The Age of Technological Transparency

endychavez writes "Executives and politicians may be starting to realize that privacy is dead and secrets can no longer be kept in the information age. There is always a technological trail, and transparency is pervasive. Just ask Patricia Dunn and Mark Foley. In a piece at eWeek, Ed Cone from CIO Insight talks about the specific technologies that brought them down." From the article: "Foley may have thought his IMs were disappearing into the ether as soon as they cleared his computer screen. Instead, the messages were saved, and his career was ruined, and the House leadership is left to fight for survival. We talk a lot a about transparency as a virtue in the age of the web, and hold it up as a marketing technique and a better way to run an enterprise. Sun's blogging CEO, Jonathan Schwartz, is lobbying the SEC to allow more financial information to be disclosed online. Corporations are using all manner of web-techs to speak more directly to stakeholders. But transparency needs to be understood as more than a slogan or a strategy. It's a reality. It can be imposed on you by the Internet, whether you want to be transparent or not."

Privacy is a myth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

There is no guarantee of privacy anywhere in the Constitution- only a requirement that the evidence gathered can't be used against you in court.

It were a gentlemen's agreement.

[FatSean]

Expectation of privacy was cobbled together by judicial decisions I believe. You are right, it is not enumerated in the Constitution.

They took it from us. They tricked the gullible majority with that old canard: "Sure, it gives the gov't the power to really fuck you up...but don't worry...we'll only use this power against 'bad guys'".

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

That is incorrect.

The Bill of Rights is explicitly written to define government invasions of privacy illegal (mainly in the Fourth Amendment).

It says nothing about being "used against you in court." This is merely the means courts employ to limit, in practice, the abuse of such illegally collected information. Nonetheless, it is the unreasonable search and seizure itself which is Constitutionally forbidden.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Irish_Samurai]

While I am all for privacy rights, I must ask the question. Are we entering an age where unreasonable Search and Seizure isn't required anymore to commit acts that the population perceives as an invasion of their privacy? Is it now possible for passive and non intrusive observation to yeild the same results? If so, do we need to define our privacy or attempt to limit passive observation?

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That wasn't the question. The question is, have we now advanced technologically to a point where unreasonable searches and seizures are totally unneccessary, because all information about you is already in the public sphere rather than the private sphere?

Re:

[Irish_Samurai]

EXACTLY!

My personal take on it is now is the time to define that right. We are quickly approaching a state where you can legally obtain information where previously it required unlawful acts. There is no protection for the "citizen" here.

Of course that opens up the can of worms for defining who is allowed those rights and who isn't, or when those rights can be exercised. It's a can of worms I believe is worth opening. Otherwise, those who know how to manipulate the rules have a foot up. While having the adv

unreasonable searchs and seizers

[falconwolf]

have we now advanced technologically to a point where unreasonable searches and seizures are totally unneccessary

Unreasonable searchs and seizers have never been neccessary. Anyone who disagrees prove othewise. Meanwhile to see where unreasonable searchs and seizers can lead just look at NAZI Germany and Stalin's USSR.

Falcon

Re:

[Irish_Samurai]

OK, let me rephrase it.

Is the concept of unreasonable search and seizure outdated because legally you don't have to do anything that is legally defined as unreasonable in order to gather the relvant information?

Re:

[falconwolf]

Is the concept of unreasonable search and seizure outdated because legally you don't have to do anything that is legally defined as unreasonable in order to gather the relvant information?

Now it depends on who's doing the defining. If you define it like Bush does, "I can do whatever I want because I am the President", then there's most definately a place for "unreasonable search and seizer".

Falcon

Re:

[Irish_Samurai]

That's not what I'm stating. I'm stating that you don't even have to resort to "legally unreasonable" methods to gather the relevant data.

To define unreasonable in reference to the opinion of the principle target is too open ended.

Is passive observation unreasonable search and seizure?

If so, why? Privacy is NOT defined. It is an assumed right under other constitutional amendments in regard to active information gathering. What happens when all applicable data sources are public record and all transmissions

Re:

[falconwolf]

Is passive observation unreasonable search and seizure?

It depends on where, for instance in public spaces it's reasonable, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. As a photographer though I generally ask for permission to take a photo of someone, as long as they are not identifiable I can sale any photo taken in a public space. The only tyme a signed release form is needed is if the person or people in the photo can be identified. Where it gets interesting is when a trademark is in th

Re:

[Irish_Samurai]

As a photographer though I generally ask for permission to take a photo of someone, as long as they are not identifiable I can sale any photo taken in a public space.

