Homeland security opening private mail

[shesulsa]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10740935/

“This process isn’t something we’re trying to hide,” Mohan said, noting the wording on the agency’s Web site. “We’ve had this authority since before the Department of Homeland Security was created,” Mohan said. However, Mohan declined to outline what criteria are used to determine when a piece of personal correspondence should be opened, but said, “obviously it’s a security-related criteria.”

Personal letters being opened, phones being tapped, internet mail being monitored ... does this remind anyone else of 80's USSR?

 

[Kacey]

"Big Brother is watching"!

Oh wait, that was 1984... not quite the 80s you meant, I think. Still, I agree - there seems to be a problem with the way the Patriot Act is being intrepreted.

 

[Makalakumu]

Basically, anything one types on the internet is being monitored via data mining. This is all done without a warrent. One can expect that any e-mail accounts that one has through large providers (like hotmail) is being given to the feds.

 

[jfarnsworth]

So I take it we have no privacy at all anymore?

Ok, it only takes one party to tape a phone call. People can and at will look at your e-mails. They can tap my phone lines. At what point as americans do we still have freedom?

 

[Ping898]

So I take it we have no privacy at all anymore?

You can have privacy, but not if you use anything "invented" after like 1800. Basically only way to communicate and keep it between the people talking is to do it in person and buy everything with cash or barter.

 

[Shu2jack]

Is there something I am missing from the article?

“All mail originating outside the United States Customs territory that is to be delivered inside the U.S. Customs territory is subject to Customs examination,” says the CBP Web site. That includes personal correspondence. “All mail means ‘all mail,’” said John Mohan, a CBP spokesman, emphasizing the point.
“This process isn’t something we’re trying to hide,” Mohan said, noting the wording on the agency’s Web site. “We’ve had this authority since before the Department of Homeland Security was created,” Mohan said.

Anything outside coming in is subject to inspection. Just like if you are crossing into the United States, your car, yourself, and your belongings are subject to inspection before entering the U.S.

And the Governement is being forthright in their inspections. They are not trying to hide it and they admitted that they have been doing it.

I don't understand what the problem is.

 

[Makalakumu]

Is there something I am missing from the article?



Anything outside coming in is subject to inspection. Just like if you are crossing into the United States, your car, yourself, and your belongings are subject to inspection before entering the U.S.

And the Governement is being forthright in their inspections. They are not trying to hide it and they admitted that they have been doing it.

I don't understand what the problem is.

Electronic information is different. Make no mistake, that is being monitored by the government via data mining. If private industry can do it with spy ware, you can expect the government to have technology that is five years ahead.

 

[Shu2jack]

So are we talking just about the article involving "snail mail" being opened, or about the government opening private letters, in all their forms, in general?

 

[Makalakumu]

...buy everything with cash or barter.

We are moving toward a cashless society, where every transaction is made electronically.

http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=146&db=1&C0=11

"Money - in the traditional sense no longer exists. It died two decades ago when Richard Nixon forever abolished the gold standard. Since then, money as we once knew it has been replaced by an unstable new global medium of exchange that is called 'megabyte money'... megabyte money is a threat not only to our country's long-term growth and prosperity, but to the individual as well."

- Joel Kurtzman, The Death Of Money, 1993

Kevin SigRift, a U.S. economist at Norwest Corp., says there are many products now available to the general public that are ushering in the use of electronic money in favor of its paper counterpart. "Certainly there are jumps in technology that have facilitated this. For instance, a product that we market at Norwest is a debit card. It is a Visa Card (credit) but it's a debit card, so the money comes out of your checking account," he explained.

"The real danger is too heavy a hand watching over your life. It's nobody's business where you spend your money so long as you earn it legally. No government entity should know where you spend money for groceries," he said.

The government would be able to monitor purchases, spending habits and businesses patronized, Mr. Richard explained. People have concerns about the misuse of such extensive, personal information, he said, adding, "It's really frightening when you think about it."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You may find these links helpful:
http://www.gnupg.org/
http://www.pgp.com/
http://www.pgpi.org/
http://www.openpgp.org/

I like 2048bit encryption.....

 

[jdinca]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10740935/



Personal letters being opened, phones being tapped, internet mail being monitored ... does this remind anyone else of 80's USSR?

