backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 140 comment(s) - last by Christopher1.. on Jul 24 at 9:37 PM
A controversial court ruling has attorneys and groups like the EFF up in arms

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco recently issued a ruling that effectively allows the federal government to monitor a suspect's phone activity and Internet activity without receiving a search warrant. The court's decision allows the use of "pen registers" -- an electronic device able to record all telephone numbers dialed from a landline -- without a warrant.

The three-judge panel agreed computer users should be aware they could potentially lose privacy when using the Internet.

Ars Technica used an interesting analogy for the government's stance on the issue. It's the same as the "U.S. Postal Service, where anyone can read information on the outside of an envelope but can't look at the contents."

In a controversial case in 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that since phone users dialed phone numbers which are handled by phone companies -- considered a third party -- and because authorities only used a pen dialer to gather the phone calls made, not what was said in the conversations.

The judge's decision has received mixed reactions from attorneys and citizens.   

The American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) believe the Court of Appeals gave U.S. law enforcement a surveillance tool which can be used with little regard to check or balances.

Michael Crowley, defense attorney for Dennis Alba, who was convicted of operating a drug lab responsible for making ecstasy, disagreed with the court's ruling.  Police and federal investigators began monitoring Alba's Internet and e-mails in May in 2001 and then later received a search warrant.  

"The great political marketplace of ideas is the Internet, and the government has unbridled access to it," Crowley said.  The court's decision "further erodes our privacy," he added.

Alba is currently serving a 30-year prison sentence.

Today's version of the 1979 case is U.S. v. Forrester -- Mark Forrester was Alba's partner in the ecstasy drug ring.  While Alba is waiting in the appeals process, Forrester's sentence was reversed because of errors made during the trial.

Shaun Martin, professor at the University Of San Diego School Of Law, agrees the decision imposes on privacy issues.  "Getting a list of IP addresses reveals far, far more information than a pen register ever would.  And if it didn't, the government wouldn't be looking to get this information in the first place."

George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr disagrees, claiming if the surveillance in the case took place at the Internet Service Provider's office "the result in Forrester is clearly correct."

Even though the government has another tool to help conduct investigations, the ruling "does not imply that more intrusive techniques or techniques that reveal more content information" can be used, Judge Raymond Fisher said.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What a reference
By mdogs444 on 7/18/2007 8:33:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Michael Crowley, defense attorney for Dennis Alba, who was convicted of operating a drug lab responsible for making ecstasy, disagreed with the court's ruling. Police and federal investigators began monitoring Alba's Internet and e-mails in May in 2001 and then later received a search warrant.


Who in the world is going to listen to anything this guy has to say? Yeah, im going to listen to, and take advice, from somone who is trying to get a conficted drug felon out of jail? If they are using this techniques to put people like that behind bars, then im all for it.

No doubt in a way do i see this as a massive invasion of privacy. But then again, when it comes to phone & internet watching, the only people who freak out are the ones who have something to hide. Whether its illegal downloading (movies, music, games, etc), or selling things illegaly, or emails. What people need to consider is an old saying "dont say or do anything that you wouldnt sign your name to".




RE: What a reference
By Polynikes on 7/18/2007 8:39:05 PM , Rating: 4
Keep saying that. Some day your IP address is going to be falsely traced to something bad because some idiot transposed two digits in someone else's IP address, then you're going to be in a world of shit hoping the law will protect you.

It's not just about people who have something to hide. You don't see most people running meth labs, but I'd wager a lot of them don't like he idea of the government having such an easy time spying on them.


RE: What a reference
By Polynikes on 7/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: What a reference
By mdogs444 on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a reference
By alifbaa on 7/18/2007 9:23:31 PM , Rating: 4
It's not about downloading illegal content. What if your name matches a terrorists? It happens all the time. Do you know what happens when you get added to a watch list? Do you know that those watch lists are being transferred over to civilian databases? Do you know what all this does to you?

Every time you go to the airport, you get searched. When you go for a loan, you get denied. When you look for a job, you don't get hired. When you get pulled over for speeding, you get arrested or harassed.

The best part of all this is that it is for absolutely no reason, and there is no way to be completely removed since the lists are proliferated so widely and so quickly. When you are placed on the list, you aren't notified, so it will probably take several incidents for you to even figure out what is going on.

But then again, I guess this would only affect people with middle eastern names, so you probably don't care about them either. After all, it's not affecting you. Speaking of taking freedom for granted...


RE: What a reference
By mdogs444 on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a reference
By alifbaa on 7/18/2007 10:27:13 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, I do look around when I get on an airplane. That's not a violation of civil liberties or even racism -- that's common sense. I also happen to be a professional pilot, and yes, I think a watch list is certainly a great and necessary tool to have.

The problem I have is not over the existence of a watch list or even any specific tactic or avenue of information gathering. If the government can come up with a way to gather information, they should absolutely use it. The only caveat I would place on the government is that when the use of that technique occurs on American soil, it should involve a warrant.


RE: What a reference
By Regs on 7/22/2007 2:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
I agree it's a lot of bureaucratic nonsense and it's getting worse by the minute. It almost reminds me of the movie "v for vendetta", while the movie is fiction, it's starting to become a reality. People are, as a whole, are becoming more narrow minded. The people who support these laws are the people not affected by them, but isn't that a case for everything? Example, drinking is legal to do almost anywhere but smoking is a filthy habit you can no longer enjoy at a bar. Or smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer, but marijuana, is labeled as a controlled substance ( severely limits productivity in large corporate work forces). We always lived in a world of double standards. Politicians always find a way to try to please one half of the populous, while the other half just sit home and complain about their salaries (don't vote or voice their opinion outside of their family or friends).

It's not a political problem any more but a sociological.To be honest all I care about is getting promoted and paying off my school loans. Too many problems for the working class, and too little problems for the upper class. No one is involved anymore. Voting statistics proove this.


RE: What a reference
By Christopher1 on 7/24/2007 9:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
It should be a jail-able offense not to vote, or a fineable offense, with a severe monetary punishment at least.

That would get people to vote, get more involved in government, and stop letting the 'elite' tell them what they can and cannot do.

Our federal government and state government were NOT supposed to meddle in people's private matters, including their private sexual expression (no matter what the age or gender of who they did it with), what people put into their own bodies (unless they are putting people in danger SOLELY by doing that), etc.


RE: What a reference
By roadhog74 on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a reference
By Ryanman on 7/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: What a reference
By omnicronx on 7/20/2007 1:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
why this man was rated down i do not know, his comment is more relevant than most peoples on here.


RE: What a reference
By Ryanman on 7/21/2007 8:20:59 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you - I feel that I didn't quite write it as well as I could have but I'm glad to see that you understood what I was saying and I'm not the only one that thinks this.


RE: What a reference
By Clienthes on 7/23/2007 9:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
The argument is seductive, but if we continue to keep the same defensive posture after an attack, the likelihood of another attack goes up. They aren't going to stop using guerrilla tactics because we aren't afraid of them. They want to inflict damage and win points at home. Letting them do this is bad juju.


RE: What a reference
By jarman on 7/18/2007 9:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every time you go to the airport, you get searched. When you go for a loan, you get denied. When you look for a job, you don't get hired. When you get pulled over for speeding, you get arrested or harassed.


A bit overkill there don't you think?


RE: What a reference
By alifbaa on 7/18/2007 10:17:39 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, it is overkill. It's also precisely what happens and includes absolutely no exaggeration. The export of terror watch lists to civilian databases can and does have exactly those consequences.

