3 ms·

Yes. Most of us here are privacy advocates, and I think society needs our voice. However, we're only one side of the coin. Imagine a world where every phone ca

Yes. Most of us here are privacy advocates, and I think society needs our voice. However, we're only one side of the coin. Imagine a world where every phone call, email, chat, forum post, etc is fully anonymous or indecipherable to law enforcement. And imagine your loved one has been abducted and law enforcement has no tools for finding those responsible. There are many kinds of dystopias. Big Brother is one. Rule by competing gangs is another. We're shooting for some compromise where both individuals and society's rights are balanced. It's hard.

betterunix 13y ago
"Imagine a world where every phone call, email, chat, forum post, etc is fully anonymous or indecipherable to law enforcement. And imagine your loved one has been abducted and law enforcement has no tools for finding those responsible." So somehow, these abductors managed to leave no physical evidence at all and no witnesses? What does communication privacy have to do with that? There was once a time in this country when communications could be anonymous -- when law enforcement agencies did not have easy wiretapping access. We still managed to prosecute criminals then. Yes, sometimes criminals got away with their crimes, but that is what striking a balance is all about. The FBI is not trying to strike a balance with this proposal, they are trying to shift the balance in their favor.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > There was once a time in this country when communications could be anonymous -- when law enforcement agencies did not have easy wiretapping access. Federal authorities always had wiretapping powers pursuant to a warrant. If you mean before that, it was also a time when limited communications forced more visible means of coordination. Consider the difference between planning a crime in a shady corner of a restaurant, with potential witnesses, versus doing the same in an electronic chat room with no ability to capture the communications, even pursuant to a warrant.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "Consider the difference between planning a crime in a shady corner of a restaurant, with potential witnesses, versus doing the same in an electronic chat room with no ability to capture the communications" I am not sure I see the difference. On the one hand, you have two people who likely have a legitimate reason to meet at a restaurant speaking quietly to each other. On the other, you have two people with a legitimate reason to have an Internet connection using it to communicate. There is a matter of distance I suppose, but so what? Postal mail has always allowed people to communicate at a distance, and it has always allowed anonymous senders. Why not require all restaurants to record their customers' conversations, just in case the FBI needs to investigate it later on (with a requirement for a warrant, of course)? The same reasoning applies to this FBI push for expanded wiretapping power.
    - kenjackson 13y ago
      The FBI can already do this in restaurants. They can ask the owner to tap a table (or set of tables). How many owners do you think would deny this request? This is essentially what the FBI is requesting. The post office does allow anonymous senders, but not receivers. Mail can be intercepted, although evidence of tampering maybe harder to conceal.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The difference is that if you plot a crime in a restaurant, there are potentially dozens of sources of evidence linking you to the meeting: patrons and servers might see you, security cameras might record you, people might see you drive there, a credit card bill might link you to a meeting there, etc. If the same crime is planned in a chat room, the only thing police may have to go on is logs hosted by the intermediate service provider. Technology makes the real-time communication more anonymous and less traceable than was practical in the past. Even postal mail, besides not being real-time, isn't as anonymous as electronic communications without the possibility of obtaining logs via a warrant. The focus of privacy activists is in my opinion misplaced. People want an internet that's never monitored, never recorded, never wire-tappable. That's never going to happen, nor is it apparent that it's desirable. What we want is something that preserves the scope of investigative powers that have historically existed with the telephone system. That means robust protections against warrantless wiretaps, but also an effective way of getting access to information pursuant to court-authorized warrants.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- conroe64 13y ago
  <quote>So somehow, these abductors managed to leave no physical evidence at all and no witnesses?</quote> You are saying that it's impossible to hide your tracks when abducting someone? So, all the successful abductions that occurred were all due to lazy police work?
TelmoMenezes 13y ago
Rule by competing gangs is not a dystopia, it's the natural state that we were born into as animals and that we'be been living under for most of our history. We live largely under rule by competing gangs to the present day and are used to that. We prefer that to Big Brother. That's why the Berlin wall was built to keep people _inside_ the GDR and not the other way around.
- derleth 13y ago
  > Rule by competing gangs is not a dystopia, it's the natural state that we were born into as animals and that we'be been living under for most of our history. Which doesn't mean it's not a dystopia. > We live largely under rule by competing gangs No, not for any useful definition of the word 'gang'.
polarix 13y ago
Abduction should be solved by physical surveillance.
dm2 13y ago
I don't think many rational people would be against this type of surveillance. It's all about transparency and ensuring that those who use this great power are doing so for the right reasons. Every time a wiretap is executed, there should be some sort of public notice. It should be automatic and only suppressed if the investigation is ongoing and only with a judges approval. Would that make everyone happy? Obviously there are tons of edge-cases, but those would have to be ironed out as they are revealed, just like anything else. We have major issues to overcome with keeping those in power honest and free of corruption, but like you said, it's hard.

