Destroying the Right to Be Left Alone

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/23-1



***SNIP

You Won’t Need a Warrant for That

Have no doubt: the Fourth Amendment is fast becoming an artifact of a paper-based world.

The core idea behind that amendment, which prohibits the government from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” is that its representatives only get to invade people’s private space -- their “persons, houses, papers, and effects” -- after it convinces a judge that they’re up to no good. The technological advances of the last few decades have, however, seriously undermined this core constitutional protection against overzealous government agents, because more and more people don’t store their private information in their homes or offices, but on company servers.

Consider email.

In a series of rulings from the 1970’s, the Supreme Court created “the third-party doctrine.” Simply stated, information shared with third parties like banks and doctors no longer enjoys protection under the Fourth Amendment. After all, the court reasoned, if you shared that information with someone else, you must not have meant to keep it private, right? But online almost everything is shared with third parties, particularly your private e-mail.

Back in 1986, Congress recognized that this was going to be a problem. In response, it passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). That law was forward-looking for its day, protecting the privacy of electronic communications transmitted by computer. Unfortunately, it hasn’t aged well.

[cantbeserious]

1. It Won't Change Until Americans Have Had Enough

eom

[Gormy Cuss]

22. Yep.

And at the moment most Americans seem willing to trade privacy for store discounts, toys and the illusion of security.

[former9thward]

37. Unfortunately when they have had enough it will be long too late to do anything.

[Laelth]

2. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[KG]

3. AutoCommonDreamsDURec

[Pholus]

4. Two philosophies in conflict with really high stakes:

I have quoted Krugman before, but he was quoting Jack Balkin:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/08/is-a-democratic-surveillance-state-possible/

But it comes down to how you want to live:

The democratic way: "If you are doing nothing wrong, you have a right to be left alone."

versus

The Authoritarian way: "If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide."

It astounds me that the same crowd who is so happy about our recent progress on a Democratic agenda somehow don't realize that THIS will undermine everything they worked for. That the conservatives WANT to be able to keep tabs on the "others" because that's what conservatism is -- controlling what they fear. And this information IS control and it WILL be abused. Maybe not now (though I'm not sure that's even necessarily a true statement) but for sure when the next conservative con artist gets elected and starts telling us that reality is what they make it.

People seem to have completely forgotten what Bush was DOING to us and what he was PROMISING to do to us!!!

So they sit there, scared of terrorism, when the real terrorists are just waiting to be able to use these shiny new law enforcement tools to push an abhorrent agenda against the rest of us -- powered by an unimpeded government "right" to inspect our communications. Publishing personal details about the Moral Monday protesters was pretty much just to get the idea out there -- just imagine when that gets institutionally enshrined in government.

My parents generation understood the difference between these two philosophies but then again they fought real battles to protect those principals. Sadly, we seem to be less than they were.

[Johnny Ready]

5. Internet - The Aerosol Can of the 21st Century

Sometimes it seems the internet is very similar to the aerosol can. They both were created before the affect to society was completely understood. What happens next, is a great question.

[randome]

25. EVERYTHING is created before the effect to society is completely understood.

I doubt that will ever change. Instead, society changes and adapts to new technologies.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[KoKo]

6. [b]The Unknown Unknowns[/b]

(This is a long but well-written article putting into context how overwhelming this surveillance of all of us has become. And, what we don't know because the technology is moving so fast. This snip is from the end of the article)

The Unknown Unknowns

Note that we’ve only begun a tour through the ways in which American privacy is currently under assault by our own government. Other examples abound. There is E-Verify’s proposed giant “right-to-work” list of everyone eligible to work in the United States. There are law enforcement agencies that actively monitor social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. There are the Department of Homeland Security’s research and development efforts to create cameras armed with almost omniscient facial recognition technology, not to speak of passports issued with radio frequency identification technology. There are networked surveillance camera feeds that flow into government systems. There is NSA surveillance data that’s finding its way into domestic drug investigations, which is then hidden by the DEA from defense lawyers, prosecutors, and the courts to ensure the surveillance data stream continues unchallenged.

And here’s the thing: this is only what we know about. As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once put it, “there are also unknown unknowns -- there are things we do not know we don't know.” It would be the height of naïveté to believe that government organizations across this country -- from the federal to the municipal level -- aren’t engaged in other secret and shocking privacy intrusions that have yet to be revealed to us. If the last few months have taught us anything, it should be that we are in a world of unknown unknowns.

Today, government agencies act as if they deserve the benefit of the doubt as they secretly do things ripped from the pages of science-fiction novels. Once upon a time, that’s not how things were to run in a land where people prized their right to be let alone and government of the people, by the people, and for the people was supposed to operate in the open. The government understands this perfectly well: Why else would its law enforcement agents and officers regularly go to remarkable lengths, sometimes at remarkable cost, to conceal their actions from the rest of us and the legal system that is supposed to oversee their acts? Which is why whistleblowers like Edward Snowden are so important: they mount the last line of defense when the powers-that-be get too accustomed to operating in the dark.

Without our very own Snowdens working in the county sheriff’s departments or big city police departments or behemoth federal bureaucracies, especially with the world of newspapers capsizing, the unknowns are ever more likely to stay unknown, while what little privacy we have left vanishes.

[Cryptoad]

7. In the last week,

The GOP has passed a bill to shutdown our government if they are not allowed to deny Americans affordable health Care, a bill to cut food stamps to the poor, a call for more women to have vagina probes, a call to walk away from immigration reform

And what are the Obama Haters' biggest concerns,,,,,, "who is listening to my email"



geeez

[marble falls]

9. While the invasion of my privacy is not an issue I would change my vote to Romney ....

over, it is an issue I would change my vote over if my choice was Obama/invasion and Obama/privacy. And it concerns me now because Obama has no control over Teapublicans who can't stop the Affordable Care Act anyways and can't effect the other two issues that much.

