• RSS
  • Twitter
  • FaceBook

Security Forums

Log in

FAQ | Search | Usergroups | Profile | Register | RSS | Posting Guidelines | Recent Posts

ISPs Now Spying on Users

Users browsing this topic:0 Security Fans, 0 Stealth Security Fans
Registered Security Fans: None
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly version    Networking/Security Forums Index -> Connectivity // Telecommunications // Internet News

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Minerva
Just Arrived
Just Arrived


Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 0


Offline

PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:02 am    Post subject: ISPs Now Spying on Users Reply with quote

ISPs Now Spying on Users

http://slyck.com/news.php?story=978
Quote:


"As governments all over the world step up the pressure for internet surveillance, we lift the lid on the shady world of ISP enforcment and uncover the international pressures that will be forcing them to work with police and mysterious other bodies.

The regulation of ISPs in the UK was originally a matter for a voluntary Code of Practice, established back in 2003 presumably as a mechanism to allow the Echelon eavesdropping project time to catch up with intensifying internet usage.

It included a requirement for ISPs to maintain comprehensive records of customer activities for 12 months, with the stark warning that if ISPs refused to comply, then the law would be changed and they would be forced to. Hardly voluntary, one might say. The rationale of the time was to help law enforcers stay ahead of the game when tracing pedophiles and their ilk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comrade
Just Arrived
Just Arrived


Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 0


Offline

PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Theres a few catchwords in this world that will get whatever law you want passed passed. At present thats pedofile and terrorist.

I see the need for these laws..at times..but I always feel to many assume they won't be abused. More oversight is needed, to many new powers are being granted that don't require warrants..

Here, have a quote pulled from samsimpson's collection:
"Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes."

EDIT:
Oh, and no doubt the cost of bandwidth would go up, I wonder who's going to have to foot the bill for that? :|
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MattA
Trusted SF Member
Trusted SF Member


Joined: 13 Jun 2003
Posts: 16777193
Location: Eastbourne + London

Offline

PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see that as anything new. ISP's use QoS to allow different types of traffic different priorities and amounts of bandwidth. Much of the bandwith is allocated to http and smtp rather than p2p. At least that's what Plusnet did when they introduced the redbacks to phase out the junipers.

It won't affect your terrorists who are quite happily using technologies such as safepassage , hushmail, tor, ssh tunnels to stop the ISP (and everyone else ) monitoring them.

The BSA et al have the resources to subpoena the isp so they know who was using a particular IP at any one time (basically who they downloaded the latest britney spears album off and want to sue for breach of copyright). The ISP won't let your details go without a court order (thankfully).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roundtrip
Just Arrived
Just Arrived


Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 0
Location: Scotland

Offline

PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Users who are using p2p for piracy purposes are stealing someone elses property - that seems to be commonly or is that conveniently overlooked. Most (ab)users don't even think that they are stealing. We all take our chances whenever we venture over the law breaking line in life, whether that be speeding or stealing and need to accept the ramifications when caught.

For the record I don't believe the Data Retention laws that are a coming aren't that useful so don't flame me - please! Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
capi
SF Senior Mod
SF Senior Mod


Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 16777097
Location: Portugal

Offline

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

roundtrip wrote:
Users who are using p2p for piracy purposes are stealing someone elses property - that seems to be commonly or is that conveniently overlooked.

Not that it matters in the slightest for the problem being discussed, but where is anyone loosing their property from so-called "software piracy"? Grabbing an object and running away with it implies its original owner looses their property. Copying some numbers from a storage medium to another does not. Unlike a physical object, information is not limited to existing in a single instance. Even the name itself is biased... "piracy" - yeah, magnetically aligning a set of particles to match the orientation of another set of particles obviously brings to mind pictures of grave acts of violence involving boarded ships, killed or injured people, kidnapping, rapes and the likes. Obvious relation. Why not call it "software genocide" or something?

In any case it's a moot point: what does "software piracy" even have to do with the topic at hand? And what makes p2p special? We should all be spied on in everything we do on the Internet because one of the potential uses for one type of application (p2p) is to share copyrighted software?

