Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Government Privacy United States Politics

Technical Risks of the US Protect America Act 141

Posted by kdawson from the holes-and-sherman-tanks dept.
A group of respected security researchers has released a paper on the security holes that would be opened up if a broad warrantless wiretapping law is passed. The subject could hardly be more timely, as Congress is debating the subject now. Steve Bellovin, Matt Blaze, Whit Diffie, Susan Landau, Peter Neumann, and Jennifer Rexford have released a preprint of Risking Communications Security: Potential Hazards of the Protect America Act (PDF), which will appear in the January/February 2008 issue of IEEE Security and Privacy. It will hit the stands in a few weeks. From Matt Blaze's blog posting: "As someone who began his professional carrier in the Bell System (and who stayed around through several of its successors), the push for telco immunity represents an especially bitter disillusionment for me. Say what you will about the old Phone Company, but respect for customer privacy was once a deeply rooted point of pride in the corporate ethos. There was no faster way to be fired (or worse) than to snoop into call records or facilitate illegal wiretaps, well intentioned or not. And it was genuinely part of the culture; we believed in it, even those of us ordinarily disposed toward a skeptical view of the official company line. Now it all seems like just another bit of cynical, focus-group-tested PR."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Technical Risks of the US Protect America Act More

Technical Risks of the US Protect America Act

Comments Filter:

  • Call your senators (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Steeltalon ( 734391 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @02:53PM (#22225588)
    The only thing that we can do is look at material like this and make sure that we communicate these points to those who represent us. It's only natural to be cynical about the likelihood of making a difference with your call, but unless you take that action we'll never know if we could stop this thing.

    • Re:Call your senators (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bleh-of-the-huns ( 17740 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @02:59PM (#22225700)
      I wish that was true.. and honestly I thought it was somewhat true.. till after having a conversation with a friend of mine and her roomate. They both work for Senators, in one case that individual is actually the person who filters all the calls that go into a senators office, and decides what gets through.. and what does not... (Apparently most of the calls they get involve black helicopters.. go figure). I mentioned the latest FISA related stuff, and her response was that the Senator has "people" that research that stuff all day and inform the senator.. to which my response was that, that was not the point I was trying to make, and that the point I was making is that the people they represent are against said bills, not whether they are cooks or not. She shrugged her shoulders... at me... Which leads me to believe, that the people the senators hire (which obviously fall in line with the senators agenda), have no interest in hearing from constituents, but rather already have the answer, and are only really researching the questions.

      I honestly hope this scenario is incorrect, but that is the impression I got from that little conversation.

      • Re:Call your senators (Score:5, Insightful)

        by flaming error ( 1041742 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:04PM (#22225786) Journal
        The day my "representatives" listen to me is the day they learn I donated more than the telco industry.

      • spot on (Score:4, Interesting)

        by kneemoe ( 1042818 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:08PM (#22225842)
        unfortunately you got the right impression. living/working in Albany, NY I get to see a lot of this with friends that work in (state) senators' offices, nothing ever gets to them without being filtered and they already know where they stand on bigger issues and outright ignore their constituents unless the media gets involved (like spitzer and his give illegals drivers licenses thing)
        heck I've written our 'good' senator Schumer a number of times on big issues and all you ever get back is a form letter written by an office intern, no big deal there but you have to know he never reads any of those emails, they get read by the same intern and if you're lucky he summarizes a few of them to his boss later.
        • I'm not sure how the US Congress works in this regard, but in Australia, it is always useful to CC your email or letter to the minister and shadow minister, in addition to your local member. Nothing like getting your issue aired in Question Time [wikipedia.org]
          • Australia still having a good government for the most part that apparently sincerely tries to do its citizens' bidding (as the continuing success of Prime Minister Howard instructs us), whereas American representative democracy has been replaced by a kleptocratic oligarchy - just like the old Taster's Choice commercials, only with far greater impact.

