Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy - Linux

This is a discussion on Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy - Linux ; Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy. Privacy no longer can mean ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

  1. Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

    Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government
    eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in
    the United States changed their definition of privacy.

    Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal
    deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that
    government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications
    and financial information.

    Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

    Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the
    government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission,
    so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located
    outside the U.S.

    The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted
    on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the
    law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has
    changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through
    U.S.-based channels.

    The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield
    telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the
    government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a FISA
    court order between 2001 and 2007.

    Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
    appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to determine
    how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court
    permission.

    The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of
    the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping
    suits are pending.

    The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the
    government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass
    through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.

    Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003
    that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call,
    e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action suit,
    claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.

    The White House has promised to veto any bill that does not grant
    immunity from suits such as this one.

    Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It
    would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and
    civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails and
    listen to their phone calls without court oversight.

    Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that he
    finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are
    "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service provider)
    who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to
    handle their data."

    He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison and
    $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.

    Millions of people in this country - particularly young people -
    already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as
    MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the
    public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded
    information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.

    "Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea
    of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their
    lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all,"
    said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone
    that's typed in their name on Google understands that."

    "Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on
    privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety,"
    Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already
    are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards we
    want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account or
    do something equally bad elsewhere."

    Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier
    Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and
    intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy laws
    and American history.

    "Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were written
    under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the
    police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying
    together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a
    far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it
    together."

    Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing
    protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing
    information in exchange for a service.

    "There is something fundamentally different from the government having
    information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have to
    give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication
    tools and sacrificing their privacy."

    "It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he said.


    (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

    http://www.11alive.com/news/article_...storyid=106257




  2. Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

    jim added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

    > Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
    >
    > WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for
    > government
    > eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time
    > that people in the United States changed their definition of
    > privacy.
    >
    > Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr,
    > the principal
    > deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should
    > mean that government and businesses properly safeguard
    > people's private communications and financial information.
    >
    > Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look
    > at the
    > Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
    >
    > Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to
    > allow the
    > government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court
    > permission, so long as one end of the conversation was
    > reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.
    >
    > The original law required a court order for any
    > surveillance conducted
    > on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House
    > argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering
    > because, as technology has changed, a growing amount of
    > foreign communications passes through U.S.-based channels.
    >
    > The most contentious issue in the new legislation is
    > whether to shield
    > telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly
    > giving the government access to people's private e-mails and
    > phone calls without a FISA court order between 2001 and 2007.
    >
    > Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate
    > Judiciary Committee,
    > appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only
    > way to determine how far the government has burrowed into
    > people's privacy without court permission.
    >
    > The committee is expected to decide this week whether
    > its version of
    > the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40
    > wiretapping suits are pending.
    >
    > The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T
    > says the
    > government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls
    > as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San
    > Francisco.
    >
    > Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a
    > device in 2003
    > that he says diverted and copied onto a government
    > supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on
    > AT&T lines.
    >
    > The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the
    > class-action suit,
    > claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.
    >
    > The White House has promised to veto any bill that does
    > not grant
    > immunity from suits such as this one.
    >
    > Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by
    > Thanksgiving. It
    > would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy
    > groups and civil libertarians say allows the government to
    > read Americans' e-mails and listen to their phone calls
    > without court oversight.
    >
    > Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San
    > Antonio that he
    > finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd
    > when people are "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at
    > an (Internet service provider) who may or may have not have
    > been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their
    > data."
    >
    > He noted that government employees face up to five years
    > in prison and
    > $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private
    > information.
    >
    > Millions of people in this country - particularly young
    > people -
    > already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites
    > such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These
    > sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what
    > was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics
    > and credit card numbers.
    >
    > "Those two generations younger than we are have a very
    > different idea
    > of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect
    > about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to
    > inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68. "Protecting
    > anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed
    > in their name on Google understands that."
    >
    > "Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which
    > focuses on
    > privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and
    > public safety," Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really
    > take stock of what we already are willing to give up, in terms
    > of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards we want in place to
    > be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account or do
    > something equally bad elsewhere."
    >
    > Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic
    > Frontier
    > Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech,
    > privacy and intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument
    > ignores both privacy laws and American history.
    >
    > "Anonymity has been important since the Federalist
    > Papers were written
    > under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous
    > power: the police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to
    > take away rights. Tying together that someone has spoken out
    > on an issue with their identity is a far more dangerous thing
    > if it is the government that is trying to tie it together."
    >
    > Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between
    > sacrificing
    > protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily
    > disclosing information in exchange for a service.
    >
    > "There is something fundamentally different from the
    > government having
    > information about you than private parties," he said. "We
    > shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking
    > advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their
    > privacy."
    >
    > "It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he
    > said.
    >
    >
    > (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights
    > Reserved.)
    >
    > http://www.11alive.com/news/article_...px?storyid=106
    > 257