I can take a tape recorder and make a copy of some copyrighted album. Does that mean I should be have a bug implanted in my house? I can take a kitchen knife and use it to kill someone. Or a fork. Does that mean all metalic objects should come with a little camera to spy on you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jeffball55
Just Arrived
Just Arrived


Joined: 22 Oct 2005
Posts: 1
Location: US

Offline

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ISPs spy on people its called following the law. I spy on people its called stalking. Does this seem fair? Laughing
I think this won't cause too much concern for the same reason the Sony rootkit didn't drop their sales, much of the computer using population isn't tech savvy. This just goes along with other laws to supposedly help stop terrorism. Just my 2 cents.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
moondoggie
Lurker
Lurker


Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 19


Offline

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

actually, in the US i think isp's have been given the right to spy on their network traffic since the telecommunications act of 1996.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M3DU54
Trusted SF Member
Trusted SF Member


Joined: 11 May 2002
Posts: 1
Location: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Offline

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, one persons 'spying' is anothers 'accounting'. We get so outraged when it is suggested that ISPs should log our traffic, yet on our own networks this would come under accounting and auditing and we then justify it against the users complaints of 'spying'

Employees have to suffer our accounting and security measures because it comes with the job. It's part of the contract and the company owns the hardware and therefore has the final say. Most employees will accept this.

Well, ISPs own the networking infrastructure we pass through. They can put a data retention clause in the contract. Is there SO much difference ?


Personally, I don't like it one bit - but then, does it really make a HUGE difference whether we are logged by the ISP at an increased service cost... or by the state at secretive locations on the national backbone, at a cost to taxpayers in general. Personally, I'd say the cost should be borne by those that use the technology (if at all) but I certainly can't see any government laying down on the issue and respecting our supposed 'rights' to privacy.

I don't believe in any 'natural' right to privacy or freedom - there has only ever been the privacy and freedom that you carve out for yourself and defend with every fibre of your being. Don't *expect* anyone else to defend this for you on the basis of the Constitution, Democracy or Natural law as none of these things have value.


As regards the abstract nature of 'theft' of electronic forms of intellectual property - it makes no difference. The collective will of large corporations WILL be upheld in this regard and nothing short of revolution will free IP from their grasp.

Sorry for being so dark folks, but thats how I see it. I don't have to like it.


Finally, in my role as devils advocate and resident genie, lets just check I've satisfied your 'rights' before I twitch my nose and make it so...

- From now on, you can board a plane without your baggage being checked - It's silly to mistrust you ALL just because of the occassional terrorist bomber or hijacker.

- From now on, all packages into and out of the US will not be opened. We accept that most americans are NOT cocaine/heroin dealers and it is wrong to brand them as such.

- From now on, we will no longer be processing background checks on nannies - sure, one or two may be convicted substance-abusers or child-killers, but this is certainly not the norm.

Okay, so do I twitch my nose, or no?


-Meds
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alt.don
SF Boss
SF Boss


Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 16777079


Offline

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bleh. Privacy on the web is an illusion fostered by idiots whose village desperately wants them back. To be quite honest there is little you can do about it so accept it and move on. The effort to completely, or as much as you can, privatize your online presence is not really worth the effort for most. That said far too many people are blase about the intrusion of the government in their daily lives, and or realize just how intrusive it has become over the years. Just wait for the future when biometrics become firmly entrenched for E-Business and those big juicy databases full of thumbprints are up for possible grabs by the police or intelligence agencies. Before this goes totally off topic I will sign off Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
capi
SF Senior Mod
SF Senior Mod


Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 16777097
Location: Portugal

Offline

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="M3DU54"]Well, one persons 'spying' is anothers 'accounting'. We get so outraged when it is suggested that ISPs should log our traffic, yet on our own networks this would come under accounting and auditing and we then justify it against the users complaints of 'spying'

Quote:
Employees have to suffer our accounting and security measures because it comes with the job. It's part of the contract and the company owns the hardware and therefore has the final say. Most employees will accept this.

Accept may not be the right term... "can't do anything about" is more like it. Wink I would most definetly have a problem with the sort of spying some network admins like to call by the euphemism of "auditing" - whether I can really do anything about it or not (namely, whether I need the money enough, or have a viable alternative) is a different matter. I still don't like it, I still think it's wrong, and I would still change to something else in a pinch if I could.