            Part of the problem in the States is that our form of government became fatally flawed the day corporations attained legal personhood since a) there's so little

      • Re:Call your senators (Score:5, Interesting)

        by russ1337 ( 938915 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:22PM (#22226068)

        Which leads me to believe, that the people the senators hire (which obviously fall in line with the senators agenda), have no interest in hearing from constituents, but rather already have the answer, and are only really researching the questions
        If that approach is systemic then things are really bad but the question is 'how can someone change that?'

        • Re:Call your senators (Score:4, Insightful)

          by BoomerSooner ( 308737 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:34PM (#22226244) Homepage Journal
          Don't forget 9/11 changed everything.
          • The parent shouldn't be funny, it should be insightful. It didn't change much of anything if you looked at it rationally, but since when was politics rational?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by WK2 ( 1072560 )

            Don't forget 9/11 changed everything.

            Not really. We have always been at war with Eastasia. It used to be called something else, though.

          • Unfortunately it was the terrorists who are having the last laugh.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Thing 1 ( 178996 )

            Don't forget 9/11 changed everything.
            Are you saying the only way to change the administration is through force? Dangerous thinking there...

        • Re:Call your senators (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Relic of the Future ( 118669 ) <{gro.skaerflatigid} {ta} {selad}> on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @04:13PM (#22226768)
          And that's the thing, isn't it?

          Everyone complains about "the congress", and yet, everyone keeps re-electing the same scumbags back into it!

          "Oh, no!" they say, "_my_ congressperson is doing a fine job! It's everyone _else's_ that's a problem!" Which really means "My guy brings the pork home, and that's good; but yours brings YOUR pork home, and that's bad!" And with the way the rules in congress works, a junior member has a lot less pull to bring that pork home; so 90% of the time, the incumbant wins.

          Or they say "I would, except, $MY_PARTY keeps putting up the same choice for re-election, and I'm certainly not going to vote for $OTHER_PARTY," which is an appeal to how poorly the First Past the Post method of adjudicating elections works. With any more-robust voting method, parties could run multiple candidates without risks of spliting the vote and losing, or, *gasp*, third-party candidates could have a real chance, without acting as spoilers (damn you Ralph Nader!)

          But again, that's just pointing out the problems. How do you fix the bylaws in congress, when those who benefit from them are the only ones with the power to change them? How do you change voting practices when all the lawmakers in power owe their position to the current method?

          All I can think of, is start at the bottom. You can't change the nation before you change your state, and you can't change your state before you change your town. So, in order to fix the US Congress by, oh, 2020, run for town council today.

          • In order to change the way things are going, running for office can certainly help. You'll be bringing awareness to fresh concerns and issues just by voicing your platform, even if you have worse odds than a snowball in hell.

            After all, the only reason why people cast their vote to maintain the status quo, is because it has worked so well for them so far. If you have a good job, good healthcare, retirement plan, managable mortgage, a car you like, 2.5 kids and a wife, why rock the boat? These are the peop

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by rprycem ( 113790 )
              In order to change the way things are going, running for office can certainly help. You'll be bringing awareness to fresh concerns and issues just by voicing your platform, even if you have worse odds than a snowball in hell.

              I am doing just that. My name is Richard Matthews and I am a Network and Security Engineer by trade and I am running for Congress Maryland's Second Congressional District.

              I am a Republican standing for small government, civil liberties and following the US Constitution. My Democratic

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Nullav ( 1053766 )

              If you have a good job, good healthcare, retirement plan, managable mortgage, a car you like, 2.5 kids and a wife, why rock the boat?
              I don't know about you, but I think I'd want another half of a kid. That good healthcare's only going to help for so long.
          • Here in Australia we have first past the post voting in the lower house, but we can preference our votes. So you can do:

            [ 3 ] : Mr. Slightly Less Evil Than Liberal (Labor)
            [ 5 ] : Racist Redneck (One Nation)
            [ 1 ] : Joe Hippy (The Greens)
            [ 6 ] : Pope John Paul (Family First)
            [ 2 ] : Jane Doe (The Democrats)
            [ 4 ] : Mr. Burns (Liberal)

            Your vote will flow on to your preferred major party candidate in the (likely) case that your minor party candidate is unable to be elected. In the upper house (Legislative Council
        • I believe the question you should be asking is "Can anyone change that" and the answer to that is no.