Would you hire someone who was flagged as a terrorist when you ran a background check on them?

Also, many don't realize that federal law forbids businesses from transacting with individuals and organizations deemed to be in armed opposition to the government. You will NOT get a loan if you are on these lists. I even saw a report a couple weeks ago of an apartment trade group recommending its members stop renting to those appearing on the lists because of this law.

I guess my point is that this stuff is real, and it's happening right now. Innocent people are getting caught up in this, and they have no way of getting things sorted out.

Sure, it may only be a few people, and you probably don't know any of them. I don't. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. One of the principles we live by is that you are innocent until proven guilty and the government must treat you as such. There is a reason why we have search warrants. I'm not against watch lists, I'm not against government eavesdropping. I am against criminals and terrorists.

All I want is to be sure we are only eavesdropping on people we have reason to be watching. When it becomes clear we don't have a reason to be watching, we should move on. Under no circumstances should such actions have consequences upon anyone on American soil -- innocent or not -- until at least one other branch of government has exercised its oversight of the situation.


RE: What a reference
By wordsworm on 7/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a reference
By omnicronx on 7/20/2007 1:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
someones watched a few too many documentaries made by 19 year olds


RE: What a reference
By Christopher1 on 7/24/2007 9:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no, he hasn't. I've watched a presentation done by a HARVARD PROFESSOR who absolutely proved that the Pentagon could not have just been hit by a plane in order to do that amount of damage.

He took into account the mass of the plane, the mass of the Pentagon, and how those materials fragment on impact. There is no possible way that ONE PLANE could have gone through the outer part of the Pentagon, and into the inside. No way in hell.


RE: What a reference
By rushfan2006 on 7/20/2007 11:54:53 AM , Rating: 2
He's right...mostly, to simplify things if you are innocent and somehow get on a watch list it can add a fair bit of "hell" to your life. However, the thing he stated that is exaggerated is the implication of his statement saying that vast quantities of innocent people get on these watch lists all the time. That is false.

I work for a top 10 mortgage company - anyone in financial services busines should know that its federal law that all applications submitted must be screen against a terrorist watch database.

If there is a "positive hit" of a customer to this database, federal stipulates that we must follow through with an investigation, there is an entire reporting process involved.

I can tell you statistically speaking against the population as a whole -- the percenter of true innocents on that list is EXTREMELY low.


RE: What a reference
By roadhog74 on 7/18/2007 10:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
happens to a friend of mine.

the police refuse to believe he is not someone else who
we have never met. So he is on every watch list there is.


RE: What a reference
By AndreasM on 7/19/2007 12:13:13 AM , Rating: 5
Two people with the same name? Preposterous! Your friend is clearly a terrorist, why else would he be on a blacklist!


RE: What a reference
By Clienthes on 7/23/2007 9:26:15 AM , Rating: 3
The above post is total FUD.

You cannot end up on a watch list because of a matching name. Watch lists are not being handed over to agencies not involved in investigations. Not getting jobs, police harassment, etc. are all delusions of the paranoid. They are not possible because no agency capable inflicting this type of treatment will have access to the information, unless you happen to be applying for a job at the Department of Homeland Security.

If it did happen, the people that we were actually watching out for would figure it out, and the investigation would be compromised. That is counter-productive.


RE: What a reference
By Christopher1 on 7/24/2007 9:29:40 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, yes, you can! Didn't you hear about the FEDERAL SENATOR who ended up on one of the watch lists, solely because he had a name that was the same as a known Islamic terrorist? If it can happen to someone in the federal government, it can fucking well happen to ANYONE, so it is not FUD, it is blunt truth!

Also, these 'watch lists' are public knowledge. I searched for them on the internet 3 months ago, and I found where someone had publicized the watch lists in their entirety. That site was taken down, but another one popped up with the same info about 3 weeks ago!

So, yes, someone in the 'criminal background check' business could get ahold of one of these old lists, match your name to a name on it, and then keep you from getting a job. Would they be negligent? Hell yes, but you would probably never know!

I recently found my name and address on a state list of sexual offenders (have never been arrested for a sex crime, though I do speak out on getting statutory rape and CSA laws repealed). It took me nearly a MONTH and finally a threat to contact my friend who works for the State Attorney General's office in Maryland to get my name taken off it!


RE: What a reference
By 91TTZ on 7/18/2007 9:43:36 PM , Rating: 5
You used just about every example of bad logic that I can think of.

These new laws are heavily marketed as being "anti-terrorist", but did you ever step back and think about the effectiveness of these laws? Everyone is so fearful of 9/11, but the laws that have been passed since then would have done nothing to stop them. They were all legit.

quote:
If this policy helps bust 1 terrorist attack and saves a life, i think its a price worth paying.


This kind of logic is especially bad. People say that if a restrictive law helps just one person, then the law is worth it. It's not worth it. You're going to restrict the rights of 300 million people to save 1 life? Using that logic, we're going to run out of rights long before we run out of people.


RE: What a reference
By mdogs444 on 7/18/2007 9:48:29 PM , Rating: 1
You'd be singing different tunes if you were directly affected by terrorist actions. My family being generations of fireman, including ones from NY, and my god mother's desk in the pentagon which got hit from the plane, make me think differently.


RE: What a reference
By Lakku on 7/19/2007 2:49:56 AM , Rating: 4
Why would I be singing any different? The terrorist actions DID affect me, by putting this country into war, affecting the economy, changing the laws, and changing the way people view us. With that said, and while I most certainly do respect your family's service, they did sign on the dotted line to help us all. It shouldn't make you change how you treat all 300 million of us because of the jobs and sacrifices made, as the whole of us is more important than any individual part, including your family. Don't oppress all of us because you are upset.


RE: What a reference
By mdogs444 on 7/18/2007 9:50:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but did you ever step back and think about the effectiveness of these laws?


In fact, yes i have. Question is have you?

How many terrorist acts have taken place in the US since 9/11? Thank you.


RE: What a reference
By roadhog74 on 7/18/2007 10:12:51 PM , Rating: 5
er how many attacks happened before september 11?


RE: What a reference
By ScythedBlade on 7/18/2007 10:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
How about we remove safety labels and laws and let everything resolve itself on its own?


RE: What a reference
By RaisedinUS on 7/19/2007 9:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
Natural selection? :)


RE: What a reference
By Ryanman on 7/19/2007 9:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
For The Win.


RE: What a reference
By therealnickdanger on 7/19/2007 8:25:00 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
er how many attacks happened before september 11?

1993: World Trade Center bombing
1993: The "black hawk down" attack
1995: Car bombing of American officers in Riyad
1996: Khobar Towers bombing of American officers
1998: Simultaneous attacks on four American embassies
2000: USS Cole

These attacks resulted in hundreds killed and thousands wounded. There were also many attempts that our limited intelligence and partnerships were able to uncover before action took place. Not included on this list are acts of domestic terrorism such as the Oklahoma City bombing.


RE: What a reference
By Gul Westfale on 7/19/2007 12:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
uh...
you might wanna check some facts there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%...

what were you doing there? why did you kill so many civilians?

and then the USS Cole... what was one of your warships doing in yemen? having a BBQ?

don't get me wrong, i don't like terrorism, war, general stupidity, and all that; but using this kind of event to justify the government acting like big brother and spying on its own citizens (something forbidden by your constitution if i'm not mistaken) is ridiculous.


RE: What a reference
By therealnickdanger on 7/19/2007 3:15:20 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
what were you doing there? why did you kill so many civilians?