Quote:
Well, ISPs own the networking infrastructure we pass through. They can put a data retention clause in the contract. Is there SO much difference ?

Perhaps, perhaps not. There have to be limits to what can be demanded in a contract; work, personal or otherwise. Can your landlord legally stipulate in the contract that he will have the right to install cameras in your bathroom and bedroom, just because he's lenting you the place? Well don't answer that, I'm sure he probably even can - capitalism is the law of the jungle, after all. Still, is it right?

If all ISPs got in agreement and started demanding you put your house in their name to give you service, would that be acceptable? Oh, the consumer has a choice; just don't use the Internet. Oh, or maybe buy your own backbone. Not really much a choice after all, though, is it? That's called extortion.

Quote:
Personally, I don't like it one bit - but then, does it really make a HUGE difference whether we are logged by the ISP at an increased service cost... or by the state at secretive locations on the national backbone, at a cost to taxpayers in general.

True, but I would call that another problem to solve, not a justification for settling with this one; just because something is bad that doesn't mean we should stick with another bad alternative. Of course solving the problem of the government spying from secretive locations is probably much harder if not nearly impossible in society as we know it, but they are nonetheless independent problems.

Quote:
I don't believe in any 'natural' right to privacy or freedom - there has only ever been the privacy and freedom that you carve out for yourself and defend with every fibre of your being. Don't *expect* anyone else to defend this for you on the basis of the Constitution, Democracy or Natural law as none of these things have value.

Which is why we should be getting pissed when we're told our ISPs can steal away our privacy and spy on everything we do Wink

Quote:
Finally, in my role as devils advocate and resident genie, lets just check I've satisfied your 'rights' before I twitch my nose and make it so...

I am not advocating anarchy; but there has to be a mid-term. And this mid-term should bear heavily toward the rights of the individual - when what matters is the rights of the many, over the rights of the few, what you have is a police state. It is one thing to pass through a metal detector when you enter a courthouse or whatnot, and it is quite another to have your daily personal privacy stripped. To take a computer and know that regardless of where you "go" online, anything you see, type, say or hear will be monitored, logged and scrutinized by a third party. To pick up the phone and know that, no matter who you are or what you have done, anything you say on the line will be monitored and overheard. That is, quite literally, living in a prision.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M3DU54
Trusted SF Member
Trusted SF Member


Joined: 11 May 2002
Posts: 1
Location: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Offline

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jkleinhans wrote:
Because of the Patriot Act (which I support most of) the FBI can tap my phone lines, come bust down my door and detain me for x amt of time. Will they do that? No. Why? There is no reason for them to. I don't hang out w/terrorists or do anything that would warrant my observation.

Check the 3 part documentary 'The politics of fear' by the BBC. Over 600 people were arrested and held on 'prevention of terrorism' charges following 9/11. None of these charges proved warranted. The evidence used is quite alarming. One home video of disneyland had various bins in some shots - This was obviously to note planting points. Pictures of queues for rides? That shows where the highest concentrations of people were. The idea that this could have been a normal home video was completely overlooked.

One mindless doodle from another house (found down the back of a sofa) was checked against all airforce and civillian databases worldwide. A very rough match was found - and that person was charged with plotting a rocket attack based on that evidence alone. Other evidence was found. Then the note was traced back to the person who lived there long before the suspects. They were arrested anyway.

What warrants your observation? Well, hopefully much more than warrants your arrest and detention!

Of course, in the US you'd end up in Guantanamo Bay. Mistake or not, you would admit to anything by the end of your stay. Good for agency PR - not so good for you. And everyone back home would say 'well, they must've been involved somehow or they wouldn't be in this position'

Comforting thought, no? Don't worry though - they only go after muslims >sarc.<


capi wrote:
Accept may not be the right term... "can't do anything about" is more like it. :wink: I would most definetly have a problem with the sort of spying some network admins like to call by the euphemism of "auditing" - whether I can really do anything about it or not (namely, whether I need the money enough, or have a viable alternative) is a different matter. I still don't like it, I still think it's wrong, and I would still change to something else in a pinch if I could.

Unfortunately, much of the time such measures are unavoidable. If you want privacy, go to the bathroom. On our time, on our systems, with our clients - everything you do must be accounted.

capi wrote:
If all ISPs got in agreement and started demanding you put your house in their name to give you service, would that be acceptable?