          That's the way it works. I don't like it, most people don't, but I doubt anything short of single-handedly handing over millions in campaign contributions will really allow any average person to have much of a say in what goes on in America.

          It's depressing, really...

      • Re:Call your senators (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dkleinsc ( 563838 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:45PM (#22226392) Homepage
        One solution to that is to get your politicians face to face, rather than going through the flappers. This is sometimes tricky, but essentially involves waiting for an opportunity (like when he's back in his district), and walk right up to him and start talking. Sometimes he'll walk away (which is a pretty clear message in and of itself), but most will listen to you for about 1-5 minutes first.

        I've done this with my entire legislative delegation (congressman and 2 senators) at some point or another, and my results are at least as decent as calling or emailing: My congressman actually did what I asked him to do, which was to impeach Dick Cheney first.
      • They may not listen to or read what you way, but they do pay attention to the gist of what's coming at them. If they start getting deluged with calls pro or con something, or if the messages coming in from their website are similarly tilted, they have staffers who tally this sort of thing, and the message goes back to the senator or rep that the natives are restless and they need to take note.

        I highly recommend the system on http://downsizedc.org/ [downsizedc.org] for this. They have all sorts of campaigns ongoing, and

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Wylfing ( 144940 )

        Unlike some peer posts, I will politely disagree. (Well, I will concede that there are a lot of black helicopter calls, plus a lot of calls that are just outright nuts.) Phoning the offices of your political representatives most definitely does have an impact. Keep in mind that you may not get the result you want. The Representative/Senator might have already decided, true, or there might be compromises that bind his/her vote (you do know that politics is about compromises, right?), or there might be a weig

      • this:

        AT&T does NOT deserve immunity from prosecution for activity in setting up wiretaps. By default, most computers come with ms windows on them. I suspect ms is paying AT&T -- a formerly Unix-based company-- marketing dollars to push windows. Last night, I tried to use my Linux-based computer to set up my housemate's DSL account activation, and AT&T programmers or upper management (via ineptitude? I doubt it...) decided to code their JAVA not for the most standards-adhering browsers, but for
      • I worked in a US Senate office, and I think that it varies by office. Our Member received a daily report of call volumes, aggregated by issue and position. Every call from a constituent was logged, and every one of them received a letter from us responding. If he disagreed, he explained why. The letters (often form letters, since inevitably people call all saying basically the same thing and meriting basically the same reply) were drafted by a staffer (usually the one who researched the issue) but every sin

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Milican ( 58140 )
        Here are the steps:

        1. Call your Senator to let them know your opinion.
        2. Find out how your Senator voted. (http://govtrack.us is an *excellent* resource with custom RSS feeds and everything)
        3. When re-election comes around weigh in how your Senator voted with your opinion at re-election time.
        4. Vote them out if they don't measure up.

        If we don't tell our reps our opinions then they cannot be blamed for not listening to them. Pretty simple. That is why we vote and why we participate in our Democracy.

        Oh, if yo

    • Re:Call your senators (Score:5, Informative)

      by riseoftheindividual ( 1214958 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:03PM (#22225758) Homepage
      If you do call your senators for this or any reason, remember to be polite, courteous, yet let your convictions come through and without directly threatening to vote them out of office, be very firm(while being polite and courteous) that their position on this matter will weigh heavily on the choice you make in the next election. Also, NEVER EVER EVER STATE THAT YOU DID NOT VOTE FOR THEM. If you didn't, then don't lie unless you want to be lowered to their level, just don't bring up who you did vote for. Saying you didn't vote for them makes them even less likely to give a damn what you have to say.

