DOJ Already Monitoring Cable Internet Traffic 354
According to this Wired News article, the Justice Department is already using its new powers under the USA Patriot Act to obtain subscribers' identities and other information from cable operators without judicial oversight under Section 211 of the new legislation. Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff also says that the act has allowed police to obtain IP addresses of cable subscribers and has enabled DOJ to obtain court orders for ISP logs outside a court's traditional jurisdiction. The Senate Judiciary Committee has convened hearings to review the impact of the Bush administration's actions on civil liberties, but A.G. Ashcroft is not scheduled to appear until December 6. One wonders what effect the upcoming cable failure will have on government surveilance of the potentially criminal citizenry.
fight despair (Score:5, Insightful)
The important, and difficult, job is to fight the temptation to give up, and keep on fighting for our rights.
Nurse! More coffee!
Re:fight despair (Score:4, Insightful)
What rights? They're being very rapidly dispersed matey. And it seems that there's nothing anyone can do about it - either a few of us are the only remaining sane people in the world, or we're mad and it's the "authorities" and "they who are in power" that are the sane ones... either way something definately smells of the brown stuff...
Re:fight despair [obligatory mod on crack post] (Score:2)
Common sense is an increasingly rare thing today. You only need to look at unenforcable laws being passed by unaccountable governments to see that we're all headed for serious problems...
Re:fight despair (Score:2)
You are wrong in saying, "it seems that there's nothing anyone can do about it". Many lobbyist and activist have saved many of our rights. It is up to people to contact politicians and make a difference. If everyone gave up 100 years ago we would have cameras in our homes by now. Every waking minute of your life would be controlled by the government.
It sounds like your telling everyone they might as well given up. Well many of us have not and work long hours defending the few freedoms we still have. If you only look from one-perspective then you live in a one-perspective world.
Re:fight despair (Score:2, Insightful)
I think of just giving up sometimes. Today I thought that to my self after hearing about that crap in Maryland where Santa can't come to the tree lighting seremony because two families found it offensive. Stuff like that makes you want to just give up on the human race. Think we are not going to make it as a country.
But then I hear about people like you, and everyone else on
I swear, that is the kind of crap you hear from AG Ashcroft and his cronies. "We need to moniter all internet traffic on the @home network because it could be used for the planning of terrorist acts. Listen carefully to the reasons they give for these things. Did you know that if you are suspected of a terrorist act you no longer have the attorney client privelage? Your conversations with your lawyer can now be monitered by the prosecution. Thanks to the new terrorism bill.
The saddest part of all of this is the speed for which people are willing to just give up their freedoms for "Security" , sure, moniter my internet traffic. Most people don't care because they don't think of the internet anymore then the TV where you can click on stuff.
Sure, get rid of the attorney client privelage for terrorists. Doesn't affect me any. So what if I demonstarate against a government action and am arrested for some reason. Am I now a terrorist? Will I be tried in a military tribunal for the "Security of the State"
Remember these things
Ok, this was way to long winded.
get some tissues (Score:2, Funny)
Re:get some tissues (Score:2)
Anonymous (Score:4, Redundant)
Check out the Register article [theregister.co.uk] on anonymizing yourself...
And have your friends use Hushmail [hush.com].
Re:Anonymous (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Anonymous (Score:3, Informative)
Carnivores purpose is twofold - to sniff your mail obviously, but dont forget it also builds tables of who emails who, and makes it easy for the carnivore operator to track who is associated with who. PGP doesnt help here since it just encrypts the message. However TLS combined with PGP does since it does its mailfrom and rcptto _after_ starttls is issued. Next time you set up a MTA make sure it has TLS support! Shameless plug: TLS for Dummies [antioffline.com].
On a side note, dont forget you can tunnel your web proxy via stunnel, assuming you can talk the proxy operator into installing it for you
Criminals! (Score:5, Funny)
*waves at DOJ*
Re:Criminals! (Score:2, Insightful)
Monitor my usage all you want, the simple fact is you are wasting valuable time that you could've been spending persueing the criminals on the street.
*waves @ DOJ*
Re:Criminals! (Score:2)
Hey! My grandma resembles that remark! Just 'cuz she uses AOL doesn't mean she isn't being price-gouged and monitored along with the rest of us!
US anti-terror laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite a few European countries have had problems with terrorosts for years. The UK with the IRA, the Spanish with the Basque (sp?) seperatists etc etc.
In these countries laws on human rights and free speach prevail. (Albeit precariously sometimes, I admit!)
The US, confronted with some of its first terrorist attacks imediatly goes into panic, ignoring the spirit of its consitution.
I can only hope that over the next few months things will calm down, and the US will realise the importance of human and civil rights laws.
Re: Media Coverage (Score:4, Insightful)
--jrd
Re: Media Coverage (Score:2, Redundant)
http://www.counterpunch.org/presspatriot.html [counterpunch.org]
Re: Media Coverage (Score:2)
Still time to do something about it though. Write (e-mail, letters may take awhile) your Representative and Senators. Get your friends to write. If enough voters object the law will be modified or repealed.
That's called: propaganda (Score:4, Interesting)
For starters: the secret tribunals where pres. Bush will pick who's on trial and who's not is similar to every 3rd world dictatorship out there, yet I have to see 1 single message from mainstream USA newsstations critizising this IMHO shocking development. Thankfully the EU isn't co-operating with Bush on this: f.e. spain is not handing over al-quaida suspects.
Re:That's called: propaganda (Score:2, Insightful)
For starters: the secret tribunals where pres. Bush will pick who's on trial and who's not is similar to every 3rd world dictatorship out there, yet I have to see 1 single message from mainstream USA newsstations critizising this IMHO shocking development. Thankfully the EU isn't co-operating with Bush on this: f.e. spain is not handing over al-quaida suspects
We've been hearing about this "tribunal" issue on CNN/Fox/etc all week long. I won't be so naive as to say that the media is not covering this issue from a patriotic point of view - however, when I hear the EU is against the death penalty for these criminals, it makes me want to puke. Maybe Europeans see this as just another terrorist act, but in the US, they've seriously pissed americans off with this. We don't need propaganda from the media to keep up support. I was at the World Trade Center towers on September 9th, marvelling at how tall they were, people taking pictures, having to lay down on the ground to get a good enough angle to fit them in 1 image. In the end, the buildings don't really matter of course, it's the 4,000+ people that died that day. So when the Europeans cry about the death penalty for these bastards, just think about the thousands of children who no longer have parents because of these criminals and the potential for this to happen again. That's the only "propaganda" I need.
Re:That's called: propaganda (Score:2, Informative)
Also remember that CNN is the MacDonalds of news: fast, cheap, and everywhere.
Most people who give a damn usually get their info from better sources (NYTimes, Salon [salon.com], Frontline [pbs.org], the alternative press [freetimes.com], etc) many of which bring up these issues all the time.
Don't badmouth the whole of American media when all you see of it is through the CNN keyhole.
Re: Media Coverage (Score:2)
Which reminds me about the disturbing trend in naming legislation over the past 10 years or so. There's the PATRIOT act, which we're discussing here. It's not just a US phenomenon, though - witness the UK's effective removal all regulations on investigators with the "Regulation of Investigatory Powers" act.
