The webcam story blowing up is probably a good answer to roc's question about "Why is this not enough?". If they find something that sends some rage into the community, then I would expect this to bubble up again.
What is the real difference between this and what China was trying to do to gmail? The government wants to get access to private emails of people they don't like without having to demonstrate real evidence that the person has done anything wrong.
The biggest difference to my eyes is that the one targets "human rights activists who would like to bring down the government" while the other targets "terrorists".
Yeah, yeah. There is the whole "we're just going to take the emails". However China only went down that route after Western companies got leery of handing emails over due to the negative publicity that was incurred when Yahoo did so a few years back.
If only the silence meant that people were sharpening their pitchforks. Unfortunately, this is the USA -- we would rather die by a thousand paper-cuts than stand up and say "No!"...
Particularly when those cuts are delivered by people wrapped in the flag, promising safety.
It seems we have healthier debate over the government's ability to pass blanket public-space no-smoking laws, than the executive's new-found legal ability to ignore the constitution, the judicial and the legislative at its whim.
You can get tens of thousands to protest the deficit, or health care reform, or gay rights - but the steady erosion of our rights barely raises an eyebrow.
Obama selected Joe "I wrote the Patriot Act" Biden as his VP. This is the same Joe Biden who tried to ban Turing machines because they could be used to encrypt files that the government would be unable to crack.
Plenty of people knew this, but voted for Obama anyway.
For many people, "the government is violating privacy rights" is not a genuine policy position. It's just a club to beat their political opponents with.
I think people will protest what they know about. Regardless of your opinion on the people taking part in the tea party protests, there are a lot of people taking time off work or away from other activities to go to rallies. The economy is the front and center issues right now, and I really don't know what has to happen for online privacy to get a stage.
I am more concerned about the organizations that were so vocal during the last administration, since they seem to be out to lunch now. I really think your beliefs about what is right and wrong shouldn't change just because someone else got the job. I guess I want consistency of message and action.
On the contrary, living in Europe I see you in the US as a great example of society which dares to stand up and say "No!". By comparison, you are exceptionally well-educated, conscious and actively taking care of your rights.
There have been crazies ranting about how the government reads all your e-mail for years. Now that they're ACTUALLY trying to do that, no one is listening, because it's the same message as before.
If the people spouting unfounded conspiracy theories all the time would just shut the hell up, then maybe people wouldn't see this as crying wolf.
I'll echo the advice I heard from Phillip Zimmermann back in the early 1990s: If everyone consistently used encryption for all their email (that's 'everyone', and 'all'), then the effectiveness of government access to email would be lowered to a near-moot level. The sheer complexity and resource requirements to decrypt _all_ email traffic would exceed the government's capabilities. I know the NSA has incredible capabilities....but not that incredible.
Yes, I know this creates a new moving target. However, that beats being a sitting duck, though.
Only partly. It still leaves header information open, so the government is still able to see who you talk to. Through traffic analysis they can see what groups you're likely to sympathize with, even if they can't see the membership roles. And they're able to tell when those groups are planning something, even if they don't know what.
Another solution would be everyone using their own mail server (which itself uses TLS). Mail still isn't encrypted, but all the tunnels they travel through would be.
But I guess this is just as hard as encrypting one's email, given the number of people which don't even mind having their mail systematically analysed by a big, profitable company.
I think the obvious problem is that encrypted email is hard. key signing parties and stuff do not appeal to someone who wants to jot off a quick note. What we really need is encrypted webmail (to the point that the plain text never lands on the google server) and that's hard.
"For its part, the Justice Department has taken a legalistic approach: a 17-page brief it filed last month acknowledges that federal law requires search warrants for messages in "electronic storage" that are less than 181 days old. But, Assistant U.S. Attorney Pegeen Rhyne writes in a government brief, the Yahoo Mail messages don't meet that definition.
"Previously opened e-mail is not in 'electronic storage,'" Rhyne wrote in a motion filed last month"
Am I missing something here? How is web-based email not in electronic storage? Where is it then?
Lawyers who don't understand technology are trying to convince a judge who doesn't understand technology that technology works in impossible ways. News at 11.
It's in the cloud, silly. See, the way it works is, clouds are flimsy things, so it's easy to just run tubes right through them and it doesn't even hurt. All the poor Justice Department wants is to run its own tube through the cloud before the terrorists do!
Update from the bottom of the article: "the Obama administration withdrew its request for warrantless access to the complete contents of the Yahoo Mail accounts under investigation."
First, this title editorializes the article, and summarizes it too aggressively.
Second, while I agree that there's a problem here, the DOJ doesn't simply want "warrantless access rights" to "most US email". What it's claiming is more subtle: that mail that is older than a certain threshold and that has been open requires only a court order, and not a bona fide search warrant.
You misread. They are claiming that mail older than 181 days or mail that has been opened falls under the lower standard.
Edit: To your main point, I think your emphasis on the fact there is still a court order is misplaced. Of what practical value is a court order if there is no burden to show probable cause (instead only 'relevance to an ongoing investigation'), and you have no opportunity to challenge (or even know about) the order. How many requests under such a standard do you really think are going to be turned down?