However, the President can affect my privacy with a pen. He can shut Gitmo with a pen. He can regulate Wall Street and the banks with phone calls and a pen. He can stop putting up fox in the henhouse nominees for confirmation.

All things being equal I'd vote for him again but there are things he can do that he hasn't.

[Cryptoad]

14. yea Romney and the GOP would be doing things alot different!

you know: the ole nose off to spite face thingy?

the GOP loves the Obama Haters!

[Fumesucker]

23. But the Democrats would be doing something very different if Romney were POTUS

They would be opposed to domestic spying rather than in favor of it.

[Cryptoad]

29. Love those Circular Red Herrings,,,,

No you would be opposed just as you are now....

[Fumesucker]

31. More satire, eh?

I have heard that practice makes perfect so I suppose there's some hope.

[Cryptoad]

33. maybe you will make it,,,,, I will keep my little toad toes crossed for ya!

[marble falls]

36. Reading comprehension much? I loathe Romney. I support the President except on privacy....

sheesh.

[Autumn]

18. Obama Haters' seems to crop up in almost every post you make.

Strange.

[marble falls]

39. Please reread my comment. I support the Presient except on privacy, Gitmo and.....

Wall Street. I voted for him gladly. I would vote for him again. I loathe Romney.

[Autumn]

41. I think your response was meant for crypttoad.

I understand and agree with you.

[marble falls]

43. Sorry! Even gentle critisism of the President brings down a raft of tone deaf ....

partisans. Thank you for your kind words.

[MADem]

8. Some genius is going to have to invent the concept of "private internets."

And I don't mean "private" by sharing a serving with a limited number of other customers, or some "secure" email provider, but a concept by which a person can connect with another person without having to go through a third party.

You wanna talk to Fred? You punch a few keys and you are connected to Fred--not via any other party, either.

How this will come to pass, I have no idea. Someone way smarter than me will figure it out.

[marble falls]

10. Like connecting directly to the cloud with almost no computer - all you'd need is a screen and ...

an access device. Like walkie talkies. I think you're on to something.

[MADem]

16. I had a discussion with a military planner - scholar about "virtual reality"

a zillion years ago, WAY before computers were even part of the average individual's workstation. I like seeing how it is integrated into training and operational applications nowadays, especially since a few people in the room thought I was a bit nuts!

I wish I was better at the science end of stuff--I get as far as the Jules Verne imaginings and run outta gas!

But that's exactly what I mean--like walkie talkies. And...as Judy Tenuta used to say "It could happen!"

Of course, I'm still waiting on Jet Packs For Everyone. That was my childhood dream, to be able to go out of the house, strap on a little backpack, and whip through the air like a bird! Now that I'm older, I will happily settle for a Google car where you can tell the thing to take you from Boston to Maine and you can catch a nap on the way!

[Sunlei]

20. even a direct ip connection has an isp that gathers info & sells that info.

[rrneck]

13. Maybe "personal servers".

If data technology continues to progress, it might become possible to have a server in your home that would hold the entire internet. Everybody would have their own server, and if somebody else wanted to tap into your communications, they would have to tap your personal "phone" rather than hoover up everything that goes through a central location.

But I could write what I actually know about the subject in a matchbook with a grease pencil.

[MADem]

19. My technical skills are probably less honed than yours!

It's just an idea I have in my head. I think, though, if enough people have an idea, some smart fart will find a way to make it happen!

[TheJames]

27. Mesh Net, is what you are talking about. n/t

[MADem]

28. Sounds good to me! nt

[Cryptoad]

15. Are we throwing years of "Keep the Internet Public" out the window????

can't have it both ways,,,,,

[MADem]

21. Well, that IS a consideration. Perhaps there could be multiple levels of "internet."

A Public Internet, and private communications using an entirely different protocol.

Why do we always have to travel along the Information Super Highway? Maybe there are times when we'd prefer to "teleport" to our destination?

The issue you raise is entirely valid, though. Will this idea be a tool for just some folks, or will everyone want one? If everyone wants one, then yeah, it could shift the public internet paradigm...kind of like there's no more "Ma Bell" but instead, a load of separate, private (and, for the basic service "Ma" provided, cheaper) entities....

[jeff47]

24. The Internet doesn't work that way.

The Internet is based on a series of shorter connections. Commonly called "hops".

Let's take the example of doing a Google search for "Privacy Rights".

My computer wraps up a packet and sends it to my ISP.
My ISP opens the packet, sees it's not for someone on their network. Sends the packet up to their ISP.
Their ISP opens the packet, figures out it's not for their network, and sends the packet to their ISP.
Their ISP opens the packet, figures out what server is in the direction of Google, and sends it to them.
That server opens the packet, figures out what server is in the direction of Google, and sends it to them.
(This step repeats a few times)
Google's ISP receives the packet, figures out it's for Google, and hands it to Google's servers
Google's servers receive the packet, do the search, and then wrap up the results in another series of packets. Which are sent back using the same process.

So it's not possible to connect to Fred directly. The only way to do that is to literally run a cable between you and Fred. If you use the Internet to transmit the data, it's going to be sent to other parties.

The way you can maintain privacy in this situation is to encrypt the contents of what you send over the Internet. That way, the 3rd parties can't read what you're saying.

