What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Geek Squad employee sings for Best Buy in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Valerie DeAngelo explains the moment she got the casting call.
63 Comments
- sliksta, on 09/19/2008, -6/+28Bush&CO ***** all over the constitution.
- BlueTunicLink, on 09/21/2008, -1/+11How did FISA pass in the first place?
US Constitution, Section 9, Paragraph 3:
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
That means no retro-active laws, right? Can someone explain the loophole for me? - pw378, on 09/21/2008, -0/+8And Obama and Biden both voted in favor of it... Obama even stated the eavesdropping bill didn't go "far enough".
- VieRelative, on 09/21/2008, -0/+7"But that litigation spurred Congress to pass the FISA Amendments Act this summer, granting retroactive immunity to the defendant companies, provided the Attorney General certifies that they received assurances from the government that the surveillance was lawful."
I'm no lawyer, but isn't the FISA act exactly what's strengthening the case for EFF against the government? Without it, the government would have been able to claim "no recollection" or whatever. But now, they have no choice but to legally admit to what happened in order to bail out the telecoms.
Now that the government can't deny what happened, the EFF needs to show that what did happen was actually illegal.
The FISA act has made it explicitly illegal for the government to do what it did. But that clause wasn't retroactive. So the EFF has to rely on older laws which aren't as clear on the subject. - inactive, on 09/19/2008, -2/+9I'd say yes.
The data is processed by the computer.
This is the equivalent of someone reading every single message that passes over that network and deciding what to do with it.
How is that NOT eavesdropping.
Eavesdropping is a funny word. Like we are all hanging from the roof. - Adelhas, on 09/21/2008, -0/+7Simple. You can pass laws that are in blantant violation of the Constitution, and their effects will apply until they are stuck down by the Supreme Court. Don't need a loophole to ignore the constitution, just enough political muscle to pressure Justices to see things your way until the damage has been done.
Didn't you see that pattern in oh, I don't know, all legislation passed since 2000, or say, executive signing statements? - Wosat, on 09/19/2008, -1/+7No, data that remains in memory but is never recorded should not be subjected to legal scrutiny.
Likewise, a court should not be able to require a site operator to keep server logs. - RealmDown, on 09/19/2008, -2/+8Unfortunately, no. They are evidence, not snoops. The same way that cameras at "photo enforced" intersections are not accusers; however, the owners and operators of those computers are the eavesdroppers.
- fr1p, on 09/19/2008, -1/+5Sanchez, formerly of Reason Mag, scores again.
- Loonacy, on 09/21/2008, -0/+3Routers really only inspect the transport protocol part of the packets, they don't do anything at all with the data portion. It's much the same as the post mail system; your postman has to inspect your letters before he delivers them, but he doesn't actually read your mail.
- jfreeman, on 09/21/2008, -0/+3"'A computer search does not invade privacy or violate FISA, because a computer program is not a sentient being,' wrote Posner. 'But, if the program picked out a conversation that seemed likely to have intelligence value and an intelligence officer wanted to scrutinize it, he would come up against FISA's limitations.'"
Just because you have gotten a machine to do what in the past would have required a human, does not make it lawful. - charm803, on 09/21/2008, -0/+3Everytime I look at the thumbnail, I think Alfred E. Neuman.
- Bith8654, on 09/21/2008, -1/+4It's that kind of mentality that gets us taken over by robot overlords.
- locojones, on 09/21/2008, -0/+3I was most disturbed by this statement:
""If EFF wants to say that a packet sniffer 'seizes' or 'acquires' every packet that it sniffs," argues Kris, "that's just not going to fly; nobody's going to believe that, and it just makes life too difficult for everybody."
I'm sorry if enforcing the Constitution makes the authorities' life difficult, that's exactly the kind of abuse that prompted the inclusion of those provisions into the Bill of Rights.
"If all they were doing was splitting a fiber optic pipe, mirroring it, running it through some kind of packet sniffing or filtering device, and then keeping permanently whatever hit the filter, I think they 'seized' or 'acquired' only what met the filters or was copied permanently, not the entire thing."
I'll give you an analogy. Let's assume that the government contracted the Post Office to do their dirty work. And it was the Post Office's job to open every letter, read it, look for the addressee, check the contents, and look for any catch phrases or contraband, keeping those that fit their search pattern. I can't fathom anyone making the argument that there wasn't a search or seizure of everyone's letters in the process. If it doesn't make sense there, then it doesn't make any more sense applying it digitally. - NotYourProdigy, on 09/21/2008, -3/+6We love you, EFF!
