What is Digg?91 Comments
- TimmyK., on 10/12/2007, -1/+35>>>>posted by nickoberg "because every president before, has used "illegal wiretaps". you really shouldn't be surprised, just uninformed. if they don't monitor, and a plot gets through, they will be blamed again for another attack."
Speaking of uninformed... The FISA laws that you might be refering to (if your comment is actually based on any facts, and not just on mindless republican babbling, which it most likely is...) were created to give the presidents exactly the powers that the Bush administration says it needs. They can wiretap and perform surveillance on anybody at any time. They just have to be justified in doing so, and have to go back and actually get a warrant within 72 hours of doing so AFTER THE FACT. So their excuse of missing anything because they would be forced to get a warrant is total *****. Completely shamless lies that totally uninformed fools like you fall for. They could do anything instantly in an emergency without a warrant as long as they got that warrant afterwards. What makes these wire taps illegal is that they DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW, and get the warrants at all, even after the fact, which is what the FISA laws are for. The reason they don't even bother to follow these laws and get the warrants afterwards is because they know that they actually have no reason whatsoever to be performing the surveillance 99% of the tiime, and would actually be denied the warrants. These are "illegal wiretaps" because they are VIOLATING THE LAWS that were created to allow them to do what they say they wan't to do. If they did a wiretap on anyone who might possibly be connected to a terrorist plot, and they actually had anything to show it besides vague BS made up as excuses, they would have no problems whatsoever getting their warrants under the FISA laws. But they have no excuse for commiting this "surveillance" except that their goal is to maintain power and control over the people of this nation, and they instantly assume that everyone is a criminal, and enemy who has to be kept under surveillance. This is not what happens in a democracy. It's what happens in a totalitarian state. It goes against every thing that this country stands for.
And on another point we are constantly hearing about how our troops are putting their lives in danger to protect our freedom. Yet people like you seem to be totally unwilling to do the same. You act as if it is totally acceptable to hand over all your freedoms for safety. Well why is that? Why are you not willing to accept a bit of risk in order to maintain the freedom you would say you love so much? If I have to be a small, tiny, infinitesimal bit less safe in order to remain free I will do it. I think that the worst tragedy in our current age is not that some US citizens may be hurt in a terrorist attack, but that we will all be hurt because we hand over our liberties to ANY government, not just the Bush administration, in order to feel safe. Of course it doesn't help that I don't think that the Bush administration is capable of making anyone safer, and has done more to agitate things globally, and raise the likelyhood of another major attack than anything else. And that they have done nothing to actually make or nation more secure, and minimize the chances of any terrorist plan from succeeding. We are not safe at all, no matter what the Bush administration says it is doing when it violates our rights by putting us under illegal surveillance. It's time for people like you to get that through your heads and accept some of the danger that comes along with being free. Stop cowering in a corner because your unreal views of the world as a safe place were shattered on 9-11, and realize that, as jingoists love to proclaim, "freedom isn't free". Stop acting like you shouldn't face any risks in your life in order to be free. I'd rather die free in a terror attack than live under the thumb of an all controlling frightened government that views me as a threat just because I exist, and feels the need to keep me under constant surveillance at all times, because that is the only place that our current situation could possibly be heading. - goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19jlgosse - I knew that once digg became more popular the slashdot trolls would follow, but damn dude.
Back on topic - Its the same old, 'if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care?' argument again. I for one am sick of that *****. For instance, its not 'wrong' of me to talk dirty to my wife on Skype, but that doesn't mean I want every geek with a packet sniffer between me and her to know about it.
***** the NSA, and ***** 'domestic surveillance'. - hyberion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Why is it that whenever this gets brought up the argument "well other presidents (meaning Clinton) have done this, so what's the big deal?"
That argument is weak. It's wrong for a government to spy on it's citizens without due process. the fact that a system exists for providing due process (even after the fact) and this administration refuses to make use of it is just another shining example of what governments become when there is no balance, and no opposition.
"People who would trade liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both." Benjamin Franklin - Rossye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a piate. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.
