Crashing the Wiretapper's Ball 178
An anonymous reader writes "Wired is running an article with some great investigative journalism. Writer Thomas Green snuck into the ISS World Conference, a trade show featuring communications-tapping equipment and normally a press-free event. There, he got some very interesting quotes from the attendees." From the article: "You really need to educate yourself ... Do you think this stuff doesn't happen in the West? Let me tell you something. I sell this equipment all over the world, especially in the Middle East. I deal with buyers from Qatar, and I get more concern about proper legal procedure from them than I get in the USA."
Justice is Swift (Score:5, Funny)
Because in places like that you can lose body parts for illegal stuff!
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:1, Funny)
I think that would be found unconstitutional real fast.
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
at the least they should be immediately be removed from office
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2, Insightful)
As it is, it seems its too much trouble for Congressmen to even read laws before voting on them. I think that is a pretty large breakdown in the system.
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:4, Insightful)
The Constitution does not agree with that. Please point out where the power to determine constitutionality is reserved solely to the judicial branch. The whole point of the Constitution was balance in the protection of the people. That requires all three branches to evaluate the constitutionality of everything. Nothing unconstitutional should pass Congress. If it does, then the Executive should not enforce it. If the Executive does illegally enforce the unconstitutional law, then the Judicial should exonerate the charged party. Judicial review isn't a protection of people's rights, it is a limitation. It carried the implication that the other 2 branches aren't tasked with upholding the Constitution. The problem is that they are. I would have no problem for expulsion of all congressmen that voted for a law that was found unconstitutional. For them to pass it would be a violation of their oath of office (but in practicality, it would give too much power to the judicial - just declare something unconstitutional and half of Congress is expelled). Multiple presidents have signed things they knew to be unconstitutional because they wanted to make a political statement. That is Treason.
Treason Defined (Score:5, Informative)
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Passing or voting for an unconstitutional law is not treason.
Re:Treason Defined (Score:2)
If they can have a War on Drugs, a War on Terrorism, and such as undeclared wars, I assert that they are actually enemies of the US in the War on Civil Rights. But I'm sure that their gross misuse of words is not a problem until someone used their own tactics against them.
Re:Treason Defined (Score:2)
Quite right. It just violates 18 USC 241, which is a capital offense in itself in some cases, and the burden of proof is actually lower than a treason prosecution.
Owing to the difficulty of prosecution for treason, only around 10 people in the history of the US (and none since WW II IIRC) have been convicted of treason. Not even the Rosenbergs - they were tried under a WWI-era law making espionage a capital crime.
-b.
Re:Treason Defined (Score:2)
Re:Treason Defined (Score:2)
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
I would have no problem for expulsion of all congressmen that voted for a law that was found unconstitutional... but ... half of Congress [would be] expelled....
No, not half of Congress. ALL of them, except for one person: Ron Paul [house.gov]. He's the only congresscritter up there that gives a damn about the Constitution.
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
Why would a law that expanded the definition of "treason" to include voting for an unconstitutional statute be, itself, unconstitutional?
I think you need to read Art. III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution. Particularly the part that reads:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort
Treason is the one crime whose definition is given (and made exclusive) in the Constitution.
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
Except that, as a caveot, the current administration would be free from having to comply with that law.
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:1)
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
Except that Congress and the President have now decided otherwise. Are you going to stop them?
TWW
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:4, Informative)
Ummmm....you haven't [boston.com] been [boston.com] paying [whitehouse.gov] attention [findlaw.com], have you?
heck [google.com]
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
Absolutely. Full agreement here. The only way to get any change is to get a meaningful third or even fourth party represented. Even then, it might only be different rascals that the corporations have to buy.
Everyone just needs to remember: if they don't like the way things are going, the only wasted vote is one for the Republicans or the Democrats.
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:1)
Your suggestion is so simple, yet has the perfect result. Its the silver bullet!
Getting the Law passed would have oposition from the government agenceies and companies who profit (financially / or through ease of gathering intellegence) from this.