Absolutely. Just as acceptable as allowing them to set their monthly fees. There is a mechanism called the free market economy. Extortionate charges would price-fix them out of the market. A gap would open for any entrepreneur looking to get into the game. That is, after all, what keeps the market in an equilibrium. Natural forces of competition, and of supply and demand. It's what stops bread being sold at 1000 dollars to anyone who doesn't wish to starve.

capi wrote:
Oh, the consumer has a choice; just don't use the Internet. Oh, or maybe buy your own backbone. Not really much a choice after all, though, is it? That's called extortion.

One could say the same of food. Charging for food is extortion as the alternative is starvation (Yes, some truth in that). One could say that charging for electricity is extortion, medical expenses, etc... etc...

I'm just wondering where you feel you have the RIGHT to enlist a third party to carry a package without recording the event or demanding to know whats in it. If everyone you ask to carry a package refused because you wouldn't tell them what was in it - would this be reflective of their rights or a violation of your own ?

If you understand the need for COCOM, Intellectual Property rights, Customs and National secrets - then you will understand that data can be as significant as material goods - and that ISPs (Who also courier data across national boundaries at high speeds) must be similarly mindful of 'small packets'.

capi wrote:
M3DU54 wrote:
Personally, I don't like it one bit - but then, does it really make a HUGE difference whether we are logged by the ISP at an increased service cost... or by the state at secretive locations on the national backbone, at a cost to taxpayers in general.

True, but I would call that another problem to solve, not a justification for settling with this one

Its not 'another problem' its 'conspiracy theory' and thus everyone will just roll their eyes and sigh. They are doing it through the front door because they have been paying the UK to do it through the backdoor for years. Anti-terror laws may allow them to. If not, well, its another tax rise. At least with open-monitoring you may win some limitations in the courts and on the hill.

With secretive monitoring you have no chance. With that in mind one could even say this is a welcome event. Open monitoring is a chance for reform. A chance to excercise your other 'rights' such as free speech and proportional representation.

capi wrote:
M3DU54 wrote:
I don't believe in any 'natural' right to privacy or freedom - there has only ever been the privacy and freedom that you carve out for yourself and defend with every fibre of your being. Don't *expect* anyone else to defend this for you on the basis of the Constitution, Democracy or Natural law as none of these things have value.

Which is why we should be getting pissed when we're told our ISPs can steal away our privacy and spy on everything we do :wink:

Absolutely. Fight it like hell.

capi wrote:
M3DU54 wrote:
Finally, in my role as devils advocate and resident genie, lets just check I've satisfied your 'rights' before I twitch my nose and make it so...

I am not advocating anarchy;

I wasn't suggesting anarchy. I was suggesting upholding your presumed ' inalienable right to privacy' just to see how far it holds true.

capi wrote:
when what matters is the rights of the many, over the rights of the few, what you have is a police state.

Did you mean that, or did you get it backwards - because it really does work better in reverse : ) A police state subjugates the masses in favour of the priv'd.

capi wrote:
It is one thing to pass through a metal detector when you enter a courthouse or whatnot, and it is quite another to have your daily personal privacy stripped. To take a computer and know that regardless of where you "go" online, anything you see, type, say or hear will be monitored, logged and scrutinized by a third party. To pick up the phone and know that, no matter who you are or what you have done, anything you say on the line will be monitored and overheard. That is, quite literally, living in a prision.

And how many people will be monitoring this? How can you say 'will be' - we're talking about an awful lot of traffic here. In actual fact we're talking about a system whereby your data can be checked to corroborate your story or confirm your guilt.

Who you call, Where you shop, what you buy, what files are on your PC, what you keep in that locked basement ... all these things are intruded upon when suspected of a crime. Electronic records of whole communities can be legally checked to find evidence after a crime. Cellular audits are very common for example. Yet nobody really cared when they rolled out Itemised Billing. ISP logging just makes this easier.


As I said. I don't think any of us have a 'right' (either constitutional or god-given) to privacy. Most of our 'rights' are just lip-service. There are many experiments a person can undertake in order to find out for themselves just how those 'rights' stand up in practice. Generally speaking, they don't.