What were we doing there? Didn't you read your own reference? As far as civilian casualties go - that's the unfortunate outcome of urban combat. It's likely that the majority of civilian deaths were a direct result of the savage battle tactics of poorly trained and heavily equipped Somali malitia.

The USS Cole was stopped for fuel in a harbor when it was attacked.

You may or may not be mistaken in your thoughts regarding the Constitution. There is no "right to privacy" ver batim and many people have argued for many years exactly where the line between government and privacy lies.


RE: What a reference
By Gul Westfale on 7/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: What a reference
By Gul Westfale on 7/19/2007 4:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
that should be "what does the cole have in common with your governments orwellian aspirations. the sentence kinda got cut off there. sorry.


RE: What a reference
By Ryanman on 7/19/2007 10:28:42 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry... but for you to think that U.S. forces killed every single one of those civilians is wrong... probably very much so.


RE: What a reference
By frobizzle on 7/20/2007 2:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You may or may not be mistaken in your thoughts regarding the Constitution. There is no "right to privacy" ver batim and many people have argued for many years exactly where the line between government and privacy lies.


Um...this is covered in the Bill of Rights in the prohibition against illegal search and seizure.


RE: What a reference
By RaisedinUS on 7/19/2007 9:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Are you wanting them in actually IN the US or US interests?


RE: What a reference
By montgom on 7/20/2007 1:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
er how many attacks happened before september 11?


This is a trick question, right?

Do you remember the first bombing of the world trade center? The bombing of the USS Cole? Kobar towers in Saudi Arabia (SP?)? The two embassy bombings? The Marine barracks in Lebanon?

It was a trick question, right?


RE: What a reference
By 299792458 on 7/19/2007 2:03:42 AM , Rating: 5
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, dad.
Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Hmm... Lisa, I want to buy your rock.


RE: What a reference
By iNGEN on 7/23/2007 11:02:47 AM , Rating: 2
That's perfect! I couldn't produce a better quote for this thread.


RE: What a reference
By bob4432 on 7/19/2007 1:02:15 AM , Rating: 2
yes, our freedoms are being taken.....


RE: What a reference
By icehat20b on 7/19/2007 10:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
You have nothing to hide, but would you like it if I camp in your front yard and look into your window to see what you are up to daily?


RE: What a reference
By mdogs444 on 7/19/2007 10:51:52 AM , Rating: 1
Like i said, if that makes them happy then go ahead, but nothing interesting going on here.


RE: What a reference
By Ryanman on 7/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a reference
By Ab2kgj on 7/21/2007 2:28:44 PM , Rating: 1
Kid, look, its not about whether or not we should be watching terrorists or not. Im all for protecting the lives of American citizens, but Im also for protecting America, and the values and principles we hold near and dear. In this country we have laws that say that you need to have a reason to search a person's information. Im not saying you cant search my house, you just have to have a probable cause. Prove that I'm acting suspiciously. If you cant, you have no reason to be able to go through my things and disturb my life. Dubya say that they hate us for our freedom, and instead of valiantly protecting that freedom by going after the enemy at the root source(Afghanistan and Pakistan), he proceeds to take it away from us and distract us in Iraq. This absolutely needs to be overturned by the higher courts. If you want to protect me, use methods that work, not scare tactics to attack your political opponents with.


RE: What a reference
By mdogs444 on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a reference
By CurtOien on 7/18/2007 9:32:10 PM , Rating: 3
Were all the Jews guilty of something in Nazi Germany? Did the American Indians all have something to hide? How about all of the Africans shipped over here for slavery? The list is endless of governments around the world that have had a part in bad things being done to innocent people.


RE: What a reference
By mdogs444 on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a reference
By smitty3268 on 7/19/2007 1:02:18 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And i take it all the black americans would rather be living in africa right now too?

Are you seriously making the argument that slavery was good? Besides, if we hadn't pillaged Africa so much in the past it might be a lot different today. Perhaps America would be a 3rd world country and Africa prosperous.

quote:
Without us, all europe would be speaking german right now.

Although the Russians did a lot more to defeat Germany then we ever did, you have a point that we may have been the tipping point that was responsible for the eventual victory. It always bugs me when people say we can do whatever we want now, though, just because of something our ancesters did 60 years ago. You don't hear the French going around saying you'd all be speaking English(GB) if it wasn't for us. I do understand you were replying to someone making the same type of arguments, but you don't have to sink to their level.

quote:
Its about time we focus on today's society instead of what happened 50, 100, 200 yrs ago when we (as in today's society) wasn't here to defend those actions.

I couldn't agree more. Please follow your own advice.

In the end, this whole argument comes down to whether or not you trust the government to do what is right. If you do, then a Big Brother system watching everyone's moves is a no-brainer because it keeps people safe, or at least lets us quickly identify those that have caused us harm. On the other hand, you have the more traditional American values which says that absolute power corrupts, and that kind of a government would inevitably lead to abuses. I don't think a couple of posts in a forum is going to change anyone's mind on the subject.


RE: What a reference
By Lakku on 7/19/2007 2:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
The Russians in no way did more then 'us' in defeating the Germans. They fought the Germans on one front, and it wasn't a majority of the German military as of 1942-43. The most they did was keep a large chunk of the Nazi military occupied. Russia would have never even been involved if Hitler wasn't stupid and needed more natural resources. Did it help the war effort? Of course, it split the Germans up. And a country with a few hundred million compared to Germany's 30 or 40 maybe, will always win a war of attrition that the eastern front was. However, you leave out the African front, which ate up a lot of good German armor units , equipment, and fuel, and the fact the US and UK bombed the Germans to oblivion. The bombing did far more for the all around war effort then any of the allies did on the ground. But I digress. I won't even get into how relating WW2 and the American Revolution like that is asinine, considering France did very little of the fighting and in truth, didn't effect the war effort until the latter half. They did help though, but it's not remotely comparable to WW2. Ultimately though, they are both dumb arguments as Europe has far since 'repayed' any 'debt' owed to us, and vice versa.


RE: What a reference
By AraH on 7/19/2007 5:50:05 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-Mili...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Human_losses_of...
look at that graphs and tell me the russians did almost nothing... although casualties is NOT a way of measuring contribution to the result directly, it sure as hell shows commitment. strangely enough, the only country to benefit from the war was the US (economically)... all i argue is that although i'm not russian, i think you've understated their efforts and i think they deserve more recognition (although what they did after the war was not 'fair' (keeping occupied territory, later to become the other side of the 'iron curtain'))...


RE: What a reference
By Shoal07 on 7/19/2007 9:35:39 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
although casualties is NOT a way of measuring contribution to the result


You're right, it's not. Do you have any clue to the history of WWII? The russians were getting stomped by the Germans. If it wasn't for the horrible terrain and weather, they would have been conqured. They did not have the supplies, equipment, or training to beat the Germans and relied on Human waves to keep the Germans back. That's why they have a high casualty toll, it doesn't make them a great contributer, or mean they even put forth a good effort to the war. Yes, they didn't give up, but they were on their last leg.

I would say the Russian ENVIRONMENT had more to do with stopping the Germans then the people did. We should build a monument to mud, hills, and snow.

Also, what debt has Europe paid back to the US? We invested billions in post war rebuilding (like we do everywhere) and how have we been repaid? We haven't asked for any repayment but don't be so presumptious.