The "third party doctrine" would mean the encrypted data is unprotected. But if you and Fred don't share the decryption keys with anyone, those keys are protected and the data can only be revealed via proper 4th/5th amendment channels.

[MADem]

26. And that's how the phone used to work. You picked up the receiver, you cranked the crank, and

you asked the OPERATOR to connect you to Fleetwood six three oh in Los Angeles. If you were in New York, you had to wait while that operator did a little "hopping" across the country and called you back when the line was connected.

You're telling me what IS. What IS is not of interest to me.

I'm imagining a different paradigm that doesn't require those hops, that server, those packets, that equipment. To hell with Google--you're talking to Fred, directly without having all this fiddling and faddling and relying on others to help you communicate.

You have an internet walkie talkie, and your buddy has one too. In fact, everyone you want to talk to has one. You connect directly, you don't need cable or "line" to do it, and you cut out the middle men--or the middle servers. You encrypt in your own way, if that's your thing, but you aren't at the mercy of ISPs or hops or anything of that nature...

It's a different way of imagining the process. You've got to sweep all your old concepts aside.

This is the difference between riding a horse from Boston to Baltimore, and taking a plane. Once upon a time, people said it was impossible for humans to fly, or to go to the moon.

Back in the old days, they used to say there was "no way" a man could prove definitively that a child was his. A mother knows because she gives birth to the child, but a father had to take it on faith. That paradigm is smashed too, thanks to DNA.

Someone will figure out how to do this. I think privacy enthusiasts will insist upon it!

[jeff47]

30. No, phones didn't work that way.

The operator literally connected wires between your phone and the phone on the other end. It was an end-to-end single electrical circuit.

But most importantly, the addressing and the content were separate. The content was not transmitted until you had that private, direct connection established.

With the Internet, the addressing and the content are shipped together. Thus third parties have the content if you use the Internet. Which is why encryption is used to ensure privacy of data.

You have an internet walkie talkie, and your buddy has one too. In fact, everyone you want to talk to has one. You connect directly, you don't need cable or "line" to do it, and you cut out the middle men--or the middle servers.

And what I'm trying to explain is the fundamental design of the Internet does not allow this. Your device is not possible, because if it's an "Internet walkie talkie" then it is transmitting data via third parties. Because that's the fundamental design of the Internet.

To use your analogy, you are saying it's possible to fly from Boston to Baltimore on a horse.

Again, to do what you describe requires running a physical cable between you and Fred. To get around this, encryption is used to transmit the data privately. But you have to understand some details of how the encryption is applied to figure out if you are actually communicating privately.

[MADem]

45. Not in 1920 it wasn't.

"For many years, all long distance calls began with a call to an operator sitting at a toll (long-distance) switchboard. Until the 1920s, that operator wrote down the calling information provided by the customer, and then told the customer that he or she would be called back once the party was on the line. The operator then passed the information to another operator, who would look up the route that the call should take, and then build up the circuit one link at a time by connecting to operators at switchboards along the route. A typical call took seven minutes to set up. Once operators established a circuit, it was dedicated to that conversation until the end of the call." (AT&T: History of Network Switching)

http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/long_distance.htm

You keep telling me "how the internet works." I'm not talking about "the internet."

I am talking about an entirely different paradigm, that enables people to connect to one another directly. Not an "internet," more like an "extranet."

Someone is going to have to create this paradigm, but if it can be imagined, eventually, it probably can be done.

Take "the internet" and put it out of your head. I am talking about a methodology that is a completely different thing. This methodology will not USE "the internet." It will work differently, directly.

You do realize that there will come a day when we won't need "cable" or "wires" to deliver electricity to homes, don't you? They're actively working on that (if some kind of solar methodology doesn't obviate that for domestic applications, anyway).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power

You are thinking linearly, and concretely. You've got to let go of that kind of modelling to imagine what I am talking about.

[jeff47]

61. Yes, it really was.

You're not grasping that addressing and content are different.

Your quote is talking about resolving the addressing. No content was exchanged until the addressing was handled and that end-to-end connection was set up.

The Internet works by addressing each individual packet, which includes the content. That's why third parties have the content - they have to read each packet to figure out where to send it.

I am talking about an entirely different paradigm, that enables people to connect to one another directly. Not an "internet," more like an "extranet."

And as I keep explaining it to you, that requires a direct physical connection between the two parties. The Internet is designed the way it is because that direct physical connection between 6 billion people is completely impractical. But a shared network works. And you can use encryption to maintain privacy on that shared network.

You do realize that there will come a day when we won't need "cable" or "wires" to deliver electricity to homes, don't you? They're actively working on that (if some kind of solar methodology doesn't obviate that for domestic applications, anyway).

Are you seriously trying to argue that broadcasting a signal wirelessly is the way to accomplish your goals? When anyone with an antenna can listen in on your conversation? Or are you utterly ignoring physics and pretending that RF is directional, and can pass through the Earth in order to reach beyond line-of-sight? (You can bounce some frequencies off the ionosphere, but it's not terribly effective for communication - that's why we bother with communications satellites)

You are thinking linearly, and concretely. You've got to let go of that kind of modelling to imagine what I am talking about.

No, I'm actually applying the laws of physics to show the problems in what you are imagining. I can imagine that I can fly just by flapping my arms. Doesn't mean I can actually fly if I do so.

You are so busy talking up your imagination you have missed the fact that your goal has already been met. You can do exactly what you are looking for using the Internet and encryption. You just have to know enough about encryption to apply it at the correct places - and many places on the Internet do not apply it at the correct places.

[MADem]

62. I'm afraid you just are not taking my point, for reasons I can't quite fathom.

I keep telling you to stop talking about "the internet" and you keep talking about "the internet."

