how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... Amigo,
I don't think that anyone would disagree with you in that times have changed. However, one thing has not, and that is the requirement for oversight. The checks and balances required to prevent abuse. Those are missing. Collecting all data, and scanning it for potential violators offers no oversight, or due process. Our current government has been using FUD as a driver to attempt make these practices acceptable to the American public. If we keep giving up our rights little bit by little bit, eventually there will be none left.
You are assuming that "self-styled freedom fighters" don't count on the changes in technology. I'm all in favor of a larger government, provided that it WORKS. At the same time, I don't like the idea of chipping away at our liberties and freedoms. Usually, the chipping knows no end, until it is too late.
cw | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by wentlanc:the requirement for oversight. The checks and balances required to prevent abuse. Those are missing. Collecting all data, and scanning it for potential violators offers no oversight, or due process. I'm not opposed to oversight. But your comments raise a few points.
1. There's nothing in the 4th amendment that specifically says when oversight is required. For example, it's taken for granted that police can derive probable cause from things they see take place in public. Does aggregating those public events constitute a search or seizure?
2. There is no guarantee of privacy on the internet. That's why SSL was invented. If someone wants privacy of their communications, I'd expect them to encrypt them. But, the people who complain the most about data-mining aren't encrypting their communications. They just want privacy which doesn't exist.
3. It's not clear whether the government is aggregating point-to-point connection details, or scanning actual communications.
I think those two activities present different challenges, and serve different purposes.
If there's no expectation of privacy on the internet, scanning for keywords (without targeting any individual) seems to be equivalent to an undercover officer standing on the street corner trying to overhear anything of interest.
Maintaining call-record history seems more problematic to me. Even though it's not examining content, it is problematic to me that a database is maintained without any legislative safeguards about who can access it.
The NCIS, AFIS, etc. databases are enabled by Congress. But, the law is pretty broad. It's morphed into something much broader (including sharing information with foreign countries) simply due to the Justice department publishing it's own implementation of the law in the Federal Register. So, even if there was a law governing the maintenance of call-record information, I don't think there would be much benefit. It would just be more public how it is maintained, and access controlled.
Personally, I think the call-record information serves a valuable purpose. It fills a gap. Traditionally, law enforcement could access this information concerning telephone communications (to see who an individual had communicated with, but not the actual communication content). ISPs don't maintain that kind of record of who you sent (received) an email to (from). They don't maintain it for long, anyway.
Therefore, in the balance between government and individual power, individuals have gained power because they can communicate on the internet and presumably be immune from LE putting together a communication trail after the individual flies a jet into a skyscraper.
If government begins collecting call-record history to fill that gap and restore the balance, it doesn't mean the balance has shifted to anything worse than the pre-internet days. Individuals still have all the enhanced power of the internet (immediate, cheap communication; ability to spread their thoughts to millions).
The only thing which might be problematic is that LE has access to that "call history" outside the laws that govern access to the same data for telephone users. But, the internet is different than traditional telephone. It may not be feasible to require ISPs to maintain such massive volumes of "call history" data just to serve a social purpose (protect us from LE).
This might be as good as it gets. But, I can agree that if such "call history" data is maintained according to rules published in the Fed. Reg. there would at least be a semblance of transparency. I would support that.
But, it never seems like we can reach a productive discussion like this because all the self-styled freedom fighters begin screaming about "lost rights" and "corrupt government," and "broken laws" (which weren't really broken). There's so much irrational pitch-forking that there's never an opportunity to rationally search for solutions that maintain a balance between serving society's needs, and protecting individuals from excessive government.
Mark | | |
|
|
