8 ms·

Some days I wish I could purchase a huge lighted sign, kilometers in length, and place it on the moon. It'd say "The internet is not broken" I think I'd make i

Some days I wish I could purchase a huge lighted sign, kilometers in length, and place it on the moon. It'd say "The internet is not broken" I think I'd make it flash. That's it. It's not perfect, security is a real threat and hassle to those on it, but it's not broken. It does not need fixing by the government. I am very sorry that the FBI is unable to track communications on the net. Really I am. But this is no different than the problem they had before telephones were invented. In fact, throughout much of our nation's history, law enforcement had no idea what kind of communications criminals had. The universe did not explode. Somehow life went on. I read last week that although most recent college grads are having problems finding work, there are exceptions. One of those are, sad to say, legal professionals seeking government work. The federal government is snatching up young lawyers and even paying off all their college bills in addition to their salary. In return we're creating an army of legal attack dogs in each agency looking for new ways to "fix" things for their paymasters. Once again, it's not perfect. But it does not need fixing. What we're seeing now isn't the end of some long civil discussion about what rights everybody should have in a technological world. It's the beginning -- just the beginning -- of a new world where a lot of things we took for granted just a decade ago aren't going to be true any more.

ArtB 15y ago
> I am very sorry that the FBI is unable to track communications on the net. Really I am. But this is no different than the problem they had before telephones were invented. In fact, throughout much of our nation's history, law enforcement had no idea what kind of communications criminals had. The universe did not explode. Somehow life went on. A gem, so I wanted to highlight it from the rest of your post.
- ahi 15y ago
  Pedantry: The telephone predates the FBI by about 30 years or so.
- btilly 15y ago
  It would be a gem, were it true. Generally criminals have had the same kinds of communication as the rest of us. Before the internet, the telephone. Before the telephone the telegraph. Throughout both and before, regular mail. The FBI and preceding law enforcement forces have demanded and found ways to tap these communication mechanisms. Some private networks escaped their surveillance - such as the Rothschild carrier pigeon network - but government surveillance of private individuals is not a new problem. What is relatively new is that the mechanisms that would be used to provide it are easily exploitable by a clever person sitting in a room in China. You can't easily give the FBI tools to catch local criminals without creating exploitable security threats in our own infrastructure.
hammock 15y ago
> I am very sorry that the FBI is unable to track communications on the net. Really I am. But this is no different than the problem they had before telephones were invented. In fact, throughout much of our nation's history, law enforcement had no idea what kind of communications criminals had. The universe did not explode. Somehow life went on. Governments/states have been opening and snooping people's mail and correspondence for thousands of years... the telephone isn't some new invention that allowed them a novel window into criminal communications.
- kijin 15y ago
  Opening people's snail mail is a bit too conspicuous to happen on a large scale without causing an outcry. Imagine everyone started getting their letters delivered with a torn envelope re-sealed with FBI tape. There'd be riots. So I guess GP's point can be expressed more accurately as: Throughout much of our nation's history, law enforcement had no way to track people's communications on such a massive scale as they are trying to do now.
  - slug 15y ago
    As if you cannot read through paper through other means besides opening an envelope. I imagine that it would be problematic to read all snail mail, but if they have machines to read the destination address in a serial fashion, there's always the possibility of tagging along another machine next to it or even embedded on the previous one to read the contents inside the envelopes with something not in the electromagnetic visible range.
    - kijin 15y ago
      "Throughout much of our nation's history," that kind of technology has been unavailable.
      - jann 15y ago
        Steaming open letters was/is fairly invisible though.
mburshteyn 15y ago
The claim about an army of legal attack dogs is absolutely inaccurate. Law students seeking government work do not have it any better than college graduates as a whole. In fact, budgets at the federal and state level are hemorrhaging and law students are having a harder time than ever gaining government work. In some cases it's more competitive than private practice. DOJ hiring numbers for recent grads are down dramatically. Some departments have even cancelled their summer programs. Given the oversupply of new lawyers graduating these days, it's far more accurate to say we're creating an army of legal stray dogs than attack dogs. There are lawyers working hard at places like the EFF to combat these kinds of government policies. I think it's more productive to focus ire on these policies rather than attacking the legal profession as a whole. [] http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/01/24/justice-department-under-hiring-freeze/ http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/01/24/justice-department-und... [] http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/would-you-work-as-a-federal-prosecutor-for-free/ http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/would-you-work-as-a-federal-p...
- falcolas 15y ago
  To torture the analogy further, stray dogs are typically more dangerous than attack dogs - there's nobody (company) holding their leash, and they still have sharp teeth (developed knowledge of a relatively opaque topic).
crazygringo 15y ago
> In fact, throughout much of our nation's history, law enforcement had no idea what kind of communications criminals had. The universe did not explode. Somehow life went on. Not really. Crime rates have been going down. Murder rates have been going down. People's lives have been saved, that wouldn't have "gone on" before. This is due, in part, to better policing. To what extent this has do to with wiretapping abilities can be debated/analyzed, but a "somehow life went on" attitude is pretty much a blunt argument for "let's never change anything then", and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion.
- mapleoin 15y ago
  This is due, in part, to better policing. That's... debatable. I think it's due to Disney movies.
  - crazygringo 15y ago
    Well I didn't say it's entirely to better policing, hence the "in part". For a citation, why not look at the last part of this article which was very popular on HN a few months ago: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120... 273 points: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3691372 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3691372 You're going to have a hard time debating that improved police techniques haven't made a difference at all, regardless of your personal opinion of Disney movies.
    - kbolino 15y ago
      Crime rates could be going down because... 1. The methodology of collecting and reporting crime statistics has changed; 2. The use of said "improved police techniques" has discouraged people from reporting crimes; 3. The "justice" system has favored reducing its rate of Type I errors at the expense of increasing its Type II errors; 4. Enforcement of the laws is no longer consistent across and within jurisdictions; 5. There are more corrupt legal officials, and they are in better positions than ever before; 6. Social conditions and individual motivations have changed, and people are less inclined to commit crimes. I'm not saying any of these are true, but they are all equally plausible explanations (as is any combination of them). You cannot establish a causal relationship by correlation (and "common sense") alone; you must identify all of the variables and control for them.