Great. You don't legally have to, that's my point. People do this to prevent a possible lawsuit, not because its mandatory. If you are in a public place and have an photo taken of you, you can have that image published. Otherwise papparazzi wouldn't be able to function.

Where it gets interesting is when a trademark is in the photo, for instance

I believe it is more complicated than you make it.

[rolfwind]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c onlaw/rightofprivacy.html [umkc.edu]

It starts off:

"The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of......"

Ninth Amendment: "I don't get no respect."

[Kadin2048]

This is a good point.

I think what it boils down to is this: the Constitution isn't an exclusive document. It wasn't intended to mean, "everything is illegal, except for a few certain things." They enumerated the really big important stuff that they thought the Government needed to avoid, but they weren't giving Congress a carte blanche to trample on the other rights that people had always assumed that they had.

Unfortunately, the Ninth Amendment doesn't seem to get a whole lot of respect from the USSC or anybody else. It pretty much gets ignored; rather than drawing on the "pneumbra" and other IMO shaky legal arguments, I think it would have safe to just say 'hey, people have always had a certain right to privacy, therefore it's protected under the Ninth Amendment.' That makes it harder to chisel away at established freedoms, even if they weren't one of the top eight that made it into enumerated Amendments, or into the body of the Constitution itself.

Re:

[Pentavirate]

Perhaps the framers of the U.S. constitution should have used the approach of the British, namely: Rather than enumerating your rights, everything is considered legal except for when a law makes something illegal.

They did. The bill of rights was merely a list of rights that the founders deemed so important that even the government couldn't make them illegal.

You have to be careful with the attitude that we have rights that aren't innumerated in the constitution because pragmatically anyone can misconst

Re:

[thefirelane]

There is no guarantee of privacy anywhere in the Constitution- only a requirement that the evidence gathered can't be used against you in court.

Only on /. would something this dumb be said. The constitution is not a computer program: "gee, you're right... you don't actually have a right to air"

So you're telling me the MLK's rights were not violated when the FBI threatened him with the release of his personal activities if he didn't do what the government said? Please.

It's simple, actually

[Travoltus]

Privacy falls under the definition of 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'.

It may not be removed without due process and probable cause - defined as a) conviction of a crime; or b) you're actually suspected of a crime.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Given the advance of technology to peer into every possible aspect of your life without a physical search, where does this mythical right exist?

Re:

[thefirelane]

You are just making yourself look less intelligent. Such topics have been covered in the past [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Arguably, that case only affects private property. What about credit card records for hydroponic equipment, which is arguably in the public sphere?

Re:

[falconwolf]

There is no guarantee of privacy anywhere in the Constitution- only a requirement that the evidence gathered can't be used against you in court.

Only on /. would something this dumb be said. The constitution is not a computer program: "gee, you're right... you don't actually have a right to air"

I've heard the same thing basically in the real world. I've met some who believe this and say it.

Falcon

Re:

[geekoid]

What?
Is your understanding of the constitution really that shallow?

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No, my understanding of language and technology is that great. It appears this so-called "right to privacy" was invented in the 1970s, and a little more than 30 years later, technology has advanced to the point where private spaces and private information have been de facto wiped out.

Re:

[falconwolf]

It appears this so-called "right to privacy" was invented in the 1970s

The Right to Privacy wasn't "invented" in the 1970s. In the early 1800s the USSC ruled that privacy was part of the First Admendment's Freedom of Speech, specifically that democracy required anonymous speech. There have been other USSC ruling also saying there is a right to privacy in the 1800s and 1900s including one in 1969.

Falcon

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The Right to Privacy wasn't "invented" in the 1970s. In the early 1800s the USSC ruled that privacy was part of the First Admendment's Freedom of Speech, specifically that democracy required anonymous speech.

I don't see covering up illegal actions as being anonymous speech. Nor do I see information put out in the public sphere of the world of commerce as being anonymous anything.

There have been other USSC ruling also saying there is a right to privacy in the 1800s and 1900s including one in 1969.

But

Re:

[Some_Llama]

"There is no guarantee of privacy anywhere in the Constitution- only a requirement that the evidence gathered can't be used against you in court."

Can someone please mod this down into oblivion where it belongs? Plenty of supporting posts for downmodding in reply to this thread.