I am envisioning something that is NOT the internet--something "other than" and "outside" the internet....and you keep yelling at me about "the internet" because that is what you "know" and you cannot think past it. You keep talking about communication methodologies in your comfort zone and you can't break out beyond it.

People said that there was "no way" a human could walk on the moon. That wasn't true.

People said "There is no way that we can grow body part replacements in a lab," and that's happening now.

You're stuck in your "internet" box, and you're arguing with me about how it works and all the encryption that "goes with" because that's what you KNOW and feel safe with.

My imaginings take me outside that box.

[jeff47]

65. That's because you aren't bothering to actually read my posts.

I am envisioning something that is NOT the internet--something "other than" and "outside" the internet....and you keep yelling at me about "the internet" because that is what you "know" and you cannot think past it.

You need to actually read the posts if you want to understand them.

You are proposing a system where you connect two people with no intervening third parties in order to avoid those third parties from sharing information.

I'm trying to explain to you that we can already accomplish that. There is no need for a new system. Because we can make the current system do what you want. Right now. For free.

People said that there was "no way" a human could walk on the moon. That wasn't true.

No, this is more like you coming up with a new idea of walking on other bodies in the solar system. In 1986.

And then claiming that other people just don't understand your vision when they describe how it was done in 1969 and why it was done that way.

[MADem]

67. Your construct involves "the internet" to make the connection, though.

Mine doesn't.

That's where you're falling down, you see.

I have read your posts, but they all involve a third party and lines and cables. You keep talking about "the current system" and I'm talking about something else.

I'm saying we need to find a way around that if we want to address the privacy concerns elucidated in the OP. You keep insisting that "the current system" has what I need, and I keep repeating to you that I am not interested in using "the current system."

I am talking about a direct, wireless and secure connection between two entities. That's what I am imagining--not a better mousetrap/internet.

[jeff47]

69. And that's why your construct won't work.

And why the Internet was built the way it was built.

How do you directly connect 6 billion people without violating the fundamental laws of physics? And it's a combinatorial problem - that's not 6 billion connections - each person is going to be connected to more than one other person.

You keep talking about "the current system" and I'm talking about something else.

That's because I'm explaining how to reach your goal with the current system.

You and your friend exchange asymmetric encryption keys (ex. Public Key Cryptography) - the equivalent of handing them one of the pair of your proposed walkie-talkie.
You use your friend's key to encrypt a one-use symmetric key, and send that key to him over the Internet.
You use that one-time key to encrypt the data and transmit the encrypted data over the Internet.
Your friend uses his asymmetric key to get the symmetric key, and then decrypts the data.

What about big brother watching all those third parties? They get unintelligible garbage. That's the point of encrypting the data.

Why is this different than using "https" when you connect to Google? Because Google has an unencrypted copy of the data which they can share. In the scenario above, those 3rd parties do not have any unencrypted data.

What about the NSA and people's fantasies about their super powers? The NSA has two roles - spying on others, and preventing spying on the US. To accomplish the latter, they use tools like the "Advance Encryption Standard" symmetric encryption algorithm. That's what AES stands for in AES-256. The NSA does so because they believe it to be secure. Think there's a back door and the NSA is willing to compromise US security just to read your mail? Well it was invented by some Belgian mathematicians - not the NSA or anyone close to them.

How 'bout if they have magic super powers and do manage to break a message? That's why you use a different key for each message.

I am talking about a direct, wireless and secure connection between two entities.

Then you are talking about violating the laws of physics.

If it's wireless, it's going to have to be RF. There isn't any other technology that is even in the theoretical stage which could do so. So unless you're talking about waiting 20+ years, it's RF.

If it's RF, you are transmitting the data in all directions. Anyone nearby can pick up the signal with an antenna. In addition, you're going to need someone to repeat and amplify the signal if you and your friend are any significant distance apart. Which means you bring third parties back in. So you're going to have to encrypt the data to protect it. Which means you are now doing exactly what I said above, just over RF instead of the Internet.

You're flapping your arms sure that someone will make you fly real soon now. In a very, very long time, someone may invent anti-gravity. Alternatively, you could get on an airplane today.

[MADem]

70. No point in continuing this conversation.

You're locked into an established paradigm, using "the internet" as your transmission device, and refusing to think beyond it.

Just because you haven't thought of it doesn't mean it violates the laws of physics.

[jeff47]

73. I'm not the one locked in

I'm showing you how to accomplish your goal, today. For free.

You are rejecting that. For no real clear reason - if private communication is your actual goal, how 'bout using what already exists and works?

It appears you're so enamored with the idea of being "revolutionary" that you reject any existing solution.

[MADem]

74. Immediate gratification wasn't ever my point.

You're the one setting up the parameters of "today" and "for free."

And you insist on using "the internet" to do it.

I'm talking on a different plane, that doesn't require a person rely on a third party to make the connection. You are in problem-solving mode, I'm in the "conceptualizing a different methodology" mode.

The whole IDEA behind imagining unorthodox solutions is to break existing paradigms and BE "revolutionary."

[jeff47]

75. I'm setting no parameters

Your stated goal is private communications between two parties.

I'm showing you how it can be done using current technology.

And you insist on using "the internet" to do it.

No, I'm showing you how it can be done using current technology. "Current technology" includes the Internet.

I'm talking on a different plane, that doesn't require a person rely on a third party to make the connection. You are in problem-solving mode, I'm in the "conceptualizing a different methodology" mode.

You have a problem: private communication between two parties.

There's an existing solution.