smokeyj 15y ago
I wonder how long it'll take for surveillance appliances to morph into content filters.. Who say's China doesn't innovate? They've been a great inspiration to our federal babysitters for years.
- AJ007 15y ago
  I've been following the Bo Xilai story in the NYT and elsewhere. I find it very interesting that not only is the Chinese government spying on all their citizens, but they have been spying on each other. A recent article stated that the only secure communication in China is basically in writing or in person. Absolutely no electronic communication is trusted. The same people within the US government using pushing for far reaching citizen spying have to understand that these tools will most certainly be turned on them.
kijin 15y ago
> I am very sorry that the FBI is unable to track communications on the net. Really I am. But this is no different than the problem they had before telephones were invented. In fact, throughout much of our nation's history, law enforcement had no idea what kind of communications criminals had. The universe did not explode. Somehow life went on. Related: I wince every time someone says it's the FBI's job to catch criminals, and we should make it easier for them to do so. No, it's not their job to catch criminals, period. Their job is to catch criminals while protecting everybody's fundamental human rights. It's part of their job description, part of their raison d'etre, and yes, it's a tough job. If you can't accept a tough job, you don't deserve a badge. Once you realize what the FBI's job really is, it becomes difficult to accept the argument that giving them humongous surveillance capacities makes it easier for them to do their job. In fact, indiscriminate surveillance prevents the FBI from doing their job, because it contradicts their very raison d'etre. Every time a law enforcement agency complains about not being able to spy on random Internet users, you know they're slacking off.
- anamax 15y ago
  > I wince every time someone says it's the FBI's job to catch criminals, and we should make it easier for them to do so. No, it's not their job to catch criminals, period. If "catching criminals period" was their job, there are no shortage of criminals for them to catch using their current powers. So, when they want new powers, the relevant question is "what new criminals are they going after?" Of course, we're all criminals. It's almost impossible to avoid committing a felony or two per day.
  - tomflack 15y ago
    A felony? Really? I have no grasp of how your laws are divided in the states and presumed the "every-day accidental crimes" would be misdemeanors. What felonies are you referring to?
    - bbrtyth 15y ago
      Felony soda tossing: http://www.wireclub.com/topics/off_topic/conversations/T6K1RgM8C-tUqJT10 http://www.wireclub.com/topics/off_topic/conversations/T6K1R... Felony mic check: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/12/1054041/-Occupy-San-Diego-Arrested-for-Felony-Conspiracy http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/12/1054041/-Occupy-San... Felony protesting: http://www.soarclub.com/2012/03/felony-protest-in-front-of-government-official/ http://www.soarclub.com/2012/03/felony-protest-in-front-of-g... I also recall a few years back there was a man charged with a felony for "digging fossils" with his son in the wrong place. And a man charged as a sex offender for grabbing a child that ran in front of his car (to lecture him). I found another where a man was charged with felonies for throwing seed pods at police, but that's not really an "every-day accidental crime." So, yes, most incidents are misdemeanors, but if you commit them in the wrong place, at the wrong time, or with the wrong people present, it can be a felony.
codexon 15y ago
I'm not saying we should give government's back doors and censor the Internet... But anyone who has been the target of a DDoS attack can tell you the Internet is very much broken.
MaysonL 15y ago
I read last week that although most recent college grads are having problems finding work, there are exceptions. One of those are, sad to say, legal professionals seeking government work. The federal government is snatching up young lawyers and even paying off all their college bills in addition to their salary. In return we're creating an army of legal attack dogs in each agency looking for new ways to "fix" things for their paymasters. Got a link for that? Given that there are about 600K less government jobs in the US currently than there were when this administration took office, I'd be surprised if there's been a great surge in legal hiring (although I'm willing to be convinced).
- rfrey 15y ago
  Got a link for the 600k figure? According to the US Office of Personnel Management, http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/employment_access.asp http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/employment_access.asp, these are the annual numbers: Sept 2011 - 2,130,289 Sept 2010 - 2,113,210 Sept 2009 - 2,038,183 Sept 2008 - 1,938,821
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    The 600k is probably across all government sectors, not just federal: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9000000001 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9000000001 Federal employment is slightly above its medium-term average: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9091000001 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9091000001 The large spike in 2010 is the US census, which by law must be conducted every 10 years. Other than that, though, federal employment isn't exactly ballooning; the trend is (gently) downward, as you can see from both the graphs and the monthly numbers underneath.
anigbrowl 15y ago
The federal government is snatching up young lawyers and even paying off all their college bills in addition to their salary. Law student here: I'd like to see a citation for this.[1] More likely, the lack of employment opportunities for legal grads burdened with high levels of debt means that the government can afford to be unusually choosy about the quality of legal graduates it hires. 1. This is the sort of joke only a law student could love. Sorry.
malandrew 15y ago
I'm amazed that we insist on treating all undesirable activities as crimes instead of trying to treat them as social problems with social solutions more often. It has worked wonders for Portugal in the war on drugs, and TBH, I think it would work well for a lot more types of social ills. Criminalization marginalizes those that engage in undesirable activities and pushes them underground and as far away from any sort of help to help them overcome the problem. It's possible that such an approach would have some intended consequences like the abuses we see in the psychiatric community of the problemization of every behavior that isn't considered "normal", but this would be far better than the current prison-industrial complex that promotes an incarceration system that exarberates the problem instead of promoting healing. A classic example of a social ill that the FBI likely exploiting to justify the passage of this law that would probably better solved with social solutions is child pornography. I seriously would be surprised if most sexual predators of children don't first start off as casual consumers of child porn and things worsen from them. Dealing it as a social problem probably leaves a lot more room for those people to seek psychiatric treatment early on instead of promoting avoidance behaviors that allows consumption to grow unnoticed by those close to the person with the problem. I'd much rather see a Federal Bureau for the Study and Treatment of Social Ills.