It just irks me that dis-(or just bad)information is being posted as the frist post.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Depends on your point of view- I honestly think it's closer to the truth, but the courts do disagree.

The funny thing is from the technological standpoint- who ever promised you that information stored in a public network deserved any more privacy than shouting it in the park through a megaphone?

Re:

[Some_Llama]

"Depends on your point of view- ..."

Well in regards to the constitution, no it doesn't thankfully.

It is quite well understood that the constituion guarantees us from an invasive government, as all of the preplys the the GP obviously show.

"I honestly think it's closer to the truth, but the courts do disagree."

Exactly, so you posted a remark you knew to be false and thus helped to spread disinformation... do you happen to work for Fox?

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Exactly, so you posted a remark you knew to be false and thus helped to spread disinformation.

No, I posted a remark I consider to be true but which is currently considered heretical by some in hopes of sparking a more productive debate on the topic.

Thank you for proving my point that the concept is heretical, but I'd rather you joined in the debate on the subject of how information in the public sphere of commerce can be considered private.

Re:

[Some_Llama]

"No, I posted a remark I consider to be true but which is currently considered heretical by some in hopes of sparking a more productive debate on the topic."

Oh, so you're a troll.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes, but not all trolls have negative reasons for existing. I actually do believe that the original reasons for several constitutional concpets have been outstripped by technology- and I'm a supporter of a new Continental Congress to rewrite the damned thing and bring it more in line with reality as it exists today.

Re:

[falconwolf]

There is no guarantee of privacy anywhere in the Constitution- only a requirement that the evidence gathered can't be used against you in court.

Actually as early as the early 1800s, 1817 I'm thinking, the USSC ruled that privacy was a right. Privacy was guaranted as part free speech, that anonymous speech was very important to democracy. Though by no means all many papers were written anonymously during the War for Independence. Even now nobody knows for sure who wrote all of the "Federalist Papers" t

Re:

[sootman]

It was once explained to me like this: at the time the constitution was written, privacy was a natural right, like gravity. Want to have a private conversation? Walk into the middle of a big open field and have it. The constitution also doesn't say "you have the right to walk on the ground." Privacy didn't need to be explicitly listed. And, as others have pointed out, several other amendments relate to privacy, esp. the 4th and 5th.

Re:

[Stradenko]

I lie to his mother all the time...is that wrong?

Re:

[TheRaven64]

Now, it's been six or seven years since I last read the US Constitution (I'm British, so it doesn't directly affect me), but I seem to recall that the Bill of Rights made it very clear that it was not an enumeration of all rights that individuals had. If I remember history correctly, there was some dispute amongst the founding fathers as to whether it should be included at all, since people might start saying 'the Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee your right to X, so you don't have that right.'

Re:

[Zenaku]

God damn right. Why is it that the Brits understand our Constitution better than most Americans? The bill of rights is NOT an exhaustive enumeration of all rights, and a right can exist without being listed there. The bill of rights is merely a list of those rights the founding father's were specifically concerned enough to protect with a written "guarantee." (In quotes because it seems they no longer apply).

I'm getting tired of hearing "there is no such right" because the constitution doesn't specific

Re:Privacy is a myth

[jfengel]

There's an explicit statement that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." (the tenth amendment).

Unfortunately, that's been rendered effectively null by a vigorous reading of the Commerce Clause, "The Congress shall have Power ... to regulate Commerce ... among the several States". (Ellipses are for clarity, not to torture the syntax.)

Just about everything has been crammed into that. The original civil rights laws were justified on the idea that merchants have to sell you stuff no matter what your race because you might be from out of state (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States et al. (1964)). California's in-state medical marijuana laws were overturned because legal marijuana, even in-state, affects the flow of marijuana elsewhere (marijuana being a fungible commodity).

So you can pretty much stick a fork in the idea that the 10th Amendment reserves you any rights that Congress can't take away. There are other places where you might derive a right to privacy (say, Amendment IV, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"), but Amendment X won't help.

Re:

[Homology]

> So you can pretty much stick a fork in the idea that the 10th Amendment reserves you any rights that Congress can't take away.

Exactly, it was proved once again when Military Commissions Act 2006 [zmag.org] was passed: rollback habeas corpus, use torture, and provide immunity for US officials from torture prosecution.

Re:

[jfengel]

Well, that one's still got the Supreme Court to get past. There's a chance that that it will be ruled unconstitutional, at least to the degree that it applies to Americans. But non-citizens never had any rights under the Constitution.