On 'This Week in Tech' someone mentioned that warrantless wire-taps provide a huge amount of information, and also went onto argue that this information could still be gathered using traditional 'old-fashio
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't disagree with your point, just your presentation of it and the dangers that presentation poses.
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
One of these things is not like the others.
Go to any hospital and you will find plenty of people who have been put there by alcohol and tobacco. But I challenge you to find a single hospital where more than 1% of the beds are occupied by people who were put there by pornography.
Which leads to the question: what definition of "health" are you using such that something th
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
Upon determination of a violation, they should be thrown out of office.
That means if 90% of Congress passed something that turns out to be unconstitutional, they get thrown out, and a replace election held for those seats. Oh, and they should be ineligible to hold any public office for the next decade or so.
Conspiracy Against Rights statute (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, "Conspiracy Against Rights" (18 USC 241/242) already covers this. The penalty for conspiring to deprive people of their constitutional rights (passed during the civil rights era) is up to 10 years in prison. If kidnapping (would unlawful imprisonment qualify?) is involved, or someone dies as a result, the maximum penalty is death.
See for yourself:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/241fin.htm [usdoj.gov]
-b.
Re:Conspiracy Against Rights statute (Score:2)
that has to be the most clean cut law i have ever seen... it makes sence and well damnit.. it needs to be used.
thank you
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:2)
Did you know that feline AIDS is the leading cause of death for cats in America?
Sorry, sorry, I don't know what came over me.
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to see a general principle that says that anything a public official does in their capacity as a public official, they do under oath. Isn't that what an oath of office is for? Otherwise, what does such an oath mean?
When Bush lies to the public about matters of government policy, such as the reasons for war or the violations o
Re:Justice is Swift (Score:1)
Nice to see journalism isn't dead ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nice to see journalism isn't dead ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nice to see journalism isn't dead ... (Score:2, Informative)
Let's see how long it stays that way... (Score:2)
you mean US, English language generally, or other? (Score:2)
Not true! What about Brad and Jennifer??? (Score:5, Insightful)
How else would we have learned about that Angelina Jolie caused the breakup of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston??? Or that Oprah just lost another 40 pounds (or it gained 60 back)??? What about those photos of Brittney Spears not buckling her baby???
Problem is most folks actually care more about these topics than WMD, intelligence manipulations, torture, political corruption/bribery, or sole source contracts. Seems like most folks pick one side of the fence and then anyone who questions ANY decision becomes an evil liberal or neo-con with some secret, political agenda.
I think the larger problem is that the public has stopped caring about trivial things like laws or ethics because truth bas become relative and the other party always lies. Dare to question Halliburton and it's because you're a liberal zealot who hates big business. Dare to question affirmative action's effectiveness and it's because you're an evil racist. It's hard to have a normal discussion anymore without huge political overtones.
Re:Not true! What about Brad and Jennifer??? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not true! What about Brad and Jennifer??? (Score:2)
There's another reason...it's simply more convenient to ignore all these things. American is a society driven by convenience.
Re:Not true! What about Brad and Jennifer??? (Score:2)
Bread and Circuses my friend... keep em happy and entertained and you can do whatever you want. Just think how good it worked for Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuse [wikipedia.org]
What if we're wrong? (Score:2)
What if your way is wrong? Or my way is wrong?
If we discuss the issues we care about, you may raise points that I hadn't considered, and change my mind. Or I may do the same and change your mind. Either way, we both become more informed and more able to separate truth from bias.
If we don't discuss, then all we have to go on is whatever our favourite news sources tell us, which may not go as far as "propaganda", but certainly isn't as far the other
On bias... (Score:2)
The "trick" the presenter used was this - before
Re:Nice to see journalism isn't dead ... (Score:2)
Outside that, pretty hard to find.