      • If you didn't, then don't lie unless you want to be lowered to their level, just don't bring up who you did vote for.
        Um, I hate to break it to you, but politicians don't usually lie outright, they usually fail to bring up certain relevant facts that could destabilise their position. If you deliberately fail to mention that you didn't vote for them, you basically are at their level.
        • Um, I hate to break it to you, but politicians don't usually lie outright,

          Really, so I can't take a typical politician in general and compare his campaign promises to his actions in office and find blatant inconsistencies that most reasonable people would believe indicate lies? Last time I looked it into, I was able to do just that. Maybe there's a new breed of politician out there I'm not aware of that has suddenly infiltrated the mainstream. I understand there are exceptions to this, but the last time

          • Really, so I can't take a typical politician in general and compare his campaign promises to his actions in office and find blatant inconsistencies that most reasonable people would believe indicate lies?

            Well, if they fail to follow through on a promise, they have to have been definitely intending from the start to break it in order to be lying. Otherwise, it's a case of the politician being unreliable. However, it's typically not that black and white, and I'm pretty sure that politicians promise more than

    • Re:Call your senators (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bill, Shooter of Bul ( 629286 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:19PM (#22226026) Journal
      My senator is too busy running for president, the other one is too busy running the senate. Even when the candidate was a freshman, he was too busy to take calls from a previous boss. Didn't even say " we're looking at the situation", just "The senator declines to speak with you on this matter". And that was on an issue of international security. Sorry for being cynical, maybe other states have less involved senators that have time to pretend to care about important issues.
    • My senator is Orrin Hatch. I have contacted him several times on various issues, and I do already know what will happen. Absolutely nothing.

    • Police State Coming (Score:5, Insightful)

      by queenb**ch ( 446380 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @04:24PM (#22226930) Homepage Journal
      You can mod me as a troll or flame bait or what ever you like. The fact of the matter is that we're on the slippery slope toward becoming a police state. Stay with me...

      First the Patriot Act - no more do you have show probable cause and get a search warrant. The enforcement branch is now unfettered by little things like the Bill of Rights.

      Second the Emergency Powers Act - this allows martial law to be declared and turns the President into a military dictator if there's "catastrophic emergency" but utterly and complete fails to define what qualifies as a "catastrophic emergency"

      Third is this - Now they have the unlimited ability to spy on the average citizen.

      Am I seriously the only one who sees a pattern in all of this? Shall I start citing historical examples? Wake up people!!!

      2 cents,

      QueenB

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by LilGuy ( 150110 )
        You forgot the signing statements. The president signing a bill from Congress into law, but declaring he won't follow portions or the entire thing.
      • The worst part is, it's most likely too late.

  • Edmund Burke Updated (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @02:56PM (#22225632) Homepage Journal
    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

    As a bonus, pass a law giving evil men immunity.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • They think it'll work (and it will to some extent) and that they'll be able to control the abuse
      Some of the more cynical among us might be inclined to wonder if the abuse is the real purpose.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Lilith's Heart-shape ( 1224784 )

        Some of the more cynical among us might be inclined to wonder if the abuse is the real purpose.
        Call me paranoid, but I don't just wonder if abuse is the real purpose. I am convinced that it is. After a while, the governing class stops looking for excuses to obtain power: power itself becomes the excuse. Show me a man running for office for the first time, and I'll show you a powerslave in the making.

    • Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have. ~

      --James Baldwin

  • Thank you Matt Blaze (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Presto Vivace ( 882157 ) <ammarshall@vivaldi.net> on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:09PM (#22225860) Homepage Journal
    One more document showing privacy = security.

  • The U.S. government is very corrupt. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:09PM (#22225864) Homepage
    "Now it [privacy] all seems like just another bit of cynical, focus-group-tested PR."

    The U.S. government has become extremely corrupt. One method is the one mentioned, testing for weaknesses in public understanding, or willingness to act, and exploiting those weaknesses.

    Here are others:

    Making sure that honest, public-minded leaders from both parties are defeated.

    Giving bills in Congress misleading names, like "Protect America".

    Giving bills misleading features and widely publicizing the misleading features. For example, the "economic stimulus" bill only causes the government, which is deeply in debt [futurepower.org], to print more money. That will make the value of the dollar go down even further. The "economic stimulus" bill also contains provisions to funnel money to banks. The banks apparently deliberately created the mortgage finance crisis doing so was profitable, and because banks were sure that the U.S. government would pass a bill to lessen the losses.