All I know is that when they come up with the "Saving Our Children's Cuddly Kittens, Sad-Eyed Puppies, and Fluffy Bunnies" act, I'm getting the fsck outa dodge.
Re:US anti-terror laws (Score:2, Interesting)
:(
Re:US anti-terror laws (Score:5, Insightful)
The US, confronted with some of its first terrorist attacks imediatly goes into panic, ignoring the spirit of its consitution.
No, the White House went into a panic, not the entire country. I'm not usually prone to paranoia, but I've begun thinking the massive crackdown on civil liberties is being done intentionally in order to goad Democrats into responding. At which point the Republican party will start screeching about how the Democrats are soft on terrorism and don't care about the security of your children etc. The Republicans really were hurt by the shift rightward of the nation, with Democrats moving to the center and getting a lot of voters who they'd missed out on the previous few elections.
Re:US anti-terror laws (Score:2, Insightful)
You are being paranoid. Our elected officials, after their (everyone's) initial reaction to 9/11, took this as an opportunity to "do something" even though what they did was wrong. (It makes a nice bullet point on the campaign literature.) Only a few (Bob Barr, et al) had the guts to stand up and say, "this is wrong, govt. has enough power as is." And no one had the guts to say, "You live in a free country, and people will occasionally abuse those freedoms. Deal with it."
The crackdown on non-citizens I can deal with....
Re:US anti-terror laws (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup it's another vast right wing conspiracy. Just like that time they were accusing that nice Mr. Clinton of lying in a court of law; he would never do such a thing.
This is not a Democrat/Republican issue the entire government is to blame, Democrats included
Re:US anti-terror laws (Score:2)
How about the UK Antiterrorism Legislation? (Score:3, Informative)
In these countries laws on human rights and free speach prevail. (Albeit precariously sometimes, I admit!)
The US, confronted with some of its first terrorist attacks imediatly goes into panic, ignoring the spirit of its consitution.
Not. Jingoistic bunk.
UK Antitterrorism legislation has been around for more than a decade, provoked precisely by the IRA issues. It, too, had sunsetted but repetitively renewed investigatory powers and it, too, treats hackers as terrorists.
It was one of the models from which PATRIOT/USA was cast.
No doubt, the US fell to the standards of its EU allies in adopting PATRIOT/USA, focusing more on getting trains to run on time to defend a nation than to maintain a nation worth defending. No doubt, it was not the American thing to do.
But far from being an icon of liberty, the EU legislation was the harbinger of what happened here.
Not! UK led the way with silly legislation (Score:2)
In these countries laws on human rights and free speach prevail. (Albeit precariously sometimes, I admit!)
The US, confronted with some of its first terrorist attacks imediatly goes into panic, ignoring the spirit of its consitution.
Not. Jingoistic bunk.
UK Antitterrorism legislation has been around for more than a decade, provoked precisely by the IRA issues. It, too, had sunsetted but repetitively renewed investigatory powers and it, too, treats hackers as terrorists.
It was one of the models from which PATRIOT/USA was cast.
No doubt, the US fell to the standards of its EU allies in adopting PATRIOT/USA, focusing more on getting trains to run on time to defend a nation than to maintain a nation worth defending. No doubt, it was not the American thing to do.
But far from being an icon of liberty, the EU legislation was the harbinger of what happened here.
Re:Not! UK led the way with silly legislation (Score:2)
Just some bother more people than others. Yes a 12 year old who sits at his parents computer and launches DoS attack against companies or just Marge reading her AOL mail should be considered a criminal.
The crime is easy to commit, and hard to deter since audit trails are small to none. So the punishment must be bad enough to scare you away from doing these things.
Ridiculous, when you compare the costs of such threats. Yes, your daughter is more severely deterred from hacking, but the cost is that virtually every computer consultant today is inherently liable for extraordinary liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, by the mere shift of a few words. It seems that whatever marginal "deterrence" is gained by the USA/PATRIOT Act was lost by the years of productivity and commerce due to the unceasing caution and uncertainty caused to those who provide technical services.
By regulating technology more closely, so too are we choking one of our nation's greatest engines of commerce.
The error is grave.
Re:Not! UK led the way with silly legislation (Score:2)
No, we are only deterring normal people from doing normal things, as our life is turned upside down from statist overreaching. The terrorists are unaffected by legislative efforts to "deter" their conduct.
Re:US anti-terror laws (Score:2)
:
Re:US anti-terror laws (Score:2)
Within a couple of hours of the 9/11 attacks, the true terrorist nature of the attack had become apparant: it wasn't that it killed a lot of people or did billions of dollars of property damage. When I heard that all civilian planes had been grounded, I suspected that the true terrorist strategy was to provoke a predictable response from the US Government, against the US people. The attack was indirect, and the weapon was not boxcutters or bombs or jet fuel; the weapon was our own government's power.
Re:US anti-terror laws (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a problem of scale. In Europe, you get bombs in supermarkets or subway stations, car bombs near the roadside, some minor politicians shot or stabbed, but nothing really serious.
Glad to see you think an attempt to blow up the Canary Wharf tower was not really serious. I also bet all those who have lost loved ones as a result of terrorism in Europe are happy that their loss is nothing serious.
In Europe, most acts of terrorism have a death toll of 1 or 2 per incident, and maybe 10 wounded. In the US, you get 4000 deaths plus a very high-profile landmark destroyed. Not really the same scale.
In Europe we have had 30 years and many many terrorist attacks, including the deaths of public figures. In the US you get one attack. Not really the same scale. Can you see the fault in the logic?
Re:US anti-terror laws (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, you're so wrong it's incredible.
Someone brought a bomb into the US Capitol in 1915. Going back to WWII, there were German agents that set a harbor on fire which contained an ammo depot. In 1954, Puerto Rican seperatists opened fire in the House chambers. There was another Capitol bombing in 1971. We had the SLA back in the seventies who robbed banks and planned to place bombs under police cars. There was a rash of skyjackings in the early 70s which lead to the original sky marshal program. There was the Oklahoma City bombing perpetrated by local nutjob Timothy McVeigh. Someone took a machine gun into the Capitol building a couple years ago. Someone tried to fly a light plane into the White House a few years ago but missed and hit the lawn (was that inspiration for the terrorists of 9/11?) Another person opened fire on the White House with an automatic weapon about a couple years ago. We've also had the Unabomber who sent bombs through the mail and the Army of God who like to blow up abortion clinics, and who may be responsible for the Atlanta Olympics bombings.
If you count overseas bombings, there was the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the Khobar Towers in Africa, the African Embassies and the USS Cole.
Political assassinations are as old as history. We've had three presidents assassinated (by my count) and a couple others shot at. Not to mention the civil rights leaders killed during the 60's.
And this is all just off the top of my head. Looks like ignorance isn't just an American phenomenon.
Re:The US is a safe place (Score:2)
Repressiveness (Score:5, Interesting)
We will need to ring the bell louder, make more people aware. We have the obligation to do so because we know. If you let this go unchallenged, don't come complaining in 25 years time that your children have no rights, no liberties.
Should this sound absurd to you, read into some European history for the years 1900-1939, to read the reasons for WW I, WW II and what happend in the "interbellum". You may very well not like what you find. For WW I a single event was enough to set it off. For WW II the foundation was laid by a repressive reaction 'supported' by the 'people'. 2001-9-11 may very well be the one event, the repression of civil liberties in reaction to it may very well bring it on for real.
