The NYT covered this story, on the front page, too. But somehow it was all about "Colleges Protest Call to Upgrade Online Systems". It wasn't about the government automating the bugging of every student, professor, and staff person by typing a few commands from the basement of the FBI building. The nasty word "wiretap" didn't appear til the eighth paragraph, "below the fold", and when it did appear, it was buried in mid-sentence, right next to "criminals, terrorists and spies". (They never wiretap "citizens", "innocent bystanders", or "suspects", and everyone wiretapped is of course guilty-as-charged, though they haven't been charged with any crime yet.) There's no shortage of bias in the New York Times, but this is a particularly blatant example. Now why is it in the interest of the Times to build wiretapping into the hardware of the Internet? The story also claimed that "Because the government would have to win court orders before undertaking surveillance, the universities are not raising civil liberties issues." I think there's a civil liberties issue when the US Government wants to wire the country like the Stasi wired East Germany for indiscriminate bugging. And there's no "winning" of these court orders; they happen in secret, without the participation or knowledge of the target of the wiretap. The university cannot appear in court to argue about whether the order should be issued (and very few challenge them after issuance). In most cases the judge is *required* to issue the secret wiretap order every time the Feds merely say "we need the info". To get 99% of such orders, they don't need a warrant, nor probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. What used to be tough wiretap standards have been whittled away inch by inch by decades of aggressive pushing on the part of the FBI, DEA, CIA, NSA, and DoJ. In August, one judge woke up and published a decision that said, despite his previously regular issuance of secret orders to track the location of peoples' cellphones in real time, without probable cause or any suspicion of criminal activity, he was concerned about whether this routine secret practice was actually legal. (See http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_09.php#004002). Bravo for that one judge who found his conscience. The government argues that under the same conditions (no warrant, no reason to suspect you in particular), they can monitor about 40% of the bits you send over the Internet, in real time, including where you are, who you're talking with, what protocols you're using, and every URL, email address, IM name, or other "addressing and signaling information". (I argue that they don't have this authority, but I never get to show up in court at these discussions with the judge.) Not only is this information supposedly legal for the government to get about every citizen, it's perfect for automated software tracking of who's-talking-to-who, all the time. The NSA term for it is "traffic analysis", and most of it works even if your communications are encrypted. I understand why the authoritarian brass would want routine wiretaps of the innocent; as Orson Welles said, "Only in a police state is the job of a policeman easy." They've lost sight of their goal (keeping people safe and free), yet redoubled their efforts. Why this would be in the interest of the citizens (or the FCC, or the NY Times) is the puzzle. John Gilmore (speaking for myself) ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen@leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]