betterunix 13y ago

"Imagine a world where every phone call, email, chat, forum post, etc is fully anonymous or indecipherable to law enforcement. And imagine your loved one has been abducted and law enforcement has no tools for finding those responsible." So somehow, these abductors managed to leave no physical evidence at all and no witnesses? What does communication privacy have to do with that? There was once a time in this country when communications could be anonymous -- when law enforcement agencies did not have easy wiretapping access. We still managed to prosecute criminals then. Yes, sometimes criminals got away with their crimes, but that is what striking a balance is all about. The FBI is not trying to strike a balance with this proposal, they are trying to shift the balance in their favor.

rayiner 13y ago
> There was once a time in this country when communications could be anonymous -- when law enforcement agencies did not have easy wiretapping access. Federal authorities always had wiretapping powers pursuant to a warrant. If you mean before that, it was also a time when limited communications forced more visible means of coordination. Consider the difference between planning a crime in a shady corner of a restaurant, with potential witnesses, versus doing the same in an electronic chat room with no ability to capture the communications, even pursuant to a warrant.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Consider the difference between planning a crime in a shady corner of a restaurant, with potential witnesses, versus doing the same in an electronic chat room with no ability to capture the communications" I am not sure I see the difference. On the one hand, you have two people who likely have a legitimate reason to meet at a restaurant speaking quietly to each other. On the other, you have two people with a legitimate reason to have an Internet connection using it to communicate. There is a matter of distance I suppose, but so what? Postal mail has always allowed people to communicate at a distance, and it has always allowed anonymous senders. Why not require all restaurants to record their customers' conversations, just in case the FBI needs to investigate it later on (with a requirement for a warrant, of course)? The same reasoning applies to this FBI push for expanded wiretapping power.
  - kenjackson 13y ago
    The FBI can already do this in restaurants. They can ask the owner to tap a table (or set of tables). How many owners do you think would deny this request? This is essentially what the FBI is requesting. The post office does allow anonymous senders, but not receivers. Mail can be intercepted, although evidence of tampering maybe harder to conceal.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The difference is that if you plot a crime in a restaurant, there are potentially dozens of sources of evidence linking you to the meeting: patrons and servers might see you, security cameras might record you, people might see you drive there, a credit card bill might link you to a meeting there, etc. If the same crime is planned in a chat room, the only thing police may have to go on is logs hosted by the intermediate service provider. Technology makes the real-time communication more anonymous and less traceable than was practical in the past. Even postal mail, besides not being real-time, isn't as anonymous as electronic communications without the possibility of obtaining logs via a warrant. The focus of privacy activists is in my opinion misplaced. People want an internet that's never monitored, never recorded, never wire-tappable. That's never going to happen, nor is it apparent that it's desirable. What we want is something that preserves the scope of investigative powers that have historically existed with the telephone system. That means robust protections against warrantless wiretaps, but also an effective way of getting access to information pursuant to court-authorized warrants.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
conroe64 13y ago
<quote>So somehow, these abductors managed to leave no physical evidence at all and no witnesses?</quote> You are saying that it's impossible to hide your tracks when abducting someone? So, all the successful abductions that occurred were all due to lazy police work?

TelmoMenezes 13y ago

Rule by competing gangs is not a dystopia, it's the natural state that we were born into as animals and that we'be been living under for most of our history. We live largely under rule by competing gangs to the present day and are used to that. We prefer that to Big Brother. That's why the Berlin wall was built to keep people _inside_ the GDR and not the other way around.

derleth 13y ago
> Rule by competing gangs is not a dystopia, it's the natural state that we were born into as animals and that we'be been living under for most of our history. Which doesn't mean it's not a dystopia. > We live largely under rule by competing gangs No, not for any useful definition of the word 'gang'.

polarix 13y ago

Abduction should be solved by physical surveillance.

dm2 13y ago

I don't think many rational people would be against this type of surveillance. It's all about transparency and ensuring that those who use this great power are doing so for the right reasons. Every time a wiretap is executed, there should be some sort of public notice. It should be automatic and only suppressed if the investigation is ongoing and only with a judges approval. Would that make everyone happy? Obviously there are tons of edge-cases, but those would have to be ironed out as they are revealed, just like anything else. We have major issues to overcome with keeping those in power honest and free of corruption, but like you said, it's hard.