- pivo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I agree with the, "If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you need encryption" argument. Obviously the government is doing something wrong.
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You certainly hear this argument a lot. Why do you care if you're being spied on if you're not doing anything wrong? I would expect to hear this from the ignorant masses, but you would figure that educated (supposedly) politicians would know better.
There are several reasons why privacy is a fundamental right that must be protected. The 4th states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
An off chute of this is the Supreme Court decision regarding anonymous ballets for voting. There was a time when some states (mostly southern) required voters to disclose who they voted for. It was determined that this was both a violation of the 4th Amendment, and it prevented people from voting without fear of reprisal. Without this fear, they were not free to vote for whom they desired and therefore were not allowed to participate in the democratic process.
So that's part of the reason. You cannot be free to do as you wish if there is even the perceived fear of reprisal. If you fear that the government will persecute you with information gleaned from spying, you are not free.
One might argue that the government would only persecute you for things that are illegal and therefore you still should not care if they spy on you without a warrant. But the fact of the matter is that there are many cases in American history when the government has persecuted its citizens without just cause. During the McCarthy era of the 50's people lost their jobs, their passports, and sometimes their freedom because they simply KNEW somebody who was communist. It was never against the law to even be a communist, yet the government persecuted people for simply knowing them.
There is a REASON the Constitution requires a warrant. It is a check and balance. Without it the executive branch's power is too great. While this power can be used for good it can also, and has also, been used for evil. - saltzy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6For the same reason that we always hear that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument, yet we are being exposed to a government that continues to not use the courts to obtain search warrants and is embarking on them without telling anyone. I ask, if they aren't doing anything wrong, why are they hiding it?
- raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I wonder if you can request the presidents personal phone calls on tape thanks to FOIA....
Might be able to argue it in court, considering in business, it's legal to monitor employee phone usage. We'd just be examining that the phone paid for by tax dollars is being used for legitimate business, and nothing else.
The president is using a tax payer funded phone, and is an employee of the american people. We all own that whitehouse phone.
I'd love to get those on CD... likely very funny stuff. Most likely more entertaining than the Bill O'Reilly sex tapes that are hidden in a vault somewhere.
Sounds legal. - scotty1024, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5In the new world order only Pedophiles and Terrorists encrypt their Skype communications. To prove their point I'm sure the NSA is busy rounding up a couple Pedophiles to hand off to the FBI even as I type this.
- kevin2735, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I read this article to gain some insight to title of this Digg "Encrypting Your Communication Means You Must Be a Criminal". I didn't see that opinion anywhere in this article. If I missed it please correct me. From what I read, this was more of a technical explanation to the struggles government has or will have with the increase use of VOIP. Digg the story, don't exaggerate it, that's how bad information is spread. Sorry no digg.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The story is talking about how the government is trying to get backdoors placed into Skype because it's hard to wiretap it. They want to compromise the security of everyone's communications just because a few people are using it for illegal activity.
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hmm, I'm sure the goverment must use enctrypted communications (Well, they do "..which is also used by U.S. Government organizations to protect sensitive..").. They must be terrorists.. *Stops stating the obvious*
I think if people are using skype for terrorist-related activites, you've already got more of a problem on your hands, that just hearing them talk isn't going to help.. You really think they'll say "At 1742 I'll be wearing a nice bright red jacket, with a name badge on, and I'll be standing under the tree on the left enterance of the somebuilding Mall"..
All the stuff about terrorists using throw away hotmail accounts and obscure, normal-sounding messages that mean other things, images with stego'd messages etc is perfectly belivable.. To catch all these, you'd have to check ALL email accounts (From proper pop3 accounts, to all the free emails, like hotmail and hushmail), all images on the internet, all chatrooms etc.. It's not going to happen, ever..
I don't see (And severly doubt) that having access to Skype calls will prevent terrorism.. You cannot sift though/spy on millions and millions of skype conversations, and work out which one has a more sisnter meanings. If someone is suspected of planning terrorist activies, theres better ways of tracking them than monitoring their Skype calls (If their suspected, you'll get nothing more form Skype damnit..)
