internet over two years ago.
Federal law already compels ISPs to cooperate with law enforcement in court-approved surveillance of customers, but as police rely more on Internet snooping -- with tools like the FBI's "Carnivore" DCS-1000 packet sniffer -- they've begun to crave the speed and ease-of-use of the wiretapping infrastructure that CALEA grafted onto the modern telephone network.
The EFF, ACLU, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Democracy and Technology all filed comments opposing the plan, and an ACLU letter-drive generated hundreds of mailings from citizens against what the group called "the New Ashcroft Internet Snooping Request." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I only have a few questions: <ul><li>How do you feel about this?</li><li>Is this how the U.S. Government should run itself</li><li>Is this too much power for one sector of the U.S. Government to have?</li><li>Do you fell this is an invasion of privacy?</li><li>Do you think this is consitutional?</li><li>Etc notes one might like to add...</li></ul>
If you want the web address this news came from it is this address: <a href='http://www.securityfocus.com/news/9263' target='_blank'>http://www.securityfocus.com/news/9263 </a>
Comments
Sounds like their effort is like the CALEA, only with the internet, so that if they do get Court approval, they can "spy" the networks.
At least, thats what I got from all that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you fell this is an invasion of privacy?
Do you think this is consitutional?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't feel it's an invasion of privacy because it, sounds like at least, takes Court approval.
The Supreme Court set the precedent of the right of privacy, so I don't see how it could be unconstitutional if it's only a precedent, and not an amendment.
This ability is already present with telecommunications. Its only common sense that it should be applied for the internet also. It requires court approval.
There really shouldn't be an issue with this. Its a valid request and crime fighting tool. I myself have a little training in computer forensics and packet sniffing ( legally, through the Fed. government ). In our society, with so much happening over the internet, there is a great need for what was requested.
Stop over reacting. There's nothing to be afraid of.
OMGZORZ ITS BIGZ BRUTHER!
sorry, can't help my self sometime.
As was siad, it simple sounds like an extension of the wire taping that is alowed with a warent (and said warent can be apealed after the fact and all of that evidence thrown out.)
Personaly? I am not doing much wrong, thus I have no fear.
I guess none of you is of arabic origin. Because if you were, you would fall under general suspicion from the authorities and much that you say might be used against you. There are so many cases of injustice. I've heard of many German citizens (businessmen), who frqequently used to travel to the USA and were arrested in the airport for whatever reasons (they weren't given). Some other Canadian citizen with syrian origin was arrested in the USA and brought to Syria where he was tortured by Syrian authorities for over a year until finally a Canadian delegation got him out of there. He's still waiting for US authorities giving him a reason for their behavior. And those incidents aren't the only ones, there are many.
Right now, it's arabs who fall under general suspicion, but it might be others in the future. Freedom is when everybody has his privacy. What if those critical things I write in here might be used against me as soon as I want to enter the USA? It is a scary thought, but that's reality
Even if I didn't do anything wrong I could still be arrested (without a stated charge) and held for 3 days without access to a lawyer. Oh yay look at me, I live in a free country where the government can whisk me off to some god forsaken interrogation room in the middle of the night, for no apparent reason, and without the approval of a judge. God bless America.
1. I feel this is just one more step closer for the U.S. government to push people into fear. And for those of you who say: I have done nothing wrong, I have nothing to fear. Think again! Say you were reading an article online about how an anti-terriorism law wasn't being used properly. And then their was a board below it where people had stated their opinons on the matter. Now say you state your opinion and you happen to have one the Government doesn't quite like. With the help of the this and the Patriot Act (which I agree it shall forever burn in hell. When I think of the Patriot Act I think of the words of the U.S's forefathers whom stated: Those who trade Freedom for Security deserve neither), you could be imprisoned. That's not right...that sounds more like the former U.S.S.R where critizising the Government=jail time. That is exactly what this does, it takes away users rights to surf the internet anomously and post their opinions. This is a major step toward America: Land of the Oppressed.
2. The U.S. Government has no right to investage into it's citizens, this is not how the U.S. should be running itself.
3. Yes, this is way too much power for the Judical System to have. Because with the help of the Patriot Act, John Ascroft and a few others can give warrents out like candy on Holloween.
4. Yes this is an invasion of privicy, the internet is an anomous system it is designed so you can use it anomusly without fear of someone looking over your shoulder.
5. Is this consituational: No form of invasion of privicy is consituational without a secure warrent system. This has a warrent system so it is consitutional...for now.
Notes:
Yes it is a crime fighting tool, but it is unethical to snoop around in someone's anoumous surfing.
The internet is a great thing, it is not controlled by any government (even though the U.S. Loves to think they control it, it's worldwide not their own). The internet is in itself a safe haven from governments, it is not ment to have laws enforcing it, as each ethinic group that contributes makes it's own rules they cause conflicts. Thus the internet is international waters for the computer age.
