digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

New Bill Requires ISPs to Monitor All Email Traffic and Surfing Activity

theseminal.com — The 1984-esque Safety Act would require ISPs to record all users’ surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic indefinitely. Can anyone explain how this is constitutional?

Who dugg this? Made popular Feb 13, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

162 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+138It's not constitutional but our government threw out that document on 9/11.

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Inscribed on the plaque at the base of the statue of liberty.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+128"We need politicians who understand technology to write sane legislation about online privacy."

    We need politicians who understand the constitution.
  • dumbblah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+100I believe the exact quote is:

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

    Not that I'm being picky or anything, but it is my favorite.
  • HalFTW, on 10/12/2007, -6/+100Every website needs to start using HTTPS by default.
  • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+101"Can anyone explain how this is constitutional?"

    No.

    We need politicians who understand technology to write sane legislation about online privacy.
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+90"we need politicians that understand anything besides dollar signs"
  • TortfeasorG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+71"Can anybody explain how this is constitutional?"

    Yes.

    I will start with why so many people believe this should not be constitutional. Most people think this kind of monitoring is unconstitutional because it is a firmly established rule of constitutional law (4th amendment) that the content of telephone conversations is protected from unreasonable searches. This is so because telephone conversations are considered things in which we have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." The 4th amendment thus operates as such: if one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a thing, then the Gov't must obtain a warrant to search that thing.

    There are certain exceptions to this rule, with which many people have some familiarity, such as: exigent circumstances (police can search for you in your home if they have been chasing you and you ran into your home; or in an automobile stop, police can search your car without a warrant). In such cases, the Gov't is exempt from the warrant requirement, as long as they can establish that they had probable cause to believe a crime has been or was being committed by the subject being searched.

    In any event, the key factor is that one must have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a thing before it is given this full 4th amendment protection. The law is that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trunks of their cars, but not in whatever is lying in plain view on the back seat. Similarly, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to what was said on their phone conversation, but not as to what number they called. This is so, like it or not, because when you call someone, you are routing that destination number through a third party intermediary. You have thus divulged to a third party the number that you are calling, and hence cannot reasonably expect that information to be kept private. You may argue whether the phone company owes you some duty to not disclose that information, but as far as 4th amendment jurisprudence is concerned, that information has been disclosed to a third party, thus you cannot reasonably expect that information to be kept totally private.

    Unfortunately, this is how the law has evolved to deal with internet communications. The law sees internet communications as more analogous to tracking numbers dialed than to listening to the content of phone conversations. In my opinion, this is improper, and we ought to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our internet communications.

    However, we all know that our internet communications are not private, each packet we send and receive is sent through a host of intermediaries. We do enjoy a certain amount of privacy through obscurity, however, given the sheer volume of internet communications.

    I would argue, though probably unsuccessfully, that telephone conversations are the same way; people can tap into them and listen in on what you're communicating, that doesn't mean you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of your communication. If the susceptibility of the medium to tapping does not, for 4th amendment purposes, invalidate the reasonable expectation of privacy in the telephone context, then why does it in the internet context?

    I hope I have cleared this up somewhat. I'm certainly open to other thoughts, but I am pretty sure this explains roughly the constitutionality of the proposed bill. Who knows, though, maybe the threat of this kind of bill and its consequent 1984-ish monitoring of communication will make those 9 wise souls on the Supreme Court think a little differently about what ought to be private and what ought not to be.
  • geonet, on 10/12/2007, -7/+71I thought Google already monitored all traffic. Why do we need a new Bill?
  • tidu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+61There's not stopping it now; they added the word "terrorism" to the bill.
  • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54 I've already seen somthing like this on cnet. Its pretty ***** nazified if you ask me. Someone really needs to put a stop to this police progression.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44Police State USA. Eventually, we'll have to retake control of this country. Either that or we go from serfs to slaves.
  • diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34I wonder how far they will go claiming people are ISPs? Am I an ISP for providing email for my extended family? We login via https and our email to each other never leaves the server. What keeps a terror cell from having their own webmail server like I do? Nothing!