I wonder if it's time we started pushing for encrypted email as a default. Mail/Calendar/Documents hosted in encrypted form online, and can only be decrypted on personal devices owned by users themselves. I really don't trust any machines other than my own when it comes to entering passwords. Do you?
I am extremely disappointed in the Obama Administration and outraged. This is unacceptable and we as a society MUST push back and demand this be stopped.
So it's probably time to pull all my email out of Gmail and onto my own email server. At least the gov't hasn't yet routed around that basic personal liberty and property right.
Surely many geeks will be moving away from freemium webmail that's wide open to the gov't, but where will they be going? Does anyone know of a good open-source Gmail front-end clone? If somehow this doesn't exist, open-source developers unite, let's do this!
It's also relevant to understand how we got here, a read a little history to avoid repeating it. An oldie but goodie:
The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling
http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html
The book is about the incident where the Feds first raised the legal issue of reading anyone's email without a warrant, and in a way it became the war that launched a thousand Internet legal advocacy organizations; which is where we are right now.
[+] [-] CWuestefeld|16 years ago|reply
2. Obama administration wants warrantless access rights to most US email (cnet.com)
3. Thousands of webcam images have been found in the school district being sued (philly.com)
It's pretty clear to me that even the most well-intentioned government powers eventually wind up being used in the most sinister and disturbing ways.
Edit: for posterity, the other story is at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1270579
[+] [-] protomyth|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] btilly|16 years ago|reply
The biggest difference to my eyes is that the one targets "human rights activists who would like to bring down the government" while the other targets "terrorists".
Yeah, yeah. There is the whole "we're just going to take the emails". However China only went down that route after Western companies got leery of handing emails over due to the negative publicity that was incurred when Yahoo did so a few years back.
[+] [-] ErrantX|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ytilibitapmoc|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roc|16 years ago|reply
It seems we have healthier debate over the government's ability to pass blanket public-space no-smoking laws, than the executive's new-found legal ability to ignore the constitution, the judicial and the legislative at its whim.
You can get tens of thousands to protest the deficit, or health care reform, or gay rights - but the steady erosion of our rights barely raises an eyebrow.
[+] [-] yummyfajitas|16 years ago|reply
Plenty of people knew this, but voted for Obama anyway.
For many people, "the government is violating privacy rights" is not a genuine policy position. It's just a club to beat their political opponents with.
[+] [-] protomyth|16 years ago|reply
I am more concerned about the organizations that were so vocal during the last administration, since they seem to be out to lunch now. I really think your beliefs about what is right and wrong shouldn't change just because someone else got the job. I guess I want consistency of message and action.
[+] [-] kunley|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danudey|16 years ago|reply
If the people spouting unfounded conspiracy theories all the time would just shut the hell up, then maybe people wouldn't see this as crying wolf.
[+] [-] eplanit|16 years ago|reply
Yes, I know this creates a new moving target. However, that beats being a sitting duck, though.
[+] [-] CWuestefeld|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loup-vaillant|16 years ago|reply
But I guess this is just as hard as encrypting one's email, given the number of people which don't even mind having their mail systematically analysed by a big, profitable company.
[+] [-] alexgartrell|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdrock|16 years ago|reply
"Previously opened e-mail is not in 'electronic storage,'" Rhyne wrote in a motion filed last month"
Am I missing something here? How is web-based email not in electronic storage? Where is it then?
[+] [-] btilly|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rationalbeaver|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billybob|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inerte|16 years ago|reply
Like Bill Clinton whom never had sex with Lewinsky, because sex means two reproductive organs touching and not the mouth.
PS: I didn't read the definition, just exemplifying how the legal system (sometimes) works.
[+] [-] ackkchoo|16 years ago|reply
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002722-38.html?tag=mncol...
[+] [-] tptacek|16 years ago|reply
Second, while I agree that there's a problem here, the DOJ doesn't simply want "warrantless access rights" to "most US email". What it's claiming is more subtle: that mail that is older than a certain threshold and that has been open requires only a court order, and not a bona fide search warrant.
[+] [-] tc|16 years ago|reply
Edit: To your main point, I think your emphasis on the fact there is still a court order is misplaced. Of what practical value is a court order if there is no burden to show probable cause (instead only 'relevance to an ongoing investigation'), and you have no opportunity to challenge (or even know about) the order. How many requests under such a standard do you really think are going to be turned down?
[+] [-] mtinkerhess|16 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant
[+] [-] ErrantX|16 years ago|reply
Slightly worrying.
[+] [-] nopassrecover|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmundo|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lkijuhyghjm|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r0s|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidmurphy|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stretchwithme|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] korch|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] korch|16 years ago|reply
The book is about the incident where the Feds first raised the legal issue of reading anyone's email without a warrant, and in a way it became the war that launched a thousand Internet legal advocacy organizations; which is where we are right now.
[+] [-] joeycfan|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]