- Ben - plzdiekthx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"i hope skype puts in backdoors or methods for wiretaps, I think it is needed in a changing world."
Given that Skype is one in an arbitrarily-large number of ways of using networks to communicate using encryption, backdooring Skype is pointless. Nothing short of banning encryption will prevent such communication, and that's both unenforceable and econimically detrimental. The government has to get used to the fact that people can and will communicate in a secure fashion, and stop sticking its nose up the rectums of the citizenry in the name of public safety. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I can understand the government's position, but unless they can show that the encryption is being "exported," there's little under the law they can do. As the article says, Skype isn't even based in the US.
- GodPants, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Digg - cause big brother is getting out of hand.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not to long ago a man was charged with a crime and as evidence was shown encrypted files.... The judge agreed as well... It's on slashdot and you may dig up the story. But not a good precedent.
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@TKDWILSON - FISA isn't a pubilc court, therefore proceedings are not public knowledge. from wikipedia's description (found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act): "Proceedings before the FISA court are ex parte and non-adversarial. The court hears evidence presented solely by the Department of Justice. There is no provision for a release of information regarding such hearings, or for the record of information actually collected."
I don't object to these proceedings being secret, but I sure as hell object to the idea of a president being able to keep other judicial proceedings a secret. I simply don't trust *any* president enough for that. Our country was founded on the notion that government ought not to be trusted, and I see no reason to start trusting them now. Once we've got secret laws (like the stuff the TSA tries to pull with their secret no-fly lists), and secret courts, all else we'll need are a secret police force.
btw, TKDWILSON, does your first name happen to be Randy? - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"The weapons were there. They were moved."
Really? That must be why the David Kay (remember him, don't you?) testified before the Senate regarding his report that "we were all wrong" about the WMDs in Iraq. They dismantled their programs and weapons in 1991. This is not in dispute. - anagami, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3I'm glad to live in a real free country. USA liberty my ***
- Clp727, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3TimmyK, You are 100% correct!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"because every president before, has used "illegal wiretaps". you really shouldn't be surprised, just uninformed."
bingo. every president has done this before (yes, even my favorite prez clinton)... look up "ESCHELON" and "CARNIVORE". it's just that when we tried to tell people about it years ago, nobody listened. we said it was going to get worse, and nobody cared. well, that day is here, ladies, and thanks to you not doing anything about it we no longer have a choice. you reap what you sow. - Wipeout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This is all Al Gore's fault. If he hadn't created the Internet...
- snarkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
> The government on the other hand should be perminately taped on a party line any citizen can
> listen on, after all they are our employees and you are allowed to monitor your employees.
HEAR, HEAR!! - plzdiekthx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So their excuse of missing anything because they would be forced to get a warrant is total *****.
No, it's not completely "*****." It's an omission of why obtaining warrants is something they don't want to do: they're scanning calls electronically, probably indescriminately, for specific patterns. If they actually followed the law they'd have to obtain thousands of warrants after the fact, that in all likelihood would make the court responsible for overseeing this spying slap them with a rolled-up newspaper. Were they actually targetting individuals they had actual intelligence to believe were terrorists, they might (but maybe not) bother to get a warrant, but since they're essentially just trolling the phone networks they aren't going to do out thousands of warrant requests. - xtremesniper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"So, why is it "national security" when the Government encrypts its communications and assumed "criminal activity" when private citizens follow suit?"
Well common sense would say because the government typically monitors telephone lines for any suspicious behaviour, and so when they are unable to do so, this would give criminals a secure way to communicate. - fernyb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1everyone please use encryption, we have the right to privacy
- Fascist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Maybe the Bush Admin. will pull a Hoover and screw everyone over.
If America knew Bush & Friends would torture, wiretap, eat up our bill of rights, and start wars, he probably wouldn't be in office. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i hope skype puts in backdoors or methods for wiretaps, I think it is needed in a changing world.