And I hope it is noted that I am playing devils advocate here. I dislike this as much as the next person (Unless the next person is Porter Goss)


-Meds
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
capi
SF Senior Mod
SF Senior Mod


Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 16777097
Location: Portugal

Offline

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

M3DU54 wrote:
Absolutely. Just as acceptable as allowing them to set their monthly fees. There is a mechanism called the free market economy. Extortionate charges would price-fix them out of the market. A gap would open for any entrepreneur looking to get into the game. That is, after all, what keeps the market in an equilibrium. Natural forces of competition, and of supply and demand. It's what stops bread being sold at 1000 dollars to anyone who doesn't wish to starve.

That is indeed the capitalist way, by which most of our western civilization governs itself. My point was, however, that this is not necessarily the best way, nor does it always work out as an ideal equilibrium where everyone benefits. There is a difference between the potential existing for an entrepreneur to come and save the world, and there actually being one with the will (and resources, etc) to do so.

Simple example, only approaching the edge of what I mean: here in Portugal, when broadband Internet first appeared some years ago, it did so as a service of the leading cable TV provider (which incidentally benefited, and still does, from a legally imposed monopoly on supplying cable TV for the country's major cities). They went on to offer their 640/128 Kbps product for a considerable amount of money (this at a time when you would see speeds in the order of Mbps in other countries, for equivalent or sometimes even lower prices). They decided to place a 1GB cap on downloads. Every 100Mb extra would see you charged a hefty penalty. You basically just had to take it or leave it as they were the only circus in town.

So, a few years of that and some new competitors come up as ADSL hits mainstream. Great, the consumers thought; now we will see some real competition! Prices will go down, ridiculous caps that serve only to increase the total cost of use will disappear, right? Wrong; the new competitors followed on the footsteps of the original beast. Oh, we had a choice, alright: pay 50€ a month for cable Internet at 640k with a 1GB cap, or pay 50€ a month for ADSL Internet with a 1GB cap (figures approximated from memory but the point is they were practically the same price). Only recently (meaning this year), did we finally see some bigger players (funded by large retail sales corporations) enter the market, finally with fair service conditions.

My point is that free market alone isn't necessarily the best solution. A system where you are basically emulating Nature's evolution may ultimately end up in a balanced state, but it is going to screw a whole lot of people while it gets there. The concept reminds me of the discussion on whether the Linux kernel should adopt a similar path (letting *everything* in, and let god sort it out whether we run to the ground or make it to the heights), and is not far from the notion of a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters IMO.

capi wrote:
One could say the same of food. Charging for food is extortion as the alternative is starvation (Yes, some truth in that). One could say that charging for electricity is extortion, medical expenses, etc... etc...

I do believe charging for medicine, for example, is extortion - but that's a different argument Wink

My point is there should be limits on what can be done in a "free market". I'm not sure how things are in the US (to name a very "free market"-friendly country), but here in Portugal for example there are some things that cannot be signed away with a (verbal or written) contract. There is the concept of an invalid clause - an example of which being those signs on closed-space car parking lots that read "we're not responsable for any lost goods" or whatnot. Up until recently, there was a government-imposed maximum limit for gasoline price. Basic utilities such as water and electricity are also regulated. We have health care.

For the record, I am not saying Portugal is some super country, or better than anyone else's - in fact I'm usually the first one to say it stinks. I just used the above as an example.

I'm not exactly proposing a communist regime (Oh no, the c word! Better hide while I still can), but I am saying that "free market", left unchecked, can lead to nasty things.

Quote:
If you understand the need for COCOM, Intellectual Property rights, Customs and National secrets - then you will understand that data can be as significant as material goods - and that ISPs (Who also courier data across national boundaries at high speeds) must be similarly mindful of 'small packets'.

True, you have a point there.

Quote:
I wasn't suggesting anarchy. I was suggesting upholding your presumed ' inalienable right to privacy' just to see how far it holds true.

It's not so much a desire for absolute, "inalienable right to privacy" as it is a desire for a reasonable situation. Making sure people who board a plane aren't carrying bombs is one thing; being spied on while I talk on the phone, or do whatever I want to do on the Internet, is another.

Quote:
Did you mean that, or did you get it backwards - because it really does work better in reverse : ) A police state subjugates the masses in favour of the priv'd.