America is always played as the bad guy but the truth is we have built nations back up after war with trillions of our own dollars, defended countries throughout History all over the world, and it's people are one of the (if not THE) largest charitable contributors in the world. We fund sci and research all over the world.

No, American foreign policy isn't perfect, but we've made millions of lives better outside the US. Yeah, we screw up internationally here and there, but the reality is the majority of the civillized world has benifited from America in the last several decades in some way or another.


RE: What a reference
By smitty3268 on 7/19/2007 10:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The russians were getting stomped by the Germans. If it wasn't for the horrible terrain and weather, they would have been conqured.

Actually my history professor made a pretty convincing argument that the Germans were about to take Moscow and crush all resistance when Russian spies learned about an upcoming Japanese sneak attack on America. This let them move reinforcements from the Japanese front to the German one since they figured Japan would be busy with us. These much more experienced fighters fought the Germans to a standstill until winter arrived, and the rest is history.

What I mean when said the Russians did more than us was this - they fought the Germans a lot longer than we did, sacrificed a heck of a lot more, and by the time the invasion of Normandy began they had already defeated the Germans. Not completely, but by that point the German loss was pretty much inevitable no matter what we did. That's not to say we didn't do a lot as well, because we did. We certainly did a heck of a lot more against Japan.

quote:
America is always played as the bad guy but the truth is we have built nations back up after war with trillions of our own dollars

That's true, although it wasn't exactly charity like you make it out to be. It was a strategic decision to try to contain communism and strengthen our allies against it.

quote:
defended countries throughout History all over the world

I'm not really sure where you're getting that one from - even in WW2 we didn't enter the fight until actually attacked ourselves. Maybe Korea or Vietnam? Again, we had our own interests to protect in those wars.

quote:
it's people are one of the (if not THE) largest charitable contributors in the world

Largest in dollars, yes. Although as a percentage of GDP our contributions are actually quite pathetic, one of the lowest 1st world countries.

quote:
No, American foreign policy isn't perfect, but we've made millions of lives better outside the US. Yeah, we screw up internationally here and there, but the reality is the majority of the civillized world has benifited from America in the last several decades in some way or another.

The US is the worst leader the world could have, except for all the others. Seriously, nearly everything we do is for our own benefit - but then a lot of those things have benefited the rest of the world as well. Europe is too divided to lead, China executes government officials just to try to make their products look safer, and Russia assassinates everyone who speaks up against them. That pretty much leaves the US by default.


RE: What a reference
By barclay on 7/19/2007 11:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
>"Largest in dollars, yes. Although as a percentage of GDP our contributions are actually quite pathetic, one of the lowest 1st world countries."

I posted about this in a previous topic:
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Space+Shuttle+Succes...

I am not entirely certain which report you are referring to, but nearly every one of those rankings only include public (government) giving. This is highly misleading when talking about total donations since the American people's private foreign donations are more than double the public amount.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi...

Also, I think it is important to mention that the amount given is hardly as important as the outcome. As a general rule, private aid is typically much more effective (more bang for buck) than public aid. The success of microfinancing in the 3rd world is just one example of this fact.

Another article: http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20070429-12...


RE: What a reference
By smitty3268 on 7/19/2007 12:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'll be honest and say I'm not referring to any specific report, it's just something i've heard many times before. I wasn't aware it didn't count private donations, but then it wouldn't count them for other countries either. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

quote:
Also, I think it is important to mention that the amount given is hardly as important as the outcome. As a general rule, private aid is typically much more effective (more bang for buck) than public aid.

Yes, although not always.


RE: What a reference
By dubldwn on 7/19/2007 5:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it wasn't for the horrible terrain and weather, they would have been conqured. They did not have the supplies, equipment, or training to beat the Germans and relied on Human waves to keep the Germans back.

We're way off topic, but I'm incited by your post. I'm tired of reading this myth that we should give all credit to the weather. The Russians defeated the Germans, Hungarians, Romanians, and Italians in the largest battle of all time at Stalingrad. The Axis was encircled and they were defeated. This was the turning point of the war. It was a military victory over the Axis, and I give credit to the Russian Soliders who fought there, not the snow. Extreme temperature and food shortages occurred on both sides. If the Axis didn't adequately prepare for the conditions with appropriate clothing and realistic supply lines, that's their problem. Like the Russian Winter is some random mysterious unpredictable phenomenon. Climate and terrain are a part of war. Is your claim "Yeah, but the Germans were better soliders."? Then why did they get their ass stomped?


RE: What a reference
By awer26 on 7/19/2007 6:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is your claim "Yeah, but the Germans were better soliders."? Then why did they get their ass stomped?


The Germans were the undisputed best trained soldiers in the world - they were just way outnumbered and under supplied. The Battle of Thermopylae (portrayed in the movie "300") was a similar situation. The Allied powers won because the Russians had more fighters (pretty much every man, woman and child) and the U.S. could replace their artillery 10-times faster than the Germans.

Also, it's not that the Russian weather wasn't known to them, it was that they depended on supply lines that never arrived - and that's when the weather did them in.


RE: What a reference
By wordsworm on 7/20/2007 8:35:40 AM , Rating: 2
What does it matter? Their guns froze because of the cold. It doesn't matter how well trained they were. As the saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gun fight, and that's all the Germans had. Aside from that, it's impossible to check the validity of your claim
quote:
The Germans were the undisputed best trained soldiers in the world.
I think the Japanese warriors who fought in that war were probably every bit as good. I seem to recall a Japanese victory over Russia about 25 years earlier.


RE: What a reference
By AraH on 7/23/2007 10:31:13 AM , Rating: 2
yes, russo-japanese war (1905), but the russians did a major overhaul after that (and communism allowed them to sap every bit of labour out of the country and fix up the army in the build up to WWII (see: 5 year plans))


RE: What a reference
By robinthakur on 7/19/2007 8:37:41 AM , Rating: 4
I think the black americans who were brought from Africa to America's descendants should thank their lucky stars they were sold by their own people to be brought here. What politically correct nonsense to say that their descendants aren't better off now. You ask P Diddy whether he'd rather prefer to be drinking Jeraboems of Cristal every day and night or to have probably died of Aids in Africa as a child with no health care. I'm not saying that slavery at the time wasn't bad, it was insidious and despicable in hindsight, but those people who ran it and who suffered from it long ago perished and ceased to be. I can't see how this continuous reminiscing on human suffering is helpful to people who never even knew it existed. Slavery's been gone for a long time and Africa's still as damn poor as it ever was because its officials are corrupt and thieving. Those that complain about Slavery should be given the option of a one way ticket back to any part of Africa they choose after they agree to surrender all their assets to their birth country (without which they'd have precisely nothing). I suspect you wouldn't have many takers, but maybe i'm naive...Darfur anyone? I'm not even from America I'm from the UK, but seriously, stop going on about it. Its dull.


RE: What a reference
By Ryanman on 7/19/2007 10:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
You'll get downvoted if anyone reads your post, but I agree. All these rich back rappers and CEO's who have better lives then most white people need to step back and think. Their ancestors went through hell... And the end result is that a man on welfare would be a king in any other country.


RE: What a reference
By Vanilla Thunder on 7/19/2007 10:02:32 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Without us, all europe would be speaking german right now.


And without us, Native Americans would still own their land, and be able to freely practice their beliefs. Don't paint white america as some kind of hero. We've done more than our fair share of stealing and killing over the past 200 years.

Vanilla


RE: What a reference
By mdogs444 on 7/19/2007 10:57:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We've done more than our fair share of stealing and killing over the past 200 years.