Again The waves are eating at the lime-stone, slowly but surely. In the end the rock _will_ fall.
Re:Repressiveness (Score:2)
Most people support the changes since 9/11. Perhaps this is the overhaul - a realization that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and a realizing that regardless of the intent of the Founders, it is a living document. The Founders aren't here; it's up to us to make sense of it.
I'd feel better if our politicians would simply do it honestly - by passing an amendment to repeal the Fourth (in much the same way as they repealed Prohibition), but if the people have agreed that it's preferable to trade a little liberty in order to obtain security by living in a Panopticon (most people have done so already - with "loyalty cards" and privacy-invaders like Doubleclick, the DMA already knows more about most people than the government ever will!), and want this to be done quickly (that is, without an amendment repealing the Fourth), then this is arguably the only way to do it.
Opening the envelope... (Score:2, Insightful)
The "powers that be" are meant to be working FOR us are they not? Not being paranoid ABOUT us? Oh sorry, I thought the UK (R.I.P. Bill) and the US (Whatever you lot have got) were "democracies". Seems like the definition of democracy has changed to "you can do whatever you like so long as we know what it is and that it's not harmfull to the "government"...
:(
Re:Opening the envelope... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oregon has refused to cooperate with the FBI seeking "voluntary" interviews with visa holders from Middle Eastern countries. (I am from Oregon, by the way, and The Oregonian printed my Letter To The Editor when I was 17 supporting our Senator Wayne Morse when he voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that unleashed (Vice) President Johnson's war machine which eventually killed 50,000 of my contemporaries in my generation's unjust war.) I would hope that the authorities in Oregon grow some balls and insist on being present at such "voluntary" interviews, just to make sure that innocent kids from places east of Gibraltar are not rounded up wholesale for political opinions and not contacts, actions, or evidence. The first duty of every citizen is to maintain a healthy skepticism about the motives of governmental minions, at all levels.
But where should the line be drawn with regard to government snooping? This is not an easy question to answer but some guidance is to be found in the Constitution and in the Common Law heritage that provides the foundations for all of our Courts. These include "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" as well as the citizen Grand Jury.
To the extent the time-honored standards of our justice system might be abridged by the current administration's "emergency" powers extracted from legislators too afraid of being seen as "soft on terrorism" - they are illegitimate and will not stand. We have a (mostly) independent judiciary. They'll sort it out in due time. If not, then revolution.
Jefferson was right: the power to govern is based only upon the consent of the governed, and the power elites in the beltway had better not forget this political fact. And it was Lincoln (a Republican) who said that this "...Government Of the People, By the People, and For the People, Shall Not Perish From The Earth." He was right too, surely.
Re:Opening the envelope... (Score:2)
And this helps me trust the CableCo's more? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, if I used a cable modem, I have even less of the microscopic amount of privacy I had before? Great!
Regards
Tip of the Iceberg (Score:4, Interesting)
I have actually asked rooms full of people wether they think, even given the extremly long odds that they would ever be involed in a terror incedent, it is a god idea to give these controls to the goverment and let their rights to privacy, speech and fair trial be vacated. Most of them said yes they would give up a portion of the rights. One I explained to some that giving up these freedoms would only create the illusion of security, but in fact would not make them any more secure a few even said that that was ok too.(I almost started screaming at those folks)
I think it is now starting to get better, but some of it is to late. It is going to be very difficult to take away the powers that have been given to law enforcement.
I honestly don't know what to do about the situation. I try to talk to friends and family about it and even people in grocery store lines and such. But I have to admit I am worried that there is nothing to be done. And I am sadly glad that many Americans are armed and am now a left wing liberal who supports the NRA. Scary.
Re:Tip of the Iceberg (Score:3, Funny)
Attention Citizen #3871209 (AKA timmy the large; AKA sonora sam; AKA pr0nSurfer34):
Greetings.
This message is to notify you that you have been placed on our domestic terrorism watch list for holding leftward leaning views while in the possession (or while considering the possession) of firearms. Be advised that your movement and messages may be monitored at any time and anything you may say or do could be admissible before a military tribunal at the discression of the Commander in Chief.
Sincerely,
General^WAttorney General Ashcroft
A dictator's dream (Score:2)
If I were a dictator, or planning on becoming one in the near future, I'd watch the USA really closely for practical applications of modern citizen monitoring methods.
What's next? The US selling the technology to other governments? I can imagine the brochure already... "Snoop on all your citizens without moving from your chair" or "Freedom Anihilation for Dummies" sound pretty much like it.
Scary.
/max
Slashdot via SSL soon? (Score:3, Insightful)
Howto go to court with DoJ (Score:2, Informative)
Section 211 doesn't give them the right to gun you down with machine guns and photon torpedos if you don't comply.
So, you might get arrested, but hey, at least you'll go to court!!!!!!!!!
Re:Howto go to court with DoJ (Score:2)
The question becomes, "So, do I resist? And how much?"
If you think the answer is "Yes. I've done nothing wrong. They are violating my constitutional rights." then what? Are you willing to kill, or try to kill, the police coming to get you? Because if you aren't, and they are willing to use deadly force if necessary, you will be arrested.
Of course, if you chose to resist, you are acting illegally, a corrupted legal system notwithstanding. Congratulations, you are now a vigilante. Vigilanteism is bad, for it reflects a complete breakdown in objective law and order.
However, when enough resist, they are no longer vigilantees for they are acting according to an unwritten law of their own. And that is the birth of revolution. I've often thought that the "blood of patriots" necessary to refresh the tree of liberty refers not to revolutionaries, but the vigilantees that preceed them, believeing in the same ideals that spark the eventual revolution.
When someone resists, fights, kills police, and most likely dies in the process, in defense of a perceived right to develop, use, and share a system for sending legally-purchased movies from a central media server to display stations in his own home (for example), that should give others pause to think: not "Is it worth dying for?", but rather, "Should have they used such force to try and stop him?" The patriot, of course, will always chose death over a loss of liberty. We (in the U.S.A.) aren't quite at that point, of course, but we certainly seem hell-bent on getting there fast, what with the DMCA as law, and hacking as terrorism.
I am firmy convinced that this latest suspension of civil liberties in the U.S.A will breed anti-government vigilantees that will be harbingers of the next American Revolution, sooner or later, for revolution is the history of all societies.
Re:Howto go to court with DoJ (Score:2)
Even if you aren't worried about being caught yourself, your logs can still be subpoenaed against someone else, and it's just eaiser to say, "Sorry, Mr. G man, we only keep logs for 1 week." than have to actually produce them.
I worked for a semi-public agency, just about everything they had was 'FOIA'. You could call up and ask for their firewall logs and they would have to produce them. Needless to say the firewall logs would be empty.
Patriotism (Score:5, Insightful)
The sea of red white and blue made me nervous from the start.
Like you didn't know ? (Score:2)
what did you expect ? [tviund.is]
Military tribunals (Score:5, Informative)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/vvny/20011126/lo/301
If you're non-US citizen residing in the United States, you should be extremely worried.