Oh and ElectricSheep; I love how you mentioned: "They could but they don't." My reply to that is: What's holding them back? Nothing now. All that needs to happen is one corrupt member of the judical system and bam there goes all your freedoms, your hopes, your dreams, and possibly the rest of your life. It is always a good idea to look at what can happen. That is how you are suppose to judge new regulations. You need to ask yourself: What potential does this law have? Will it be used against terriorists as it claims or will it be used against activists?
Here's a little fun fact for you: Do you know why we still haven't gotten rid of the John Aschoft's little laws and regulations? I'll tell you why. It's because he uses terrorism laws to enforce normal crime laws (ever hear about the gang arrest in New York where a gang of people; whom had not yet committed a serious crime worth of jail time, were arrested for "Terrorising a Local Neighborhood" these people where then put in court for Terrorism related charges).
Whatever happened to the America that stood up for it's rights. It seems that America is gone, now the only America left is those that fear they might get rights!
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS PEOPLE! Snap out of this rut you've gotten yourselves into. It seems like you don't care anymore that you have rigths. It almost seems like you enjoy losing them. WAKE UP AMERICA! WAKE UP!
I have read <a href='http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005059' target='_blank'>this piece</a> by the "chief judge of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York" that seems to say otherwise.
So someone refute what he says for once.
now for boy's stuff
1. You cannot be imprissoned for your opinions like you claim. We had a federal lawyer type person come to one of our computer forensics classes one day and he started talking about what is valid in court and what is not. What courts were very likely to accept as evidence and what they would throw out... And I will tell you now that your "example" is based on total ignorance ( and I mean that in the nicest of ways ).
For one thing, your example totally ignores the facts of the act. Court approval must first be granted... And a court will ONLY approve tapping a SPECIFIC PERSON'S or PERSONS' information. This means that if they are investigating a specific individual and they come across something that you said that is totally irrelevant to the investigation, they really could do nothing about it... Unless its illegal, but in that case they would have to go back to a judge and request another warrant that is directed to you.
This law does not oppress you in any way. All it does is require ISPs to make it simpler for the authorities to capture data ONLY concerning the person being investigated. All other data cannot be stored or even viewed. For any such captures to even occur a warrant must first be approved. Not before.
2. The US governemtn has every right to investigate those suspected of committing crimes. This act does not allow them to investigate anyone they want on whim. ONLY individuals under investigation for ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.
Don't try to suggest otherwise, you have only paranoia and conspiracy theories to back up your claims. Not evidence.
3. It does not give the judicial system any more power really. They already had this authority with regular telecommunications. This ruling allows our judicial system to catch up to the times we are now in... Where traditional telecommunications is losing ground to data. Once again, you mention the Patriot Act... Once again I ask you to backup your claims that. But please, less drama next time.
4. Just a reminder, its an invasion of privacy with a court order for someone under investigation of ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. Nothing new about such actions. And the internet is not meant to be an anonymous system. It was not designed with that in mind. Again, your ignorance is showing.
5. Finally! You mention the warrant that is required. Sadly, too little too late for your argument since the warrant is highly relevant to all of your other exagerated claims.
Note #1: No, it is not unethical if used properly.
Note #2: Wrong about the net there. Try again please.
Note #3: That can be said for any law or person of law. Don't try to make it seem like this tilts the scale or anything. Its a feather.
Note #4: Link please <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Note #5 & #6: More hysteria anyone?
I'm curious though... How old are you? Are you even out of highschool?
Now on to the points you brought up:
1. Not yet...that's all I am going to say for now is not yet. But it seems to be going that way.
2. The U.S Govenment has every right to investage someone that is suspected of crime so long as they inform the person being investigated that they are being looked into. If a warrent has not be estiblished they need the that person(s)'s permission to investage them to level we are discussing, and it is to my understanding that up until this point in time if you are suspect to a crime when the warrent is given you are informed that you are being investaged. This of course has been my understanding of it...I maybe wrong.
3. As I said before the internet is not the matter of one country. The U.S should not legally be able to have access to all of the data running around on the internet. If this wants to come into effect the U.N will all need to agree upon it and then it becomes an interpole issue.
4. There is something new to this; no longer is it suspect of illegal activities. It is also the plotting of terrorism related activities. And as I said before the justice department's defination of terrorism is quite open ended. If a judge wanted to they could interpete the terrorism law as saying that activists are engaging in terrorism as they are "terrorising the peace." The possiblities are not good my friend, they just aren't good.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US officials say such systems are designed to catch "terrorists," but in the first months of operation, the program did not catch terrorists – it caught people wanted for drug crimes and immigration violations. Critics of the program also question the definition of "terrorist," noting that US Attorney General John Ashcroft designates radical environmentalists, civil libertarians, anti-war protesters, pot advocates, and other non-violent Americans as terrorists. A Bush administration official recently characterized the National Education Association – a teachers' labor union – as a terrorist group!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here is an instance where a warrent was not used and information was still obtained
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Homeland Security officials are forcing major hotel chains to provide lists of hotel guests, especially in major cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas. The FBI got the information even though it had not obtained a search warrant. Under new Patriot Act regulations, FBI agents can compel disclosure of information without having to get a judge's approval. The hotels gave FBI agents information including guests' home addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.marijuana.com/420/showthread.php?t=31674' target='_blank'>Fortess America</a>
And now onto the notes (basicly my rant)
Note 1. Can we trust the U.S Government to be ethical. This is the same Government that supports Tobacco and Alcohol. I really don't think they are going to be ethical...I think they are going to be where their big business buddies want them to be.