Perhaps in the past, thats how things were done. But we were no different than anywhere else. Firing squads, scalping, guilatine, hangings, burning witches, etc. Its a different society now. Those things were accepted and part of the culture in those days. You may as well compare the battle of bull run to 9/11.


RE: What a reference
By Gul Westfale on 7/19/2007 5:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
and afghanistan, irak, my lai, bombing of cambodia, etc etc etc are all in your past now?


RE: What a reference
By Spyvie on 7/19/2007 6:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
The stone age tribal people that occupied north america before European settlers arrived had no concept of land ownership, or written language for that matter.


RE: What a reference
By Gul Westfale on 7/19/2007 6:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
and because they did not know how to write it was alright to slaughter them and steal their land?


RE: What a reference
By Viditor on 7/18/2007 9:36:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the only people who care about being spyed on are ones who have something to hide

Almost everyone has something to hide...
Imagine how a Judge would react if say his son used the internet to look at porn, and the list of those sites were published in the papers as being viewed by the Judge's computer.


RE: What a reference
By mdogs444 on 7/18/2007 9:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps his son does do that. Perhaps he even does that. Fact is that is not illegal. He would be no more in the wrong than you would for looking at it.


RE: What a reference
By smitty3268 on 7/19/2007 1:06:18 AM , Rating: 3
and yet he could be punished for something that is not illegal - do you think he would get elected again, or appointed, or whatever if he was under constant public attacks for viewing porn or allowing his son to do?

And actually it is illegal if his son was underage - they could probably only get the father if they could show he was aware of it and did nothing to stop it.


RE: What a reference
By GaryJohnson on 7/18/2007 8:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
That could happen even if they obtained the IP address through the old methods (ie. obtaining a warrant).


RE: What a reference
By Some1ne on 7/18/2007 9:49:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But then again, when it comes to phone & internet watching, the only people who freak out are the ones who have something to hide. Whether its illegal downloading (movies, music, games, etc), or selling things illegaly, or emails. What people need to consider is an old saying "dont say or do anything that you wouldnt sign your name to".


I'm going to implement a complex video surveillence system that will track and record your every move at home, at work, and wherever else you go. Don't worry, there's no reason to freak out unless you have something to hide. Of course, I'm also going to reserve the right to redefine what counts as "something to hide" as much as and whenever I like, and may potentially even do so retroactively if it suits my fancy.

You see, the issue with privacy has very little to do with who is/isn't involved in subvert illegal things, and a lot more to do with the fact that other individuals and entities have no right to pry into whatever it is I happen to be doing (and especially not unannounced and when I'm within the confines of my own home), be it legal, illegal, or somewhere in between.


RE: What a reference
By RW on 7/18/2007 11:08:21 PM , Rating: 3
It's just us against us


RE: What a reference
By Chris Peredun on 7/18/2007 11:55:42 PM , Rating: 5
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

- Martin Niemöller


RE: What a reference
By aurareturn on 7/19/2007 3:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
Once the goverment bring up the word "terrorist", millions of idiots will let the government do anything they want.

If people think that we go to war to fight for "freedom", why won't they stop this for "freedom"?


RE: What a reference
By Rovemelt on 7/19/2007 12:39:49 PM , Rating: 1
Our government uses laws like this to prevent it from ever being changed, so that those in power are assured that they can never be suitably challenged.

It has little to do with terrorism...how many terrorists do you think we've captured or plots thwarted using this method? Will our government officials even tell us if the answer is zero? We are setting ourselves up for this technology to be abused (hint: there was an event around 1970 when government officials used our phone system to spy on political opponents--so let's not pretend it doesn't happen.)


Great
By Howard on 7/18/2007 7:41:43 PM , Rating: 5
Ninth Circus at it again.




RE: Great
By Some1ne on 7/18/2007 7:48:00 PM , Rating: 4
Indeed, for once I'm glad that they're the most overturned court in the nation.


RE: Great
By bryanW1995 on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great
By alifbaa on 7/18/2007 9:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
While your comments regarding precedence are correct, I believe this issue is clearly of far more importance than ecstasy. If my child does x, your email to your cousin in Pakistan innocently discussing the violence of the world won't place you on a terror watch list for no reason; with no ability to get off; and at tremendous personal, financial, and social costs for the rest of your life.

This country was founded on higher principles than the ones you are citing. I also believe the questions you posed at the end of your comment are inappropriate and irrelevant.


RE: Great
By Some1ne on 7/18/2007 9:36:13 PM , Rating: 5
The specifics of why the case was brought (e.g. guy with drug lab) are tangental to whether or not one agrees with the ruling (and more specifically its broader-reaching implications). By your logic if there was a murderer who was going to get off because the arresting officer failed to read him his miranda rights then it would be okay for the courts to rule that nobody is strictly entitled to their miranda rights anymore, because better that than a murderer go free, no? So no, I don't feel that it's right for a convicted criminal to go free on a technicality, but I also don't feel that it's right to infringe upon the rights of everybody else in order to justify keeping him there. In the long run if it's necessary to choose between one or the other, I think it's far better to have a handful of guilty people get let off on technicalities than it is to erode the rights of millions of innocent people to close the technicality loopholes.


Benjamin Franklin once said...
By daf3 on 7/19/2007 12:05:27 AM , Rating: 4
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"




RE: Benjamin Franklin once said...
By Erudite on 7/19/2007 11:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
I was going to post the same thing.

Hear, hear!


RE: Benjamin Franklin once said...
By Ringold on 7/20/2007 3:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
And where has liberty been diminished? Can you not do everything you did before?

The trade off society here in America is starting to look at isn't between liberty and freedom at all. It's looking to England, where they've already long since moved ahead due to their earlier bout with terrorism (IRA); it's a trade off between privacy and transparency .

If you want to qoute great American leaders, one only need to look to Lincoln and Roosevelt, presidents who overcame extreme national emergency, to get a historical precedent on how the government should, in the short term, view the trade-off. Both presidents essentially set aside the constitution, and Congress and the Courts rubber-stamped their deeds, for the duration of the threat to the nation. Once the threat was gone or diminished, history was left to judge the presidents for their actions based upon the results and Congress and the courts more or less later repealed most of the compromises made during the emergency.

The founding fathers would likely be shocked we've lasted this long and many had strong suspicions about democracy and it's ability to survive. They didn't face any existential threats; Lincoln and Roosevelt did, and it's their example we should be looking to -- not the framers of the constitution. Not exclusively, anyway.


By Christopher1 on 7/24/2007 9:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, in England you cannot do everything you did before. You cannot hang on a street corner without bobbies coming around to ask you what you are doing, and where you are going.

You cannot hang out with your friends without a camera watching you every second, just WAITING for you to step out of line for a MILLI-second or appear to step out of line, and snap your picture.

We should not be looking to Lincoln and Roosevelt, Roosevelt mainly because of the concentration camps under another name that he put the Japanese-Americans into.

Terrorism is never going to go completely away. It has been around for YEARS and diminished for a long time when the Catholic and Jewish religions realized that it was not right to force their religious beliefs on other people. Unfortunately, now the Islamists can spread their message around the world..... and they never realized that, at least not yet.

This is a case where the threat is NEVER GOING TO GO AWAY, and where the steps that the government has taken do NOT make us anymore safe than we were before. You know how the British have been able to thwart attacks lately? Sheer dumb luck, observance of people and seeing things that don't appear right to them, and good intelligence from PUTTING UNDERCOVER OFFICERS IN AL-QAIDA AND OTHER TERRORIST GROUPS!

