Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #22217

Subject: "FBI and Internet Privacy" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Sat Aug-19-00 05:37 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"FBI and Internet Privacy"


          

I caught this out yesterday (8.18.2000) in USAToday. Anyone like to share some thoughts (what was that Jill Scott said? Watching me....)?

FBI, Justice to keep pushing for more access to wiretaps

By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON Justice Department officials said Thursday that they will keep pressing to expand the FBI's wiretap capabilities, despite a federal appeals court's rejection of recent government surveillance proposals as threats to personal privacy.

Without access to such communications features as telephone credit-card access codes, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Colgate says, federal investigators could be left in the dust by drug dealers and other criminals doing business with simple calling cards.

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia wiped out new wiretap standards that had been established by the Federal Communications Commission. Those standards could have provided the FBI entry to a range of confidential information, including credit-card codes, under court orders that authorize the tracing of telephone communications. FBI and Justice officials vow to try again.

''We believe that we can demonstrate that these capabilities should be included in a revised FCC order, and that the concerns of the court can be addressed,'' Attorney General Janet Reno says.

Meanwhile, Reno and federal law enforcement officials are reviewing the court ruling to determine whether it might have any bearing on the continued operation of the FBI's e-mail surveillance program known as ''Carnivore.''

The program, which is under fire from privacy advocates, was designed to sort through e-mail traffic as it travels through Internet service providers, capturing communications received and sent from subjects of criminal investigations.

As in the case of the rejected wiretap standards, privacy advocates say the Carnivore program provides the FBI with potential access to a broad range of confidential information from people who are not targets of investigations.

The FBI has said that access to information obtained by the Carnivore program is strictly regulated by court orders that are required to authorize the program's use.

Although the appeals court decision did not address Carnivore, privacy advocates say its demand that law enforcement establish a more urgent need for sensitive information gives the privacy cause ''a big boost.''

''It rejects the FBI's 'trust us' approach,'' says James Dempsey, senior staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology. ''It casts a dark shadow of doubt over the legality of Carnivore.

''Government cannot receive a data stream just on a promise they won't do anything it's not supposed to do with it.''

If nothing else, Dempsey says, the court ruling could give Internet service providers a reason to challenge FBI requests for assistance in attaching Carnivore to their systems.

The government is establishing an independent panel to review the bureau's e-mail surveillance system. Assistant Attorney General Colgate says that review should be completed by Dec. 1.

Justice Department officials also say they are turning over information about the Carnivore system to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest research group.

The group demanded access to the data under the Freedom of Information Act.

This week, the Justice Department said it had located about 3,000 pages of information related to the request.


------QUOTE STARTS HERE------
BooDaah-OkayActivist Moderator
** PLEASE READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES:
http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines.html
-----------------------------
Sister SheRise's Activist Stew Recipe:
Step1:inform yourself step/Step2:inform others/Step3:discuss the problem/Step4: DISCUSS SOLUTIONS/Step5:EXECUTE SOLUTIONS/Step6:evaluate the results/Step7:start over at 1 until desired result is accomplished.
-----------------------------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
see..
Aug 19th 2000
1
privacy?
Aug 20th 2000
2
Yeah
Aug 20th 2000
3
RE: FBI and Internet Privacy
Idontmuchcaredo
Aug 20th 2000
4
Child Pornography....
Aug 21st 2000
5
I wouldn't
Aug 21st 2000
6
That's not what I asked.....
Aug 21st 2000
7
      256-512 bit encryption
Aug 21st 2000
11
Yes.
Aug 21st 2000
9
Whatever happened to the 1st and 4th amendment?
Aug 21st 2000
8
Listen to your phone calls..
Aug 21st 2000
10

mikaela_h
Charter member
1709 posts
Sat Aug-19-00 04:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
1. "see.."
In response to Reply # 0


          

this I have a problem with...a person, by law, has the right to the expectation of privacy...if the police can sift through all of your information "legally" then what's the use? you can hardly use your phone nowadays without worrying about who's listening, now your pc..I mean, I know that tapping into someone's email is soo yesterday, easy as heck, but it shouldn't be made a right...what about my rights...eff the fbi, that's some bull...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"awwwwwwwwww, fuck dat shit"---tash

************* **************

"if your mind can see it then your vagina can achieve it"---Jumecca's advice on how to get layed in the 2000

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge" - Stephen H

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Sun Aug-20-00 09:07 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
2. "privacy?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

From my understanding of the 4th and various other opinions, I don't think we are guaranteed privacy, but rather we are guaranteed that the government can't knock down our doors or go through our personal papers.

That being said all of us need to use more encryption in general.

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
janey
Charter member
123120 posts
Sun Aug-20-00 09:14 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "Yeah"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

"Privacy" per se is not a guaranteed right but has been found to be implied by the rest of the Bill of Rights. It's pretty much a loser to try to base any constitutional argument solely on the right of privacy.


Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Idontmuchcaredo

Sun Aug-20-00 10:00 AM

  
4. "RE: FBI and Internet Privacy"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Hate to say it but they're slowly put'n us in a cage and at the rate they/we are going they'll have complete control of our lives and the cage will be locked! Mark Of the Beast!!!!!!!!!!!
It's here!!!!






"Shut the fuck up bitch,Eat a dick bitch,Eat a bowl of shit bitch!"Kurupt
"I'm a throw shade if I can't get paid blow you up to your girl like the Army grenade!"Lil Kim

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

nushooz
Member since Nov 05th 2002
14 posts
Mon Aug-21-00 09:36 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
5. "Child Pornography...."
In response to Reply # 0


          

People that hook up with children via the internet and the like....... would you want the FBI to monitor their electronic communications?

Would you be willing to subrogate your "internet privacy" (if such a thing exists) for the sake of some would be child victim?

Do you really think the "world wide web" is private any damn way?

Merit?

Huh?

Live from the Shoe Sto'
NuShooz
I,I, I Can't Wait!

nushooz@blackplanet.com

Live from the Shoe Sto, the Mall and NOW the courtroom


I, I, I Can't Wait?
U've waited long enuff!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
nahymsa
Charter member
1734 posts
Mon Aug-21-00 10:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "I wouldn't"
In response to Reply # 5


          

You won't stop child pornography by more FBI monitoring.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
nushooz
Member since Nov 05th 2002
14 posts
Mon Aug-21-00 10:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
7. "That's not what I asked....."
In response to Reply # 6


          

Would you subrogate what you think is internet privacy for this cause?

Do you think such a thing exists - internet privacy?

EVIL will always exist.

Live
Nu

I,I, I Can't Wait!

nushooz@blackplanet.com

Live from the Shoe Sto, the Mall and NOW the courtroom


I, I, I Can't Wait?
U've waited long enuff!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Mon Aug-21-00 12:10 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
11. "256-512 bit encryption"
In response to Reply # 7


  

          

Until IBM finishes their 17 molecule quantum computer, you can start working on encryption. There is PGP, all sorts of anonymous newsservers and web servers. It can be done. Maybe not true invisibility, but through dummy accounts and public terminals you can become effectively invisible online, or create a false ID.

k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Mon Aug-21-00 12:01 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
9. "Yes."
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

Without question.

k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Genius
Member since Aug 10th 2002
48 posts
Mon Aug-21-00 11:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "Whatever happened to the 1st and 4th amendment?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

The government does not believe in free speech and they like to snoop around in people's business way too much. They might as well just open all of your mail and listen to every phone call you make too. Why should they have the right to read your e-mail? They say it is for "the good of the people", but that is a load of crap. The government just wants to be able to see what people's private lives are like so they can control them even more. They monitor phone calls and e-mail for everyone, not just those "under suspiscion" as they say. That's why I am surprised at some of the stuff people post on these boards about drug use and other illegal activities. The government is watching at all times. All I can say is be careful.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Mon Aug-21-00 12:08 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
10. "Listen to your phone calls.."
In response to Reply # 8


  

          


They already do that. Frontline, a PBS news magazine, did a special on it. I forget the name, but it was one of those greek classical references, but the govt used it on lots of occasions. A computer scans all sorts of phone calls looking for key words. A mother talked about how her son bombed at school. She was talking about a play. She was profiled as a possible terrorist.

Recently, if you looked for drugs or other paraphenalia the govt wanted to buy ads on the search engines that say "say no to drugs". What raises eyebrows is that a lot of these companies track where you go. (lucky for me it's okayplayer and foreign national science web-sites) The problem being that the Govt would in effect be watching you look for drugs.

Forward Looking Infrared cameras can peer into your house and see if you are running a meth lab. A new flashlight with a mini-chemical analyzer was supposed to be able to check if you were drinking alcohol. So the officer would show his flashlight in your car to check for weapons, and would be able to know if you were drinking or smoking.

Now I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut, but damn near everywhere you go has cameras, most of your purchases can be traced via bank records or credit card. Everywhere you go online can be found out by your company, 3rd parties, and governments.

What should we do?

Me I'm interested in learning to negotiate these obstacles legally with a little information as possible.

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #22217 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com