ArtB 15y ago

ahi 15y ago
Pedantry: The telephone predates the FBI by about 30 years or so.
btilly 15y ago
It would be a gem, were it true. Generally criminals have had the same kinds of communication as the rest of us. Before the internet, the telephone. Before the telephone the telegraph. Throughout both and before, regular mail. The FBI and preceding law enforcement forces have demanded and found ways to tap these communication mechanisms. Some private networks escaped their surveillance - such as the Rothschild carrier pigeon network - but government surveillance of private individuals is not a new problem. What is relatively new is that the mechanisms that would be used to provide it are easily exploitable by a clever person sitting in a room in China. You can't easily give the FBI tools to catch local criminals without creating exploitable security threats in our own infrastructure.

hammock 15y ago

kijin 15y ago
Opening people's snail mail is a bit too conspicuous to happen on a large scale without causing an outcry. Imagine everyone started getting their letters delivered with a torn envelope re-sealed with FBI tape. There'd be riots. So I guess GP's point can be expressed more accurately as: Throughout much of our nation's history, law enforcement had no way to track people's communications on such a massive scale as they are trying to do now.
- slug 15y ago
  As if you cannot read through paper through other means besides opening an envelope. I imagine that it would be problematic to read all snail mail, but if they have machines to read the destination address in a serial fashion, there's always the possibility of tagging along another machine next to it or even embedded on the previous one to read the contents inside the envelopes with something not in the electromagnetic visible range.
  - kijin 15y ago
    "Throughout much of our nation's history," that kind of technology has been unavailable.
    - jann 15y ago
      Steaming open letters was/is fairly invisible though.