Not at all from the limitations that they have put on the regular American citizen or the countless rigamarole that you have to go through to buy some things like ammonium nitrate in the world today.


Time to get into the habit of encryption
By wordsworm on 7/18/2007 8:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think if you want your mail to be private, it might be a good idea to start encrypting your messages. http://www.cypherix.co.uk/cryptainerle/index.htm?a...
128-bits of protection for your mail. As far as I can tell from the ruling, it doesn't give authorities the right to decrypt emails without a warrant.




RE: Time to get into the habit of encryption
By mdogs444 on 7/18/2007 8:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldnt be too surprised if that falls under the typical "and other actions as needed" portion.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/19/2007 12:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
128-bit? They can probably crack it.


By wordsworm on 7/19/2007 9:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
128 bit is pretty secure. While they could get a super computer to crack it, they would still have to get a super computer to crack it... if *everyone* started encrypting their letters with 128 bit software, the government would have to start buying a super computer for everyone who writes encrypted emails. 128-bit is still a mighty piece of encryption. In any case, Opera http://www.opera.com/support/search/view/798/ suggests 900+ bits. In any case, as I said before, if everyone starts doing 128-bit encryption on their emails, the government wouldn't be able to automatically surf peoples' emails looking for keywords.


quote on liberty
By kubeshauseli on 7/18/2007 9:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.

Thomas Jefferson




RE: quote on liberty
By kubeshauseli on 7/18/2007 9:39:58 PM , Rating: 3
here is another quote form Jefferson applying to this matter

It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.

Thomas Jefferson


I'm Al Harrington!
By Vertigo101 on 7/18/2007 11:59:07 PM , Rating: 4
Your article picture rocks.

"I'm Al Harrington, President and CEO of Al Harrington's Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm-Flailing Tube-Man Emporium and Warehouse! On route 10 in Weekapaug!"

http://www.wackywavinginflatablearmflailingtubeman...




RE: I'm Al Harrington!
By df96817 on 7/19/07, Rating: 0
THE MASSES HAVE SPOKEN!
By JonnyDough on 7/19/2007 4:45:48 PM , Rating: 4
The law was put in place by the people and for the people. It always follows behind and sets a precedent. Only some idealist hippies with a blatant disregard for the law (who obviously should not be IN law in the first place) would attempt to mandate self-speculated rulings in a court, rather than uphold the long-standing traditions and constitution set forth by our forefathers (based upon mostly English common law) and amended up until today. The laws governing freedom are just that, laws to protect our freedoms. They are not laws designed around bringing justice to evildoers. Keep this in mind every time you view a case involving our freedoms and I think you will know what is right. It's been mentioned turning a murderer loose. I will risk that murderer over an entire government raping me of my freedom as I sleep. The government is not my father, nor my keeper. It is my protector and my insurance against the natural and evil harms of the world, and I will build for it a guardhouse, and I will allow it to take of my food. But the day that I allow it to bite me is the day I take it out back and get rid of it with my shotgun.




<no subject>
By Scabies on 7/18/2007 7:53:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"U.S. Postal Service, where anyone can read information on the outside of an envelope but can't look at the contents."

What a lie. Weren't they in court for monitoring internet and email activity before the warrant was issued/granted/whatever? According to their analogy all they would be doing is look at the packet headers to determine that this IP is sending to this IP, NOT what the packet holds (and VERY NOT what they say when assembled)




Balance
By oTAL (blog) on 7/19/2007 4:24:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
In a controversial case in 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that since phone users dialed phone numbers which are handled by phone companies -- considered a third party -- and because authorities only used a pen dialer to gather the phone calls made, not what was said in the conversations.


This phrase sucks... It's not even easy to understand which way you're going. I had to read further into the article to be sure that the 79 decision allowed the use of the "pen dialer".
I'm ok with small mistakes, bt sometimes they are big enough to highly detract from a quality reading.

As for my opinion on the article, I guess it has some similarities with the previous law. I'd feel my privacy more exposed by people knowing what numbers I called (with time and duration of such calls) than I'd feel about the IPs I connected too without further information on what was done there.
Although I believe it's a big power that should not be abused, I guess there is some balance there... Anyone can go out of their way to hide their activities from this kind of vigilance if privacy is an issue. And when you're connected to the internet it's pretty much a given that if you do not take measures, you have no guarantee of privacy whatsoever.

Here's the limitations I believe should be imposed:
1-No subpoenas to ISPs trying to find who owns the IP xxx you connected too. If it's easy to obtain very well. If it's not then though luck.
2-No protocols / information traded / number of links established / etc. IP xxx established a connection with IP yyy. That's plenty of info without a warrant for more.
3-When it's obvious that the person tried to camouflage his actions by using a proxy/whatever, then it should not be legal to use the same strategy and try to find out the IPs that the proxy computer was connected too, or in any other way try to circumvent the privacy measures taken.

A great amount of care should be taken to insure that this power can't be used to spy on someone's political beliefs or to allow a government to stop any form of political dissent. Political liberty should be 100% guaranteed.




The Fallacy of the "Nothing to Hide" Argument
By darkhelmutis on 7/19/2007 8:21:58 AM , Rating: 4
Read this article: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id...

This is to anyone who responded to this story with "I have nothing to fear because I have nothing to hide." Such an argument is a cop-out; you are handing over your privacy.

How far are you willing to let someone pry into your life? Should they know what you ate for breakfast, lunch or dinner? If you brushed your teeth this morning? Or the fact that you really like to have sex doggy style?

Would you want anyone to come into your home at anytime without a search warrant and with no probably cause? How about the same but in the case of phone tapping. Probably not, but whoops this already happened.

Read this paper and it might just open up your eyes.

PS - To comment number one....a defense attorney's job is to represent their client regardless of what they may or may not have done. If means trying to get a drug felon out of jail because of a technicality, then so be it. Never forget: it is the accusing party's responsbility to construct a convincing case. However, in doing so, they must also respect any and all laws that govern the acquisition evidence to prove said convincing case. If they fail to do this, the fault is their's.




THE MASSES HAVE SPOKEN!
By JonnyDough on 7/19/2007 4:48:17 PM , Rating: 3
The law was put in place by the people and for the people. It always follows behind and sets a precedent. Only some idealist hippies with a blatant disregard for the law (who obviously should not be IN law in the first place) would attempt to mandate self-speculated rulings in a court, rather than uphold the long-standing traditions and constitution set forth by our forefathers (based upon mostly English common law) and amended up until today. The laws governing freedom are just that, laws to protect our freedoms. They are not laws designed around bringing justice to evildoers. Keep this in mind every time you view a case involving our freedoms and I think you will know what is right. It's been mentioned turning a murderer loose. I will risk that murderer over an entire government raping me of my freedom as I sleep. The government is not my father, nor my keeper. It is my protector and my insurance against the natural and evil harms of the world, and I will build for it a guardhouse, and I will allow it to take of my food. But the day that I allow it to bite me is the day I take it out back and get rid of it with my shotgun.