You are insisting it is inadequate....yet you can't manage to actually say how it is inadequate - the "third party" problem you keep mentioning is already handled.

You also don't have even the beginnings of how you're going to handle 6.5 x 10^977 connections required for 6 billion people, each with 10 connections. That is about about 17 times the number of atoms in the sun (1.19 x 10^57).

The minimum possible connection for each person is two atoms - you can't make a physical object out of nothing and you are each going to have to have something to do the communication. We aren't going to be able to use 34 suns worth of matter to connect everyone on Earth. Mostly because there wouldn't be an Earth anymore.

So it appears current solutions are inadequate only because you want to claim you are far beyond the thinking of others.

[MADem]

76. Well, yeah--you are. Today/for free/the internet are parameters.

You also keep glossing over the third party aspect of your approach.

And I'm not "claiming" anything. I'm "imagining." You don't seem to have much imagination, your thinking is concrete and here-and-now. Your mindset and viewpoint are incompatible with a creative approach to this issue and I'm afraid for all your technical, here-and-now skills, you'd make a very poor futurist as you can't suppose anything beyond what you can hold in your hand.

[jeff47]

78. No, they're not. I'm using the one condition you started with.

The only parameter is the one you originally set: Private communication between two people.

I figured out a way to use today's technology to do that. That doesn't mean it's the only way that will be ever invented. But you can't claim to be identifying a new paradigm when existing paradigms handle it.

Your mindset and viewpoint are incompatible with a creative approach to this issue and I'm afraid for all your technical, here-and-now skills, you'd make a very poor futurist as you can't suppose anything beyond what you can hold in your hand.

Good futurists are capable of understanding when their ideas will never be possible. Your idea requires turning the Earth into a black hole under ideal conditions - two atoms per connection.

That doesn't make you a good futurist. That makes you someone who enjoys his ego a little too much.

[MADem]

79. I think you need to reread what I wrote, originally.

It's here: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3715388

Your constructs are not supported by my conditions.

And anyone who starts with a notion that "That will NEVER work" (and then doubles down on it) just isn't thinking creatively.

I have absolutely NO ego when it comes to topics like this--I fully acknowledge that I have no technical talents. That said, the way you keep coming at me with your "internet based model" and "can't be done" insistence reminds me of a conversation I had with a curmudgeon, many decades ago, who refused to even conceptualize the idea--never mind the eventual implementation--of something that came to be known as "virtual reality" in the context of military applications.

Again, I am not interested in using "today's technology"--specifically the third party entity known as "the internet" -- to create this connection between two people. Yet you keep tossing that at me like it's relevant to my idea. It just isn't.

[FarCenter]

49. Depends on what you mean by "an end-to-end single electrical circuit."

Telephones were always isolated from a DC point of view by repeat coils. These allowed the separate feeding of -48 volts and ground to the two wires going to the phone.

And when service was extended from Chicago to Denver, the distance required such large diameter wires that it was more practical to begin to use tube amplifiers, rather than depending on the callers to shout loudly enough.

[marble falls]

44. Funny, though, how many cranks ended up on the interweb!

[MADem]

46. OK, you win the thread....!

[Cryptoad]

32. Yea in a fantasy world

there are many ways of skinning a cat,,,, data can be decrypted by more ways than owning the key..... and Im not talking brute force decryption .....



like i said you cant have both ways.....


Yet there has to date no criminal charges filed except against Comrade Snowden.... seems he is the only one who has done anything criminal.

Meanwhile ,,, the GOP continues to destroy this country by means that make worrying about who is reading your email look like a piss in the ocean!

[jeff47]

34. Feel free to provide links.

Feel free to provide links showing modern encryption can be easily broken. Such as AES-256.

Or is this a "NSA can perform magic" post?

[Cryptoad]

35. Any commerical OS can provide a backdoor.......

for any data that was encrypted on it.

you can take it for what its worth.....

[jeff47]

38. No.

Any OS can provide a backdoor which can be used to monitor the encryption process. And it doesn't have to be a commercial OS - evil-government-programer-6347 can submit code to an open source OS introducing such a backdoor via a non-obvious exploit.

Anyway, that backdoor doesn't mean they can decrypt anything ever encrypted by it. It means they could try to capture keys or unencrypted data.

The problem with your argument is we're talking about a 4th/5th amendment protected system, and they would not be able to activate such backdoors without a court order - even Snowden hasn't managed to leak anything that shows violation of that. Though there are lots of people claiming he did without bothering to point to any evidence - it would get in the way of the story they want to tell.

And even if such an order was issued, it would only work on newly encrypted data. Unless you screw up your key management, it wouldn't work to decrypt old data.

Lastly, yours is still an "NSA can do magic" post. Got any links?

[Cryptoad]

40. No,, just the voice of experience ,,,,,,,,, nt

[FarCenter]

48. You can sort of do that now

If Fred runs an HTTP server on his PC, then you can connect your browser directly to Fred using a URL that starts with Fred's IP address. This involves only the routers between you, and it does not require accessing a domain name server, or any other server operated by a third party.

You could also use HTTPS for extra security if Fred sets his server up that way.

[MADem]

50. Yes, but what I envision would be much less onerous.

Of course, my "envisioning" (snork) is very vague; it's more like a concept!

Perhaps everyone could have something that works like a "server" the size of a postage stamp that they cart around with them and can use where ever they may be, on any device they chose...!

[Egalitarian Thug]

11. K&R but make no mistake, it's not the technology. Like so many previous wrong turns,

it's the SCOTUS that screwed us.

[MichaelKelley]

12. hi

The privacy is the most talked about issues as always and it would be always so, but i do not see any permanent solution for these. We need to take care of our things and be careful.