They do have some rights under the Geneva Convention, which is the law of the land of the US, and it's possible that the Supreme Court could find the two laws incompatible and chuck the Military Commissions Act. But you won't find that out for at least two years; the wheels of

Re:

[sgtrock]

But non-citizens never had any rights under the Constitution.

This simply isn't true! The amendments clearly bear this out as does the Constitution itself. Over and over again, there is no reference to citizens but to people or persons. Even the section on elections simply leaves it up to the states to resolve for themselves.

The Federal courts have always recognized that the Constitution covers all persons in the United States. Why do you think Bush & Co. kept all the enemy combatants in Gitmo? If t

Re:

[symbolic]

How does it define "signatory"? If al quaeda isn't eligible to become a signatory (and I seriously doubt that it is), then your suggestion that the US is not bound might well be inaccurate.

Second, if this is already a part of the Geneva Convention, then why the need for all of this rediculous legislation?

Finally, I might point out - that the US erroneously decide (via it's commander-in-chief) that it is above the Geneva Convention, and pass all manner of laws to codify it - the fact is that with respect to

Re:

[jfengel]

It doesn't matter if al Qaeda is a signatory: we're bound by it. We adopted the treaty, that makes it the law of the land.

The loophole is that the GC applies to "legal combatants", who do things like wear uniforms, follow a chain of command, etc. Member of al Qaeda don't do that, so the GC arguably doesn't apply to them.

It gets tricky from there. The supposedly "illegal combatants" have not been proven to be illegal in any court, and the way the Bush administration has read it, the mere charge is sufficient

Re:

[jfengel]

That's correct: al Qaeda members have done things that put them outside of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

However, although that's true of al Qaeda in general, there is currently no way to appeal a claim that one is not a member of al Qaeda. Wearing civilian clothes is in fact a terrible crime in a terrorist, since it puts civilians at risk, but it's something that civilians do all the time.

Under the current interpretations, the mere accusation that one is a terrorist is enough to put one forever

Re:

[NoOneInParticular]

Indeed, the military Geneva conventions doesn't apply anymore. You are no longer at war, you are an occupying nation. Congratulations. Now you are stuck with the civilian part of the Geneva conventions. You're no longer dealing with soldiers, but with organized crime. It is a question of quelling the crime/rebellion and you can do one of two things: establish law and order by rigorous prosecution and fair trial, or by trying to stump out the rebellion by sheer force and brutality. So you've taken the second

Re:

[diablomonic]

Thatd be fine dr damage, if it weren't for the fact that

A) the people being tortured are often innocent of any "terrorist" activity, as seen in various extraordinary rendition victims that ended up being released months later (but of course not apologised to or compensated for or given justice by punishing those responsible for months of torture)

B) The US has no real chain of command for responsibility purposes anyway. Bush and his cronies dont have "the buck stops here" signs, they have "I didnt do it,

Re:

[grimwell]

That is very interesting and I honestly didn't know that. Thanks.

Then to offer protection for the current US administration, it depends on if the war in Iraq is a war of aggression or not. If the Iraqi war is a war of aggression, then the US would have been the first to break conventions. So that would free Iraqi allies from being bound by the conventions, yes?

Re:

[ozmanjusri]

but actively undermines the provisions of the Geneva conventions by removing the incentives created within the conventions for adhering to them.

The greatest incentive for adhering to the Geneva Conventions is not becoming barbarians, even if those you are in conflict with are already barbaric.

The goal of a people at war is rarely to become their enemy.

To illustrate your point

[megaditto]

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in the cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it has in some way obstructed the interstate commerce.

J. Edgar Hoover

Re:

[yaphadam097]

Except that when we talk about the tenth amendment in this context we should also consider the ninth:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The question is, what types of privacy do people reasonably expect? And don't these reasonable expectations essentially amount to "unenumerated" rights?

I also think that we should always consider the founders' intents when discussing these things. Some interesting background her

states rights

[falconwolf]

Unfortunately, that's been rendered effectively null by a vigorous reading of the Commerce Clause, "The Congress shall have Power ... to regulate Commerce ... among the several States". (Ellipses are for clarity, not to torture the syntax.)

Yeap, especially the recent USSC ruling on medical marijuana. And the Justices didn't even feel the need to back their decision by any clause or section of the Constitution though that was the argument used for states rights. Those Justices that ruled against state

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Especially since it doesn't physically exist anymore anyway- it isn't THAT hard to get, say, your medical insurance records.