Re:Military tribunals (Score:2)
Re:Military tribunals (Score:2)
Re:Military tribunals (Score:2, Interesting)
Despite the opinion often voiced on this board that there is aboslutely *no* relationship between the restrictions of civil liberties and increased security there is in some situations exactly such a relationship and our contitution and laws reflect that reality. To be fair I will note that if such measures are taken to lengths not justified by the degree of threat or are taken to extremes even if there is a high level of threat they become subject to a law of diminishing returns and can even become counterproductive. Unfortunately since our enemy in this war is secretive and shadowy it is very hard even for our government to assess the real level of continuing threat. But the attacks on Septemeber 11th suggest that it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the threat.
As for the constitutionality and legality of the tribunals there is a fair amount of ambiguity since al Queada is not a state and we are acting under a legally vague "use of force resolution" rather than a legally clarifying declaration of war. Neither of these ambiguities are insurmountable though. The US went to war with the barbary pirates even though they were not independant nations (they really were but legally they were theoretically part of the Ottoman Empire). Al Queada is certainly more than a mere criminal enterprise but a substantial paramilitary organisation with over ten thousand troops in Afghansitan and many thousands of agents in cells around the world. As for our not declaring war - international law states that the laws of war are binding on a belligerent even if the other party to the conflict does not recognise a state of war. Al Queada declared war on us when bin Laden issued his "fatwa." Attacking the WTC is a war crime in every respect. Attacking the Pentagon is not a war crime in and of itself but operating behind enemy lines disguised as civilians and using a civillian airliner as a method of attack are.
So treating al Queada commanders and their agents who have infiltrated our country as war criminals is legally justifiable - so who has jurisdiction and what prodedures do they have the option to use? The constitution specifically gives the congress the authority to punish "Offences against the Law of Nations" which would include the "law of war." Congress has used that authority to write the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" which puts war crimes under the jurisdiction of optionally either a General Court Martial (Art. 18 of the UCMJ) or of Military Commissions (UCMJ, Art. 21) for "offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by military commissions..." There is no statute and no specific treaty or convention defining what exactly those offenses are so GWB (and Lincoln and FDR) is relying on the common law "law of war" which is rather vague though the UCMJ itself gives a little additional insight since in the articles defining crimes and punishments it again specifically mentions military commissions (in addition to courts martial) as having jurisdiction for both the crimes of "aiding the enemy" and "spying" (articles 104 and 106) the common law "law of war" is further clarified by precedents during the revolutionary war, civil war and world war II and by the unanimous supreme court decision in Ex Parte Quirine.
As I said before there are some ambiguities but overall the legal and constitutional validity of these military tribunals seems pretty sound.
Re:Military tribunals (Score:3, Interesting)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011127/pl/bush_
Re:Military tribunals (Score:2)
I can think of a few places to start...
Re:Military tribunals (Score:2)
Even more: Would the US extradite someone to any country where they would be tried in a military tribunal?
europeon - funny.
Sneaky government teaches distrust of government. (Score:3, Interesting)
When the government is sneaky, people learn not to trust the government.
When the government is sneaky, much more is lost than ever can be gained by being sneaky.
Trust is absolutely necessary in a democracy. If we cannot trust our government, we do not really have a democracy.
When a government cannot be trusted, the government becomes a suspect in every major crime.
Governments are not sneaky because sneakiness benefits the government. Governments are sneaky because there are people who like to be sneaky and be paid for it, and they sometimes gain power.
The facts seem to be this: For years the U.S. government acted in an un-trustworthy way toward Arabs. For years some Arabs became mentally unbalanced by this and threatened to retaliate inside the United States.
Now, the U.S. government is using the results of its unwillingness to be trustworthy to justify even more un-trustworthy behavior.
Here are links to respected news sources that show how U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
bin Laden's Victory (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be more tolerable if these acts truly were focused in a good faith effort to stop terrorism. They are not -- just a naked broadening of executive and investigatory power, cynically and wrongfully executed simply because the "time was right." The selfishness of corporate "citizens" with their hands out for "patriotic" retroactive tax breaks only adds to the cynicism.
This is just selfishness wrapped up in a flag. It sucks.
Just a smidgeon, Not! (Score:2)
The FBI is now free, without court order or even timely notice, upon "reasonable suspicion," to circumvent and monitor your electronic transmissions, physically enter your home or install by remote hacking a keylogger, and to use or disclose such information freely.
They can now assert and make stick Computer Fraud and Abuse charges, with enhanced penalties, that would not have held water yesterday; and you are also exposed to substantially greater civil liability under the CFAA.
Slashdot FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
A couple of points:
1. There had to be legislation that dealt with government eavesdropping and the Internet sometime in history regardless of September 11 or not. The ACLU and others will press court cases that arise from abuses from these laws and some of these new powers will be curtailed. It's evolution, it's growing pains. It's law meets new technology and no one gets it perfect the first time around. A lot of people here laugh at the less technophilic portions of our society, the luddites who look at every new innovation with suspicion and distrust. Hey- guess what y'all sound like when it comes to this legislation? Legal luddites, to coin a phrase.
2. The police need to wire tap phones, they need to bounce lasers off glass windows, they need to spy on portions of society to protect us from the bad guys, ok? Yes Virginia, there are bad guys out there and you need some of this legislation to deal with them. That is a perfectly valid impulse. This is not Freemasons in smokey rooms plotting the destruction of your constitutional freedoms just for the fun of it. This is just good people trying to do some good from a bad situation. Imagine that! Of course there will be abuses- haven't there always been!? Have some simple faith please in the maturity of our society: the abuses will be curtailed. There are many ways it can be done. Maybe a future Rodney King of the Internet incident will happen and someone with the net traffic version of a camcorder will capture it all and cause an uproar. Or- brace yourself, a good judge on a bench somewhere will smack down the spooks who get out of line. Or, get this: has anyone here ever heard of the free press? Inconceivable! We're all going to hell in a handbasket... yeah right, give me a break.
3. We are in a very emotional time right now. We are all human, we overreact when someone jumps out from behind a tree at us. We are in knee-jerk reaction territory right now as a society: a nation at peace just had the equivalent of 3 ICBMs launched at it successfully, killing thousands of its citizens and destroying a major landmark, compliments of a bunch of religious fundamentalist lunatics. You can forgive a little backlash. It's been less than 3 months since September 11. Take a deep breath, wait a year, have the press run a few exposes on some rights abuses, and watch how the tide of popular opinion runs then. Forgive the tide of popular opinion at this particular point in time for running into the scary nether regions it seems to be running. Let everyone calm down and contemplate reality with a little distance between themselves and September 11, whenever that may be.
4. This a tempest in a teapot. Think about how much hot air will be wasted over these kinds of net tapping efforts when no one has really stopped to think about what kind of people we are really dealing with. Remember Star Wars of the Reagan era? Remember the missile defense shield of recent history? Billions of dollars spent on orbiting gigawatt lasers, and what the heck did that do? Less than 2 dozen guys board planes with box cutters fer chrissake and a few hours flight training. A lot of good all that tech did, or will do, if these guys ever get their hands on one of those 50 or so nuclear suitcases the Russians seem to have misplaced. And a lot of good all these Echelons and Magic Lanterns will do against the kind of enemy we are dealing with. Do you really wants to fight the Feds on their new net snooping initiatives? Forget about talking about fundamental rights- talk efficacy, talk utility, talk results- the Feds ain't gonna get any hanging around on the net. Tell them to go hang around the box cutter aisle at Home Depot instead if they want to catch terrorists- that is as high tech as the enemy seems to get.