    People need to wake up! This is not about child porn or terrorists. This is about spying on everything you do. The hardcore pedos and terrorists are already using encryption, so it must be to monitor us, the average joes.
  • Swiftfeet8, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33I work for a smaller independent ISP, and we have been having to get ready and comply with this by May. If you want some more information on it check out "CALEA". Also check out:

    http://www.fcc.gov/calea/

  • SIRBERUS, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37Forget stopping terrorism. They need to kill off the spammers first.
  • Slash23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31No technically they are not the same things. Serfs technically belong to the land they farm, in theory they are slaves to the land, however there are landlords who own those lands therefore they own the serfs. Slaves are not bound to the land, but rather to the owner or buyer. Slaves are property. But good try at attempting to be cute and putting someone down; so now I will put you down, get YOUR facts straight before you jump on someone.
  • HalFTW, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27"https only has a point if you have exclusive access to some content (i.e. your bank account, university student pages, etc.) otherwise, if everyone can access the page, someone can just pick up the URL you're using and find out the encrypted content. i don't believe the URL is encrypted."

    Your browser does not send packets an URL, it sends packets to an IP. The page you are requesting is send in those packets, so it is encrypted with HTTPS. The site you are visiting can be obtained by watching your DNS requests, or by doing reverse DNS lookups for an ip, but they can't tell what the page you have requested it, or what is on it.

    Something like TOR might be the answer, but at the moment it is to slow for widespread use. Also people should start signing and encrypting their email with programs like PGP/GPG.

    The stupid thing is that 'terrorists' or whatever bad people can already be completely anonymous on the net if they know what they are doing. With all this spying BS they are just infringing on the civil liberties of the masses.

    It's a bit like how DRM only hurts legitimate owners of content.
  • Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30Good, maybe they'll catch me on www.bigbrothercansuckmyballs.com.
  • gmiley, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27"I guess such monitoring is fine to look for terrorists, but hopefully it's not to track down filesharing!!"

    I don't really give a damn about file sharing, what I do give a damn about is my own privacy. I don't like the idea of someone watching what I do, when I do it... assessing every combination of choices I make, trying to determine if I am a "threat" for whatever reason.

    The problem is that once you allow something like this in the door for the reason of "such monitoring is fine to look for terrorists..." then what is to stop it from being used to track file sharing or anything else for that matter? They have used the same "terrorism" reasons to get things like The Patriot Act in place. Just another "think of the children" argument that makes politicians look bad by going against it, IMO.
  • Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24I have to agree with brokekneck. People can change/mask their IPs. Plus the cost of archiving this data, and the cost of maintenance required would greatly increase the cost on the customer's end.

    I also believe whistleblowing is a necessary condition for a free and just society. How is a whistleblower supposed to expose government corruption if they know their monitored email activity will expose themselves to their superiors? Deep Throat (Watergate whistleblower) remained anonymous for 30 years. I feel a scared government weary of their secrets and crimes being outed by its own people, wanting mechanisms in place to identify and punish any and all who speak out from within, is the real reason this Bill is being pushed forward.
  • obrysii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24And suddenly our porn surfing habits become more than just a personal affair.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26> Arghh! Even as a minority they're still causing difficulties.

    You, sir, are making the incorrect assumption that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely.

    It does... which is why you should *NEVER* give them any power in the first place...
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22the constitution doesnt grant rights, it forbids the government from infringing upon rights. your rights are considered 'god given' and are not granted to you by any government (and no government can take them away)
  • Neoisamu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21It seems to me that we're trying to become more like China when it comes to activity monitoring and censorship... next thing is street side public executions.
  • gmiley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19The problem I have with this is that by collecting mass data on anyone and everyone they are effectively assuming everyone is a criminal waiting to be caught. Pre-investigation. I do agree that it would make things easier for law enforcement, however I would much more prefer to live with a little bit of insecurity in this world and be free rather than have a warm and fuzzy in my tummy and be watched 24/7. Your life is yours to live, not anyone else's.
  • repins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18This has been going on for a while now, they just want to make it all nice an legal now :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(FBI)
  • tardmongerster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Proxies won't help a thing. It will be your ISP that retains all the data about your online activity. Your ISP is the first hop of your connection, before the traffic gets to a proxy or anything else.