By hairy on 7/19/2007 8:24:41 PM , Rating: 3
You live less than two blocks away from known terrorists,and you claim you knew nothing about it??
Yeah right!
Your phone number has a 3 in it where the terror cell had 4!
Your internet address, is has a 4 in it, where the terror cell had a 7!
You have the same postman!
You obviously knew the same neighbours!
and you claim to know nothing about the terror cells existance!
I think the coincidences speak for themselves, we should let the court systems decide on your obvious guilt!!
If your innocent, your lawyer will obviously be able to get you off. (even OJ achieved that one)!
there are enough cheating lawyers to get most guilty people off through a technicality, who knows you may be in the same boat.
But as I represent the government, I will find the evidence that proves your connections - eventually.
After all I am paid by your tax money to chase down untruths no matter how they have been misrepresented.
:-)
Could this happen?? - buggar - it happens every week, it just hasn't affected you - YET!




Live Free or Die
By giantpandaman2 on 7/19/2007 1:05:25 AM , Rating: 2
I remember when America used to believe that. Now it's let the government do whatever they want, because I'm a chicken shit.




The internet is a public domain
By randoljt on 7/19/2007 8:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
Public areas are generally considered to be free reign for observation. The logic is there. I don't necessarily agree with what the ruling, but I can't fault them for it entirely.




By theapparition on 7/19/2007 9:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ars Technica used an interesting analogy for the government's stance on the issue. It's the same as the "U.S. Postal Service, where anyone can read information on the outside of an envelope but can't look at the contents."

I once recieved a package from the post office that was opened approx 12years ago. Inside the plain wrapped soft package was a single VHS tape (if you must know, it was Disney's Bambi). Feeling the package from the outside, you could tell it was a VHS tape. The postal officer who delivered it stated it was common practice to investigate packages that they thought were suspicious. He wouldn't tell me why it raised a flag, but my guess would have been illegal child movies. Never followed up, but just wondering now if this is still in practice, or was it even legal back then?




This means business.
By arazok on 7/19/2007 10:15:48 AM , Rating: 2
I've never seen the Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man look so pissed in my life!




By encryptkeeper on 7/19/2007 11:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, the pun was bad.
Ars Technica used an interesting analogy for the government's stance on the issue. It's the same as the "U.S. Postal Service, where anyone can read information on the outside of an envelope but can't look at the contents."

So essentially, this case was made on the precedent that the government can search the IP addresses I go to, but they are forbidden from GOING to those IP addresses to see what the page actually is? Yeah, I'm sure that's as far as our government will go. With a bunch of conservatives who always gripe about how they hate big government, they sure seem to be doing just the opposite.




That picture
By danrien on 7/19/2007 12:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
You know, it seems like you mostly commented and extended upon the commentary already offered on ars technica, but seriously that picture rocks.




Common sense prevails
By montgom on 7/20/2007 1:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
Unusual that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco would rule in this way. Their track record has been rather "liberal" and anti-common sense in the past if my old frail memory serves me right.

Do I like it? Nope! But I can live with it. Life is a series of compromises. This is just another compromise.
Bob




Quote
By Kinyo on 7/22/2007 8:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even though the government has another tool to help conduct investigations, the ruling "does not imply that more intrusive techniques or techniques that reveal more content information" can be used, Judge Raymond Fisher said.


Okay, the government can now watch and log your internet habbits. How much more intrusive does it get than that! - THEY CAN SEE EVERY SINGLE THING YOU DO! - they could before, but now its LEGAL!

It's a bad thing for us all - they couldn't stop 9/11 but they think that they can go through millions of internet users accounts to find a few terrorists?

What if you were setting up something such as a protest against the war in iraq over the internet - they could shut it down now before it even starts " as a matter of national security "

It's another attack on our civil liberties - they are all being stripped from us.

Anyone ever heard of the NORTHERN UNION? Look into it, and this story around it.




Mixed feelings
By umeng2002 on 7/18/2007 10:06:28 PM , Rating: 1
I mean this info is available to any tech-savy 14yo russian hacker, so why should it be illegal for the US government to collect this data in an investigation?

But at the same time the internet isn't public domain or analogues to being in a public park. It's a bunch of private networks. Don't they still need a warrant to get your info from your IP address from your ISP?

Until US citizens demand specific privacy laws for the internet and other telecommunications, things like this will always be gray area.




What has this country come to...
By NarcoticHobo on 7/19/2007 7:08:30 AM , Rating: 1
I'm writing this from my computer in Shanghai, China as I visit for work purposes.

I have to wonder why it is that those who would so quickly dismiss the Chinese government as horrible and undesirable are the same ones who support court decisions such as the one in this article.

Why is it I (and many of my fellow expatriots here) feel free in this country, and safer on the streets?

Many decry China saying "Oh, you can't protest openly there!". Can you in the US though? Free speech zones seem just as silly as the government sanctioned meaningless protests which are allowed here. At the RNC in 2004 mass amounts of protesters were detained without reason or charges. How is this any different?

At least here I know where the line is. I know what I can and cannot do, and in many ways that makes me feel more free.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759




RE: What has this country come to...
By Chaser on 7/19/07, Rating: 0
By juserbogus on 7/19/2007 4:18:59 PM , Rating: 1
Are you really that dumb that you did not understand his email or did you not even read it?


RE: What has this country come to...
By Ryanman on 7/19/07, Rating: -1
Umm yeahhh....
By me4you on 7/19/2007 9:27:34 AM , Rating: 1
I don't really care that much is they say its legal for them to do so. Because you know there gonna do it reguardless if its a law or not. But first they need to straightin out there internal workings, employess an what not leaking information for a little cash on the side.

Just like the other day, I got a letter in the mail from the BMV stating that my information has been stolen an that we will keep you post.

Great.....just what I needed (smerks will flipping the bird)




Oh shut up
By FITCamaro on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Oh shut up
By Polynikes on 7/18/2007 8:33:15 PM , Rating: 3
What happens when you're falsely accused? You want the "bad guy" to go to jail easy then?


RE: Oh shut up
By mendocinosummit on 7/18/2007 9:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
When cases have audio, visual, and tangible evidence against somebody committing a crime there should be a way to fast track the court process. Somebody that is on camera, left behind there DNA, and has more than one witness does not deserve to have tons of appeals.


RE: Oh shut up
By Doormat on 7/18/2007 10:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
Because the folks at the lab NEVER screw up. ::rolls eyes:: Even though they're overloaded with work and have limited funds, they always produce the correct result on time.

You watch too much CSI.


RE: Oh shut up
By mendocinosummit on 7/19/2007 2:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
Never do. If DNA is the only proof that they have then yes I would agree with you, but not when the DNA is just the lid on the coffin I don't agree with you.


RE: Oh shut up
By FITCamaro on 7/19/2007 6:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
As I said, I had it happen to me. Am I in jail? No. Just because the authorities monitor your internet and end up investigating, doesn't mean everyone involved goes to jail. Even the guy who they were actually there for, who's still a friend of mine, never had anything really happen because they saw that it really wasn't anything. And the charges were pretty severe if he'd been prosecuted.


RE: Oh shut up
By Polynikes on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Oh shut up
By mdogs444 on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Oh shut up
By Lakku on 7/19/2007 3:07:02 AM , Rating: 2
Right, so let's take yours and the OP's line of reasoning and go the opposite way. I can cure cancer, AIDS, and maybe some other diseases, but I gotta kill a bunch of people to get there. I'll save millions though, so as you put it, the ends justifies the means. While we are at it, I shall start with your family, your mother and father shall be put to death, and siblings you have, any children you have yourself, your girl friend, and then your non-immediate family. At the end, I will kill you. Are you willing to make the sacrifice? I bet you are not.


RE: Oh shut up
By mdogs444 on 7/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Oh shut up
By Kaleid on 7/19/2007 11:26:41 PM , Rating: 1
You can't trust people who benefit from terrorism to protect you.

