Column: Wiretapping's Overreach

40

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Mungo

It's only a matter of time before a terrorist group gets their hands on a nuke.
The only way we can delay that day is by data mining everyones communications.

avatar

Nimrod

LMFAO. this is a JOKE, right? Because surly non of MPC readers are truly this stupid.

avatar

Mungo

I now reolize there is at least one. ;)

avatar

Nimrod

you are a complete and utter fking tool

avatar

Mungo

CAn you please repeat that? My data mining software was updating and we missed your witty come back.

avatar

Nimrod

i guess you really must be stupid or something. why would you need data mining software to capture a comment that you directly replied to?

avatar

Mungo

What?

avatar

DarkQuark

I worry more about Google than I do the Feds as they are collecting as much as they can about you while you use the "free" services. They have a net out there Obama cannot even dream of for catching your data and your habits.

Of course sometimes its not about who knows something, but who else will know about it too. Like the Feds.

avatar

Sentinel137

It Has been always be Simi Known for a very long time That any one who owns any type of transmitting device is being watch or Track, Telephone,Cell Phone, Computer hook to an out side line,You Own a home, You Pay taxes, Social Security Number, One can be track and eves drop on in some form or another without even knowing about it, This is not New News, It Just came to lite to make people More aware of what is going on recently,
With the advent of the Computer and Now so called super computers it just makes it easier to compile the Information Faster, Face Book People Tops the easy list to fine out something about some one, Up there with it is As most would Go to first is the Google with the other search engines in play as well, Bottom Line some one wants to be into Your Stuff,and mostly cant mine there own thing but hats is the way it is weather its Big Government or just a single board Kid at home with nothing better to do with them self's,
So here it is, One has to be careful and wise when speaking on the Phone of any type, Be careful here that Cell phones can give the ability to be track where you are, Be careful what you write and what you are looking for on your computer as ISP's Log whats inbound and out bound as well as your very own machines, And Most of all Be cool about what You Do,

avatar

AFDozerman

This is why I hate "App Stores" and love the FOSS moment. You have no clue what you are going to get when you install straight from a closed down environment. FOSS can't solve every problem, mostly due to quality issues, but when I can use it, I do.

avatar

ThomasLG

But do you actually review the source code for the tools you use? Just because it's OSS, and you HAVE the source, unless you REVIEW the source, then you don't really know what you have any more than someone who "takes the word" of a COTS supplier!

avatar

AFDozerman

That's where the community comes into play.

avatar

b_c_pc

This sounds a lot like the same thing they tried to pull with pushing the Clipper chip back in the early 1990s.

avatar

steve771

Barring some Egyptian like revolt, nothing will change (and we in the US are far from reaching THAT point). The whistle blowers will get crushed and the political machine continues to devour everything in it's wake. Move along.

avatar

ThomasLG

As I tell the students in my Computer Science classes, you should have no expectation to privacy online. There is no "right to privacy". There's no constitutional amendment granting it. Anything you post online should be something you deem viewable by your boss, your priest, your mom, and the police, because it probably IS viewable by nearly anyone with enough resources to get to it.

avatar

fung0

It's one thing to Google somebody's public data, or check their Facebook page, and another to spend millions, if not billions, installing secret and probably unconstitutional back doors in commercial systems entrusted with carrying personal and business communications.

The government seems to get pretty huffy when the public roots through IT'S personal data. I don't see why the public can't get at least that angry about the government spending their tax money to demolish any reasonable expectation of privacy online.