But there should never be one single tap without probably cause, and judicial oversite.
...
The government on the other hand should be perminately taped on a party line any citizen can listen on, after all they are our employees and you are allowed to monitor your employees. - incubuz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler.
- plzdiekthx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If America knew Bush & Friends would torture, wiretap, eat up our bill of rights, and start wars, he probably wouldn't be in office.
Don't underestimate the ability for people to vote for their party, no matter who has the nomination. They'd already tortured, invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and outed Plame by the second election and they stilled voted for him. Now maybe if the Katrina bungling has happened a little earlier that might have made a difference, but I'm not so sure of that. - p1nhead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Our derelictions serve only to aggravate the problem. See what happens when the public becomes negligent and apathetic? Government run amuck! Go out, protest, and fight for your liberties and freedom while it's still possible. If you're not doing this already, you're contributing to the problem. Posting angry comments on digg certainly isn't helping.
(I'm starting to wonder who elected these people. With so much opposition, I'm seriously wondering if a legitimate election has taken place in the last forty years.) - cranium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The government cannot stop encrypted VOIP. The only thing any measure they take will end up doing is pushing yet another major industry overseas. Nice move, guys.
- SmartITGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The FCC ruled last year that VoIP providers need to offer backdoors into their systems for wiretapping reasons, but Skype isn't based in the US and so is not subject to the rule."
Hmmm... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Skype now owned by eBay?
Which IS American!?!?! ...Which means being owned by US interests, it IS subject to US laws...
At least for computer to computer voice chat, I'd lean towards Googletalk from Google which seems to be willing to stand up against the government in these issues. - chsrndll, on 09/26/2008, -1/+2Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't listening...
- lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey, if they want my conversations, they had better work for it.
Actually, I'm just going to One Time Pad all of my conversations from now on. - karamba_kid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
--Benjamin Franklin - Eccles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The weapons were there. They were moved."
So Saddam Hussein was able to smuggle every last scrap of evidence of a WMD program out of the country, to a country that wasn't a particularly strong ally; but couldn't manage to get his (now deceased) sons out of the country and for himself had a musty hole in the ground in Tikrit. Riiiight... - v3xt0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If I buy a cd and stick it in my computer, I must be a criminal. (RIAA/Sony/DRM)
If I encrypt a document that contains my financial or personal private data, I must be a criminal.
It's not always that you have something to hide, it's that you have something that nobody else really has the right to see, such as a note to your girlfriend/wife, financial information, identification information, internal business documents, etc... and for that matter, protecting your self/company, especially over the internet, is not (and/or should not be) against the law. - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Honestly, I think this has very little to do with the current president and everything to do with the state of our government as a whole. BTW, I think it'd be very cool if this ended up with 1776 diggs...just a few more to go!
- andresfb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have"
--Gerald R. Ford - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"total of 1.1 x 1077 possible keys" (from the article)
anyone else think this is meant to say something else?"
Maybe he meant something more like 1.1*10^77. My physics professor does that all the time. He'll write 2x10123 or something and it means 2*10^123. - greenup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0maybe "national security" IS "criminal activity" as implemented around here.
- stoops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So I guess everyone who uses, OpenSSH, OpenVPN, OpenSSL, etc. is a criminal right? Well that is a lot of people then.
- DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Guilty until proven innocent, and good luck with that btw ;)
- RikkiTikkiTavy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What's criminal is that mantis shrimp story getting more diggs than an important story like this one.
- nneonneo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hamachi uses it too
- tonage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0America is over
Come on. I agree we have alot of problems, but we always have. I have heard this America is over crap since I was a kid in school. It is called paranoia. - Glidedon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The internet is a global public place, don't do anything you would not do in public!
- zzbigalzz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1dammit, im moving to canada, america is getting too big brother on us
- chevyorange, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0iChat on the Mac is encrypted if it is Mac to Mac and both parties are using a .mac account. :)
I use both Skype and iChat - and encrypt some documents - I am a writer and want my original ideas kept original when talking with/communicating with partners. -
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is