- warlax27, on 09/21/2008, -1/+4*****
- RipleyIsDead, on 09/21/2008, -1/+4I think that means that a law can't be created after the fact, and then used to prosecute someone-- the law must already exist prior to the crime. It doesn't mean the law can't be created and then used to prosecute crimes that came afterward.
- makenshin, on 09/21/2008, -0/+2I'd have to agree that the computers do are not eavesdroppers, but the usage for these purposes are eavesdropping. Like if you hook into someone's phone line outside their house, the tools aren't eavesdropping, you are. Which owning these tools are not illegal, but using them to invade anothers privacy is.
The following scenario is more of a physical equivalent. And it's no so far fetched as we have technology for military and terrorist/hostage usage that can see inside of rooms and buildings from the outside nowdays:
Imagine theives or the police driving up and down streets scanning houses and only stopping if metal or a certain chemical are detected. Doesn't matter if those items could be used in a number of things. Heck, if they had the right equipment, they could even scan your house and have the computer make an inventory of everything in it, but the computer makes the decision to 'alert' the user. It is still an invasion of privacy.
It wouldn't even be far fetched to get on the fly warrants to invade a house based on this data with little oversight. They already have on call judges to issue warrants for police to draw blood for people who refuse a breathalyzer test.
Regardless a tool is not to blame, it is the user and someone using a tool to invade privacy is still illegal. Like the old argument of guns don't kill people, people kill people. Those who have been doing this should be held accountable... I believe I was ranting... point made though. - inactive, on 09/21/2008, -0/+2If you eavesdrop the trees with a hidden microphone, do they know, will it record a sound?
- tms8707056, on 09/21/2008, -0/+2
- Atomic1fire, on 09/21/2008, -1/+3except that computers are NOT sentient,
if it was a someone, it would require life or artificial intellegence
its not possible, yet anyway time will tell if someone figures out how to make robots, and even then, they wont be alive, they will simply able to respond and communicate as they are programmed to do so.. - SquigglyP, on 09/21/2008, -0/+2the argument against filter searching all of the traffic going through that room is the fact that computers aren't sentient? Are you ***** me? Computers are like the little phone-like handset that the telecom guys use to check lines and *****. They are allowed to use those things when they are testing the line, and that's it. I see no reason why the computer filters sifting through all of the internet traffic at AT&T should be considered any different a tool. Even having those computers hooked into the lines should be enough to get them all fined and/or imprisoned. There's potential for abuse, and there's no check or balance in the system. That's a textbook example of an illegal system. If it were ANYONE but the government, the country would be up in arms.
- MWeather, on 09/21/2008, -1/+3Just like breathalysers are not accusers, and you can't ask for the source code. Oh wait, they are, and you can.
- strictnein, on 09/21/2008, -0/+2Exactly right.
- tunit000, on 09/21/2008, -0/+2
- orlandogeek, on 09/21/2008, -1/+3Have you taken any time to read the Patriot Act and the FISA reforms that have been passed? Stop drinking the FOX News Kool-Aid and wake up.
- phoomp, on 09/21/2008, -0/+2While convincing a significant proportion of Americans that they were *defending* it.
- Reynardine, on 09/21/2008, -0/+2Oh, of course not. When you wiretap a phone line, you're eavesdropping. When you use a computer to listen in on VOIP, you're not eavesdropping, because computers aren't sentient. Riiiight....
- inactive, on 09/21/2008, -2/+4Yeah - also, a lot of people die each year of AIDS, but how many times have you died in the last 8 years due to AIDS? Stop repeating what your philanthropist friends say and think for yourself.
- supermanred, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2Pirate Bay once turned off their servers, then handed ram sticks to the cops who had asked to inspect the information in RAM... Of course, this could just be urban legend.
- kr0n0s82, on 09/21/2008, -0/+2"A computer search does not invade privacy or violate FISA, because a computer program is not a sentient being," wrote Posner.
A stick up your ass is not sentient, but you're still getting fuc*d - jfreeman, on 09/21/2008, -0/+2Automated tyranny is still tyranny.
- puzzud, on 09/21/2008, -0/+2If a computer can eavesdrop, then it can also download music, movies, and games too--you know what I'm saying? ;)
- supermanred, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Lol. George W Bush.. Alfred E Newman... Yep.
- supermanred, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1I can see your wife naked through binoculars, because the binoculars are not sentient...
These people think they are making their case to idiots, though I have faith that the average American isn't that stupid. - supermanred, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Really? You mean my automated robotronic corrupt politician sensor and destoryer isn't lawful?