    Seems like we really do need some sort of change in the White House
    in 2008. it'd be nice if we could get it earlier, but we cannot.
    I'm not an attorney thus hardly a Constitutional law expert, but my
    simple engineer's mind in reading the Bill of Rights and the "due
    process of law" clause of the 14th amendment strongly suggests that
    the post-9/11 Big Brother changes brought about by FISA being
    emasculated and this thing people think is the Patriot Act has
    pretty much destroyed the Bill of Rights. Now, besides what this
    Intel guy says that I think is, as the Brits would say, Spot On,
    there is also the issue of some number, perhaps into the millions,
    of ordinary U.S. Postal Service mail being opened by the bully boys
    and girls. And, I believe it is in 2009 that new Federal
    requirements to state-issued driver's licenses to facilitate
    central tracking takes effect. Now, too bad the same Beltway Boys
    (and Girls) that have so blatantly ignored the law and their own
    oaths of office don't have the same candor when asked to explain
    their actions. And then, we have the issue of illegal aliens. Some
    think the number is 12 million, others north of 20. Whatever the
    number, the bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the
    president mandating an 800 mile double fence across the border to
    Mexico will never be finished, the Border Patrol is literally
    scared blind into total inaction lest they too get jail time for
    enforcing the law, and ICE simply sends the illegals back. Maybe
    I've missed something small here, but I think I grasp the bigger
    picture: it is only a VERY small step before all of us law abiding
    citizens of this great country, the United States of America, will
    be required to carry "papers" and travel authorizations reminiscent
    of those required of French citizens during the Nazi occupation of
    France for nearly 5 years. Think it cannot happen here? Well, think
    again. Besides said FISA and USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and
    Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
    Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), we have the historical
    precedents of the Alien and Sedition Act during John Adams 2nd term
    and the Sedition Act in Woodrow Wilson's 2nd term. Both made it a
    federal crime to even criticize an elected official, so Lord knows
    what such a law might be like with today's "activist" judges who
    like more and more to legislate from the bench. Thankfully, the 2
    prior sedition laws were overturned by the Supreme Court as being
    unconstitutional, but the spectre of Big Brother from the George
    Orwell novel "1984" looms ever and ever larger. I'll end this rant
    by observing that if any of what I think is going on is at all what
    is really going on, the Intel prediction is correct, and the horror
    of civil libertarians everywhere is well-founded then it may well
    come to pass that the Feds break down the door to our homes, arrest
    us, and confiscate our PCs because they've been monitoring our E-
    mails, Usenet posts, and web sites/hits and determined that we are
    some perverted terrorist planning an attack. This quote from the
    Holcaust sums it up a different way:

    "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was
    not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak
    out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade
    unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade
    unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak
    out for me" - Jewish saying from the Holocaust

    --
    HP, aka Jerry

  3. Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

    That was a rather misleading title.

  4. Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

    On Nov 11, 11:12 pm, Tim Smith
    wrote:
    > That was a rather misleading title.


    Yeah; when I first read the title, I was thinking processors, not
    spies.


  5. Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

    The Privacy Act of 1974 basically insinuated you have none.

    The law protecting your medical record privacy wasn't meant for you. It was
    meant for the medical professionals.

    If you believe otherwise, oh well.