    • The "economic stimulus" bill also contains provisions to funnel money to banks. The banks apparently deliberately created the mortgage finance crisis doing so was profitable, and because banks were sure that the U.S. government would pass a bill to lessen the losses.

      I somehow doubt the notion that the banks intentionally decided to lose billions of dollars. Maybe they exposed themselves to more risk knowing they would be bailed out if things went south, but thats not deliberate. If they could have prevented the sub prime crisis they would have, out of self interest. They may be corrupt or evil, but they like their money.

      • For an interesting look on why major banks did, in fact want to keep the sub-prime mortgage market running, check out this article from Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2182709/pagenum/all/ [slate.com] it is really quite interesting. To sum it up, the individual states were working to stop the predatory lenders from selling the loans they made out to investors, but the national banks were making so much money they asked the federal government to exempt them from the state laws, which discouraged the states from passing

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        the banks intentionally decided to lose billions of dollars.

        They didn't intentionally "decide to lose billions of dollars", they took a running leap off of a cliff to try and grasp the billions of dollars that they mistakenly thought were just hanging out there, confident in the knowledge that even if they missed the jackpot, the US government would be there to catch them at the bottom.

        In other words, expecting a giant reward, they took a humongous risk, far greater than their corporations could actually su
        • MOD PARENT UP!!!

          Those who made the decisions were rewarded, not punished: What's $34 Billion on Wall Street? [nytimes.com]. That New York Times article does not show the true picture, because the executives were rewarded with tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in pay. Their entire "punishment" for knowingly causing the problem was having to change employers.

          Quote: "In any other industry, Mr. Kim and Mr. Maheras would be pariahs. But in the looking-glass world of Wall Street, they - and others like them - are

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CannonballHead ( 842625 )
      I'm not sure the apparently extremely democratic-party-biased link is very helpful in this case. Yes, America is in debt, but it seems that you are attempting to push that the Democrat party is much less corrupt than the Republican party?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bill, Shooter of Bul ( 629286 )
      The U.S. government has become extremely corrupt

      Welcome to the 1800's.
    • "Giving bills in Congress misleading names, like ''Protect America''."

      Just to touch on this - it's not necessarily so much misleading for the act; I'm sure the act in itself is intended to help protect the U.S.. Just that the ways in which it aims to do this are possibly misguided.

      However, the misleading part really comes in when you vote -against- such an act/bill/etc. "You voted -against- Protect(ing) America!? UN-American! NON-Patriot! You're clearly not with us, so you're against us!"

      I think it's ann
    • For example, the "economic stimulus" bill only causes the government, which is deeply in debt [futurepower.org], to print more money. That will make the value of the dollar go down even further.

      Sorry buddy, but that's deeply simplistic. The value of the US dollar is determined by many factors, but fundamentally, it's an expression of the demand for the US dollar in foreign markets. And that demand is fueled by many factors. One of them is the desire to invest in US business, or to buy US products. Unfo

  • MMMMMM (Score:2, Insightful)

    by isotope23 ( 210590 )
    Smells like Freedom!!

    Oh say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave,
    o'er the Land of the Free,
    Or the home of the SLAVE......

  • I want this passed. Then... (Score:4, Funny)

    by scooter.higher ( 874622 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:11PM (#22225890) Homepage Journal
    ...once this has passed, I hope that someone (with a quickness) is able to exploit the system, record the personal calls of the legislators who passed the bill, and subsequently post them on the internet.

    Everything from making dentist appointments to arranging for private meetings.

    Live streaming if possible.
    • they don't record their own calls, only the "peasants" beneath them...
    • If there is a way for the NSA or DHS to listen to your calls, then there is a way for a determined hacker to listen to them. period. no kidding. I mean it.

      By creating a monitoring system, the US corru^H^H^H^H^Hgovernment legistlators will create the means necessary for other governments, nefarious organizations, and plain old criminals to listen to your phone calls, monitor your emails, track your Internet usage.