International parcels coming into this country have been subject to inspection for a long time. It's nothing new. Phone tapping without a warrant is being done on international calls from suspicious persons outside the country to suspicious persons inside this country. Phone to phone call tapping inside the country still requires a warrant. Again, it's nothing new, it's just that we now know about it. It's interesting that some of the most vocal congressional opposition to this came from people who knew about it from the beginning and said nothing. It's also being reviewed for abuse every 45 days. Presidents have been using their constitutional power to order searches of different types without a warrant for decades.

Same thing goes for the 'net. I would imagine that the intelligence community was working on ways to monitor it from the get go. I'm much more concerned about hackers trying to mine my computer for vital information than I am the government possibly reading one of my e-mails.

It's something that we need to be cognizant of to make sure it's not abused but I see no comparison to the USSR, where an innocent civilian could disappear for simply disagreeing with the party line.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

It's something that we need to be cognizant of to make sure it's not abused but I see no comparison to the USSR, where an innocent civilian could disappear for simply disagreeing with the party line.

The comparison is that restricting our freedoms and privacy in order to be "secure", puts us down the same road to totalitarianism. True, we are NOWHERE near so far as the former Soviet Union, or even present Russia - but it is the same road. I would ask people who say that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, whether they would be ok with the police, any police (Sheriff, F.B.I., Highway Patrol, City Police, etc.) searching their home without either a warrant or while in hot pursuit of a suspect in a violent crime who was seen ENTERING their house while being pursued. Wait, you are law abiding? What problem could you possibly have with police entering your home at will and searching it without a warrant? Same principle, IMO, applies to your letters, e-mail, library records, phone communications, etc. It is a dangerous road that is like the frog in the pot of water - he never realizes the gradual temperature change and doesn't try to jump out until it is too late and the water is boiling.

This NOT a slam on the Law Enforcement community OR the government, I am simply stating that there are powers they should NOT have if we are to retain our Republic. And previous restrictions of freedom (for example, during the American Civil War or WW1), do not justify current restrictions any more than two wrongs make a right. BTW, I think that Administrations of BOTH parties have tried to expand Federal and Presidential power at the expense of individual freedoms.

 

[jdinca]

The comparison is that restricting our freedoms and privacy in order to be "secure", puts us down the same road to totalitarianism. True, we are NOWHERE near so far as the former Soviet Union, or even present Russia - but it is the same road. I would ask people who say that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, whether they would be ok with the police, any police (Sheriff, F.B.I., Highway Patrol, City Police, etc.) searching their home without either a warrant or while in hot pursuit of a suspect in a violent crime who was seen ENTERING their house while being pursued. Wait, you are law abiding? What problem could you possibly have with police entering your home at will and searching it without a warrant? Same principle, IMO, applies to your letters, e-mail, library records, phone communications, etc. It is a dangerous road that is like the frog in the pot of water - he never realizes the gradual temperature change and doesn't try to jump out until it is too late and the water is boiling.

This NOT a slam on the Law Enforcement community OR the government, I am simply stating that there are powers they should NOT have if we are to retain our Republic. And previous restrictions of freedom (for example, during the American Civil War or WW1), do not justify current restrictions any more than two wrongs make a right. BTW, I think that Administrations of BOTH parties have tried to expand Federal and Presidential power at the expense of individual freedoms.

I don't take anything you said as a slam agains law enforcement or the government.

As for your example of the police entering my home without a warrant because they are in hot pursuit of a violent criminal, they already have the right to do that and have had for a very long time. The have the right to enter without a warrant if they believe a felony is in progress. I would think a violent criminal entering a home without permission fits that criteria. If they just THINK that the suspect is in the house, then they have to get a warrant. I'd love for any of our resident cops to chime in on this. I'm sure I'm omitting some of the nuances.

If they wanted to search my house without a warrant, and had absolutely no reasonable suspicion to do so, then yes, I would have a problem with it. If they had reason to believe that I was a potential terrorist and they had evidence to give rise to that suspicion, I would still have a problem with it but for completely different reasons, i.e., they may be right. If they're wrong, then the search will hopefully bare that out and clear my name. And then I may sue them for unlawful entry.

They're not wasting their time looking in on average citizens. There's too many of us and not enough of them. At this point, I feel zero restriction on my freedom, other than I have to take off my shoes when I go through a metal detector at the airport.

Should we be concerned that "Big Brother" is watching? Yeah, I think we need to be aware of that and be vigilant to keep it from going too far but I think given the absence of evidence of abuse, we need to chill a little bit and let the government do what they can to keep us safe.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I don't take anything you said as a slam agains law enforcement or the government.