[LuvNewcastle]

17. Keeping out the prying eyes of the government isn't enough.

Too many companies are keeping records of everything we do; that needs to stop. Our personal information is probably more likely to be misused by corporations than by the government, really. If we put restrictions on what the govt. can know and don't do anything about the corporations, all of it will be in vain. So don't leave out corporate snooping when talking about this issue; all the information gathering needs to be made illegal.

[hfojvt]

42. why do I need this?

Am I asking to be left alone?

Often, it seems to be liberals who want to butt into my business. If I ride my bicycle without wearing a helmet, they are all over that. They are not about to leave me alone as I take such a foolish risk. I need to be protected from my own bad judgement.

Same thing if I am so stupid as to drive without putting on a seatbelt. Once again, I need to be protected from my child-like inability to take care of my own safety.

Oh, and then FSM forbid that I should dare to drive somewhere and take my dogs with me. Well that might be okay, as long as my dogs are wearing a safety harness, and as long as I am not the kind of insensitive clod who would actually leave dogs inside a car. I know it is hard to believe than anyone would be so barbaric here in the 21st century, but for the sake of argument, suppose they were, what should a decent person do? Obviously they should call the authorities in so such a miscreant can feel the full penalty of law.

Anyway, I could keep snarking on about the safety gestapo, but my point, such as it is, is that in my 51 years of life I have not faced all that much hassle from and thus needed "this core constitutional protection against overzealous government agents".

I have never run across an "overzealous government agent" in my 51 years. What I seem to need protection from, in my own, admittedly limited, experience, is overzealous safety nannies. YMMV

[MADem]

47. Well, I'm all for the "safety nannies" who tell people to not drink and text while driving.

Someone near and dear to me would still be alive if some asshole who didn't want to be told what to do hadn't been doing just that and plowed across the road and killed my loved one.

[hfojvt]

52. well who isn't?

There's a fairly clear distinction between a rule designed to keep OTHERS safe from the actions of a person and a law designed to keep THAT person safe.

I'm having a hard time imagining my lack of a bicycle helmet harming anyone else in any scenario. I don't expect to be harmed myself, but admit that it is possible.

[MADem]

53. Well, if your head hit the pavement and you had no medical insurance....

Everyone else's costs would go up to pay for your care.

It's entirely possible that you could be harmed. I doubt this poor guy clambered on his bike last Saturday expecting to end up like this:

http://medfield.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/medfield-bicyclist-critically-injured-in-fall-from-bike

A 54-year-old resident of Medfield was flown by medical helicopter to a trauma hospital in Boston Saturday afternoon, after an apparent fall from a bike on Route 27....

"He had an injury to his head. He had injury to both arms," Meaney said. "At no point was he conscious or talking to anyone at the scene."
Doctors at Tufts have indicated the injuries are consistent with a fall from a bicycle, rather than an auto-involved crash, Meaney said. The bicycle was not damaged. The man was not wearing a bicycle helmet.

Route 27 was closed for about two hours following the accident, reported about 4:45 p.m. Saturday. Police received a call from a motorist who reported someone was lying in the road, just north of the intersection with Grant Street.

If this guy has a spouse and kids, or other family/close friends, I'll bet they're feeling "harmed" right about now. Anyone who responded to the scene is likely a bit distressed as well.
Were people relying on him at work? Did he do volunteer work that provided some sort of assistance for needy people? I'd guess they'd be upset as well.

People's lives do impact others, more than some realize.

[hfojvt]

55. and yet, for all those people might care about me

they still do NOT have the right to run my life based on their concern

and google finds me a list of people who died even WITH a helmet on.

http://members.shaw.ca/jtubman/deadhelmet.html

I doubt if those people put their helmets on, got on their bicycles and expected to wind up in the morgue. Stuff happens.

There's clearly no way to be perfectly safe, but I do have close to 30,000 miles on my bicycle without head injury, so I think my odds over the next 1,000 miles are pretty good.

And considering these statistics, maybe people should be required to wear helmets when taking the stairs.

"Ride safely. And remember that severe bike accidents are quite rare, and bike deaths are even rarer. (In Canada, more people die by falling out of bed (an average of 78 per year) than from cycling accidents (an average of 64 a year, or 2 per million per year); 5 times as many die from falling on stairs; and 2.5 times as many die from tripping and falling on level surfaces [source: Statistics Canada's reports on external causes of morbidity and mortality, 2000--2003].)"

But I probably should not give the safety gestapo any ideas.

[MADem]

56. Wow.

...they still do NOT have the right to run my life based on their concern ....



It's not a contest. It's not a case of someone "running" your life. It's giving a crap about those who care about you, and having them return the favor. It's being sensitive to the concerns of others, and conducting yourself in a way that allays their concerns while protecting yourself. No one is trying to "be the boss of you" as the kids say--they'd just prefer that you take steps that might keep you alive.

This whole helmet thing is just an example of the overarching theme, and I won't get further bogged down in it. After all, your own link says this:

Note that not all of these people were blameless. Some were riding unsafely and/or illegally. Some suffered injuries that were not to the head, or other injuries in addition to head injuries. But in all cases, bicycle helmets did not save their lives.

I'll bet that guy in the newspaper article wouldn't be clinging to life and non-responsive if he had a helmet on. But who knows?

I feel a bit sorry for you, actually. I get the feeling, based on your comments, that you harbor a bit of resentment towards people who might care about you.

No way to go through life, believe me!

[hfojvt]

58. I am pretty sure

than none of the people who care about me are lobbying for bicycle helmet laws. Nor do I feel like the dickheads who are lobbying for bicycle helmet laws really give a rat's a$$ about me.

Yes, there is an over-arching theme, and I say it is this: As a free adult, I and I ALONE, have the right to make decisions regarding my own safety.

And yes, people who propose, vote for, sign and enforce laws taking those decisions away from me certainly ARE trying to be the boss of me. They are basically saying "you are too stupid or pig headed to be allowed to make your own decisions about yourself." or in the case of the dog-protectors "to make your own decisions about your dogs".

Their bottom line is "WE know what's best for you." Just like a BIG BROTHER.

And I hope that Big Brother is spying on me and reads this message. Big brother - you can fuck off.

[MADem]

59. Again, wow.

No man is an island, and all that. I guess I just don't understand your seething resentment and anger over very simple safety issues.

You would not do well in Europe. They make USA look like the "Who gives a shit" gang when it comes to safety.

I think your dogs should be protected--they don't have a choice, nor do they have opposable thumbs so they can belt themselves in.

You might be happier in the middle and far east--they aren't anywhere near as attentive to safety issues in those parts of the world...

[Pholus]

60. The line between care and control is a fine one.

> I feel a bit sorry for you, actually. I get the feeling, based on your comments, that you harbor a bit of resentment towards
> people who might care about you.

The currency of Moral Scolds everywhere is a professed desire to "care" about others. It's how they rationalize their attempts to force their concepts of morality and "approved behavior" on the rest of the population.

Certainly the "pro-Life" crowd would also argue that it is only "caring about you" that drives them too legally coerce women into bearing children -- after all the children shouldn't suffer the unwise desire to "be the boss of you" that led these women to have sex in the first place.

There are MANY times that it is worthwhile to resent people who portray themselves as "people who care" while sneering down from some self-constructed moral pyramid. Don't know about bike helmets, but I can think of plenty more relevant examples.

[MADem]

63. I just had a loved one killed by someone who felt the rules didn't apply to them.

I'm not "scolding" but I do think that if the killer's parents had a little bit of "care" and taught that to their leadfooted and texting child, that my loved one might still be alive.

Trying to compare this kind of thing to "choice" is just not on. If you don't like abortion, you shouldn't get one. And if you do get one, no one demands that you share your experiences with everyone. If you do, that's up to you.

However, when someone who is a family member, a loved one, perhaps even a breadwinner, gets wiped out by some asshole who thinks they don't have to follow the rules because it impinges on their freedom, or if the person kills themself by their own stupidity and leaves others to pay for the funeral, pick up the pieces, support their families, and deal with the emotional aftermath, well, that's some selfish shit that could be easily avoided by just not INSISTING on being such an "individual" when a community concludes that the seat belt, the speed limit, the helmet, the 'stay off the damn cellphone while driving,' etc., are good ideas.

[Pholus]

71. Sorry to hear that.

But that one situation doesn't make your broader case.

You are not seeing the obvious similarities in your dismissal. Emotionally, you understand that being "leadfooted and texting" causes loss through poor choices on the part of others. But despite your dismissal anti-choicers see the same thing, just about a different situation. You just don't value the same particular outcome they do.

That's why those laws had better be about cold-hard-numbers instead of emotions. On that account, texting laws make sense, and anti-abortion does not.

But one parting thought: if your "selfish shit" were to get cancer the year after a bike helmet saved their life in an accident, would you call them "selfish" when they sucked up several million dollars in therapy? Would you examine their life with a fine toothed comb to find some "individualistic" behavior that rationalizes why they had it coming and they cost the rest of us? I would hope not but there are certainly plenty of disgusting people who seem to get their jollies from that.

[MADem]

72. I just don't see any relation between texting and abortion.

The act of texting behind the wheel is a public safety issue.

Having an abortion carries the same risk as a tooth extraction, and is a personal and private medical decision made by a woman and her doctor--no one else. Texting and driving (drunk or sober) isn't a "medical decision" that a driver makes with their doctor. It's not personal. It's not private. It's a dumbass thing to do that can destroy families.

It's like comparing apples and...footprints.

As for cancer, that's a disease, last time I checked.

If a person rolled in radioactive sludge, like in a Family Guy episode, hoping to get super powers, and instead got cancer, they'd have some responsibility for their condition. However, most people get cancer because of unknowing exposure to a carcinogen or family history/genetic predisposition. Some people get cancer from smoking, but not as many as one would think (the human body is resilient) and the tobacco companies share the blame in addicting people to their product. A smart person would try to quit or switch to a safer form of nicotine delivery.

The issue of "cost" isn't just about money--though that can become a factor when a wage earner dies. There is an emotional cost when someone is killed on the road by a drunk/texter. Families left behind have to pick up the pieces.

When people act in ways that impact more than just themselves, consequences accrue.

[The Straight Story]

66. So money is greater than freedoms? Where does that stop? What you eat, drink, etc?

If everything we do could cost someone else money then lets fine some poor people more (the rich won't miss a few hundred here or there so they have more freedoms).

Ban smoking, alcohol, pre-marital sex (leads to diseases and such), cars (accidents and exhaust fumes), fast food, every drink but water, and let's elect some folks of high moral standing and science to dictate to us how to better live for others.

Oh, and get those people living in the Alaska wild and force them to move here away from bears and harsh winters, they could get hurt for god's sake.

[MADem]

68. Way to miss the point.

Pat yourself on the back.