    --
    Dave
    Profound is we're here due to a chance arrangement
    of chemicals in the ocean billions of years ago.
    More profound is we made it to the top of the food
    chain per our reasoning abilities.
    Most profound is the denial of why we may
    be on the way out.
    "jim" wrote in message
    news:CgPZi.2095$K35.980@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
    > Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
    >
    > WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government
    > eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in
    > the United States changed their definition of privacy.
    >
    > Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal
    > deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that
    > government and businesses properly safeguard people's private
    > communications
    > and financial information.
    >
    > Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the
    > Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
    >
    > Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the
    > government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission,
    > so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be
    > located
    > outside the U.S.
    >
    > The original law required a court order for any surveillance
    > conducted
    > on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that
    > the
    > law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has
    > changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through
    > U.S.-based channels.
    >
    > The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to
    > shield
    > telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the
    > government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a
    > FISA
    > court order between 2001 and 2007.
    >
    > Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
    > appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to
    > determine
    > how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court
    > permission.
    >
    > The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of
    > the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping
    > suits are pending.
    >
    > The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the
    > government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they
    > pass
    > through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.
    >
    > Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in
    > 2003
    > that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every
    > call,
    > e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.
    >
    > The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action
    > suit,
    > claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.
    >
    > The White House has promised to veto any bill that does not grant
    > immunity from suits such as this one.
    >
    > Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It
    > would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and
    > civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails
    > and
    > listen to their phone calls without court oversight.
    >
    > Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that
    > he
    > finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are
    > "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service
    > provider)
    > who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States
    > to
    > handle their data."
    >
    > He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison
    > and
    > $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.
    >
    > Millions of people in this country - particularly young people -
    > already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as
    > MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the
    > public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded
    > information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.
    >
    > "Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea
    > of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their
    > lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all,"
    > said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone
    > that's typed in their name on Google understands that."
    >
    > "Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on
    > privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public
    > safety,"
    > Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already
    > are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards
    > we
    > want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account
    > or
    > do something equally bad elsewhere."
    >
    > Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier
    > Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and
    > intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy
    > laws
    > and American history.
    >
    > "Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were
    > written
    > under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the
    > police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying
    > together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a
    > far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it
    > together."
    >
    > Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing
    > protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing
    > information in exchange for a service.
    >
    > "There is something fundamentally different from the government
    > having
    > information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have
    > to
    > give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication
    > tools and sacrificing their privacy."
    >
    > "It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he said.
    >
    >
    > (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
    >
    > http://www.11alive.com/news/article_...storyid=106257
    >
    >
    >




  6. Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

    jim wrote:

    > Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
    >
    > WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government
    > eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in
    > the United States changed their definition of privacy.
    >
    > Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the
    > principal
    > deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that
    > government and businesses properly safeguard people's private
    > communications and financial information.
    >
    > Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the
    > Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
    >
    > Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the
    > government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission,
    > so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be
    > located outside the U.S.
    >
    > The original law required a court order for any surveillance
    > conducted
    > on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that
    > the law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has
    > changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through
    > U.S.-based channels.
    >
    > The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to
    > shield
    > telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the
    > government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a
    > FISA court order between 2001 and 2007.
    >
    > Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
    > appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to
    > determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy
    > without court permission.
    >
    > The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of
    > the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping
    > suits are pending.
    >
    > The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the
    > government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they
    > pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.
    >
    > Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in
    > 2003
    > that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every
    > call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.
    >
    > The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action
    > suit,
    > claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.
    >
    > The White House has promised to veto any bill that does not grant
    > immunity from suits such as this one.
    >
    > Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It
    > would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and
    > civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails
    > and listen to their phone calls without court oversight.
    >
    > Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that
    > he
    > finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are
    > "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service
    > provider) who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the
    > United States to handle their data."
    >
    > He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison
    > and
    > $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.
    >
    > Millions of people in this country - particularly young people -
    > already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as
    > MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the
    > public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded
    > information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.
    >
    > "Those two generations younger than we are have a very different
    > idea
    > of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their
    > lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all,"
    > said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone
    > that's typed in their name on Google understands that."
    >
    > "Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on
    > privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public
    > safety," Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what
    > we already are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what
    > safeguards we want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our
    > bank account or do something equally bad elsewhere."
    >
    > Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier
    > Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and
    > intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy
    > laws and American history.
    >
    > "Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were
    > written
    > under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the
    > police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying
    > together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a
    > far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it
    > together."
    >
    > Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing
    > protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing
    > information in exchange for a service.
    >
    > "There is something fundamentally different from the government
    > having
    > information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have
    > to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication
    > tools and sacrificing their privacy."
    >
    > "It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he said.
    >
    >
    > (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
    >
    > http://www.11alive.com/news/article_...storyid=106257


    All I care about is this... PLEASE don't base this on windows.... PLEASE!


    --

    Jerry McBride (jmcbride@mail-on.us)

+ Reply to Thread