One would think that since we've been living in an Internet-connected society for a little over a decade (from a "Joe Average" standpoint) that people would no longer be that gullible. Alas, that isn't the case...

John Doe sees a tempting link in his email, or one served up in a web page a'la Phorm, and clicks on it. This then triggers the installation of "legalized" spyware which tracks the user's communications and browsing habits.

Amazing, the kind of tools and techniques that law enforcement and signals intelligence agencies are developing. Not that it would be hard: The botnet coders and operaters have already done all the hard work for them. Simply grab a sample of the 'bot and its controller software, and tweak it for your needs. Then, ring up the antivirus and security companies and have them modify their security applications to ignore the installed surveillance software.

Problem is, well-organized criminal organizations with the appropriate technical expertise are liable to discover the spyware anyway, and find a way to use it against the agencies responsible for its deployment (i.e., to send falsified "evidence" of their activities).

Not only that, it makes you wonder why governments blow huge amounts of cash on such technological "solutions" when the cybercooks can do the job for them for (essentially) almost nothing...

While I will concede that is indeed the case (the UK is very often referred to as a "constitutional monarchy" in political science classes), there does not seem to be an overriding "uberdocument" in the UK analogous to the US Constitution that sets an equally high standard (by comparison) against modification and/or dilution.

In the US, the barriers to amending the Constitution are quite strong. An Amendment may be proposed by agreement among 2/3 of both Legislative Houses (the House of Representatives and the Senate) or by agreement among 2/3 of the legislatures of the individual States, but ratification of said Amendment requires agreement among 3/4 of the State legislatures or agreement among 3/4 of the Constitutional Conventions held by each State to decide the matter. Quite a tall order, given our current political climate in the US...

By contrast, it seems that the barriers to the modification or dilution of ordinances within the collected body of "constitutional" law in the UK are much lower.

No, it just means they will shove the statistics with which they don't agree back up their asses where the sun don't shine.

Out of sight, out of mind...

It doesn't matter how efficient journalistic gum-shoeing becomes, because the end product will still be subject to a certain amount of spin by the publisher.

A constitution (or, at least, the US Constitution) will remain relevant for as long as people fight for its relevancy.

Any worthy constitution is more than just a bunch of laws: It is a collection of fundamental ideals, an encyclopedia of what it means to be a human being and a civilized nation, distilled to the core and set down for Posterity.

And while its laws may become outdated, the ideals represented by it and in it do not.

"I move freely 'bout Greenwich 'cause my Copyright's finiched... I'm Popeye the Sailor Man [Whoot-Whoot!]"

It's a shame how many of our rights are being curtailed in the name of "National Security".

As far as I've been able to ascertain from the article, Mr. Kerzic was standing in an area designated for use by the public. It does not appear to be a restricted area, and from what I can see from the photograph in the article, there are no signs warning against photography by the public.

However, as bad as we may think it is here in the United States (compared to the pre-9/11 world), things are much worse in the United Kingdom. The rights of the Individual in the UK are enshrined in Common Law (i.e., customary law passed down through the ages), and not explicitly delineated in any sort of constitutional document.

For example, in the US, we have a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right against self-incrimination. A recent court case implies that this right includes encryption keys: If a law enforcement agency impounds your laptop for analysis, but can't get anything out of it because the contents have been encrypted, too bad for them. Handing over the encryption key would be a form of self-incrimination, so you don't have to do it.

On the other hand, laws, ordinances, and Police reactions regarding individual freedoms can and often do change at a whim, depending on what is expedient at the time (8th paragraph, about half-way down). In addition, since the right against self-incrimination is based on Common Law, and not written as an explicit right, ordinances like the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act can easily curtail and eliminate such rights. As usual, some groups say that even these powers do not go far enough, invoking the familiar mantra of "National Security".

And these things are happening in two of the most "open and democratic" societies the world has ever seen...

And on a side-note, here's an interesting question: Who's standing in the "restricted" zone across the tracks taking the picture of the "public" train platform?

One could argue that the telephone carrier industry as a whole falls into this category. AT&T may no longer be a monopoly vis-a-vis "Ma Bell". However, one could make a case that "Alltel + AT&T + Sprint + T-Mobile + Verizon" add up to a "collective" monopoly, or (more properly) a hegemony.

Gotta disagree on this one. Cases in point: Watergate, Iran-Contra, NSA/AT&T Room 641A (not to overuse the example), Coingate, Danngate, Rodgate... That's just a small list of US Federal and State scandals, from off the top of my head; an exhaustive list would fill many, many, many pages (did I say "many"?). The first three scandals listed all revolve around "national security" in some way, shape or form; the last three scandals mostly involve personal gain and prestige.

And while all scandals go public at some point (it's not a scandal if the public never finds out about it), the "accountability" factors do little to stem the tides of backroom dealing. Either way, governments often use "accountability and transparency" to justify actions taken in the name of "national security".

Don't even get me started on tort reform in the US...

That argument could go either way: On one hand, private companies in the US appear to lack a certain "trustworthiness" because they don't need to file quarterly and yearly financial performance statements with the SEC. On the other hand, private companies aren't bound to the "profit-NOW!!" whims of a large pool of shareholders, so they tend to take a longer view of things and operate in a more conservative fashion.

Public companies in the US are somewhat more transparent, because they are required by law to file quarterly and yearly earnings statements with the SEC. These statements are available to the general public, so any underhanded activities by public companies are more likely to be noticed. However, public companies are driven by necessity to take a shorter-term, more immediate view with regard to cashflow because their shareholders demand instant gratification.

The United States under the Clinton/Gore administration already tried something similar to this; five words spring to mind: "Clipper, Skipjack, and Key Escrow". (If you need a refresher, I suggest the book "Crypto" by Steven Levy.)

The **last** thing I want is for my government to be the entity that issues the requisite public/private key pairs to the private institutions and companies with whom I do business. My business is **my** business - and not the government's business - until a **legitimate** search warrant or indictment says otherwise. And even then, it's still **my** business.

As the article posting indicates, SSL is built around a Chain of Trust. People buy SSL certificates from the likes of VeriSign, Thawte, Equifax, etc., because they are well-known and (ostensibly) trustworthy organizations.

I, for one, do not entirely trust my government. I don't trust VeriSign and crew all that much, either, but their reputations are a strong motivation for them to do their jobs reasonably well, and provide products that perform as advertised. To do otherwise would damage their reputations, resulting in lost customers and weaker profit margins.

Most governments, on the other hand, don't care much about their reputations, and have little regard for profit margins (just look at the US Government's annual budget deficit). They therefore have no compunction against using excuses such as "national security" and "protect the children" to provide (at best) or mandate (at worst) inferior solutions to technological problems.

Admittedly, some companies - like AT&T, for instance - are so large and well-entrenched that they sometimes bow to the mandates of government, and little heed the damage done to their reputations because of it.

But most companies are not that large, and can ill afford to lose face in the marketplace. Reputation is their bread-and-butter, so they do what's in their own best interests, which may even coincide with their customers' best interests.