Re:Nice to see journalism isn't dead ... (Score:2)
Most local (and more than a few regional) newspapers' content is straight off the Associates Press or Reuters, with a few niche stories taken from the PR Newswires. The editors rewrite sections of it and tailor it to their customers. This dirty secret was hidden from most of the populace during the 80's and 90's and has only come to light more recently since Yahoo, Google, and every other portal has copied the business model to great ef
Of Course (Score:3, Interesting)
Before anyone jumps in and stirs the political pot, remember it is not only governmental use of "wiretapping" that you are subject to. Companies do too, and some of them are nice enough to tell you "This call may be recorded for training and quality assurance purposes"
Big bad big brother is watching, but not always from D.C.
Re:Of Course (Score:1)
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Funny)
"Hello, this is Bill from Blahcorp. We're doing a tech survey. Please be informed that this call may be recorded for training and quality assurance purposes"
"Really, Bill? In that case, PENIS!"
"Ummm, ok...."
hmmm (Score:3, Funny)
Well, think about it... (Score:1)
Link goes to third page (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Link goes to third page (Score:1)
Famous Last Words (Score:2, Funny)
Real reason for all the secrecy (Score:2, Interesting)
Money is usually the simplest explanation.
The guy from The Register? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The guy from The Register? (Score:1)
Just curious.
Court here or court there? (Score:1)
It might not be (just) about the government. If the government uses it and somebody finds out big deal - a couple talk show hosts, news for about 3 days and its forgoten. Totalitarian regimes are _far_ better in hiding that stuff from the people anyways. So they might not worry that much. Or if they worry is more likely because of international laws, so they dont get kicked in the butt for another reason. Individual companies, people - fuggedabouthit. If its illegal they'll kill you or lock you up with a d
Most Revealing Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't think for even one minute that whoever succeeds Bush will change anything about this.
Re:Most Revealing Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Most Revealing Quote (Score:2)
No no, that's quite obvious to those of us in the rest of the world.
We of course have our own restrictions, and biases, depending on where in the world we live; but it's still pretty obvious. For example, it's kinda hard not to notice the complications involved if one's flight route involves passing through US territory; plus we get in
It might change (Score:2)
And don't think for even one minute that whoever succeeds Bush will change anything about this.
After the excesses of the CIA were revealed in the Church Report [state.gov], the Agency's oversight was increased radically, and its human intelligence operations were pared down to the bone. The history of U.S. government spying on citizens is filled with ups and downs like this. The fact that we're at a new low doesn't mean it will continue to get works. The polls seem to indicate that Americans are finally waking up.
Libertarians wouldn't do this... (Score:2)
Libertarians wouldn't do such a thing.
Reporter is a traitor. (Score:5, Funny)
Wow being Republican is easy, i think the general rule is that anything like privacy, free speech and peace you just have to pretend its not important while anything to do with sex, sexual equality, sex on tv, sex in peoples private lives etc is a matter of life or death.
Re:Reporter is a traitor. (Score:1)
It is pretty funny that most of the holier-than-thou conservatives seem to be completely obsessed with sex. You could be a bi-sexual S&M leather/furry enthusiast and not think about sex nearly half as much as most of these U.S. cons
Re:Reporter is a traitor. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reporter is a traitor. (Score:2)
You could even help them win.
Unless you'd rather just grouse.
Re:Reporter is a traitor. (Score:2)
Re:Reporter is a traitor. (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1996, I would have laughed at this post, and gone on my merry way.
In 2006, this is fucking scary, because I can't tell if its a joke or not.
Re:Reporter is a traitor. (Score:2)
You misrepresent the views of Republicans terribly. I must set the record straight.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your government's right to listen in, copy it down, hide it away and then kidnap you in a black van and take you to a holiday camp in Cuba.
Especially if you wear robes and have a beard.
These are the basic freedoms that we seek to protect - the basic freedom to do whatever we want to whoever we want as long as they aren't American (unless they have long bea
Telling Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Telling Quote (Score:3, Interesting)
They do. That's exactly why the government pulls crap like this. They are motivated out of fear, and nothing else.
Our society is based on co-operation, and nothing else. This is a tenuous relationship. If the masses decide to support some other system en massse, then these people are out of jobs, power, and influence.