As for your example of the police entering my home without a warrant because they are in hot pursuit of a violent criminal, they already have the right to do that and have had for a very long time. The have the right to enter without a warrant if they believe a felony is in progress. I would think a violent criminal entering a home without permission fits that criteria. If they just THINK that the suspect is in the house, then they have to get a warrant. I'd love for any of our resident cops to chime in on this. I'm sure I'm omitting some of the nuances.

If they wanted to search my house without a warrant, and had absolutely no reasonable suspicion to do so, then yes, I would have a problem with it. If they had reason to believe that I was a potential terrorist and they had evidence to give rise to that suspicion, I would still have a problem with it but for completely different reasons, i.e., they may be right. If they're wrong, then the search will hopefully bare that out and clear my name. And then I may sue them for unlawful entry.

They're not wasting their time looking in on average citizens. There's too many of us and not enough of them. At this point, I feel zero restriction on my freedom, other than I have to take off my shoes when I go through a metal detector at the airport.

Should we be concerned that "Big Brother" is watching? Yeah, I think we need to be aware of that and be vigilant to keep it from going too far but I think given the absence of evidence of abuse, we need to chill a little bit and let the government do what they can to keep us safe.

Data mining, is just that, mining (fishing). Either you have a right or you do not. While, as I have mentioned, there have always been exceptions (hot pursuit, etc.) to the requirement of otherwise obtaining a Warrant before searching a person's home, property or communications, the very idea of dropping the concept of requiring a warrant (regardless of what Administration does it) is a bad precedent. Either you have the right as a citizen, or you do not. Right now you feel safe allowing them this power, but what about the next Administration that comes along?

 

[michaeledward]

Once upon a time .... our country believed in this ...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

... now, not so much, I guess.

 

[Marginal]

What problem could you possibly have with police entering your home at will and searching it without a warrant? Same principle, IMO, applies to your letters, e-mail, library records, phone communications, etc. It is a dangerous road that is like the frog in the pot of water - he never realizes the gradual temperature change and doesn't try to jump out until it is too late and the water is boiling.

I dunno. No knock warrants seemed to be an excellent way get innocent people killed when they were implimented in Denver. Something about unannounced people prowling around people's houses... It was like the people didn't know the cops had come calling, and were reacting to them like they would burgulars.

That kinda thing gets noticed. Fast.

 

[mrhnau]

At what point as americans do we still have freedom?

Is the question freedom or privacy? How do we value the worth of privacy in an attempt to obtain more freedom? Or vice versa?

for instance, are you willing to let people open your letters and tap your phones in order to insure more security or preserve certain other freedoms? What DOES make me sad is the cause for privacy/freedom being limited. I don't desire to have my next plane flight bombed or my schools bombed. I look forward to the time that terrorism is no longer a viable approach to getting what you want, but I feel its a long time in the future, if ever.

Personally, I've always been a huge fan of freedom. I don't enjoy having my conversations tapped, even though I'm not doing anything particularly bad. Its just the concept of privacy. I'd hate being in London these days...

 

[arnisador]

OK, I'm now a bit nervous.

 

[bignick]

You may find these links helpful:
http://www.gnupg.org/
http://www.pgp.com/
http://www.pgpi.org/
http://www.openpgp.org/

I like 2048bit encryption.....

I've posted this here before, but fellow tin hatters may be interested in this.

http://www.truecrypt.org/

Also, don't assume that encryption makes you "safe". It is against the law in most areas to not divulge the decryption key when asked by a law enforcement agency.

Also, just because an encryption scheme is unbreakable according to modern standards doesn't mean isn't unbreakable. When DES was adopted as the encryption standard in the 70's the NSA stepped in and forced the standard to be weakened. Mostly out of the fear that they would not be able crack it. DES is now seen as almost worthless due to it's weaknesses such as the short key length.

And if quantum computing ever becomes a reality, all of the current encryption schemes like RSA and PGP will be rendered absolutely useless.

I'm waiting for quantum encryption, it will be interesting to see how that plays out with the government. I can see them having some troubles letting private citizens getting their hands on it. A completely unbreakable encryption scheme. Not just really hard, but literally impossible, (mathematically proven) to decipher or even intercept.




For now...I'm stocking up on aluminum foil...

 

[Makalakumu]

For now...I'm stocking up on aluminum foil...

I've wrapped my computer in aluminum foil...