    The only thing that may help would be point to point encryption, such as VPN.
  • gmerin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16since constitutionality isn't an important concern for the president, why should it be a concern for congress?
  • zttrx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21Calm the ***** down, people. This bill has been passed around every year for the last NINE years. It has never passed, and it won't pass any time soon.

    And it's not your rights that keep it from passing...its very loud, very large ISPs complaining continually that such monitoring would absolutely decimate their bottom line, forcing them out of business, because that kind of thing is VERY expensive to implement.
  • mickhead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Time to quit the internet.
  • jdavid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14ok, time to start a new internet based on mesh networks, we need to get rid of the middle man NOW!
  • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Read the IXth and Xth amendments. You have the sense of the Constitution backwards: Anything NOT in the Constitution is NOT a legitimate power of government.

    What we need is to make exceeding constitutional authority a capital crime. A few hanged bureaucrats displayed along the roadside would be a good education program for the people who are supposed to be serving and representing us.
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

    Amendment IX:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Now, where's the right to privacy?

    It is clearly in those two amendments.

    The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

    That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.
  • eswartz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14neither of which are desirable?
    Perhaps we're looking for "free"?
  • fatbyjhnsn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Our website is at a crawl right now. Thanks for all the traffic! Please take a few minutes to check out the rest of The Seminal, and bookmark it for future use. Below is a summery of what you can do if you want to get involved and help kill this bill. From the article:

    "There are two ways to make members of Congress listen to your concerns.

    1. Inundate them with phone calls and emails.
    2. Get negative media coverage of what they are trying to accomplish.

    Please contact any or all of the people and organizations listed below. Let them know that the SAFETY ACT, as it is written, is not acceptable.

    Sponsor:
    Rep. Lamar Smith, http://lamarsmith.house.gov/FormCheck.asp - 202-225-4236

    Cosponsors:
    Rep. Steve Chabot, (202) 225-2216
    Rep. Tom Feeney, (202) 225-2706
    Rep. J. Randy Forbes, (202) 225-6365
    Rep. Trent Franks, (202) 225-4576
    Rep. Elton Gallegly, (202) 225-5811
    Rep. Dan Lungren, (202) 225-5716
    Rep. Mike Pence, (202) 225-3021

    House Judiciary Committee Chair:
    Rep. John Conyers, (202) 225-5126

    ACLU:
    http://aclu.org/contact/general/index.html

    A few media contacts:

    2020@abc.com, 360@cnn.com, 48hours@cbsnews.com, 60m@cbsnews.com, aaron.zitner@latimes.com, abc.news.magazines@abc.com, abenfer@salon.com, abenitez@univision.net, abramowitz@washpost.com, abramsreport@msnbc.com, achenbachj@washpost.com, ahrensf@washpost.com, aizenmann@washpost.com, alan.miller@latimes.com, alan@alan.com, alevin@usatoday.com, allenh@washpost.com, am@cnn.com, amontgomery@salon.com, andrea.koppel@turner.com, aradelat@gns.gannett.com, aranam@washpost.com, areiter@salon.com, argetsinger@washpost.com, armstrongs@csps.com, arshad.mohammed@reuters.com, astone@usatoday.com, ataylor@npr.org, axtmank@csps.com, ayork@salon.com, bakerp@washpost.com, balzd@washpost.com, barbara.serrano@latimes.com, barrj@washpost.com, barrs@washpost.com, barry.siegel@latimes.com, bduffy@usnews.com, beckerj@washpost.com, bennettp@washpost.com, benningv@washpost.com, betsy.fischer@nbc.com, beyersd@washpost.com, bill.rempel@latimes.com, bill.schneider@turner.com, billy.house@arizonarepublic.com, bjapsen@tribune.com, bnaylor@npr.org, bnichols@usatoday.com, bob.drogin@latimes.com, bobherb@nytimes.com, bonesteelm@washpost.com, boustanyn@washpost.com, bpc@cbsnews.com, brelis@globe.com, brennanp@washpost.com, brian_hill@metronetworks.com, brinkerbob@aol.com, browar57@aol.com, brownw@washpost.com, bslavin@usatoday.com, bsteigerwald@tribweb.com, burns@nytimes.com, buzzflash@buzzflash.com, bwelch@usatoday.com, bwilson@npr.org, bwyman@salon.com, candy.crowley@turner.com, carlsonp@washpost.com, carol.lin@turner.com, castanedar@washpost.com, cchocano@salon.com, ccolin@salon.com, cflintoff@npr.org, cgarrett@tribune.com, charlierose@pbs.org, cherylnyt@nytimes.com, chinnid@csps.com, chod@washpost.com, chuck.neubauer@latimes.com, CJ@MSNBC.com, clarkp@washpost.com, clavin@phillynews.com, cohensh@washpost.com, colmes@foxnews.com, contact@pacifica.org, contactus@wrn.org, cookd@csps.com, coopermana@washpost.com, copelandl@washpost.com, corrections@npr.org, countdown@msnbc.com, cushman@nytimes.com, cwindham@npr.org, cynthia@ajc.com, dabrahms@gns.gannett.com, dabrooks@nytimes.com, dakirk@nytimes.com, dardalan@npr.org, daryl@salon.com, dasang@nytimes.com, dastor@editorandpublisher.com, dateline@nbc.com, davan.maharaj@latimes.com, davenportc@washpost.com, david.kelly@latimes.com, david.savage@latimes.com, david.willman@latimes.com, david.zucchino@latimes.com, davisp@washpost.com, dawn@salon.com, dawsone@washpost.com, dayk@washpost.com, dcorn@thenation.com, dcruickshank@salon.com, ddmarko@wdtn.com, deaned@washpost.com, deinerj@washpost.com, deirdre.walsh@turner.com, deyoungk@washpost.com, dgonyea@npr.org, dij@cbsnews.com, dillinj@csps.com, dkeil@bloomberg.net, dmedrano@telemundo.com, dobbsm@washpost.com, don.frederick@latimes.com, don.woutat@latimes.com, donovanc@washpost.com, doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com, drezenr@washpost.com, drobinson@wdtn.com, drshow@wamu.org, dschorr@npr.org, dshuster@msnbc.com, duttj@washpost.com, dvorakp@washpost.com, Dwycliff@tribune.com, econrad@pressherald.com, editor@reuters.com, editor@usatoday.com, editorial@nytimes.com, editorial@progressive.org, Editors@newsweek.com, efm@cbsnews.com, eggend@washpost.com, ekelly@gns.gannett.com, elizabeth.mehren@latimes.com, ellen.barry@latimes.com, ellengoodman@globe.com, email@wrn.org, emcdonnell@npr.org, erschm@nytimes.com, evaldez@univision.net, evening@cbsnews.com, executive-editor@nytimes.com, fair@fair.org, faye.fiore@latimes.com, fbremner@gns.gannett.com, febarr@nytimes.com, feedback@ap.org, feedback@msnbc.com, feedback