There are not enough soldiers, guns, or bombs to kill people into submission. If you do decide to
Re:Telling Quote (Score:2)
They do. That's exactly why the government pulls crap like this. They are motivated out of fear, and nothing else.
Our society is based on co-operation, and nothing else. This is a tenuous relationship. If the masses decide to support some other system en massse, then these people are out of jobs, power, and influence.
There are not enough soldiers, guns, or bombs to kill people into submission. If you do decide to utilize violence to maintain power, you have to utilize a lot of finesse to make your
Where's the beef? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, that's what one expects from semi-public conferences - lots of voyeurs, vague references, and (mostly) marketing crap. Real spook conferences will be classified and there's no way in hell reporters can get in there.
They probably keep out the press more to preserve their image of secrecy and semi-legitimacy than because they're actually concerned about privacy. After all, who wouldn't want to attend a 'secret' conference where the press if forbidden to attend. Wow! That's sounds cool and I don't even care what they're selling.
And who's going to gatecrash Bilderberg (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the decoy conference.
Bilderberg think-tank conference in Ottawa this June [indymedia.org] is where the real stuff happens.
I have no idea who is attending and what goes on in there... which is precisely why it worries me.
More on Bilderberg (Score:3, Informative)
Not in the Logan Act, and not illegal (Score:2)
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > 953
953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who,
Re:And who's going to gatecrash Bilderberg (Score:2)
Awareness vs. Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also sad (and true) that people who fear their government (read: KNOW their government works AGAINST their interests) are more aware that tapping happens, and that it does have quite BAD consequences.
Here, in the "free" world (I know, I use quotation marks very liberally, but these fit like none I've ever used before), people are still on the "you don't do anything bad, you don't have to fear" attitude. This is very different in countries that either have or used to have very tough restrictions on their freedoms. When you talk to someone from the former East Block, you'll probably get very different responses when it comes to issues like this.
They're also smart enough to question pretty much everything they read. They're used to lying newspapers and TV stations. That's something we should pick up soon, I'd say.
So of course the awareness about wiretapping and snooping is by a magnitude higher in countries where people expect their government to pursue interests that are diametrally different from their own.
Actually, that's the case with every person, as far as I can judge. Over here, in the "free" world, too many still believe the government works in their favor.
Dangerous attitudes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Attitudes like this guy's are dangerous. It's the "if you don't have anything to hide why are you objecting?" and the "these guys just make the product" sentiments that just bury us deeper and deeper.
Ultimately, the government derives its mandate from the people, so they do answer to us. He's forgotten it, and so has every single politician and bureaucrat out there. Is there any way short of a violent assertion of our second-amendment rights that will remind them? Sometimes I fear there is not...
Re:Dangerous attitudes... (Score:3, Insightful)
You really need to educate yourself...
"Great"? Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
One good item was the Dutch cop's remark that "we're 3 or 4 years ahead of this stuff", which would imply that by the time products hit the trade show circuit all the real players already have them.
Privacy and Secrecy is a 2way street (Score:5, Interesting)
How refreshing it would be to clean house and build a political culture like that expressed by the Dutch policeman in the article: transparency makes governance easier.
Re:Privacy and Secrecy is a 2way street (Score:3, Funny)
That's why, when someone asks why I encrypt things, I say its
Re:Privacy and Secrecy is a 2way street (Score:2)
Fatherland, Motherland, Homeland
All terms used.. asscociated with..
Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and the United States respectively.
makes one think.
Re:Privacy and Secrecy is a 2way street (Score:2)
So... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:2)
No records... Hmmm.
stopping crime? (Score:3, Insightful)
"in the end, all this surveillance gear and attendant hype becomes meaningless with simple precautions like encrypted VOIP, a good implementation of virtual private networks, and proxies and SSH for web surfing, IM, internet relay chat, webmail and the like"
Which all goes to show that none of this is actually about stopping crime. It is about consolidating power.
Turer words were never spoken (Score:2, Interesting)
Why Am I Underwhelmed? (Score:2)
I mean, "duh!"