Filtering

[TheRecklessWanderer]

Anything that catches stupid people is good. I used to tell people years ago, when I ran a computer store: "Don't put anything on the internet that you wouldn't be comfortable shouting across a crowded room." How hard is that to understand? If you can't figure that out, you have no business running a huge conglomerate like HP. Man, oh man.

Re:

[King_TJ]

That's an oversimplification... so maybe that's why people find it "hard to understand". If I'm on my *personal* computer and I instant message a friend, I have an understanding that the content is destined to travel directly from point A (my IP address) to point B (the receiver's IP address). Yes, it will travel through other people's routers and networks on the way, but it's generally assumed that such traffic isn't subject to review by humans, in-transit.

Chatting over IM on the net is much more like ca

Re:

[King_TJ]

First off, it doesn't have to. I've had IM chats where we established a "direct connect" type of chat session, bypassing any central server. It's just like doing the old /DCC CHAT command in IRC.

But even when it does, I still maintain that users should expect a reasonable level of privacy. If nothing else, through simple obscurity - because millions of sessions are flowing through a major IM service's servers each day. What are the chances your particular chat is being read by a 3rd. party? (I would ho

Re:

[grimwell]

What's keeping the other party from recording the IM conversation and maybe later leaking it?

Cash? ;)

Re:

[cerberusss]

Yeah well, that's not going to help the gentleman in TFA.

Re:

[Pentavirate]

It's also come to light that Foley's IM with the 18 year old former page was set up as something of a prank. The 18 year old kid was egging him on so that he could take the log and show his friends and laugh about it. Somewhere during the passing around, politicos got ahold of it and decided to use it against the congressman. As long as there is a log on either computer, you have no idea where your IM conversations are going to end up and who are going to read them. In fact, I regularly save tech suppor

Re:

[vertinox]

"Don't put anything on the internet that you wouldn't be comfortable shouting across a crowded room."

The problem with this is that companies are taking my information without consent and shouting it all day long over the PA system and bullhorns at a croweded Football stadium.

Most of this information I never put up on the internet myself... It wouldn't bother me other than the fact someone can take it and run my credit score into the ground and/or possibly get me arrested for things I didn't do.

Lessons Learned?

[Kadin2048]

There's a certain amount of irony in that the issue which gets the folks in Congress interested in technology, is watching one of their own get busted because he didn't understand that what he was sending over the "tubes" could be saved at either end.

I guess if you can't convince them that "knowledge is power," maybe we should work on "knowledge is not getting indicted."

Re:

[wickedsteve]

So those tubes are transperant tubes, eh?

Oh Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean all those chat room transcripts where I posed as an eighteen year-old 5'4" 110lb blonde cheerleader on AOL back in 1995 are still out there somewhere. . .?

Re:Oh Crap

[Aqua_boy17]

That...was you???

Electronic trail

[PIPBoy3000]

It's been happening for quite awhile. Nearly ten years ago, I had the displeasure of dealing with someone within our organization that was exploiting security holes to gain more access than they should have had. Once we were on to them, we were deluged with evidence - weblogs, files on the PC, program history, and more.

The moral of the story is stay squeaky clean, or assume that some day you'll have to pay the piper. Your wife could be looking at your browser history. Your e-mail could be hacked. Live life as if all your secrets were public knowlege.

It's strange to think that technology really could lead to a more moral society. Usually politicians are preaching the opposite.

Re:

[giorgiofr]

Eh, "encrypt your data and secure your communication" is a better strategy than that.

Re:

[Knuckles]

your wife could be looking at your browser history

If you cannot be honest with your wife, then change that or get a divorce.

Re:

[feepness]

If you cannot be honest with your wife, then change that or get a divorce.

Spoken like someone with less than five years of marriage under their belt.

I can be perfectly honest with my wife. I'm just not interested in discussing how those pants make her butt look, or more specifically, discussing the incorrectness of my opinion of how those pants make her butt look.

Which is why the answer is always: "Just fine, sweetie. Just fine."

Re:

[Some_Llama]

"Spoken like someone with less than five years of marriage under their belt. "

Spoken like someone with less than 15 years under yours, unless you can be truthful to your wife, and your wife can appreciate your truthfulness (and vice versa), your marriage is doomed.