[Savannahmann]

51. There are differences, as you must be able to see.

For the sake of argument let's discuss this. First, in every instance you have offered you are in the public. In each instance your life or another life is dancing around with the many angels on the head of that pin. When riding your bicycle, you are on sidewalks, bike paths, or roads, all built with public money. That money makes it public use. You are allowed to use it providing you accept and agree to the rules that the public has put forth. There is a Constitutional right to travel freely from state to state. There is no constitutional right to do so bereft of a helmet, or seatbelt. Even if you argue the libertarian view that your life is in your hands and you can decide best, the truth is you affect those around you even in your death in this instance.

Your Bicycle jumps unexpectedly. A piece of broken pavement, debris in the roadway you did not notice in time. Doesn't matter why, it happens. Now, you are laying dead because you went down hard without a helmet. Perhaps it wouldn't have helped, perhaps it would have taken a fatal accident and made it major, or minor, or even a next to nothing. It's hard to say isn't it?

If you are injured, total time that the rest of those using the same road are delayed is far less, almost certainly less than an hour. Probably closer to thirty minutes. If you are dead, the documentation of the accident needs to be, we insist that it must be, more complete. Photographs, video, diagrams, and once the incident is recorded, then the removal of the corpse can proceed. The time I and the others are inconvenienced increases to well over an hour, perhaps two. Additionally, police and fire and paramedics are put at greater risk because of some jackass in a beat up car with two points left on his license who won't wait.

Longer for me, longer for the rest of the folks, and more time in danger for those who are coming to scrape your corpse off the ground. Doesn't seem like a fair trade for a helmet to me.

But, the 4th Amendment is something different. That like your ability to travel state to state, is constitutionally guaranteed. The right to be secure in your person, and papers, is enshrined in our founding document. Those papers need not be locked in a safe with a sign posted that says Law Enforcement keep out. It can be on your desk in plain sight under a Redwood Memento from your visit to Sequoia national park. It is written that the Government may not look at those papers without a warrant. You may say you have nothing to hide, but do you really have nothing to hide?

I can think of at least a hundred things I'd prefer my neighbors, co-workers, friends, and even relatives remain unaware of. Certainly I'd prefer the Government not know some of those secrets. Embarrassing at the least, potentially illegal at the worst. I mentioned to a friend of mine that the only reason I am not on the sex offenders list is my Girlfriend's father did not press charges at the time he caught me diving out the window with my pants around my knees. I was seventeen, she was fifteen and technically that could be considered statutory rape in several states even today.

So I have things I'd rather not have out there, and I'm nothing special. Embarrassing mistakes that went un-noticed, or unattributed in my youth, and even today. Humiliating factoids that would make it difficult to work with people who know me.

Today's papers are electronic. Let's say you work at a bank. I am an author, in real life I write books, stories, snippets that may or may not be used. We are friends, and I ask you to read over a bank robbery I'm writing about to make it as realistic as possible in a mystery I'm writing. The NSA intercepts that document, and your reply that it looks pretty good, and I should use it. Well now we're conspiring to commit a crime. The truth will take days, weeks, or possibly even never come out. I heard a story of a man who was convicted of robbing a bank when he was literally two states away from the scene of the crime. So truth isn't a defense in the modern courtroom.

The truth is, I was designing a crime, so I could in my fictional world, solve the crime, catch the bad guys, and end the book with the main character the hero. It isn't enough to be doing nothing wrong, it's more that your life can't be misconstrued to be imagined that you're doing something wrong. Perhaps it affects you, perhaps not. But that is a toss of the coin, heads you win, tails you lose. If law enforcement were the diligent obtainers of evidence and seekers of truth of lore and legend, perhaps it wouldn't matter. But they aren't. They are the abusers of rights, purveyors of misinformation, and brutality incarnate of different lore and legend.

No, this does matter. Because even innocuous actions can get you noticed, and once noticed, you are sitting beneath the sword of Damocles, your life continues on the whim of a delicate thread.

But most of all, it's the rules. We were the heros of the world when we objected to the Soviet's and the Chinese violations of civil rights. Did we win that horrible battle of the Cold War only to become that which we found so offensive?

[hfojvt]

54. except there is, or should be

a constitutional right for me to decide how to spend my own money.

And I still experience, not in a hypothetical, gosh what if this happens or that happens - no, in an actual - this actually did happen, I experienced police harrassment, or easily could because of these nanny laws (fortunately the bullsh*t bicycle helmets laws have not spread to any place where I have lived, but it feels like it is only a matter of time before the a$$hole worrywarts win the day on it.

So on the one side I have an actual problem, which you pooh pooh because it is NOT written in the Constitution as a right not to be harrassed by Big Brother who thinks he knows better than you how you shouid live your own life.

And gosh, why didn't I think of what a huge inconvenience it would be to others if I was killed. (Never mind that the same stupid argument could be used to ban bicycles altogether since clearly I have a much greater risk of getting killed on a bicycle than I do safely encased in a metal box with airbags.)

So excuse me if the real problems that actually ARE happening are more significant to me than some theoretical problems which MIGHT happen.

And personally I think law enforcement often, most often, does work to protect the good guys and stop/capture the bad guys. At least some criminals do get caught. Those dickheads who killed that jogger in Oklahoma - caught because of the near ubiquity of cameras these days.

[Uncle Joe]

57. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, xchrom.

[Quantess]

64. K & R

[99th_Monkey]

77. The intent of those who wrote and adopted the US Constitution could not be clearer

but not clear enough apparently to dissuade rich & powerful from chipping
away at it, bit by bit until it is unrecognizable. "Technological advances" is
only a tiny fig leaf of deniability for the rich & powerful fuckers who couldn't
care less about the law, or civil rights, except to contort it to enrich themselves.