Limited Email Surveillance Approved 249
MrNougat writes "CNet reports that some surveillance of your email has been permitted by U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan in Washington, D.C., without first requiring any evidence of wrongdoing. Curiously: 'instead of asking to eavesdrop on the contents of the e-mail messages, which would require some evidence of wrongdoing, prosecutors [of the US Justice Dept.] instead requested the identities of the correspondents. Also included in the request was header information like date and time and Internet address--but not subject lines.'"
Land of the free (Score:5, Insightful)
So use encryption! (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion, if you're not already assuming that the contents of your unencrypted email are public to the world, you're fooling yourself. If you want it to be unreadable, encrypt it.
I think the only permission anybody ought to need in order to eavesdrop on a communication is the owner of the wire. If you're contracting with the owner of the wire for services, and privacy is important to you, make that part of the contract. Or save yourself some effort and money and simply encrypt your communications. It's nearly effortless. It won't cost you anything (money wise) for the software.
Also, I take exception with the summary that "some surveillance of your email has been permitted." The article says, "the Justice Department asked a federal magistrate judge to approve monitoring of an unnamed person's e-mail correspondents." I sincerely doubt that I am that person or one of his correspondents, unless he is a spammer. I recognize this could affect me in the future because a precedent has been set ... but again, that's easily handled with encryption now, isn't it?
Complaining about this is tantamount to making love to your wife in your open front doorway and then demanding a law be passed to protect your privacy from your neighbor or the police car driving by. For crying out loud! Isn't some burden on you to secure your own privacy? This is not so far from the DMCA requiring legal protection against breaking "protection mechanisms" that are not effective in the slightest. Why in the world would you trust the government enough to expect them to take responsibility for securing your privacy?
People seem to be looking for an expensive legislative solution to a technological problem that already has an inexpensive technical solution.
Btdd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So use encryption! (Score:5, Insightful)
Encryption will block them knowing the dirty joke you just told your friends, but it won't stop them from knowing WHO your friends are!
Re:So use encryption! (Score:5, Insightful)
Encrypt it all you want, they are not interested in what you are sending, and not even the subject, they are interested who you are communicating with and when.
If you arent doing anything wrong then dont worry? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So use encryption! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me call the phone company right quick and ask that my DSL contract be amended to express that they will not allow someone to tap the lines. I'm sure they'll get right on that.
Or save yourself some effort and money and simply encrypt your communications. It's nearly effortless. It won't cost you anything (money wise) for the software.
Because everyone automatically knows how to encrypt e-mails.
Also, I take exception with the summary that "some surveillance of your email has been permitted." The article says, "the Justice Department asked a federal magistrate judge to approve monitoring of an unnamed person's e-mail correspondents." I sincerely doubt that I am that person or one of his correspondents, unless he is a spammer. I recognize this could affect me in the future because a precedent has been set ...
I agree with this. If I'm reading this right, the government is investigating a particular person and is asking for permission to monitor that particular person's e-mail correspondents. It's like tapping the phones of everyone who calls/is called by a mob boss. The precedent creates a slippery slope, but we haven't fallen down every time we've hit one of those.
Complaining about this is tantamount to making love to your wife in your open front doorway and then demanding a law be passed to protect your privacy from your neighbor or the police car driving by. For crying out loud! Isn't some burden on you to secure your own privacy? This is not so far from the DMCA requiring legal protection against breaking "protection mechanisms" that are not effective in the slightest. Why in the world would you trust the government enough to expect them to take responsibility for securing your privacy?
No, complaining about this is more like making love to your wife in your bedroom and realizing there's some perv in the bushes outside your window. E-mails are NOT broadcasts, it requires some effort and intrusion to tap someone's e-mail. A girl in a slinky dress is NOT asking to be raped, a house without bars on the windows is NOT asking to be robbed, and unencrypted e-mail is NOT an invitation to intercept and open it. It's smart to lock your car.
If you leave your car running while you run into to the store and it's gone when you come out, I'll call you a dope for making it so easy, but I'll still call the thief a scumbag for stealing someone's car.
Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Soon a day will come
They already want to be in on every financial interaction (sales/income tax). I rather pay a flat amount every year for "my share" of defense costs and be done with it. Are they going to ta happiness too soon? "You exchanged happiness, we want out fair share cause you wouldnt have been able to exchange happiness was it not for us"
I value my privacy, and I believe that the fourth amendment makes America a strong nation. The founding fathers of the USA understood that the right to privacy is one of those inalienable human rights endowed by our creator. (if you read the first amendment you will see that that it's a right "ot to be violated", rather than a gift from government. I believe the right to privacy is what keeps a nation free from oppression, tyranny, and pathological dictators. Fuck all the fake patriots who'll sell us otherwise.