mburshteyn 15y ago

The claim about an army of legal attack dogs is absolutely inaccurate. Law students seeking government work do not have it any better than college graduates as a whole. In fact, budgets at the federal and state level are hemorrhaging and law students are having a harder time than ever gaining government work. In some cases it's more competitive than private practice. DOJ hiring numbers for recent grads are down dramatically. Some departments have even cancelled their summer programs. Given the oversupply of new lawyers graduating these days, it's far more accurate to say we're creating an army of legal stray dogs than attack dogs. There are lawyers working hard at places like the EFF to combat these kinds of government policies. I think it's more productive to focus ire on these policies rather than attacking the legal profession as a whole. [] http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/01/24/justice-department-under-hiring-freeze/ http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/01/24/justice-department-und... [] http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/would-you-work-as-a-federal-prosecutor-for-free/ http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/would-you-work-as-a-federal-p...

falcolas 15y ago
To torture the analogy further, stray dogs are typically more dangerous than attack dogs - there's nobody (company) holding their leash, and they still have sharp teeth (developed knowledge of a relatively opaque topic).

crazygringo 15y ago

> In fact, throughout much of our nation's history, law enforcement had no idea what kind of communications criminals had. The universe did not explode. Somehow life went on. Not really. Crime rates have been going down. Murder rates have been going down. People's lives have been saved, that wouldn't have "gone on" before. This is due, in part, to better policing. To what extent this has do to with wiretapping abilities can be debated/analyzed, but a "somehow life went on" attitude is pretty much a blunt argument for "let's never change anything then", and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

mapleoin 15y ago
This is due, in part, to better policing. That's... debatable. I think it's due to Disney movies.
- crazygringo 15y ago
  Well I didn't say it's entirely to better policing, hence the "in part". For a citation, why not look at the last part of this article which was very popular on HN a few months ago: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120... 273 points: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3691372 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3691372 You're going to have a hard time debating that improved police techniques haven't made a difference at all, regardless of your personal opinion of Disney movies.
  - kbolino 15y ago
    Crime rates could be going down because... 1. The methodology of collecting and reporting crime statistics has changed; 2. The use of said "improved police techniques" has discouraged people from reporting crimes; 3. The "justice" system has favored reducing its rate of Type I errors at the expense of increasing its Type II errors; 4. Enforcement of the laws is no longer consistent across and within jurisdictions; 5. There are more corrupt legal officials, and they are in better positions than ever before; 6. Social conditions and individual motivations have changed, and people are less inclined to commit crimes. I'm not saying any of these are true, but they are all equally plausible explanations (as is any combination of them). You cannot establish a causal relationship by correlation (and "common sense") alone; you must identify all of the variables and control for them.

smokeyj 15y ago

I wonder how long it'll take for surveillance appliances to morph into content filters.. Who say's China doesn't innovate? They've been a great inspiration to our federal babysitters for years.

AJ007 15y ago
I've been following the Bo Xilai story in the NYT and elsewhere. I find it very interesting that not only is the Chinese government spying on all their citizens, but they have been spying on each other. A recent article stated that the only secure communication in China is basically in writing or in person. Absolutely no electronic communication is trusted. The same people within the US government using pushing for far reaching citizen spying have to understand that these tools will most certainly be turned on them.

kijin 15y ago

> I am very sorry that the FBI is unable to track communications on the net. Really I am. But this is no different than the problem they had before telephones were invented. In fact, throughout much of our nation's history, law enforcement had no idea what kind of communications criminals had. The universe did not explode. Somehow life went on. Related: I wince every time someone says it's the FBI's job to catch criminals, and we should make it easier for them to do so. No, it's not their job to catch criminals, period. Their job is to catch criminals while protecting everybody's fundamental human rights. It's part of their job description, part of their raison d'etre, and yes, it's a tough job. If you can't accept a tough job, you don't deserve a badge. Once you realize what the FBI's job really is, it becomes difficult to accept the argument that giving them humongous surveillance capacities makes it easier for them to do their job. In fact, indiscriminate surveillance prevents the FBI from doing their job, because it contradicts their very raison d'etre. Every time a law enforcement agency complains about not being able to spy on random Internet users, you know they're slacking off.