@necn.com, fjames@tribune.com, fmorgan@salon.com, foreign@guardian.co.uk, foreign@nytimes.com, foreigneditor@independent.co.uk, freshair@whyy.org, ftn@cbsnews.com, galbraith@mail.utexas.edu, gborger@usnews.com, gdelama@tribune.com, geoff@radioleft.com, georgewill@washpost.com, gflanders@usatoday.com, ghager@usatoday.com, glenn.bunting@latimes.com, gpierce@washingtontimes.com, grain@cbsnews.com, grays@csps.com, greg.hitt@wsj.com, greg.miller@latimes.com, grierp@csps.com, gsealey@salon.com, GWashburn@tribune.com, hardball@msnbc.com, howie@wnir.com, hprzybyla@bloomberg.net, icemandc@msn.com, imus@msnbc.com, imusshow@yahoo.com, info@ap.org, info@cnbc.com, info@jimhightower.com, info@michaelmoore.com, info@thenation.com, ingwersonm@csps.com, investigations_desk@upi.com, James.Rainey@latimes.com, jane_mayer@newyorker.com, janet.hook@latimes.com, jbiskupic@usatoday.com, jcarroll@gns.gannett.com, jcochran@npr.org, jcohen@bloomberg.net, jconason@observer.com, jcrewdson@tribune.com, jeanne.cummings@wsj.com, jeanne.meserve@turner.com, jeff.greenfield@cnn.com, jim.walton@turner.com, jimhoagland@washpost.com, jkeen@usatoday.com, jlawrence@usatoday.com, jloven@ap.org, jlyden@npr.org, jmccaslin@washingtontimes.com, jmillman@salon.com, jmulligan@belo-dc.com, jnorman@dmreg.com, joan.springhetti@latimes.com, joe@msnbc.com, joel.havemann@latimes.com, johanna.neuman@latimes.com, john.glionna@latimes.com, john.stewart@latimes.com, john.whitesides@reuters.com, johncorby@clearchannel.com, johnson@globe.com, jonathan.peterson@latimes.com, jonathan.wald@nbc.com, jonesc@csps.com, josh.getlin@latimes.com, josh.meyer@latimes.com, journal@c-span.org, JPeres@tribune.com, jridgeway@villagevoice.com, jsweeney@salon.com, jtapper@salon.com, JTrippi@MSNBC.com, judy.pasternak@latimes.com, jules_siegel@cafecancun.com, julie.bowles@latimes.com, justice@nytimes.com, justicetalking@asc.upenn.edu, jwalcott@krwashington.com, jwilliams@npr.org, jzuckman@tribune.com, kamiya@salon.com, kberger@salon.com, kcooper@globe.com, kevin.sack@latimes.com, kieferf@csps.com, kjohnson@usatoday.com, kkiely@usatoday.com, klauerman@salon.com, KOlbermann@msnbc.com, krudin@npr.org, krugman@nytimes.com, kscott@gns.gannett.com, kurtzh@washpost.com, kwalsh@usnews.com, kyra.phillips@turner.com, lauram@salon.com, lbivins@gns.gannett.com, leslie.hoffecker@latimes.com, letter@globe.com, letters.editor@ft.com, letters@economist.com, letters@guardian.co.uk, letters@iht.com, Letters@newsweek.com, letters@nytimes.com, letters@slate.com, letters@time.com, letters@usnews.com, letters@washingtontimes.com, letters@washpost.com, lettersbwol@businessweek.com, lewin@nytimes.com, lhansen@npr.org, liberties@nytimes.com, liberties@smtp-store.nytimes.com, ligree@nytimes.com, linda.finestone@latimes.com, Lionel@LionelOnline.com, liptaka@nytimes.com, lisa.hsia@nbc.com, livefrom@cnn.com, livetoday@cnn.com, lmargasak@ap.org, lseals@timesdispatch.com, lou.dobbs@turner.com, loudobbs@cnn.com, lusa@npr.org, maggie.farley@latimes.com, mail@democracynow.org, maillist@michaelmoore.com, maria.laganga@latimes.com, marjorie.miller@latimes.com, mark.barabak@latimes.com, mark.porubcansky@latimes.com, markoff@nytimes.com, marksa@csps.com, mary.braswell@latimes.com, maryann.meek@latimes.com, matea.gold@latimes.com, maura.reynolds@latimes.com, mblock@npr.org, mclaughlina@csps.com, mcurtis@njn.org, mdorning@tribune.com, me@glennbeck.com, media@michaelmoore.com, mfollman@salon.com, mgroppe@gns.gannett.com, mhall@usatoday.com, michael.finnegan@latimes.com, michael.muskal@latimes.com, michelle@salon.com, mike@mikemalloy.com, miles.obrien@turner.com, millie.quan@latimes.com, mimi.gurbst@abc.com, mitch@albom.com, miwein@nytimes.com, mjacoby@salon.com, mkeeley@salon.com, mkx@cbsnews.com, mliasson@npr.org, mmadden@gns.gannett.com, MMFlint@aol.com, mnaymik@plaind.com, modonnell@salon.com, mossm@nytimes.com, MPossley@tribune.com, msilverman@ap.org, msnbcinvestigates@msnbc.com, msnbcreports@msnbc.com, muriel.pearson@abc.com, mzuckerman@usnews.com, national@nytimes.com, nconan@npr.org, nealznunze@cox.com, NETAUDR@abc.com, news@capitolhillbureau.org, news@michaelmoore.com, NewsAlert@letters.washingtonpost.com, newseditor@independent.co.uk, newshour@pbs.org, newsonline@bbc.co.uk, news-tips@nytimes.com, newstips@wdtn.com, nightline@abcnews.com, nightly@nbc.com, nightwatch@washpost.com, niteline@abc.com, norville@msnbc.com, now@thirteen.org, npickler@ap.org, npronsirius@npr.org, ntotenberg@npr.org, nytnews@nytimes.com, offer@centralmaine.com, oliphant@globe.com, omblade@aol.com, ombudsman@globe.com, ombudsman@npr.org, ombudsman@washpost.com, online@tnr.com, onthemedia@wnyc.org, oped@csps.com, oped@thestar.ca, patrick.mcdonnell@latimes.com, patt.morrison@latimes.com, paul.feldman@latimes.com, paula.zahn@turner.com, Paula.Zahn2@cnn.com, pbreslow@npr.org, pbrogan@gns.gannett.com, pekilb@nytimes.com, peter.wallsten@latimes.com, pfessler@npr.org, phardin@mediageneral.com, phart@fair.org, phil.boyce@abc.com, philip.stephens@ft.com, pjh@cbsnews.com, plorris@univision.net, pls@cbsnews.com, pma@cbsnews.com, politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk, politics@guardian.co.uk, politics_desk@upi.com, powellm@washpost.com, pressreleases@upi.com, public@nytimes.com, publiceditor@baltsun.com, rajiv@washpost.com, randall.mikkelsen@reuters.com, rbc@cbsnews.com, rchebium@gns.gannett.com, readerrep@chron.com, reissc@nytimes.com, religion@washpost.com, rfournier@ap.org, richard.cooper@latimes.com, richard.simon@latimes.com, richeyw@csps.com, rkemper@tribune.com, rob@opednews.com, robin.abcarian@latimes.com, rod.prince@nbc.com, roger.ainsley@latimes.com, ron@csmonitor.com, ropear@nytimes.com, rotone@nytimes.com, rreagan@msnbc.com, rrhodes@airamericaradio.com, rsiegel@npr.org, ruth@salon.com, rvizcon@telemundo.com, rwolf@usatoday.com, safire@nytimes.com, scott.gold@latimes.com, scott.kraft@latimes.com, scottr@salon.com, sheberer@pbs.org, shohauser@fair.org, sjohnson@ap.org, slabaton@nytimes.com, spage@usatoday.com, sstamberg@npr.org, stark@salon.com, stella.dawson@reuters.com, stephanie.simon@latimes.com, stephanie@stephaniemiller.com, sternshow@howardstern.com, steve.braun@latimes.com, steve.holland@reuters.com, steve.majors@nbc.com, stolberg@nytimes.com, stu.schutzman@abc.com, sullivanc@csps.com, sundays@cbsnews.com, support@abcnews.go.com, susan.dutcher@nbc.com, szacharek@salon.com, talbotd@salon.com, tawalker@airamericaradio.com, tgrieve@salon.com, theforum@usatoday.com, themail@newyorker.com, theworld@pri.org, thfrie@nytimes.com, thisweek@abc.com, thunt@ap.org, tips@upi.com, todd.eastham@reuters.com, tom.furlong@latimes.com, tom.hamburger@latimes.com, tom.lea@nbc.com, tom.mccarthy@latimes.com, topurd@nytimes.com, traum@ap.org, vannatta@nytimes.com, vanslambrouckp@csps.com, viewerservices@msnbc.com, wam@cnn.com, washington@nytimes.com, watc@npr.org, WebEditors@newsweek.com, webnews@washingtonpost.com, webnews@wpni.com, WestT@thirteen.org, wesun@npr.org, whispers@usnews.com, wnn@abcnews.com, worldwide@npr.org, wroberts@bloomberg.net, wsj.ltrs@wsj.com, wsjcontact@dowjones.com