6. And finally, forgive me for spreading some of my own FUD at this moment about nuclear suitcases and such, but there you go: I think that's where the FUD properly belongs. Think about it. These guys really hate us. They want to kill us. All of us. Why are you worried about your government? So blow hours of your life fretting over what your government is doing photographing you when you run a red light on your way to 7-11 at 3 am to buy some Cheetos... Go ahead, drive yourself crazy about the government knowing who everyone is on your AOL buddy list. Is that the real problem? These fruitcakes want to put ricin in your watersupply and smallpox in your local McDonalds. So go ahead, wail and bemoan that the feds can see your pr0n downloads... the terrorists could care less about the Internet and Microsoft versus Linux and the RIAA and your damn TiVo viewing records... the terrorists are over at the local dam, planting dynamite. Sure, this is FUD, but post-September 11, it is rather convincing FUD!
This post about cable Internet traffic tapping has very, very little to do with cyberspace, really... as I said before, if you really want to make a good point about trampling on our electronic rights to the Feds, tell them that they are just wasting their time looking for terrorists in cyberspace. Tell them to go hang out at the reservoir.
FUD of your own.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Arrrgh. First off: I'm Canadian, and have a different perpective on this whole mess. Canada just passed our own version of this nightmare legislation, albeit with a little more dissent from the opposition parties. Hopefully something will be done after the next election. I doubt it. That said, there are a number of problems with your logic and I need to raise a few points:
A lot of people here laugh at the less technophilic portions of our society, the luddites who look at every new innovation with suspicion and distrust. Hey- guess what y'all sound like when it comes to this legislation? Legal luddites, to coin a phrase.
The problem is that the people passing these laws either don't understand what they're doing, or they understand FULL WELL what they're doing. Any way you cut it, a citizen's right to privacy has been greatly reduced. Download hard encryption tools while you still can. Not that it matters much, since you can now be arrested, detained, given a "trial" and the keys likely beaten out of you without a soul ever knowing. Freedom of speech and a right to privacy mean that yes, even the bad guys (tm) get those rights as citizens of the country. If you're not a citzen, of course, all bets are off. Letting the government decide who is a bad guy (tm) without oversight is a very dangerous thing from a historical perspective. I wonder if this is where a lack of knowledge about history in the general populace shows itself.
orgive the tide of popular opinion at this particular point in time for running into the scary nether regions it seems to be running. Let everyone calm down and contemplate reality with a little distance between themselves and September 11, whenever that may be.
You calm down BEFORE you act, not after. History also shows us that once given extraordinary powers, they will almost never be willingly given up. Action is required, but there has not been enough (or, depending on how you look at it, ANY) debate on the topic. Think about what makes the western world different than China or the prior communist Soviet Union. Freedom of expression. A expectation of privacy. A justice system that is open to public inspection and review. Tribunals? What?
Billions of dollars spent on orbiting gigawatt lasers, and what the heck did that do? Less than 2 dozen guys board planes with box cutters fer chrissake and a few hours flight training. A lot of good all that tech did, or will do, if these guys ever get their hands on one of those 50 or so nuclear suitcases the Russians seem to have misplaced.
This one really drives me insane. It should illustrate to you the futility of trading away freedom of expression and privacy, along with due process, for some ILLUSION of safety. Now, all the lunatics would have to do is hijack a plane and the US government will blow it out of the sky for them. Do you think that massive wiretapping, secret-police style arrests, and disinformation will change anything? I have news for you, buddy. Engineering schools are open, and we are VERY LUCKY in North America that these people were not more educated and fanatical than they were. Anyone with rudimentary intelligence could cause widespread disruption of electrical, water, and communications systems and there isn't a DAMN THING anyone could do about it.
Some other clues, for the clueless - The government cannot completely control people in prison. Do you think granting them power to track "subversives" is going to help?
What does make sense is EDUCATING the public. Let them know their freedom is not without responsibility. Show them how to take down a hijacker. Have them watch water resvoirs and electrical substations. Have people get involved with their neighbours. Encourage open debate! This is what makes north america great. Weakening the freedoms we have paid a bloody price for does nobody any good. (hint: a hell of a lot more people died in WW2 than did in NYC).
And finally, forgive me for spreading some of my own FUD at this moment about nuclear suitcases and such, but there you go: I think that's where the FUD properly belongs. Think about it. These guys really hate us. They want to kill us. All of us. Why are you worried about your government?
Nobody will play the nuclear card. Any nation who deployed a nuclear weapon on US soil would be nuked off the face of the earth. I would be far more worried about biological attacks on the water supply. There is a price that comes with freedom, my friend. It is called responsibility. Nothing a government will do can eliminate terrorism. Granting obscene powers is not the way to go about this. Government already had exessive power before 9/11. Ceeding freedom and responsibility to the government will not help; In a way, we have given up what infuriates the fanatics the most: Our freedom to express and do what we want, how we want, when we want, so long as no one is harmed.
This post about cable Internet traffic tapping has very, very little to do with cyberspace, really... as I said before, if you really want to make a good point about trampling on our electronic rights to the Feds, tell them that they are just wasting their time looking for terrorists in cyberspace.
The government is full aware of that. Look at their definition of terrorist, if you were provided with one, that is. Funny how newspeak works like that, eh? Would someone working against the FTAA be a terrorist? Would someone who was seeking to change the political system? What about someone who held fundamentally communist or marxist views? What about the author of this post?
What's really sad is I don't feel comfortable posting this under my nick. That makes me worry. Alot.
Re:Slashdot FUD (Score:2)
Proof: history of human civilization.
More simply, any organization strong enough to defeat your enemies is strong enough to enslave you.
A wiretap without a court order? (Score:3, Interesting)
Once again, the legislature allows the real criminals to go unpunished and untouched while the average joe gets a large peephole drilled into the wall of his internet connection.
Thanks, Legistlators!
Re:A wiretap without a court order? (Score:4, Informative)
21:14 192.168.0.1 -> http www.2600.org
21:14 192.168.0.1 -> nntp news.premium.com
21:35 192.168.0.1 -> http astalavista.box.sk
21:40 192.168.0.1 -> http www.princeton.edu
21:42 192.168.0.1 -> http www.slashdot.org
21:43 192.168.0.1 -> http www.islamicjihad.com
21:44 192.168.0.1 -> http goatse.cx
21:45 192.168.0.1 -> irc irc.dalnet.net
21:50 192.168.0.1 -> http gnutellahosts.com
21:53 192.168.0.1 -> http dormroom.school.edu
.
.
.
Looks like probable cause for a search warrant for software piracy, terrorist activity, and obscene pornography to me. And I can already picture the prosecution detailing what's on each selectively chosen site, outlining your criminal state of mind for a jury. (Unless you're not a U.S. citizen, in which case you may well be before a military tribunal).
Change your IP address often... (Score:5, Informative)
How to Set the MAC Address For Dummies:
[root@box]# ifdown eth0
[root@box]# ifconfig eth0 hw ether 00:14:D9:AC:D3:12
[root@box]# ifup eth0
This should get you a new IP address on most cable modem services. Replace the MAC address (that string with 5 colons) with any similar string in the format
00:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX
..where each X is a value from 0-9 or A-F.