The famous PNAC quote "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" comes to mind among the many many quotes (this one pre-9/11 but plenty post-9/11 as well) I could post on how beneficial the attack was to the elite agenda in the middle-east, makes terrorism tiny in comparison and useful.

Besides, most politicians have enough information and intelligence in their heads to understand that a war on terrorism is totally counterproductive, CIA has for instance for a long time spoken about blowbacks.

See operation ajax back in 1953 which lead to the Iranian revolution. China didn't need to use the military to get to the Iranian oil (yes, oil is extremely important). You suffer because of former interventionism of the wrong kind.


RE: Oh shut up
By alifbaa on 7/18/2007 9:03:42 PM , Rating: 5
I think that by saying things like "I want the bad guys to be caught," you are creating a false dichotomy. We all want to be safe and to have the bad guys caught. We also don't want private information to be disclosed to those we don't wish it to be disclosed to. Contrary to your apparent views, it is perfectly reasonable to have a problem with the government being allowed to tap into private communications without the check of a court order.

As to your argument about state and local governments not having the resources to watch individuals, you are wrong, sir. Data-mining companies are increasingly offering their services to state and local governments free of charge in exchange for having access to their databases. Such services offer even small governments to gain enormous amounts of data on individuals that they would otherwise need a court order to obtain themselves. The reason for this is that the constitution bars government from collecting and storing data on groups of people. It does not address accessing someone else's database because when it was written it was thought that only a government would be able to collect and store such data. Times have changed, and government has found a way around the constitution. People such as yourself, spewing arguments and false dichotomies such as yours, have largely silenced any opposition to this.

Also, you do need to be concerned about the government watching YOUR internet traffic. The same technology that gives you QoS can and does easily get adapted to give anyone the ability to parse out specific data streams.

Frontline did an excellent report on the NSA installing a room specifically for this purpose at an AT&T facility in San Francisco. The room was placed adjacent to the AT&T lines streaming all data between the US and the Pacific. A commercially available server was installed in the room giving it the capability to parse out information from specific people or involving specific types of content.

The NSA's daily operations are almost entirely beyond the scope of our judicial system and are often undisclosed to congress. The Patriot Act allows law enforcement at all levels to trade information with the intelligence community. You do the math.

No one is saying the government at any level shouldn't have the ability to watch what threatening individuals and organizations are doing. Having said that, we would all certainly be foolish to cede more power to the government without first having an informed and reasoned discussion. I'm afraid I didn't read anything in what you said that constituted reasoning or information.


RE: Oh shut up
By FITCamaro on 7/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: Oh shut up
By ksuWildcat on 7/19/2007 1:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Welcome to about 10 years ago. That system has been around since the 90s. And no, I don't see a problem with it.


I believe that the particular system that was the subject of a story on Frontline that alifbaa is referring to is relatively new (post-Patriot Act.) I saw that episode as well, and if I recall, it was actually doing a lot more than analyzing select traffic. Frankly, the government has no business monitoring communications on that level. All eavesdropping should require warrants, rather than the current system which subverts "checks and balances".

The big problem with domestic spying is the abuse of power. You may not feel that this violates your privacy, and perhaps you have nothing to hide. But what if your political or ideological views differ from those in power? How can you guarantee that the spy tools will not be misused and target the wrong people?

This is exactly what city governments across the globe are discovering. Security cameras in public places are being misused, focusing on attractive women rather than potential security risks. The tools designed to protect us are instead being misused to further certain peoples' agendas.

The warrant-less eavesdropping is only the tip of the iceberg. Just wait until "classified" information is made available to the public and you will see just how perverse the intelligence community has become.


RE: Oh shut up
By kubeshauseli on 7/19/2007 2:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
i'm sick of quoting people in this discussion, but history repeats it's self and if you are anything of a true patriot you would believe these quotes hold value to the american dreams of freedom and liberty. for we may not currently live in communist russia but if we keep letting them steal our rights and freedoms we shall soon be living there. how long shall it be before we need papers to cross state lines because national security requires it? here is the quote

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Benjamin Franklin

now why do the founders and shapers of this nation hold these beliefs sacred but the current administration would have us become subservient to their will under the guise of patriotism and security. remember true patriots question, true patriots fight, false patriots wave their flags and are the outspoken, but are all hot air. all i can say is if you feel they should take our freedoms away or monitor us the above quote applies to you, and you do deserve neither freedom nor security.


RE: Oh shut up
By Ryanman on 7/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Oh shut up
By Emryse on 7/20/2007 9:55:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You can say that I'm misinformed and an idiot for my views. That I don't care about my rights being taken away. I do. I just don't feel that I've lost any.


Actually, that's just exactly the mentality and lack of concern that allows your government to convert your "rights" to "priveledges" - so what happens when someday you are restricted from doing something you normally have been able to do, not because they've just recently changed policy, but because they're now flexing their power? Of course, you would never disagree with your government, would you? Well then I'm sure they'll always let you do whatever you want.

quote:
Name one thing I can no longer do that I used to be able to do before?


Ummm... make a phone call without Uncle Sam's un-warranted knowledge? You know, I've actually appreciated many of your comments in the past, but clearly you're wrong in this case. In fact, you are the ideal and easiest candidate for our government's violation of liberties because you feel there is some grey areas where it is justified.

Then again, unfortunately in a day and age where personal responsibility has lost to the much more rewarding activity of blaming any and everyone else involved - I will humbly state we certainly did this to ourselves.

"Shall we lie down... and allow them to bind us hand and foot? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me: give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry


RE: Oh shut up
By ssvegeta1010 on 7/19/2007 10:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

FITCamaro, you shut it.


RE: Oh shut up
By mdogs444 on 7/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Oh shut up
By NarcoticHobo on 7/19/2007 12:30:22 PM , Rating: 3
Wow looks like somebody needs a history lesson.

The quote of course is from Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers of this country. Seems silly to dismiss a founding father's ideas so quickly.

He was born in 1706 and died in 1790, so no this is not 1492 by any standard. Scalping was practiced by the native Americans of the time, who for the most part had tense but non-violent relations with the settlers. Later on those relations escalated with our expansion in the west, which started with the Expedition of Louis and Clark, quite a while after Franklin was passed.

The sort of lawlessness you refer to came mainly before and after Franklin's time, with the main conflict during his time being a fight against the oppressive government of England.

It is for these reasons that his words hold true today, and will timelessly hold meaning for future generations.


RE: Oh shut up
By sld on 7/19/2007 12:48:25 PM , Rating: 2
The quote still applies today, because people think they can get guaranteed safety when they trade away their freedom. :)

Please wake up son, all humans tend to consolidate power, even in a democracy. It takes an active citizenry to balance the tendency-to-totalitarianism of any government in the world.


RE: Oh shut up
By aos007 on 7/19/2007 1:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
And the pair of that phrase is "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

So many people these days think that freedom is a given and that there's someone out there looking out for them. As they say, you get what you pay for.


RE: Oh shut up
By Ryanman on 7/19/2007 10:47:14 PM , Rating: 1
Hitler promised safety too. Read a damn history book, visit the holocaust museum. See what steps the third rich took then look at what happens in the U.S. If you think history has no meaning, I'll invent a time machine and throw you back to 1941.


RE: Oh shut up
By Kaleid on 7/19/2007 11:33:14 PM , Rating: 3
"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death". - Adolph Hitler

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." - Hitler

"Why of course the people don't want war. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering

etc etc...


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki