NationStates Jolt Archive

'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.'

The reason I bring this up for debate is in light of NSA/FBI spying in the wake of 9/11, and the bypassing of the Privacy Act by Dubya by using private firms (such as AT&T) to monitor domestic internet traffic as part of a extensive security apparatus.

It is widely held that one of the main reasons for the Revolution is entrenched in the fourth amendment, that the idea of probable suspicion puts the burden on the state for an individual level, so as in the authorities have the suspicion on the individually, and after that they pursue that line. Prior to the Revolution the King's messenger would carry 'General Warrants' which were used as pretext to search and seize entire neighborhoods, and not on an individual level. The comparison being to now when the NSA does not pursue individuals after probable suspicion is found, that by monitoring the net and the phones that their is a 'general suspicion' or warrant, that everyone is a suspect and were just looking for the right evidence.

I am not American but I wished to ask Americans how they feel about this etc.

The internet is public communication through an external system. I'm not sure it's covered under the fourth amendment.

The internet is public communication through an external system. I'm not sure it's covered under the fourth amendment.

No it is private communication through a majority privately owned series of networks. Exactly the same as the phone system (often over the phone system itself)

How is private internet tapping any different then phone tapping?

No it is private communication through a majority privately owned series of networks. Exactly the same as the phone system (often over the phone system itself)

How is private internet tapping any different then phone tapping?

Due to the very nature of the information available on the internet, it is Open Source. Anyone can access it extremely easily, whilst a telephone is a fairly private means of communicating. In fact, a telephone conversation comes with a reasonable expectation of privacy. A posting on a forum or a blog, on the other hand, does not.

Now, if the government is somehow keeping an eye on my confidential financial transactions over the Internet, I guess that'd be a violation of privacy.

Due to the very nature of the information available on the internet, it is Open Source. Anyone can access it extremely easily, whilst a telephone is a fairly private means of communicating. In fact, a telephone conversation comes with a reasonable expectation of privacy. A posting on a forum or a blog, on the other hand, does not.

Who said what they are watching just public postings? the OP just mentions internet communications in general.

You can do point to point communications too, things like instant messengers and email and other sorts of data transfer situations that are expected to go to a SINGLE person.

Kind of the difference between talking on a party chat and talking to one person on the phone. One has an expectation of privacy and the other does not. Just because you can party chat with a phone does not mean that all communication is like that

Who said what they are watching just public postings? the OP just mentions internet communications in general.

You can do point to point communications too, things like instant messengers and email and other sorts of data transfer situations that are expected to go to a SINGLE person.

Kind of the difference between talking on a party chat and talking to one person on the phone. One has an expectation of privacy and the other does not. Just because you can party chat with a phone does not mean that all communication is like that

T'wasn't thinking of e-mail. I guess when I think of the internet and communicating on the internet, I think of NSG.

It is widely known that the current "conservative" administration has contempt for the rights of the people. The problem is the courts are also packed by 26 years of "conservative" rule. And the people have been made scared and have chosen safety over freedom, and safety has been defined as anything the current government wants to do.

The freedoms are only as good as the people and the courts wish them to be. Right now there is no protest from the people about their rights and the courts are in line with the idea of a supreme government that sees rights as "suggestions" rather than absolutes.

T'wasn't thinking of e-mail. I guess when I think of the internet and communicating on the internet, I think of NSG.

* NSA has secret file on NSG *

It is widely known that the current "conservative" administration has contempt for the rights of the people. The problem is the courts are also packed by 26 years of "conservative" rule. And the people have been made scared and have chosen safety over freedom, and safety has been defined as anything the current government wants to do.

The freedoms are only as good as the people and the courts wish them to be. Right now there is no protest from the people about their rights and the courts are in line with the idea of a supreme government that sees rights as "suggestions" rather than absolutes.

Well in that case it seems that GOP conservatism has morphed from free-market liberalism to right-wing autarkic authoritarianism, maybe even fascism.

Wow...this is something anyone could have known for a LONG time if they had watched the news, read the newspapers and just kept with the times really. With the Patriot Act going on, that disaster of trying to aid those hurting in Katrina, the corruption in Iraq and our refusal to go into Sudan and kick the living fuck out of those genocidal idiots, kinda shows our government is rather power-hungry and doesn't give a crap.

The way I see it, private firms may hand over information to the government on their own free will IF and only if: the government does not force or pressure them and if every customer whose information is given up was aware of this when signing up for the service or was made aware of this fact afterwards and gave consent. In other words, the people must be totally voluntary in surrendering this information.

Of course, the government can always read forum posts, blogs, and other publicly viewable information.

Typically, when you register with an Internet service (such as e-mail) you sign an agreement to the conditions of the service provider's privacy act. Such acts can grant access of confidential information to the government upon legal request. If AT&T's privacy act with its users has such an allowance, than nothing illegal is taking place. That's a big 'if,' though.

Who said what they are watching just public postings? the OP just mentions internet communications in general.

You can do point to point communications too, things like instant messengers and email and other sorts of data transfer situations that are expected to go to a SINGLE person.

Kind of the difference between talking on a party chat and talking to one person on the phone. One has an expectation of privacy and the other does not. Just because you can party chat with a phone does not mean that all communication is like that
as soon as my email leaves my computer and is stored on someone else's until someone opens it, I gave it away, it's not private, it's like putting your trash at the curb and then getting mad because "that was my stuff"

as soon as my email leaves my computer and is stored on someone else's until someone opens it, I gave it away, it's not private, it's like putting your trash at the curb and then getting mad because "that was my stuff"

Actually, that's changing. Recently the 6th circuit held that users have a reasonable expectation of privacy with their email. A rather large reversal of the old holding which basically was, as you said, once the email is sent, it's gone, and you have no expectation that it will be kept private. It was a fairly major decision, and one that changes, at least for now, the idea of email, and the requirements of the government to access it.

Source (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/appeals_court_s.html)

The times they are a changin'

as soon as my email leaves my computer and is stored on someone else's until someone opens it, I gave it away, it's not private, it's like putting your trash at the curb and then getting mad because "that was my stuff"

So, the voice that I send down a cable ends up stored on someone's answering machine. That makes it OK for the government to seize that person's answering machine without any probable cause? Because I "gave my voice away"?

as soon as my email leaves my computer and is stored on someone else's until someone opens it, I gave it away, it's not private, it's like putting your trash at the curb and then getting mad because "that was my stuff"

No its closer to like UPS.. you give it to a specific person or service with the intent and the contract on them delivering it to that other person directly and securely.

This is not "Setting it in public" you are sending it to a specific private party for transport and delivery.

I am glad our university does not treat its security concerns over confidential email with the attitude you proscribe... people have been sued over that sort of attitude in private correspondences.

Actually, that's changing. Recently the 6th circuit held that users have a reasonable expectation of privacy with their email. A rather large reversal of the old holding which basically was, as you said, once the email is sent, it's gone, and you have no expectation that it will be kept private. It was a fairly major decision, and one that changes, at least for now, the idea of email, and the requirements of the government to access it.

Source (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/appeals_court_s.html)

The times they are a changin'

Good it is clearly a private correspondences rather then a public one and one that can and should be kept secure.

So, the voice that I send down a cable ends up stored on someone's answering machine. That makes it OK for the government to seize that person's answering machine without any probable cause? Because I "gave my voice away"?

if you leave a message on my answering machine and I give the answering machine to the police, there isn't much you can do about it. In fact, within the last year someone was arrested for making harassing calls to me and her voice on my answering machine that I gave to the police, was exactly what landed her in jail.

If my email is on Google's server (and it is) then they own it, not me.

if you leave a message on my answering machine and I give the answering machine to the police, there isn't much you can do about it. In fact, within the last year someone was arrested for making harassing calls to me and her voice on my answering machine that I gave to the police, was exactly what landed her in jail.

Which is completely irrelevant since we are dealing with government instigated intrusion, not with someone reporting a crime and bringing information to the police.

If my email is on Google's server (and it is) then they own it, not me.

And they have the right to turn it over to the government if they choose, but does the government have the right to go into Google's systems on its own prerogative without sufficient probable cause and delineated warrant to just have a look-see?

Which is completely irrelevant since we are dealing with government instigated intrusion, not with someone reporting a crime and bringing information to the police.
maybe.

And they have the right to turn it over to the government if they choose, but does the government have the right to go into Google's systems on its own prerogative without sufficient probable cause and delineated warrant to just have a look-see?
if Google gives them permission yes. In every case I have heard it's been a situation like this

Police-type person : we think so-and-so is a terrorist, mind if we look at your computers and see what you have?
Server-owner type person : nope

maybe.


if Google gives them permission yes. In every case I have heard it's been a situation like this

Police-type person : we think so-and-so is a terrorist, mind if we look at your computers and see what you have?
Server-owner type person : nope

The information on a telephone call is contained at one point completely on the telephone company's equipment ... yet you need a warrent and a reason to obtain that. The same should be for internet usage

The information on a telephone call is contained at one point completely on the telephone company's equipment ... yet you need a warrent and a reason to obtain that. The same should be for internet usage

they even need a warrant when the phone company doesn't object?

they even need a warrant when the phone company doesn't object?

Pretty sure yes

Pretty sure yes

I don't think so.

I am not American but I wished to ask Americans how they feel about this etc.

Oh ... uhm ... well, how should i put it ...?

Suffice to say i've complained a little bit. Here. There. Everywhere.

I don't think so.

Yeah, they do. Hence GWB's problem with illegal phone wiretaps, IIRC.

Yeah, they do. Hence GWB's problem with illegal phone wiretaps, IIRC.

I figured they were illegal because he did them secretly, without the phone company's permission (after all, telephone companies lease power lines, which fall under an entirely different public service--which wouldn't have privacy agreements with its customers). I'll admit though, I don't know the details of the illegal phone taps. In fact, I was under the understanding that they were primarily mobile phones being monitored.

We should never have let Clinton start doing phone taps without informing the people being tapped. Slippery slope and all that.

I figured they were illegal because he did them secretly, without the phone company's permission (after all, telephone companies lease power lines, which fall under an entirely different public service--which wouldn't have privacy agreements with its customers). I'll admit though, I don't know the details of the illegal phone taps. In fact, I was under the understanding that they were primarily mobile phones being monitored.

We should never have let Clinton start doing phone taps without informing the people being tapped. Slippery slope and all that.

From a technical aspect phone taps are done on the switching gear at the phone company... back in the day a physical tap would have to be installed but not for years (possibly decades)

From a technical aspect phone taps are done on the switching gear at the phone company... back in the day a physical tap would have to be installed but not for years (possibly decades)

So they couldn't have done them without the phone companies' knowledge, then? Interesting.

So they couldn't have done them without the phone companies' knowledge, then? Interesting.

Nope not in the current situation ... actually a simmilar procedure to internet "tapping"

AS far as networking goes it is a replicated port or a "spanning" port that is used to replicate all data directly at the switch level. This idea is used a lot in out of band IDS's

* NSA has secret file on NSG *

Hardly, do you know how much OSINT NSA collects? It's mind boggling, and nearly all of it is either useless or just not reviewed, even by a machine.

Hardly, do you know how much OSINT NSA collects? It's mind boggling, and nearly all of it is either useless or just not reviewed, even by a machine.

They just use a searching mechanism to get the good stuff.

It is widely known that the current "conservative" administration has contempt for the rights of the people. The problem is the courts are also packed by 26 years of "conservative" rule. And the people have been made scared and have chosen safety over freedom, and safety has been defined as anything the current government wants to do.

The freedoms are only as good as the people and the courts wish them to be. Right now there is no protest from the people about their rights and the courts are in line with the idea of a supreme government that sees rights as "suggestions" rather than absolutes.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that a liberal administration would be any better or have any less contempt for the rights of the people than a conservative administration would.

In fact, if you are a white, heterosexual male, a liberal administration has much, much MORE contempt for you and the rights you are supposed to have under the US Constitution; liberals passionately HATE white straight males and want to do everything possible to subjugate and subdue them under the heels of the politically correct news media.