Write a script and set it as a cronjob. If your IP is changing every 15 minutes they're going to have a hell of a time keeping tabs on you. If thousands of cable users' IPs are changing every 15 minutes they're going to have a hell of a time keeping tabs on anyone.
Re:Change your IP address often... (Score:3, Funny)
Also don't use their www proxy. (Score:2)
At least everyone in my area is configured to proxy off of http://www.
This is of course the very first place to look to see who is visiting what.
Yes, carnivore and its like can probably deal with this subterfuge quite easily...
Do you really think anything would change? (Score:2)
Personally:
If you have to worry about big brother, you are either paranoid, a conspiracy nut, or how I used to be....
I stopped caring, about it and now fill my time with useful stuff like hacking linux, programming, etc...
On the other hand I still DO CARE, because I do not want corporate america spamming me with sh*t because they can now check which sites I'm going to by getting logs. In short if the DOJ does it... Nothing we can do, if Amazon does it.... That will have to stop.
And think about it... Only in corporate america do we really have a say. We can just stop buying their product or give a backlash to them... The DOJ... Nothing. Really if you think about it. You can call your Rep. but really what does that do. If things don't go their way, they can just find a way around it. And laws are passed in their favor despite what many may think.... It's like a town meeting I once went to: you know the Yeah's and Neigh's, well we voted audibly on a subject and the Neigh's had it voted down considerably but the Power's to Be, said Yes instead..... Why? Well they already bought the object in question. So they had to pass it whether the people wanted it or not... That's the truth on how things are run, both small time and big time.
Ashcroft (Score:2, Flamebait)
Who's learning from whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
telephone system versus internet (Score:2, Interesting)
The really bad legal attacks on freedom in cyberspace have involved attempts to grab powers and impose controls that the technology makes feasible, but that are not supported in the laws regulating conventional media (e.g., the cases and controversy surrounding DMCA, UCITA, DeCSS). Lawrence Lessig makes the argument that legislators need to move slowly and carefully, making new law by extending the old law according to carefuly drawn analogies. The worst thing that can happen is to take the potential for control through computer code and enshrine that in law (as with the DMCA's restrictions on who can read what and where).
It seems to me that the Justice Department made a successful argument for treating cyberspace the same as older communication media. In the long run, that's a good thing. The law already contains protections against unwarranted surveillance, and to apply that same body of law to cyber-communications is a desirable outcome.
While they're monitoring all that porn traffic... (Score:5, Funny)
Impeach Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
- Sped through the patriot act, which has us on the road to a police state, allowing for secret searches of property and seizure of information, urinating directly on the 4th amendment.
- Trashed our system of justice by authorizing secret trials, using secret evidence, and even allowing secret executinos. The "evidence"will not be avaiable for the accused to refute, with no opportunity for the accused to appeal. In doing so he has invoked the divine right of kings, not even asking for congress's approval [yahoo.com].
- Carrying out acts of war without declaring war(declaring war against a tactic doesn't count, war is by definition a conflict between 2 nations, not some open ended crusade). Only congress can declare war(or approve a declaration of war), and so far it has not done so. In addition, he has justified all these invasions of civil liberties by claiming that we are indeed at war.
- Deciding which american citizens will be protected by the constitution, claiming, "you don't deserve protection if you are hiding and committing acts of terror"(Ed note: or are suspected of doing so)
I dunno about you, but this is a hell of a lot more serious than clinton getting his dick sucked by some slut and then lying about it.
Re:Impeach Bush (Score:3)
The USA is rapidly becoming a third-world police state that's run by crooks who stand to profit immensely by turning its citizenry into sheep and pouring money into its military-industrial complex.
That isn't a flamebait statement: it's a fucking WAKE UP CALL. You might be able to write off one voice crying out this message as being the voice of a lunatic, but when so many voices are shouting it, there's bound to be a reason to pay attention.
Shake your head, sheep, and become aware of the problems your country is facing. If you don't gettaclue fast, you're going to find yourself living like the Chinese do: squished under the thumb of a corrupt government.
Re:Impeach Bush (Score:2)
What was he supposed to do? Don't you remember the onion headline, "U.S. Urges Bin Laden To Form Nation It Can Attack"?
Re:Impeach Bush (Score:2)
I dunno about you, but this is a hell of a lot more serious than clinton getting his dick sucked by some slut and then lying about it.
In addition to his intern adventures, Clinton also abused executive orders and bombed the hell out of other countries without a declaration of war, including deliberately targeting civilians.
Re:Impeach Bush (Score:2)
Kind of hard to square your characterization of what's been done with the fact that he's acting with the blessing of the Supreme Court when authorizing military tribunals. Ex Parte Quirin [findlaw.com], for your bedtime reading tonight.
Re:Impeach Bush (Score:2, Interesting)
Either way, history has shown that laws supposadly aimed at "non-us citizens" have been extended to us citizens eventually. Know about RICO [fsu.edu]? That law was supposed to apply only to people in the mafia. Later, abortion protesters and stock brokers were prosecuted under that law. Money Laundering laws and Asset seizure? These were only supposed to apply to the "evil" drug lords. Now innocet americas who have not been accused of a crime can have their property stolen [lp.org] by law enforcement.
And as for Lincoln, Washington, and FDR, they were in REAL WARS, not some fictional crusades like the "War" on Crime, the "War" on Drugs, and the "War" on Terrorism.
Re:Impeach Bush (Score:2)
Originally, all laws were supposed to apply to all people in the US equally. But apparantly, 'some animals are more equal than others'.
Re:Impeach Bush (Score:2)
What citizens have, is privilege: among other things, they get to vote and change the laws via their elected representatives.
Re:Impeach Bush (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean if everybody gets the rights of the Constitution afforded to them why then do we have citizenship?
To vote. To pay taxes. To sit on juries. To hold political office. The Rights granted by the Constitution [loc.gov] are granted to Persons, not 'Citizens.' I'll head off any complaints about semantics by making reference to the provisions for eligibility to be a Congressman:
If personhood = citizenship, then why did the framers make the distinction between the two when determining eligibility? For further edification on your rights, and mine, and those of visitors from distant lands, I suggest the ACLU [aclu.org] (Join Today!).
Re:Impeach Bush (Score:4, Interesting)
Most presidents did not do these things. Washington was for all intents and purposes a king, and it was only his choice that prevented him from from exercising all of the power he could have had. Lincoln was second only to FDR in terms of presidents abusing the constitution. All of these men were good men, and we are lucky they happened to be in power when the situations arose that gave them the excuse to do their extreme power grabs for the executive branch. Their constitutional breaches are now viewed as the lowest points in their presidency.
As bad as September 11 was, it is not nearly the crisis that the formation of the country, the Civil War, or World War II was. And I don't trust Bush to be half the man any of the above three was. I trust Ashcroft even less.
The people that this is aimed at are NOT american citizens, they are either here on a visa, or here illegally.
How is this even relevant? The Constitution makes no distinction between a foreign defendant or a domestic one in a trial. It describes the powers and restrictions of the cort system, regardless of the defendant.
If you can site one instance where an american citizens rights are being violated by this act, then I will re-consider my stance.
How about the fact that the DOJ is Already Monitoring Cable Internet Traffic?