Note 2. Alright then anon who does control the internet. I would love to see a link proving that the internet is not international waters so to speak. And if you were commenting on the laws need not apply to the internet, this is referring to internet communication; not services that opperate using the internet. An internet service is housed within a country, hence it must obay that land's laws. That doesn't mean that someone in a different country will need to follow the same exact laws for their service. (I hope I made that clear that I was talking about websites that offer a service not ISP's).
Note 3. The judical system has slowly been giving itself more and more power as of late. This may only be a feather, but it is the last straw in my opinion. As of now the judical system is slowing ridding itself of the need to obtain a warrant for certain crimes relating to terriorism. The defination for terrorism is quite open right now, allowing investagators to use a higher degree of invading one's privicy in the name of protecting freedom (their was a recent incident on the Washington State and Canadian boarder where the U.S. charged "Pot" smugglers of acts of terrorism using the Patriot Act (if you are wondering where the link to this is, give me a second I am looking for it as I type this it may take me a moment to find it again).
Note 4. Here you go, it's the second post (the first one is my backup for my reponse to note 3): <a href='http://www.marijuana.com/420/showthread.php?t=31648' target='_blank'>http://www.marijuana.com/420/showthread.php?t=31648</a>
Note 5-6; Of course it's hysteria I was ranting! I thought you could tell that by the voice I was writing in (look at the previous and you will see the whole post was a rant, ment to have hysteria).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple: Ever heard of Amnesty International?
<a href='http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/usa-summary-eng' target='_blank'>AI report on the USA</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Detentions in the USA following attacks of 11 September 2001
A government watchdog agency reported in June that there had been “significant problems” in the treatment of hundreds of foreign nationals detained in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. The investigation, by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), confirmed many of the concerns raised by AI and other groups that detainees’ basic rights had been violated. Violations included denying detainees prompt access to lawyers and family members and failing to charge detainees promptly or to “clear” them for release or removal from the USA, leaving many to languish for months in detention centres despite having no connection with the attacks. The report found evidence of a “pattern of physical and verbal abuse” by some correctional officers towards some 11 September detainees.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some people detained for alleged links to al-Qa’ida were deported to countries where they were at risk of torture or ill-treatment. In October, AI called on the US government to hold a full inquiry into its treatment of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen deported from the USA in October 2002 to his native Syria, where he was allegedly tortured and held for months in cruel conditions before being returned without charge to Canada.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can easily see that many people who are alleged to be involved with Terror do not get any fair trials or any access to lawyers. Of course those things do mainly apply to foreign citizens, but isn't this what the United States of America stands for? To be a free country for everybody, regardless of race or religion, where everybody is equally treated? This is now gone, apparently.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's really a matter of faith, do you believe the government would or wouldn't do x thing if it was within their power. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As soon as faith is the only thing that is left, democracy has ceased to exist. Democracy can only work if there are checks and balances of every institution and as long as no institution has the power to commit crimes against humanity without being checked.
What <i>will</i> happen nobody knows for sure, but the mere fact that human right violations are <i>possible by law</i> is outraging. Governments lie. This is the most simple fact in politics. Governments lie, be they republican, democratic, dictatorships or whatever else. They lie because they represnt interest groups and because politics is a tough business. If people were informed about every immoral action of governments, there would be revolutions all over the place. This is why the Saddam regime lied, this is why the Communists lied and this is why the US government lied and still does. Having faith is not enough, being critical about your authorities is what democracy is all about.
Strange that a former citizen of the Soviet Union has to defend basic human rights for Americans, isn't it?
I know, why don't we just take away all laws regarding government activity? I mean, obviously you have faith in the to do the right thing, every time, from now until forever right?
Seriously man, think before you type. No matter how much you trust the government you can't honestly believe that the government will always be trustworthy in every situation.
I'd just like to correct you on this.
If someone is being investigated the government does not have to inform them of that investigation. For an investigation to be proper much of the time, you must have the target continue on as if he were not being investigated. Otherwise the entire investigation would be all but ineffective.
When it comes to tapping communications, 9 times out of 10 the target is not told of the tapping until after they have been charged with a crime and it is used in a court of law. That is the one place where a warrant almost always allows the target to be kept in the dark. Otherwise the tapping is really useless.
So, when it comes to tapping communications ( data and voice )... You are wrong.
I don't know why you guys want Kerry so much. If you look at his ideology, it leans pretty far to the socialist view on things. Socialism is a far nastier system than most people would ever want to believe, and would interfere in the lives of Americans far more than anything the Patriot Act could even desire to deliver.