Re:Land of the free (Score:1, Insightful)
If you really were from a state like that, I am amazed that you would even consider giving the state a centimeter, let alone a meter.
Re:Land of the free (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, I don't give a rat's behind about "official" privacy policies.
What you grow accustomed to, during a "totalitarian regime", was to be TOLD your government is good, cares for you, and so on and so forth... while all along KNOWING that if you make a false move you risk your freedom, or even life.
That certainty of knowledge makes it more than easy to ignore any privacy issues... as you are too paranoid already to even start believing your government will do what they say they do.
The only difference in a "free" state is that, from time to time, people actually believe the bullshit... and other times, the state gets slapped for not being carefull enough to hide he didn't respect your privacy.
slippery slope into police state 24/7 (Score:2, Insightful)
we are losing our liberties faster than we can blink, life under a microscope is not freedom
Re:So use encryption! (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush came along too early in it's toddler years of wide acceptance. There are too many precedents to be set that a Republican government has no qualms about shifting in their favor. To anyone who'd try to defend Bush or the Republican congress, answer this, what has Bush done to PROTECT privacy as president?
If you think the blame for this lies solely on Republican shoulders, you're dreaming as much as the people who think that the fact that their emails are difficult to intercept means that nefarious personages will actually refrain from doing so.
Re:I hate to be redundant (Score:5, Insightful)
You make an important point, but probably not the way you intended.
There is no "it." There is no one big, dramatic thing the government does that says, "This is the point where we're no longer free." France did not tumble overnight into the Reign of Terror. Russia did not go in a day from Revolution to purges and gulags. Germany did not start building death camps as soon as the swastika flew over the Reichstag. Cuba was as free as any country on Earth the day Castro took power.
Etc. Tyranny doesn't happen in an instant. It happens steadily, insidiously, and at every point there are people saying, "Oh, this isn't so bad, and it's for our own good
Re:Don't worry. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or what? Seriously, what would you do? Sadly, I think you overestimate your ability to protect yourself.
Re:Land of the free (Score:3, Insightful)
What? Niger and Nigeria are different countries? Are you sure? Do you think that Bush's people know?
(Also, I've gotten some amazing offers from correspondents in Spain, and because of the ETA gang, that's considered a terrorist country.
Re:Time for old tricks... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know exactly how to pound the point home any harder, but they are preparing for national upheaval. They are building concentration camps, my friend, and if anyone tries rebellion they are going to become permanent residents. You're presenting a false choice, letting rebels live or killing them. They've plans to lock them up en masse. Bush already has defacto power to strip citizenship and human rights away at will; locking protestors or armed rebels into Kellogg Root and Brown maintained mass prison camps wouldn't stonker them at all. In case ya'll haven't noticed, crossing SS designated boundaries around public events (I interpret this as leaving the "1st Amendment Zone") is now a federal felony subjecting the criminal to arrest -- by the Secret Service. As a terrorist, essentially.
This isn't a new plan, either. Reagan's people had a contingency plan set up to mass arrest and imprison dissenters back in '84. Our boy Oliver North had a huge hand in the plan. It's amazing how the same names keep popping up.
they have taken on vast unconstitutional powers to capture terrorists. Now, the next step is to redefine "terrorist". They've already designated PETA a terrorist organisation. Peace groups have been infiltrated and monitored since 2001 -- as terrorists, of course. Bush has linked criticism and terrorism already. His posse obviously is following a plan which ends with their party enabled to imprison dissenters without trial, subject to torture at will, or even death. Didja hear Guantanamo has a execution station now?
You can't get near the President anymore unless you sign a loyalty oath and are vetted by the SS for Republicanism. Show up with a sign or a T-Shirt with something to say and you are out, or under arrest. And despite what you might think,the cops are all on board with the President. I saw what happened in Chicago back in 2003. The cops are hard-core Republicans. Same with the military brass (not so much the rank and file). Someone once refered to the Army as the armed forces of the Republican party.
In other news, hunger strikes have nearly disappeared at Guantanamo Bay after they've strapped the hunger strike non-people into "feeding chairs", forced food down tubes, and physically prevented the tortured from throwing up the food. Afterwards they locked them into "cold cells" for punishment. I can only assume they're using the cold water hoses in the 50 degree concrete cells again, to get those prisoners nice and hypothermic and quiet.
I don't feel very ironic anymore. This is very dangerous. they are totally out of control, and there is no mass media that anyone trusts anymore, since news was turned into a "business" instead of a loss leader to keep a broadcast license, to tell us what's happening. We have to read overseas press to find out what's going on in our own country.
Re:Land of the free (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a president that has been hiding various stuff and instigating laws to protect his backside while doing the reverse for the people of the country.
If he was innocent he would have nothing to hide.