      If there is a way, there will be a will... trust me on that.

      On the bright side, forget archiving
      • If there is anyway to monitor the data, or mine through the aggregate resultant data, someone will, and I'll go ahead and wager that it will first show up in either the form of a letter from the **AA or a specialized targeted advertisement sent to you because they know you like Elvis

        More like a huge torrent file on the Pirate Bay.

  • In typical slashdot fashion... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:13PM (#22225904)

    In typical slashdot fashion, I have not taken the time to read the whole bill. I have not even read a summary of it. However, having read the title, I can say that I, living in America, support this whole concept of "protecting America." Go on Congress, allocate the funds for some more tanks or something, I'm behind you!

  • Spin on name of Protect America Act (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If lawmakers were held to truth in naming, and agreed with Bruce Schneier's "Security and Privacy Arent Opposites" [wired.com] the act might be titled "Control America Act". But that would be a lot harder to gather support.

    "The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control."

  • I don't like the acronym (Score:4, Funny)

    by sk8king ( 573108 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:14PM (#22225946)
    RIAA, MPAA, and now USPAA....tell me you don't notice a problem here.

  • Hoover, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:21PM (#22226058)

    There was no faster way to be fired (or worse) than to snoop into call records or facilitate illegal wiretaps, well intentioned or not.

    Bull*shit*, chief. Hoover wiretapped and bugged whatever and whomever the hell he wanted, and nobody dared complain- he was 'fighting' communism. Hoover did it entirely on the premise that, as director of the FBI, it was his purview. That's it. No fancy legal mumbo-jumbo. "I'm the boss."

    I hate the current wiretapping as much as the next guy, but let's not get caught up in "when I was your age, candybars cost 5 cents and the phone company didn't tap your phones illegally."

    Our phones have been tapped almost since their inception; all the changes is who's calling the shots, what "evil" group is being targeted, and whose definition of "legal" is being used.

    • Bull*shit*, chief. Hoover wiretapped and bugged whatever and whomever the hell he wanted, and nobody dared complain-

      Bobby Kennedy did. He didn't like Hoover having all the fun. ;)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by syousef ( 465911 )
      Our phones have been tapped almost since their inception; all the changes is who's calling the shots, what "evil" group is being targeted, and whose definition of "legal" is being used.

      You left one thing out. Technology has improved. That means they can automatically tap and filter a lot more phones. Instead of infringing on the rights of a few people of interest, now everyone's under surveillance (or it's getting damned close to that being the case). Technology puts a lot more power in the hand of official
  • I, for one, propose civil disobedience in the form of smoke signals. Lets see you tap my lines for that message, jerks.
  • I, too, began my professional carrier in the bell-system.

  • believe it or not young-unz, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jdogalt ( 961241 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:46PM (#22226406) Journal
    The fourth ammendment to the constitution and the Geneva Conventions used to be a strong part of the ethos of american culture.

    But those were the good ol' pre-9/11 days.

    Wake up and smell and the realized nightmares of the founding fathers, and don't waste your time thinking that whatever is left of their foundation of democratic principles can help us.

    We are sliding full speed down the slippery slope already. The only hope is that america will survive the impact at the bottom, and that the result will be painful enough, that the constitution gets ammended, and a new dawn of liberty arises.

    I was the longest holdout in believing that intelligent debate could actually help. It is clear to me that the only thing to do is to sit back, suffer the consequences along with everyone, and hope that people are capable of learning from their mistakes.

    O what a brave new world. Human cloning, animal-human hybrid research, warrantless wiretaps. Someone could really write a good book about all of this... But these days you probably wouldn't want to purchase it or check it out of a library, lest your name be put referenced in database queries for threat index assessments.

    -dmc

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by wombert ( 858309 )
      Ah yes, the Fourth Amendment:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures by human-animal hybrids, shall not be violated ...