Didn't explain myself properly. I meant it as in the interests of the individual must be placed above the interests of the State. s/many/state, s/few/individual/ Wink


Quote:
Who you call, Where you shop, what you buy, what files are on your PC, what you keep in that locked basement ... all these things are intruded upon when suspected of a crime. Electronic records of whole communities can be legally checked to find evidence after a crime. Cellular audits are very common for example. Yet nobody really cared when they rolled out Itemised Billing. ISP logging just makes this easier.

It is indeed becoming ever harder to have a private life, to be an individual; that is what I don't like. Why? Precisely because of things like what you described to jkleinhans in your above post. The ISP issue is adding to the problem, as are all the other thousands of ways in which we are monitored, tracked, scrutinized and catalogged.

Quote:
And I hope it is noted that I am playing devils advocate here. I dislike this as much as the next person (Unless the next person is Porter Goss)

Oh, of course. Just having an interesting discussion here Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Secure Lockdown
Just Arrived
Just Arrived


Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 2


Offline

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello, dumb question from me.

Up here is Canuk land, we are getting more and more privacy commisioner and PIPEDA stuff happening at work. Seems like all you have to do is be a rich guy, have friends that are lawyers, call the commisioners office and you have opened up a can of whoop ass on any company that ticks you off.

Is this stuff also going to infiltrate into the computing environments and workplace? i.e. Can someone go to commisioner and claim invasion of privary at work with computer policies or is that completely unrelated?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jeffball55
Just Arrived
Just Arrived


Joined: 22 Oct 2005
Posts: 1
Location: US

Offline

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Capi: the way it is supposed to work in the US is that monopolies are illegal. That way if one company tries to control the market then they are supposed to get broken up. It's not really a free market it just resembles one greatly. I keep saying supposed to because if the gov't officials buy stock in a company then normally they don't try to break it up. Thus corruption comes into play and monopolies still exist anyway. The one sad thing about democracy is its corruption. The People don't rule the country, money rules the country. Well i'm getting off topic, so moving on.

Secure Lockdown: To the best of my knowledge, most companies (the smart ones at least) make you sign a contract saying they are allowed to monitor your Internet and that you waive your right to sue for this along with a lot of other legal jargon that it would take a team of lawyers to understand it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Minerva
Just Arrived
Just Arrived


Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 0


Offline

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:03 pm    Post subject: Ever-Expanding Powers: The Pentagon's Domestic Spying Operat Reply with quote

Here's a link to accompany my original post
http://www.infowars.com/articles/bb/pentagon_domestic_spying_op.htm

"The 5 years of work that went into creating the Bush National Security State will not be passed on to some anemic Democrat, like Hillary Clinton, according to the normal protocols. The "capitalist police state" represents the concerted efforts of myriad elites from all walks of life; particularly banking, big energy, military and media. The last obstacle to realizing their macabre vision is Congress; the final hurdle to absolute power."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M3DU54
Trusted SF Member
Trusted SF Member


Joined: 11 May 2002
Posts: 1
Location: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Offline

PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

capi wrote:
M3DU54 wrote:
Extortionate charges would price-fix them out of the market. A gap would open for any entrepreneur looking to get into the game. That is, after all, what keeps the market in an equilibrium. Natural forces of competition, and of supply and demand. It's what stops bread being sold at 1000 dollars to anyone who doesn't wish to starve.

That is indeed the capitalist way, by which most of our western civilization governs itself. My point was, however, that this is not necessarily the best way, nor does it always work out as an ideal equilibrium where everyone benefits. There is a difference between the potential existing for an entrepreneur to come and save the world, and there actually being one with the will (and resources, etc) to do so.

Oh absolutely. It isn't an ideal solution. But, if it wasn't for this pseudo-equilibrium (and I grant that it is less than ideal) then you would be paying 'through the nose' for everything. It works for the most part, although generally by artificially expanding to fit the average purse.

capi wrote:
M3DU54 wrote:
One could say the same of food. Charging for food is extortion as the alternative is starvation (Yes, some truth in that). One could say that charging for electricity is extortion, medical expenses, etc... etc...