Is 100% effective law-enforcement desirable? (Score:2)
Is 100% effective law-enforcement a desirable ideal, or do we want to leave a little wriggle room to the criminals of today, to ensure a possibility of anti-tyranny opposition, that may be required some time in the future?
Personaly, I think, any future tyranny will quickly move towards plugging any holes we may wish to preserve today, so we may as well aim to plug them now
Did anyone else... (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, there's nothing "dangerous" or "secretive" about this conference. If there was, this guy wouldn't have even known about it, let alone gotten into it. It's a marketing conference where manufacturers of this stuff try to pimp it off on anyone (from anywhere) who has an interest in surveillance. Even average cops can attend. Like someone else said, the most likely reason that they make it "closed" to the press is to give it a pompous air of secrecy that doesn't really exist. The reporter, once he gets his hands on one of the "secret" CDs, finds that there's nothing of any interest on it, and hastily concludes that it must be because of a "small-minded attitude of hostility toward the press"... but anyone with the slightest bit of business sense would also include that it may very well be because they're trying to hype up their conference and make it more attractive to wanna-be spooks so that they can sell more stuff, which is what all businesses are in business to do. (of course, that line of reasoning doesn't support his "they're all out to rob us of our civil liberties" bias, so I'm sure it never crossed his mind.
Second... the quotes in this thing mean nothing. So he got a drunk, loudmouthed salesman to make (completely unsubstantiated) claims about what the US gov't does with this equipment, and how little concerned they are with the legalities of surveillance. Anyone here who's been to a tech conference knows that there are people who claim to know what's "really" going on, and everyone who's met those people knows that they're usually full of sh*t. Reporting a drunken rant as some kind of interesting "insight" is irresponsible at the least.
Then he talks to a Dutch cop, who (of course) says exactly what he wants to hear... "Secrecy is eeeevil... we're much better because we're open about how we catch criminals." (which, of course, allows them the information they need to avoid getting caught
Throughout it all, he acts as if surveillance equipment (in and of itself) is some new threat, that's inherently evil, and which "poses a tremendous threat to human rights and dignity". Seriously... it's a product. There's a marker for it, so people make it and try to sell it. The one reasonable thing that the drunk guy did say was that he should stop harassing the people that make it. I don't think anyone would argue that surveillance equipment of all kinds should be banned, so basically, it's going to get made. Posing the "but it could get used for evil" argument is a waste of time, just like it is with every other man-made object that could get used improperly, but has a primary use that is beneficial.
Basically, this was a hyped-up opinion piece written by a journalist who's "trying to make a difference" by "informing" all the people who are already worked up about privacy issues about just how bad it "really" is. If there was some kind of substance to it, it might be remotely interesting, but at face value, it falls completely flat.
And before anyone goes on some presumptive tirade about how I'm a right-wing blah blah blah who's more concerned about your sex-life than I am about civil rights, save your breath. I'm not saying that unabashed gov't monitoring is good, or necessary or that I support it or any other nonsense like that... I'm only saying that this article is an insubstantial pile of dung written by someone with an obvious bias of the topic looking to paint himself as a champion of "truth".
WATYF
You are missing the point (Score:2)
Do you know enough? If not, just shut up and stop whining about how little you've known from what others find. I truly don't know what you are trying to say here.
definitely not from "planet bush" (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps they still have the rule of law there...
--jfc
terrorism is the root password for the constitution
Laziness in Law Enforcement (Score:2)
This really is the crux of the matter. Good police work is difficult. In a democracy with human rights protections, it's supposed to be difficult, dammit!
Would-be Gonzo journalism (Score:2)
Gonzo journalism isn't what it used to be anymore, now that HST [wikipedia.org] has left.
Wired couldn't buy him a ticket? (Score:2)
There were important talks he should have attended and covered. Here's the agenda. [telestrategies.com]. But no, all we get is comments from people in the lobby.
In its heyda
Re:Wired couldn't buy him a ticket? (Score:2)
I quote:
Re:Wired couldn't buy him a ticket? (Score:2)