      Funny how many folks forget that part.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jdogalt ( 961241 )
      And for the record, here is the first constitutional ammendment I can think of off the top of my head-

      No citizen, shall ever be assessed any risk-value by any government agency, nor any such value used by any such agency, as such practice is antithetical to the inalienable right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

      It shall also be noted, that the authors of this ammendment were fully conscious that many will scoff and laugh, as such values will be used by non government agencies. But the fact tha

    • Amend the constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wurp ( 51446 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @04:30PM (#22227020) Homepage
      What good will amending the constitution do? The constitution already:
      • strictly limits the powers of the federal government. They basically only have legal power over:
        • the currency
        • inter-state disagreements
        • inter-national disagreements & treaties

      • specifically guarantees your right not to have to 'show your papers'
      • gives only congress the power to declare war (Congress may not delegate that power to the President)


      The real problem is that people don't give a crap about the constitution.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jdogalt ( 961241 )
        Looks like you answered your question yourself. Ammending the constitution is a purely symbolic act, just like voting. But while symbolic acts may not in and of themselves immediately change the infrastructure of society, there is always the hope that they will be witnessed by others, and inspire them in the future.
    • "Human cloning, animal-human hybrid research, warrantless wiretaps"
      Now, I understand that your post is exactly that - your post, and thus your own personal opinion.

      But whose freedoms are trampled, exactly, by researching the possibility of cloning human parts, or whole humans*?

      And what do you think those with the valves of pigs' hearts saving their lives think of your "animal-human hybrid research" item?

      Just food for thought.

      * Possibly, the clone's; if they're to become a sentient being, etc. But these are

  • Telcos More Important than Security (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @03:56PM (#22226550) Homepage Journal
    Bush and his Republicans say that the FISA renewal is the most important weapon we have to protect ourselves against attack. But Bush says he'll veto it if it lets people sue telcos for helping Bush wiretap us, and his Republicans also have tried to stop the bill from being amended, or even debating amendments. And now these Republicans are even trying to stop FISA from being extended while the Congress debates what the renewed version contains.

    So Bush and his Republicans say that telco amnesty, retroactive immunity, is worth going without FISA at all. Even though they say it's our most important defense. So telco immunity, even though telcos would be immune under current law if they can show evidence that Bush assured them they were immune, is more important than our security.

    If you're a Republican, it is.
    • The law that established FISA isn't going to expire; only the Protect America Act. What's the difference? It's the Protect America Act that allows the wiretapping without warrants of people "reasonably believed to be outside the United States." What happens if it expires? Theoretically, they'll again need to get warrants for when they want to wiretap people, which they can do up to 72 hours after they've done initiated the wiretap. But it's not like the whole system is going to shut down. FISA has bee

  • Doesn't sound very convicing... (Score:3, Funny)

    by MadMidnightBomber ( 894759 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @04:29PM (#22227002)
    Why should I listen to such a bunch of no-names? I'm waiting to see what John Dvorak says.
  • I'd like my Senators to sponsor what I like to call the Save America from Bad People Act. This law, if enacted, would allow me to publically aplaud or shame any and all federal politicians once a year, at a tax funded event. For politicians who I personally think did a good job, I'll shake their hand and say thank you. For politicians who I think did a poor job, I get to smack them upside the head and say "boo! booo! You suck! We want Bender! Boo!" Participation by politicians will be compulsory, and anyone

  • Domestic traffic that leaves the country (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @05:07PM (#22227592) Homepage Journal

    On around page 28 of the PDF, it talks about domestic traffic (where both participants are inside the US) that may cross the border, due to network routing that goes through Canada, Skype relay nodes, etc. If you intercept all traffic that crosses the border, you may end up intercepting US-citizen-to-US-citizen communications.

    But wouldn't Big Brother counter that the mere fact that the traffic crosses the border, makes it fall under their 'legitimate' border-protecting authority anyway, regardless of the apparent endpoints? So what if it's "virtually" domestic traffic -- physically it's not, and that alone possibly makes it fall under their authority. And we have a (regrettable) historic precedent that even US citizens lose some rights when they interact with the border (e.g. You can be searched for drugs w/out a warrant, whenever you enter the country).

