How The Government Spies On Your Internet Usage

[Bombardier]

from the because-it's-vital-to-national-security dept.

intnsred writes "In explaining the recent PATRIOT act ACLU lawsuit, a D.C. civil rights lawyer writes, "I am sure that many of you reading this (and I, likely) have the government in our computers....Until now, we did not know much about how the government goes about this procedure. Now we do." Fascinating details of the case and how easy it is for the gov't to get warrantless access to you through your ISP. This clarifies and expands a previous /. article."

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/05/31/03222...&tid=123&tid=99

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

related articles:

ACLU Sues FBI Over ISP Records

An anonymous reader writes "One of the provisions of the infamous USA PATRIOT Act is the ability for the government to force companies that hold personal information, specifically in this case, ISPs, to turn over their records without a court order. MSNBC is reporting about a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in secret because of another provision in PATRIOT that prevents public disclosure of these matters. The gag order was dropped when the Justice Department agreed to not take any action against the ACLU."

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/04/29/204201.shtml?tid=103

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Secrets of Surveillance

Ashcroft, Snoops and Gag Orders

Everyone knows by now (or should) that the Patriot Act allows the FBI to conduct surveillance on Internet and email usage. Using so-called National Security Letters (NSLs), the FBI directs Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide passwords and identifying information that will allow the government to target people who are plotting terrorism or who are otherwise potentially dangerous to national security. I am sure that many of you reading this (and I, likely) have the government in our computers.

The same mechanism of NSLs is used to obtain information from librarians, health care providers, and business records of individuals and entities. The party from whom the government demands information is forbidden from telling the client that the FBI is being provided information. And the target of the investigation won't know about it until or if he or she is arrested for crime or detained without a charge (say, as a material witness).

http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel05292004.html

[Wolfie]

Lets just hope it does not get renewed.

[Redneck4sure]

Lets just hope it does not get renewed.

4sure

[Ken]

The FBI has been monitoring internet traffic for a long time.

I know, my ISP has a room in their building set up for the FBI.

Right now, I bet this message is/will be/being read.

Fuck you FBI!!!!!

[NullsRevenge]

I find it funny because this is one of the things that i see the same people who critize how the war on terrorism is going and not enough progress is being made who also want to take away some of the ability to hunt down the terrorists efficiently.

Obviously how things where being handled before 9/11 failed, thats why it happened.. I dont think the answer is to go back doing things that failed before, so if it goes then something else has to be done.

Because waiting until after an attack and after lives have been lost is not a viable option IMHO.

Other than that this whole privacy arguement and going on about the government has been happening since this country was founded and some of the things done in the past here in the US was much worse when it comes to civil liberties than anything today. IMHO it's when you can no longer bitch about it then, that is time to really start worrying..

The site linked on slashdot looked to me being a conspiracy site, at the very least looked kinda fishy to me. But since it was posted on Slashdot then it MUST be true...

[Ken]

There must be a balance Nulls, and I believe the government is going far beyond the "in the interest of national security" statement.

It's like Ben Franklin said.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[DudeAsInCool]

Assuming that only a small percentage of the world are terrorists, it does not follow logically that the rest of free society has to be torn upside down to find them.l It's a given that terrorists are on the internet--ok, track em--but that doesnt mean that the rest of our freedom's need imposed on.

This administration has used to war on terror to overstep their bounds in other types of law enforcement, and have had their hands slapped a number of times for doing so. In a free society, once must be vigilant about keeping one's freedoms, otherwise they wont be there. I certainly plan to be...

[NullsRevenge]

There must be a balance Nulls, and I believe the government is going far beyond the "in the interest of national security" statement.

My point is with the civil liberities issue aside, what was in place in the past has failed before and so things will have to be changed either way, whether the answer is the Patriot Act or something completely different, is unknown but again what is known is what was being done in the past wasnt enough.

If not enough is done and people have to constantly worry about a terrorist attack, i dont see how that can be called freedom.

I dont think a true balance is possible because no matter what is done, it will be critized and seen as evil, and against civil rights anyways. Whether or not if that critism is of any ligtimate concern or not.

That and the ideal of balance is completely different to each person so what is completely acceptable to one would be considered too much by some and not enough by others.

[slum_goddess]

Obviously how things where being handled before 9/11 failed, thats why it happened.. I dont think the answer is to go back doing things that failed before, so if it goes then something else has to be done.

you're talking about 'things' the administration did that failed, right? not failed things regular people did...right?

[NullsRevenge]

you're talking about 'things' the administration did that failed, right? not failed things regular people did...right?

What im saying is that the policy that existed well before the current administration didnt work and to rely on it once again would be foolish, and to answer your question im talking in general, not blaming anyone specific.

Even though i dont think that playing the blame game is productive, to be fair the Clinton Administration had plenty of time and opportunity to do something too.