    *I have taken the time to compile this information. If what you have read here disturbs you, please take action on this or do more research on your own.*"

  • jron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11personally, i'm all for this. would be nice to get EVERYONE using encryption ALL the time. this government can't stop finding new ways to screw themselves.
  • caleb4mj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I like these quotes:
    "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - TJ
    "What county can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance." - TJ

    The greatest theat to our liberty might wear a suit and carry a pen.
  • aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Not really. Porn will put in place tools to protect your identity/hide which pages you viewed well before anyone else. HTTPS, perhaps a system to randomly mask the full url from the browser history, etc. If people feel they're being watched, they'll stop watching porn, and porn will respond.
  • 3n7r0py, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12We live under the control of a tyrannical dictator, who he himself is controlled by the PRIVATE bank - the Federal Reserve. We're not using our Constitution and/or Bill of Rights anymore... May 08 we're getting the "REAL ID Act" National ID cards with Radiofrequency chips - the time has come, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!
  • dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"It's not constitutional but our government threw out that document on 9/11.

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Inscribed on the plaque at the base of the statue of liberty."

    That's a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

    No surprise, the U.S. is more paranoid than a crackhead in a glass house now, wanting to stare out of every window looking for a threat that doesn't exist.
  • Tmacman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11George Bush said "they hate us for our freedom."

    If Bush and the congress have their way, I'd ask "what freedom?"
  • JackHoffman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10VPNs will not help. They're mostly interested in metadata. They want to know whom you talk to and which websites you visit, not what you talk about. They can get that with a normal wiretap if you've made yourself suspicious by association. To avoid meta-data capturing, you would have to use mixes/onion routing. Unfortunately these are slow. Consequently only people who need them use them, which in turn means that using mixes/onion routing is suspicious.
  • idiggmacs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10And I thought Minority Report was just a movie.
  • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9They strip our rights a little at a time until one day we say "where did my country go?" It doesn't matter if they claim it's protecting us from terrorists, or our children from preditors, the reality is they want to concentrate power and create an America of elites holding all power and wealth. We're almost there, a couple of more years, perhaps.
  • wounded625, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11the government is taking too much control over us! they should not even be doing this!
    we have the right to overthrow the government in desperate times when the government has gone corrupt and has gotten to powerful!
    the time is now! we must end this god damn chain of corrupt/stupid leaders and politicians!
  • eswartz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Does the Constitution Contain a Right to Privacy?

    by Harry Browne

    http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm
  • musicbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"If you want to send a secure message, why not use the United States Postal Service? "

    Because that's not private either. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html

    "President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
    The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions."

  • morningmatters, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The potential for abuse with this kind of technology outweighs the beneifts by a large margin. Whoever has access to this will have the ability to blackmail or ruin the lives of anyone they want.
  • LeeJunFan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Well, I run an ISP, and I'm not going to do it. Period, and they can also pry my guns from my cold dead hands if they want those too. :p
  • tcdk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Close. Just remember that email headers are not encrypted, so if you send of a mail, "they" will know who you send it to, and if they decide that they want all mails you send to somebody they decided was a terrorist, you better not have them or be ready to either give up your private key/passphrase or go to jail.
  • walnut1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Thanks for bringing this to the light before it was quickly and quietly passed without notice. We need to stay vigilent under this administration because they will continue to take away civil liberties under the guise of their own 'misguided' values.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 162 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.