    Also, keep in mind that of you're communicating through a proxy, then that's an opportunity to set up a covert channel to a third party. For example: I talk to grandma through a foreign proxy. My conversion seems to be "Hello grandma, I got the cookies you sent me last week." A steganographic bit is seen by the proxy, and I just transmitted "0" (meaning: "sorry, I will not have collected the resources in time for next week's attack") to my mission control in Afghanistan. (Not that the NSA, even if it had legal authority to tap my call to grandma, would be able to detect whether I'm doing that or not...)

    I'm strongly opposed to warrantless domestic eavesdropping, but I think the argument that sometimes domestic traffic leaves the country, is not a valid argument against spying on border-crossing traffic. A lot of other good points in the PDF, though.

  • Framing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by srobert ( 4099 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @05:55PM (#22228218)
    Well, I'm not sure which proposal has been dubbed the "Protect America" act, but I'll bet that it has, in all likelihood, nothing to do with protecting America. Who names these things? Karl Rove? Why are Republicans so much better at the art of framing the debate than the Dems are? It's the "Clear Skies Initiative", the "Death Tax", the "Patriot Act" LOL. Dems need to start renaming these bills to reflect what effects they really have.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by luke923 ( 778953 )
      I've heard this from the Democrats for years (at least since '04), but let's not forget that they've been doing it for years. Where the Republicans tell people that their opponents are unpatriotic, socialist/communist, and looking to take away your hard-earned money, the Democrats have been telling us for years that if you don't support them that we'd support the destruction of the environment, the kicking-out of the elderly out into the streets, the starvation of children, sweatshops, racism, or whatever

  • Not primarily a question about privacy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2008 @04:45AM (#22232378)
    Although privacy is important, this is not a question about privacy, but about accountability. The sad truth is that even if they have to ask a judge about it, they will still get all the warrants they want - remember, this is about National Security (TM). But when you get a warant from a judge, a record is made of the event, by an authority that is independent (at least in principle), unless I am much mistaken, which means that in principle it will be possible to review the events later and possibly prosecute things like abuse of power etc.

    If there are no independent records, what is there to stop agents from spying on their neighbors? Only the personal integrity of the individual agent, and while most may be decent people, some aren't. And much worse than that, it will be a lot easier for powerful interest groups to infiltrate and abuse the system - do we want, say, Scientology to have agents in a position where they can tap our private communications? They aren't exactly know for their respect for their fellow humans, and there are many other groups exactly like them.

  • Oh I'm so bored of this. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EddyPearson ( 901263 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2008 @05:40AM (#22232604) Homepage
    You Americans.

    A few intelligent people will tell you in no uncertain terms that you MUST NOT LET THIS ACT PASS. They will explain that it'll smash your privicy into tiny peices, they'll say its up to YOU to speak to your representitive to get it thrown out. And you know what? You'll all do fuck all.

    Then four months down the line thousands and thousands of you will be back here, whinging about "yet another affront to our privicy" through a act they "sneaked through".

    You vote a Paranoid Texan Oil Baron into office, TWICE, so what the hell do you expect? The man's a joke the world over, so if I was you I'd try and stop him passing any laws (that will be very hard to revoke when you finally get a President with two braincells to rub together).

    Yet all you seem to do is COMPLAIN. Fucking do something about it.

    Oh yeah, and to the torrent of "Bush cheated his way in! Recounts were fixed" comments coming up, I say "What? Twice motherfucker? And if the country is REALLY that against him, why did it all come down to Florida."

    Your president is terrible, the American public are worse.

  • How about renaming it to the "TBBA: The Big Brother Act"
    or "TONFTAF: Things Old Nixon Forgot To Ask For".

    Every time you pick up your phone:
    "Thank you for using BellSouth.
    Your calls may be monitored for National Security Purposes."

    Don't worry, everything will be all right once it's under government control.
    Just like education, foreign policy and health care, the government knows what's best for you!

    In Republican America, the government tells the people who to vote for!

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close