Re:Impeach Bush (Score:2)
But I must agree 100%: this bombing was a pissant little thing compared to the Civil War. The Civil War is essentially the Big Thing (tm) that threw out the old Federal system, and ushered in the era of big government, not to mention national unity, etc, etc. WWII is perhaps close in scale to the changes wrought.
Re:Impeach Bush (Score:2)
Re:Impeach Bush (Score:2)
Simple trade-offs looming? (Score:2)
You want regulations that keep bandwidth affordable? You will accept government monitoring of your private communicaton.
You want to be/stay in business as an access provider? You will log everything and make those logs available on a whim.
Re:Simple trade-offs looming? (Score:2)
I don't see why that would be necessary. I don't see a connection.
How does regulation keep it affordable? Hands-off government doesn't regulate bandwidth. Non sequitur.
Now, there's a true statement. Blackmail on the most primitive level. Do what we say, or men with guns shut you down, and the DOJ ruins you with legal fees.
Heil Ashcroft. Watch out for those calico cats; Ashroft believes they are symbols of Satan.
Re:Simple trade-offs looming? (Score:2)
It isn't necessary. There is not connection. There is also no connection between Federal speed limits and Interstate Highway maintenance cost subsidies for States, yet, strangely, the funding was held back for certain States until they adopted the 'suggested' speed limits. Interesting, that.
How does regulation keep it affordable?
You're expecting this to be clearly logical. It is, but not in the straightforward sense. There is still much the government can do to make the interaction between cable and telephone providers (and the overlap in services they can provide) simple or difficult. To get what they want, cable cos and telcos will need to give the Fed what it wants. Simple extortion.
Do what we say, or men with guns shut you down.
It won't ever be that dramatic and transparent. Denied permits, tax audits, unrealistic appeal deadlines, etc. will kill off non-compliance.
"No Mr. ISP CEO, you can not string your fiber-optic line across or under a Highway.. What? The data is encrypted? Encryption is a munition, and so you must be a terrorist.."
It's time for 2 PC's (Score:2)
Typing too fast (Score:2)
If you need to communicate securely
What do the logs look like? (Score:2, Interesting)
It just amazes me. (Score:2, Interesting)
Looking over at CNN [cnn.com] you see that over 100,000 people have voted that the 'new powers' of the government are not too much, while only 30K or so think they are too broad.
The sky is falling!!! (Score:2, Informative)
There is a real tension between civil liberties and physical safety, no matter what Ben Franklin said [cp-tel.net]; we have enemies who want to slaughter us wholesale, and the freedoms available to them in this country are enabling them to do so. In this context, the USA Patriot Act is a reasonable compromise, despite the newspeak name. The freedoms it sacrifices are non-essential (yes, there is such a thing), and yet it has a fighting chance of being effective. It represents a sweet-spot in the freedom/safety trade-off.
Even if it were the piece of totalitarian toilet paper some would have us believe, it at least has a sunset clause. I.e., on Dec. 31, 2005, the USA Patriot Act ceases to be the law of the land. Not quite what you'd expect from a fascist power-grab.
I suspect the most hyperbolic complaints about this piece of legislation come from people who are upset about the general erosion of civil liberties underway. If you fall into this category, your energy is wasted on the USA Patriot Act. Executive orders allowing military tribunals and spying on lawyers are massively more troubling than the FBI being able to find out whose machine is at 65.12.14.153; if you don't understand why, I'm afraid you've been spending too much time on slashdot.
Question about subsection 411 (for a lawyer?) (Score:2, Insightful)
Am I reading the section correctly? Because if so, it would seem to me that, without a clear definition, it's open to interpretation at various points along the way from suspicion to arrest and detainment to trial to sentencing...
Speaking of Cable Failures (Score:2, Informative)
Dear Cox @ Home Customer:
As you know from our previous emails, Excite @ Home, our vendor in delivering
your Cox @ Home service, filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection at the end
of September. We have endeavored to keep you informed of the potential impact
this Bankruptcy could have on your Cox @ Home service and are writing to you
today to provide the latest information we have available.
First, we want you to know that we are committed to providing you uninterrupted
high speed Internet service. Cox Communications has been working diligently in
negotiations with Excite @ Home and using all legal avenues available to protect
you, our valued customer. Meanwhile, we have been forging ahead with our
plans to deliver reliable high speed Internet service to you on our Cox-managed
network. You will soon be receiving additional information about our new Cox
High Speed Internet(sm) service, along with information to help you convert to this
new service.
The latest developments with Excite @ Home:
This month, Excite @ Home's creditors petitioned the Bankruptcy court with a
motion to allow Excite @ Home to terminate service agreements with its cable
affiliates on November 30th. This includes agreements with Cox, Comcast and
AT&T. If the Court grants the creditors' request, there conceivably could be a
temporary disruption in the services that Excite @ Home provides to
approximately 3.7 million customers served by its North American cable affiliates.
We are doing everything possible to see that there will not be a disruption in your
service, but also want you to understand the possibilities and to be prepared:
*If the Judge's ruling states that Excite @ Home may terminate its service
agreements with Cox and the other cable affiliates, this does not mean that
Excite @ Home will automatically turn off the service on November 30th.
*With the Judge's approval, Excite @ Home would then have the ability to make
a decision on termination; however, we are negotiating with them to prevent any
service disruption.
*If Excite @ Home decides to terminate service despite our efforts to negotiate a
temporary arrangement, the question remains as to when the service would be
terminated. We are doing everything we can to ensure that your Cox @ Home
service continues until we can transition you to our new Cox-managed Internet
service. In short, we are doing our best to make sure that you will never be
without high speed Internet service.
Additional help Cox is providing:
In addition to exercising legal avenues, negotiating with Excite @ Home, and
building our own high speed Internet service, Cox is also offering the following to
help you and to keep you informed during this transitional period:
* Toll Free Customer Information Line (1-877-832-4751). You can call in for
the latest updates as we work to quickly resolve any service issues.
* Website Message Center at www.cox.com/info We will provide online
updates and a "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) section to address your
concerns.
* Automatic Account Credits. We will credit your account automatically for
service and leased equipment so that you are reimbursed for any time you
are without service.
* Free, temporary dial-up Internet access. In the unlikely event that you
should experience a service disruption, we have arranged for temporary
dial-up access to the Internet via NetZero(r). In order to take advantage of
this precautionary option, please see the "What Should I be Doing Right
Now" section that follows.
Cox has a long history of outstanding service in your community. We pride
ourselves on providing high quality products and the best customer service.
Please know that we are committed to our customers and understand the
extent to which you enjoy the services we provide. We recognize that you
have a choice in service providers and we will continue to do our best to
remain your choice now and in the future. In advance, we apologize for any
inconvenience that the Bankruptcy of our vendor Excite @ Home may cause
you.
Stay tuned for more details, and thank you for choosing Cox.
Sincerely,
The Cox High-Speed Internet Team
Cox Communications, Inc.
_______________________________
What Should I be Doing Right Now?
1. Check your Cox @ Home email daily. Opened messages will be saved
automatically to your hard drive.
2. Download free dial-up Internet software. In the unlikely event that Excite
@ Home terminates your service, you would lose connectivity to the Internet and
access to your Cox @ Home services such as email and webspace. We do not
recommend that you install the software at this time, just download the software
and save it so that it may be installed should you have an interruption in service.