anamax 15y ago
> I wince every time someone says it's the FBI's job to catch criminals, and we should make it easier for them to do so. No, it's not their job to catch criminals, period. If "catching criminals period" was their job, there are no shortage of criminals for them to catch using their current powers. So, when they want new powers, the relevant question is "what new criminals are they going after?" Of course, we're all criminals. It's almost impossible to avoid committing a felony or two per day.
- tomflack 15y ago
  A felony? Really? I have no grasp of how your laws are divided in the states and presumed the "every-day accidental crimes" would be misdemeanors. What felonies are you referring to?
  - bbrtyth 15y ago
    Felony soda tossing: http://www.wireclub.com/topics/off_topic/conversations/T6K1RgM8C-tUqJT10 http://www.wireclub.com/topics/off_topic/conversations/T6K1R... Felony mic check: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/12/1054041/-Occupy-San-Diego-Arrested-for-Felony-Conspiracy http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/12/1054041/-Occupy-San... Felony protesting: http://www.soarclub.com/2012/03/felony-protest-in-front-of-government-official/ http://www.soarclub.com/2012/03/felony-protest-in-front-of-g... I also recall a few years back there was a man charged with a felony for "digging fossils" with his son in the wrong place. And a man charged as a sex offender for grabbing a child that ran in front of his car (to lecture him). I found another where a man was charged with felonies for throwing seed pods at police, but that's not really an "every-day accidental crime." So, yes, most incidents are misdemeanors, but if you commit them in the wrong place, at the wrong time, or with the wrong people present, it can be a felony.

codexon 15y ago

I'm not saying we should give government's back doors and censor the Internet... But anyone who has been the target of a DDoS attack can tell you the Internet is very much broken.

MaysonL 15y ago

I read last week that although most recent college grads are having problems finding work, there are exceptions. One of those are, sad to say, legal professionals seeking government work. The federal government is snatching up young lawyers and even paying off all their college bills in addition to their salary. In return we're creating an army of legal attack dogs in each agency looking for new ways to "fix" things for their paymasters. Got a link for that? Given that there are about 600K less government jobs in the US currently than there were when this administration took office, I'd be surprised if there's been a great surge in legal hiring (although I'm willing to be convinced).

rfrey 15y ago
Got a link for the 600k figure? According to the US Office of Personnel Management, http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/employment_access.asp http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/employment_access.asp, these are the annual numbers: Sept 2011 - 2,130,289 Sept 2010 - 2,113,210 Sept 2009 - 2,038,183 Sept 2008 - 1,938,821
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  The 600k is probably across all government sectors, not just federal: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9000000001 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9000000001 Federal employment is slightly above its medium-term average: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9091000001 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9091000001 The large spike in 2010 is the US census, which by law must be conducted every 10 years. Other than that, though, federal employment isn't exactly ballooning; the trend is (gently) downward, as you can see from both the graphs and the monthly numbers underneath.

anigbrowl 15y ago

The federal government is snatching up young lawyers and even paying off all their college bills in addition to their salary. Law student here: I'd like to see a citation for this.[1] More likely, the lack of employment opportunities for legal grads burdened with high levels of debt means that the government can afford to be unusually choosy about the quality of legal graduates it hires. 1. This is the sort of joke only a law student could love. Sorry.

malandrew 15y ago

I'm amazed that we insist on treating all undesirable activities as crimes instead of trying to treat them as social problems with social solutions more often. It has worked wonders for Portugal in the war on drugs, and TBH, I think it would work well for a lot more types of social ills. Criminalization marginalizes those that engage in undesirable activities and pushes them underground and as far away from any sort of help to help them overcome the problem. It's possible that such an approach would have some intended consequences like the abuses we see in the psychiatric community of the problemization of every behavior that isn't considered "normal", but this would be far better than the current prison-industrial complex that promotes an incarceration system that exarberates the problem instead of promoting healing. A classic example of a social ill that the FBI likely exploiting to justify the passage of this law that would probably better solved with social solutions is child pornography. I seriously would be surprised if most sexual predators of children don't first start off as casual consumers of child porn and things worsen from them. Dealing it as a social problem probably leaves a lot more room for those people to seek psychiatric treatment early on instead of promoting avoidance behaviors that allows consumption to grow unnoticed by those close to the person with the problem. I'd much rather see a Federal Bureau for the Study and Treatment of Social Ills.