Even if you're deaf to the human-rights argument, or insensitive to government overreach and the destruction of the Constitution, online spying is a bad idea on a purely practical level. The government claims (with rather weak justification) that it needs secrecy to do its job. But the Internet definitely needs some expectation of privacy and confidentiality, if only for the conduct of e-commerce.

avatar

jbitzer

9th amendment, try reading it. Thanks :)

avatar

shafter

I think you mean 4th amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It is from this that what rights we have, as far as privacy from the Government, are derived. The question is whether the NSA violated this or if The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in its post Patriot Act amended state violates this. A further question is if it does not violate the 4th amendment are the people willing to exchange privacy in the hope of safety and if so how much privacy?

avatar

Mungo

The legislature, the judiciary and the executive branches have all approved of the NRA Data mining .
Wouldn't that fulfil the " Oath and obligation" requirement and thus make the NSA actions constitutional and legal?

avatar

jbitzer

They can all approve of whatever they wish, it doesn't make it constitutional, and since the supreme court has not ruled on it, I'll go ahead an maintain its unconstitutionality since you know, it violates constitutional freedoms.

avatar

MaximumMike

Stop with the facts already. Those who approve of what the government is doing don't care about them and are unwilling to consider them.

avatar

jbitzer

I know, why bother? I guess the faint glimmer of hope that one of the "it keeps us safe from terr'ists!" will hopefully change their mind and realize there is a greater chance of being killed by a toddler than a terrorist, and decide their rights aren't worth giving up for that.

avatar

MaximumMike

Do you have any clue what you're talking about?

avatar

jbitzer

No, I'm referring to the 9th amendment, which reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Any time someone likes to throw out "you have no constitutional right.... Blah blah blah" crap, you can point them here.

It says this list does not give grounds to deny the existence of other rights by virtue of them not being in this list.

Right to privacy is assuredly real, just because the founders didn't foresee the ease of which it could be violated in the future as they did the enumerated rights, that it would require special mention, does not negate its existence. But thanks for the comment.

avatar

The Mac

what has that got to do with anything?

the ninth amendment just says that any implicit rights not otherwise mentioned does not constitute a denial of said right.

you have no right to privacy online, there is no right to enumerate.

If the internet was owned by the government, you might have some basis for you statement.

As its privately owned, as is the phone system, and the tv system, there is no application here.

avatar

jbitzer

You don't seem to understand. Let me explain it to you, I'll use little words.

The original poster claimed no constitutional right to privacy. The 9th amendment specifically states that the listed rights in the 1-8th are not a complete list of the only rights you have. The Constitution limits powers of the government, it does not grant rights. The right to privacy is inherent and retained by the individual, if the document listed the only rights you had, then people could just slap your image onto products as an endorsement for instance, because you have no constitutionally listed right to your image.

You absolutely have a right to privacy, and since this is the government specifically going after information to store on people, it is an invasion of their rights. This is not you posting a giant billboard and being mad people see the information, this is akin to a person using directional microphones to hear a conversation you are having in your home. The government doesn't own my home, does that give them the right to look in my windows and watch my every move? This is not a public area where you have no expectation of privacy when they are intercepting emails, if you think that, try sharing some emails between the president of your company and investors and see how the "internet is public with no privacy" argument holds up in your trial.

avatar

The Mac

clearly YOU misunderstood the op.

you have no right to privacy ONLINE.

You are using a 3rd party service, you are subject to their terms of use.

If they want to take all your personal information, and usage data and give it to whomever they please, they can. Obviously baring intentionally disclosing banking information and SS#s or any information covered by consumer credit and banking laws, etc. If you put that info in an email, then its your fault.

The only "right" you have is to not use their service.

avatar

jbitzer

Quote:
There is no "right to privacy". There's no constitutional amendment granting it.

See, putting periods there make those statements complete stand alone thoughts.

Is there something wrong with your eyes?

Oh, no wait, you want to be an argumentative dickhead.

Sadly, only in the internet age has this type of behavior become prevalent, but thanks to "useful idiots" like you, they see that they will have people ignorant of their rights, or company cheerleaders that will defend them.

Keep giving up your rights. Funny how doing the same thing with phone records, health care information, etc are illegal, but all the sudden, we change the storage and transmission methods and it's perfectly A-OK!

avatar

The Mac

hes specifically referring to online privacy. And specifically to information YOU transmit, not stored by institutions.

learn to read.