DOOMED I SAY!!!!

Re:

[Knuckles]

I'm just not interested in discussing how those pants make her butt look

So you have a website about you wife's butt? You were talking about your browser history ...

Re:

[pipingguy]

It's strange to think that technology really could lead to a more moral society.

Morality is not the same thing as honesty. I prefer the latter over the former, as "morality" depends on one's interpretation.

not just politicians and companies

[Keebler71]

I'd like to point out that it is not just the pols and corporations that are learning these lessons... The media as well has and will continue to be 'bit' by this. While they once held a monolpoly on information, recent doctored photos scandals (Lebanon), CBS (forged?) documents, etc.. have all placed added scrutiny to the media's analysis, sources and methods.

karma

[User 956]

Foley may have thought his IMs were disappearing into the ether as soon as they cleared his computer screen. Instead, the messages were saved, and his career was ruined, and the House leadership is left to fight for survival.

Well, the bright side of all this is that it brings it home to these people that they need to understand how this technology works, because it's becoming a cornerstone of our society. Ted Stevens, for example, might actually take 5 minutes and find out how the intertubes actually wo

Re:

[Linux Ate My Dog!]

The reverse hopefully might also happen: we will all learn that a humungous amount of people have secrets that are not currently socially sanctioned (fetishes, desires, habits, phobias, fears) and we could become a less puritanical and more understanding society as a result.

Many, many of the people wagging their fingers at Foley are probably also sighing in relief "At least they didn't find out about my...". Shame makes people suicidal, and act irrationally, and be vulnerable to blackmailers and abusive peo

Did we learn NOTHING from the Sam Jain fiasco?

[bunions]

honestly, those HP execs wouldn't have had all these troubles if they'd paid more attention to somethingawful and penny-arcade some years back.

That's just the nature of information

[Reality Master 201]

If you do enough shady crap long enough, you get caught eventually. You can be clever about it, but usually people get careless and/orinvolve one or more other parties.

If Folley had written letters to the boy on clay tablets or papyrus, using technology available at least since the age of the ancient Egyptians, he'd still have run the exact same risk. Because he would still have been acting like a creepy, hypocritical pedophile and still would have been committing statements proving that to a semi-permane

The pretext is nonsense.

[Jerk City Troll]

... [S]ecrets can no longer be kept in the information age. There is always a technological trail, and transparency is pervasive.

That is silly.

Such a statement is analogous to declaring security dead because systems have been compromised in the past. Like security, the means to privacy must and are continuing to evolve. Adoption of these mechanisms may be a bit behind the curve, but that in no way means that privacy is “dead” for anyone or everyone. In the past, rotational cyphers, Enigma, and “security envelopes” were enough to keep your messages secure (for a while). These days, we have incredibly powerful tools for keeping our data private, we simply have to be willing to use them.

And that is happening. Who does not use strong encryption for conducting electronic commerce? Nobody. As for privacy in email and other forms of communication, eventually, after enough scandals like those recently at Hewlett-Packard, people will adapt to protect themselves. Then the baseline will be raised and those who would wish to violate privacy will resume efforts in advancing the sophistication of their tools. Then those on the privacy side will move on again. This cycle will repeat again and again.

Privacy is an arms race, in a manner of speaking, and just because privacy is behind at times in no way means that it is a lost cause.

Mod parent insightful

[Travoltus]

Well said.

Now where are the Libertarians to oppose Government interference in the privacy/surveillance arms race?

*chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp*...

Secrecy isn't dead.

[Darlantan]

Secrecy is no more dead than it has been for a long while. There are some people who just don't seem to understand the medium. Sending messages across the internet is not like passing a letter to a person across the table from you. It's more like passing a letter along through a chain of 20 people -- any of which can read it as they handle it. You don't send secret things that way, or if you do, there's this little thing called encryption that you might want to look into. Also, much like a letter, once it is out of your hands you can't gaurantee that it won't come up at some later time when you least want it to. Also, are you _sure_ you can trust the person you're communicating with? Can you even verify that you're talking with who you think you're talking to?

The same basic rules of secrecy that have always applied still apply today. First and foremost, if you want to keep something REALLY secret, keep it to yourself!

Privacy, however, is a different matter.

The chickens have returned home to roost

[Travoltus]

The Republicans have spent so much time destroying our privacy and installing their surveillance state and now they have fallen victim to their own monster.

I suspect they will be huge champions of privacy after this.