In order to restore access to the Internet and to set up a temporary email
address, we recommend that you register for dial-up service via NetZero and
download the necessary software. You will not be able to download the software
from your home after your Internet service has already been disrupted. While a
free dial-up connection is not ideal, it will give you temporary access to the
Internet for surfing, making transactions, etc. However, you will not be able to
access your Cox @ Home email accounts while the service is shut down. For
information on how to download this software, please visit www.cox.com/info
3. Back up your personal web page to your hard drive or to a CD. (This is a
good precautionary measure to follow at any time.)
4. In the unlikely event that there is a disruption in service, keep your cable
modem connected to your PC until service is restored.
5. Watch for more information from Cox on the transition of your service to
Cox High Speed Internet. At such time that you can make the transition to our
new service, Cox will be providing you with all of the information you need to make
your transition as smooth as possible.
It seems like they are trying their asses off not to lose any customers, which seems to be a very good sign.
damn. (Score:2)
Of course it doesn't really matter, since they will still be able to sniff at the ISP. How about anonymizers that use SSL or a VPN? That would be ideal.
*sigh*
5 Simple Things to Protect Yourself (Score:2)
TLS is a way of sending e-mail using SSL. When you send an e-mail from your TLS-speaking server to another TLS-speaking server, it will automatically travel encrypted. TLS also has support for certificate verification. Most popular mail servers, including sendmail and postfix, have TLS support. Debian users: apt-get install postfix-tls and follow the README.
Re:5 Simple Things to Protect Yourself (Score:2)
OK, so how do I get everyone I know to use GPG as well? It won't work unless everyone else uses it, too. I'm with you on this, but I need help convincing the rest of the world that unless you encrypt everything then encryption is worthless. This is especially difficult when my brother, sister, father-in-law, and damn near everyone else I know believes with all their heart and soul that the only reason to encrypt anything is if you have something to hide, and by extension the only reason to fear government intrusion into your personal life is if you have something to hide.
I really believe the only way to have a secure society is if encryption is totally banned, and everything is open and public. Sure, go ahead and put a webcam in my bedroom -- but first, what's the address of the webcam in George W's bedroom, the governor's bedroom, the mayor's bedroom, the sherrif's bedroom, etc. If they have nothing to hide, then I have nothing to hide. I would welcome my bedroom webcam under those conditions.
I note that nobody's proposing that we all read John Ashcroft's personal mail. I also note that Dubya dropped his personal email after the election, because he knew Presidential email was open to eventual public scrutiny. I further note that he has blocked the relase of his father's Vice-Presidential records. Nice double standard, eh?
That doesn't bother me nearly as much as the reaction I get when I ask my brother, sister, father-in-law, etc. to please explain why the double standard doesn't bother them. I'm about to disown my family, the cretins.
Re:Slashdot Ignorance (Score:2)
begin:
"The anti-ashcroft FUD needs to die. The turning of molehills into mountains needs to stop. I used to work for an ISP and the FBi would routinely ask for IP information and identity information. This worked two ways, because if we were cooperative then they were really cooperative in tracking someone who we had a beef against (like the asswad that trin00'ed us). "
The Church of Scientology dumped millions of gibberish posts into Usenet a few years back, to shut up critics, in a blantant DOS attack. Begging the Feds to do something was useless; they said they weren't interested unless some real monetary damage was involved. Want FBI involvement? Be rich and offended, they jump.
"The new law essentially lets the FBI get info to get _leads_. Under old law, the FBI could force you to give up info on someone already suspected of a crime. Now I think they can go further and try to find leads also. "
The law goes farther and lets them log anyone they want, anytime they want, without warrant, without oversight, without disclosure, forever.
Leads my sorry ass, they want to go fishing. They do not have the power to wiretap phones or open mail without warrant, tho they'd dearly like to. But now, the Internet is different. They can do anything they want. Log our keystrokes. Read our mail. Check our hard drives. Break into our houses to take a look around, without warrant.
"War" on terrorism, like "war" on drugs, or prostitution, or dissent, is interminable. And lest we forget, there is a little HOLE in the PATRIOT act. Bush and or Ashcroft can designate anything they like as terroristic. It's completely up to them. Ashcroft, for instance, not many months ago, described hackers as terrorists. Definitions are key.
What is happening is this. Like a pilot turning a barge, the extreme right wing is slowly changing the definitions of crimes, a nip at a time. They are establishing precedent to eliminate the Judiciary and the Congress from whatever campaigns they or their successors may attempt in the future. Trials, juries, rules of evidence, habeas corpus, say bye-bye. Trust them to do what's right, as they did, say, when they destroyed Clinton.
"Of course, none of this was in the slashdot blurb. Stop the negativity,"
No.
"the sensationalism, and the yellow journalism."
This from the group that made GroinGate America's Number One problem for two years, who attempted to overthrow an elected president, and who rejoiced in the installation of an unelected president. Yellow, dirty, filthy innuendo and lies have been the order of the day for the GOP for almost ten years; now everyone is supposed to be nice to the Powers That Be? What directed, purposeful hypocrisy.
Yellow journalism? Slashdot isn't a journal, firstly. Secondly, I'd welcome any kind of journalism back from the abyss it apparently dived into the past ten years, as the industry became soley profit-motivated and scandal-driven. Practically every cable outlet and news magazine has the GOP's hands up its puppet butt, and in the current atmosphere, it's a thousand times worse. Every damned show and mag I read seems to have writers and commentators that have been stunned with a sledgehammer to their foreheads. NO ONE will really critize Bush/Ashcroft/Rowe, who are respectively:
A guy who lost the presidency under any sane standard;
A religious fanatic who actively distrusts courts, and who, apparently, doesn't want any calico cats around him, because they are signs of Satan, and -- BTW, doesn't think anthrax threats against abortion providers as anything worth his attention;
A dirty trick master who was actively involved in the GOP undercover Jihad against the President for eight years, and even after his nasty little side whon their Jihad, he fabricated and spread the blantant lies about "thefts" and "destruction" by the previous admin.
"This is an _Open_ _Source_ _Development_ _Network_ for christ sake. It's not the _misinformed_ _anti-bush_ _activism_ _scare-mongering_ _network_. "
If it is, it's one of the damned few.
Actually, It's the "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" site. The fact that the net is now a police state IS PERTINENT. The fact, and it is a fact, that the "terrorist" powers that the executive branch has siezed as we lay mourning will someday be applied to hackers, dissidents, and anyone that Bush or the DOJ damned well feels like applying them to.
"Take your anti-RIAA/MS/BUSH/ASHCROFT/MPAA FUD and post it on usenet or something."
No.
Anti-Clinton vileness was de rigeur for almost ten years, with almost no respect for evidence, proportionality, or justice.
Bush is stealing trillions from our future, crippling the economy, attacking environment groups as traitors, destroying at least three amendments of the Bill of Rights, detaching the courts and Congress from decision making, and all in all following a radical agenda he denied having whilst he was running for office -- not that any damned reported ever grilled him the way they savaged Gore.
"Slashdot has become hypocrisy online. Every day it devotes space to content that is based on Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt (FUD (TM)). "
Slashdot is not a journal, it cannot be hypocritical, say, like the administration is. It is a collection of opinion, and if you don't like it, don't participate.
Those of us who can still think will still be here.