I do believe charging for medicine, for example, is extortion - but that's a different argument :wink:

It is a different argument indeed - But I'm with you on that. Still, there are a lot of essential things we must ultimately pay for - or, go to the true communist ideal (which, contrary to capitalist rhetoric, there is nothing wrong with in *principle*). In practice of course it fares no better than capitalism, due to greed and corruption.

capi wrote:
Quote:
If you understand the need for COCOM, Intellectual Property rights, Customs and National secrets - then you will understand that data can be as significant as material goods - and that ISPs (Who also courier data across national boundaries at high speeds) must be similarly mindful of 'small packets'.

True, you have a point there.

Then you approve of traffic logging at the national boundary? Just not on domestic traffic? And would you agree that there are circumstances which dictate the surveilance and detection of subversive influences *within* the national boundary?

capi wrote:
Quote:
I wasn't suggesting anarchy. I was suggesting upholding your presumed ' inalienable right to privacy' just to see how far it holds true.

It's not so much a desire for absolute, "inalienable right to privacy" as it is a desire for a reasonable situation. Making sure people who board a plane aren't carrying bombs is one thing; being spied on while I talk on the phone, or do whatever I want to do on the Internet, is another.

And when a bomb explodes in your city centre, should this right to privacy be suspended in order to check cellphone call histories of everyone in that area? Perhaps even nationally, if it is believed it may yield some clue as to the attackers? Most would agree, but then - we've had time to get used to the idea that cellphone records can be used in evidence, or to establish who may have been in the vicinity of a major criminal event.

capi wrote:
Quote:
Did you mean that, or did you get it backwards - because it really does work better in reverse : ) A police state subjugates the masses in favour of the priv'd.

Didn't explain myself properly. I meant it as in the interests of the individual must be placed above the interests of the State. s/many/state, s/few/individual/ :wink:

My apologies.

capi wrote:
Quote:
Who you call, Where you shop, what you buy, what files are on your PC, what you keep in that locked basement ... all these things are intruded upon when suspected of a crime. Electronic records of whole communities can be legally checked to find evidence after a crime. Cellular audits are very common for example. Yet nobody really cared when they rolled out Itemised Billing. ISP logging just makes this easier.

It is indeed becoming ever harder to have a private life, to be an individual; that is what I don't like. Why? Precisely because of things like what you described to jkleinhans in your above post. The ISP issue is adding to the problem, as are all the other thousands of ways in which we are monitored, tracked, scrutinized and catalogged.

Don't you accept this as an inevitable byproduct of the rapid growth in information processing? It isn't just your state - it's your bank - your supermarket - et al. The point is that there is SO much information being collected that it is almost impossible to do anything with except in a statistical sense. Except in criminal investigation, which most of us already accept is fair use - at least in regard to cellphone logs.

Lets say in the future everything is logged:

Nobody *actually* reads your emails - They just categorise them on keywords, destinations and tone, to guage afflence, education and lifestyle. Is there truly a loss of privacy? If a teenager emails a letter of angst and depression to an internet confidant - and the mail servers pass a 'hit' to a company which then automatically mails out a 'depressed, lonely, misunderstood? ... have you tried... Product X' mesage - then this is no less manipulative than our current cynical advertising psychology which balances goods against lifestyles and plays upon various typical human neurosis.

Technology also provides various solutions, such as filtering spam, and allowing only known contacts.

So, when a teen gets a 'We heard you split up with your BF, never mind... we have hundreds of boys in your area at www . niceboysforyou . com' should she assume that her entire life is on public display, or that some twisted corporate voyeur is prying into her life? I think we will just desensitise to this and start taking better care of our private messages.

Meanwhile, since the government moved monitoring out of secretive locations and made it a public issue, there now exist legal limitations on their usage - something which was not possible in the dark old days of secretive mass monitoring. Perhaps now it is mandated that you are notified of all such intrusions after the event. Perhaps they need to show just cause. And since the ISPs are guardians of this information (and liable for personal infringements) the government cannot just arbitrarily screen.

I think it is THIS that we should be fighting for - not the status quo. After all, 600 would-be terrorist suspects demonstrate, quite adequately, the current problems and the lack of accountability.

This is where I feel that ISP logging may actually be a move forwards.

-Meds
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly version    Networking/Security Forums Index -> Connectivity // Telecommunications // Internet News All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Community Area

Log in | Register