If you want to continually take thing out of context, im not interested in having this debate.

Ad hominem attacks arent exactly helping your case, lets keep this civil for a change,

avatar

MaximumMike

Bullshit. He specifically referenced the lack of any Constitutional Amendment granting any right to privacy whatsoever. How the hell could the writers of the Constitution have known anything about the internet? Quit lying and learn to read.

>>If you want to continually take thing out of context, im not interested in having this debate.

That's the only thing you know how to do. You can't even keep your own comments in context much less anyone else's.

avatar

jbitzer

Yep, you are speaking for someone else, and I'm taking it out of context. Let me play the game by your rules:

You have no right to online free speech. here is no "right to free speech". There's no constitutional amendment granting it.

Now I change the right he's referring to, and leave the rest of his comments intact. Does it make sense to you now?

People have the mistaken impression that you only have the rights listed in the constitution. It is a wrong assumption.

If I send something in email, it should have exactly the same protections as if I say it on the telephone, or mail it in a letter. The NSA wiretaps without warrants and the Post office scans every piece of mail though, so I guess it already does, but people are already ok with those violations, but that's topic for another rights eroding conversation.

This article specifically deals with law enforcement insisting backdoors be installed in a product, so let's put that in a different context - are you ok with the police insisting every door lock be given a master police key, so they can come in and look around your house whenever they want without a warrant to make sure you're on the level? I would hope not, because in America we have the presumption of innocence, you can't just decide to look for crimes a random person might have committed and search their stuff until you find one. You have to have evidence or reasonable suspicion of a specific crime, and then you may get a warrant to search for evidence of that crime. That is also why stop and frisk is so reprehensible.

I'll take back the argumentative dick claim if you want to stop talking like one eg: that a company owns your private information by reason of you doing business with them. I said before you wouldn't like the grocery store turning over the list of snack foods you bought to your cardiologist and health insurer without your consent, you should be doubly suspicious of the government seeking private information.

avatar

dgrmouse

HAHA. Thank you for a hilarious read, jbitzer. Without question, you're the guy I would want teaching my kids.

avatar

jbitzer

I'm glad everyone enjoyed my responses. I take rights seriously, and people's apathy about protecting them doubly so.

avatar

MaximumMike

I take our Constitutional rights seriously as well. And I agree with everything you're saying about the 9th Amendment. But I think that in this instance the 4th Amendment suffices to grant us Constitutional rights to privacy online.

avatar

jbitzer

Well, I agree that 4th amendment applies here, but the "there is no right to privacy" crowd needs to get the 9th amendment memo. I think the 4th though more protects due process than privacy too.

avatar

MaximumMike

I see your point about due process. I think the 4th pretty explicitly explains what level of privacy we can have where the government is concerned and what steps they must take in order to legally infringe on that privacy. However, it says nothing of other privacy rights, like our privacy from our neighbors. But fortunately we have the 9th for that.

avatar

MaximumMike

Stop with the rational analogies. They will entirely escape him and he will just insist they don't apply and dismiss them. You're better off with the "argumantative dick" approach. He'll cry about it, but at least it won't go over his head.

avatar

Refuge88

I feel like I wasted my time reading this. :-(

avatar

praack

probably because the article appears as if it is incomplete. i would have to dig up the april edition to compare and see if what they posted here was a complete representation.

this seems a bit off.

Calea asked for backddors to be inserted into the software- also that warrent's would not be needed for online communication depending on type- this was an attempt to break the need to get warrants to collect information as to who you contacting.

today we see the fallout- they don;t require warrents to demand details such as phone numbers, amount of time on the phone etc- only to actively listen.

avatar

Refuge88

Thanks for that, when reading it I understood what she was saying, but the entire article seemed to me either like a poor quality highschool report done in under an hour, or just an incompelte thought/assignment.

I see where she is going with it, and the argument is valid. I just wish it were a more complete article. Esspecially on such a topic.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.