Re:

[advocate_one]

Have you seen how Fox news is reporting on the Foley incident [dailykos.com]??? they're effectively claiming that he's a Democrat [boingboing.net]!!!

Yup, saw that also

[Travoltus]

They're hoping to confuse just enough people to make a difference.

Democrats should rip them a new one over this and make them apologize.

Re:

[Artifakt]

There's an axiom in the military: Once may be just happenstance, twice may be coincidence, but three times is enemy action!

From the counts I'm seeing other places, Fox has made this same 'mistake' at least five times in two days, labeling not just Foley but Hastert as (D). The exact count is confused as some of these 'mistakes' were on repeating display bars and no one is evidently sure just how many times some of them cycled before they were corrected. Either Fox is crewed by people who couldn't get a job

Re:

[Software]

I suspect they will be huge champions of privacy after this.

As much as I'd like to think so, I doubt this will be the case. I don't think the Republicans would like to be seen as doing anything that might appear to favor Foley. Plus they're just too committed to increasing surveillance of the general public. All in the name of terrorism, of course. Or protecting the children from the Foleys of the world. Or something.

Re:

[kbielefe]

Mark Foley is not the victim in this case. If the republican party is a victim of anything, it is the victim of Foley's misbehavior. Republicans have this crazy idea called taking responsibility for one's actions, which is why Foley resigned instead of whining about being a victim of a political witch hunt. It sounds absurd, but we actually like it when terrorists or paedophiles are held to account, even if they're republicans.

All that being said, I had no idea that the IMs in question were internationa

I suspect they will be huge champions of privacy

[falconwolf]

The Republicans have spent so much time destroying our privacy and installing their surveillance state and now they have fallen victim to their own monster.

I suspect they will be huge champions of privacy after this

I curtainly hope so but I doubt it.

Falcon

booyah, hole in one

[Travoltus]

Well said. I can't find one error in what you posted. Clinton did set America up for this.

Sadly, the Republicans have not learned this lesson, either.

The USAPATRIOT Act and the REAL ID Act will be especially onerous in the hands of the Democrats, as they will have had more time to actually plan to use it maliciously (as will the Republicans, but they may lose Congress and not have the power to wield it as wickedly as they want).

A series of tubes

[Foofoobar]

Foley may have thought his IMs were disappearing into the ether as soon as they cleared his computer screen

Actually from my understanding, most Senators are under the impression that the internet is a series of tubes [boingboing.net] for sticking your penis into.

Miniscule Payback...

[garcia]

"Executives and politicians may be starting to realize that privacy is dead and secrets can no longer be kept in the information age. There is always a technological trail, and transparency is pervasive.

Starting to? No, they realized that long ago -- what they are finally realizing is that they are no longer immune to the effects their legislation has created.

The more bullshit that the administrations, Congresses, and Houses create, the more the community will buck against. We might be fighting the war di

This is proof positive ...

[dkleinsc]

When the world relies on computers, geeks collectively rule the world. Of course, most of them never use that power, since they'd much rather go home and kill off some demons or spend quality time with their children, but a well-placed geek could have just about every leader in every field (excepting geekdom of course) by the balls.

And no one is concerned?

[vinnythenose]

Having evidence on your hard drive these days is pretty much a guarantee of guilt. However, people seem to forget that should someone want to, it is relatively easy to plant information.

You ever piss off a pscyhopathic computer geek and you're screwed.

You'll turn on your computer one day to find illicit files all over the hard drive with timestamps ranging back through history. It'll look like you've been collecting whatever it is for months.

Or hell, someone doesn't like you, they forge their log files on their computer and claim you were sending nasty IM stuff, when the authorities don't see the matching logs on your computer, they will just assume that you cleared them out to protect yourself.

Yup, those timestamps are obviously immutable written in stone and never lie.

When will they learn...?

[filesiteguy]

You know, first it was some Chinese emporer trying to burn the bamboo parchment, then it was Nixon trying to erase tapes (remember those?) from his private discussions. Then it is Ley trying to shred documents and emails. Now it is congressman trying to hide behind the idea that the net is fleeting.

My guess is that in fifty or so years, some senator will be brought down not knowing the two way VOIP product was archiving everything at some central server.

Maybe he should have talked to Senator Gore, who invented the thing. He'd know where all the super sekret filez are kept.

Bad example using Foley

[Dan East]

Foley may have thought his IMs were disappearing into the ether as soon as they cleared his computer screen.