Damn it, I was about to drop one off in Washington and another off in Ottawa...
*****. - inactive, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1I believe this is correct...
But it should only not be eavesdropping if the user is aware it's happening. In the case of a router and an ISP, the user has full ability to be aware. - supermanred, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Can computers compute? Can they spy? Yeah, and whoever is controlling them, is the SPY. It is a tool like any other tool. If you use binoculars to jerk off to your next door neighbour's naked wife, then it isnt the binoculars that are spying, it's the damn computer.
Computers, or anything for that matter should NOT be spying on ANYONE that isn't suspected of doing a major crime. They should be NAMED, a judge should approve the order and THEN and ONLY then should it happen.
Live free or die.
We cannot give up freedom in order to protect. That's ***** stupid and Americans have been doing it since 9/11. If you give it up, YOU DON'T HAVE IT ANYMORE, and thus there is no freedom to defend. If every American is a suspect, then America is OVER. The American experiment fails and the Earth moves on to other attempts at organization and government. If America keeps the average person's freedoms intact, then the American experiment continues and survives a bunch of dudes with knives smashing two planes into two buildings...
If all it takes to destroy Freedom...to destroy America is to hijack two planes and fly them into two towers, then *****, America isn't worth saving, neither is American freedom. You guys need to get rid of Guantanamo Bay, restore ALL freedoms taken away by the Nazi-like :"Patriot" act...
***** this pisses me off, and I'm Canadian... I can't stand to see Canada South lose it's freedoms... - gluecode, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1Yes it can. My computer eavesdrops on all the pr0n I watch.
- motters, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1I'm sure that the government will be able to easily wriggle out of any trouble, by playing all sorts of games with semantics on this one. I think this is really a kind of culture shock, emanating from the fact that we're now living in the kind of world which Orwell described, where anyone in almost any location can be listened to by unseen state officials at any time. Certainly as digital communications extend even further into daily life the potential for surveillance and micro-management of the citizenry becomes ever greater.
- norman619, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1Are those who feel sound only exists if someone is around to hear it stupid or just ignorant?
- aenima987, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1Then they re-enact 2girls 1cup with it.
- nosecohn, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1The purpose of the routers is to route the data, not to search and seize it.
- nosecohn, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1Wait a sec... so if a computer raking in all data and spitting out the "suspicious" communications is a legal search because the computer is not a sentient being, who programmed the computer, hooked it up to the phone system, and told it to do the search?
If police decided to search every house on a block to see if they found something illegal, that would be a clear violation of the fourth amendment. But if the police get a robot to conduct the searches, it's legal? - Ceryn1126, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1This is kind of a stupid question... its like asking if it's OK for to record other peoples phone calls (without permission) as long as you promise not to listen to them... The answer should be obvious it violates your privacy even if it doesn't cause you significant harm...Everything you say isn't and shouldn't be a matter of the public record just because that might make law enforcement officials life easier.
- strictnein, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1You forgot a few things as well:
's does not pluraize
And proxies now encrypt as well? Amazing!
Honestly.... do you have any idea about anything you're trying to talk about? - FTLJohnson, on 09/21/2008, -1/+2Yes, would all those who have faith that the legal system is based on logic please bury me.
- kangy3213, on 09/21/2008, -2/+3computers can't eavesdrop, but with the aid of them anyone can
- pw378, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1I want the EFF to sue every single ISP. The routers are sniffing, sorting and inspecting my packets to see where they are going. Then they are using that information to pass my packets over to another ISPs router that does the same thing! I am being eavesdropped on like crazy by these damn computers. Next thing you know, mail servers will start eavesdropping on my email messages to see if my friends are trying to sell me Viagra.
- inactive, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1biden wants to outlaw crypto on the net to make snooping easier. Obama wants national health care in violation of the 10th amendment (its a state right, and it would be easier on the state level, why do it nationally? because medical records are hard for the feds to get if they provide the care that makes it easier).
http://valleywag.com/5043974/pgp-author-forgives-j ... phil zimmerman forgives biden for his "backdoor all crypto" bill - hey this was 1991 you mean the guy has a history of wanting to snoop?
http://news.cnet.com/2010-1071-946732.html Biden supports DRM by way of legislation, hey this is 2002 you mean the guy has a history of doing this?
The list goes on and the point is that THEY ALL SUCK. Clinton hailed as a great president pushed hard for echelon, he also tried to get clipper mandated which was a backdoored crypto algorithm, so the feds could listen anytime they wanted. Its not one party its both of the two major ones. -
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is