That's a pretty stupid assumption. Why would he think they disappeared? Um, if they disappeared then what would be the point of sending them? He was sending messages to a recipient completely outside his control. They guy obviously got thrills by pushing things to the limit, and flirting with being discovered. It was only a matter of time before one of the recipients simply forwarded the messages

Re:

[wdhowellsr]

Now it turns out the IMs might have been a prank by the page involved. He has lawyered up with Timonthy McVeigh's old lawyer (which can't be good considering McVeigh was executed) and was supposedly goaded into creating the fake IM's. That is the scarier problem since emails and IM's or almost any computer information can be faked, time-stamped and passed off as real by anyone reading this post. I don't think we have seen the last of the dirty tricks on either side of the aisle. It's funny, I always tho

Who says transparency is a virtue?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

We talk a lot a about transparency as a virtue in the age of the web

Speak for yourself.

Personally, I'm not at all convinced. I value my own privacy. Perhaps more objectively, I recognise that no-one is perfect, and if you dig hard enough you can turn up dirt on anyone. I also recognise that most people in the world are basically good, decent people, and I would prefer to respect a reasonable level of privacy and live in a world where we saw the good in people. You can't do that in a world where everyone's whole life story is computerised, often against their will and without their knowledge, and the media delight in data mining on anyone of any conceivable interest (or at least, worth a few more sales).

Now, governments on the other hand, they should have no right to privacy; on the contrary, IMHO they should be required to justify any attempt to withhold information from the public to an independent authority. Businesses should also be subject to much stricter openness requirements than individuals.

A different kind of transparency

[m0nstr42]

The headline made me think of a totally different and wholly more positive thing. I think we're approaching an age of technological transparency in another sense as well; being that technology is becoming more and more transparent to the user. You no longer need to understand unix to profficiently utilize a computer for day-to-day tasks. You don't need to know anything about the technology behind antilock brakes or active stability control to benefit from a safer automobile. Information transfer is ubi

The Hobgoblin of My Little Mind

[XLawyer]

How to be consistent? One man's treasured "transparency" is another's outrageous "death of privacy". Certainly no technical distinction exists between my IMs, your IMs, and Foley's IMs. Nor is there a technical distinction between the way Foley's secrets were exposed and the way anyone else's could be exposed.

As a U.S. representitive wasn't he aware...

[ivanmarsh]

That recent legislation requires your ISP to keep a record of your internet traffic?

Recommendation: Deniable Encryption

[arodland]

Use a tool such as Off-the-Record Messaging [cypherpunks.ca]. You get authentication to protect you against man-in-the-middle attacks, strong encryption, and a clever scheme that makes it so that if someone does manage to break a key and read a conversation, or if one of the parties to the conversation snitches, it still can't be proven that you've said anything in particular; the key material for authentication is published after the fact, so that while it's valid at the time you're having the conversation, afterwards anyone could forge a message that would pass authentication. So if someone comes out and says that you said X, and that they have logs and packet dumps to prove it, you can "prove" that you actually said Y, and that you have logs and packet dumps to prove it, and from a mathematical perspective both of your claims are equally credible -- either or both of you could be presenting a forgery. Fun!

Re:

[Aqua_boy17]

Well I would not want to defend him either, but his resignation in the middle of a re-election campaign could be considered a tacit admission of guilt by some.

That said, I've been amazed of the spin that the conservative media has been putting on this. For one thing, they're all questioning the timing and making this look like a liberal smear campaign. For another, why is everyone focused on outing the page instead of protecting the identity of someone who may have been a victim of sexual predation? Is

Re:

[westlake]

Obviously his admissions so far don't bode well for him being innocent of the charges, but the media (and people in general) need to tone down the pre-guilt.

"Evidence of flight is evidence of guilt." Foley bolted as soon as the story broke on ABC Bews. No one -- not the Speaker of the House --- not Foley's own attorney --- has dared to challenge the authenticity of the IMs.

Re:

[kbielefe]

Sorry, I had to stop laughing because I mispronounced "doings" in my head with the oi as in "oil" (I've been reading a lot of Russian lately), transforming it into a pseudo-slang word that changes the meaning of the sentence a lot.

I agree with what you said, with one addition. I'm not narcissistic enough to believe that the government cares at all about what I do, not to mention cares enough to devote enough resources to piece together my electronic footprints. On the contrary, I believe they expend a g