Tag Archives: Computing

Update: FISA previous to the amendents contained oversight. FISA also provided for emergencies. Taps could be placed for 72 hours without a warrant in the event of an emergency, all that needed to be done is that the tap be reported and a warrant sought after the 72 hours. FISA worked for 22 years prior to it being amended in this manner. What changed exactly? I don’t know the answer to that, but I don’t think it has anything to do with emergent issues, or difficulty in obtaining warrants for wiretapping. The FISA court only ever denied probably a hand full of requests for taps. Getting wiretaps (speaking from a government perspective) was pretty durned easy as long as you crossed your T’s and dotted your I’s (that really is an i).

I’m not sure how many people are aware of the bill addressing Telco Immunity. For those of you not in the know, the bill is: S. 2248. This bill only applies to illegal wire taps after 9/11, so anything illegal prior to that would not fall under this bill. That’s not much consolation to me in general though, because there were wiretaps without warrants even being sought after the fact (on an ‘emergent’ basis) that are/were illegal at the time and the telcos will be given immunity for that. I find that to be disturbing in general.

“How can you expect ANYONE to stand up to any pressure if you can’t expect enormous companies with enormous pockets and 15″ long lawyer penises to stand up to pressure?” Interesting question. I didn’t ask it, but it is an interesting question.

Another interesting thing is what I gleaned from the this here article. It would appear that Bush intends to veto the bill should it pass after an amendment was made. Basically what it boils down to as I understand it, and this may be faulty on my part, is that Bush is giving the impression that Telecom Immunity is more important than the ‘keeping American’s safe’ bit that the bill was supposed to be about in the first place. Now, I’m not a proponent of the increased powers that the bill wants to give with regards to wiretapping and the like. I believe the laws we have currently (and those we had prior to 9/11) are/were sufficient to protect Americans.

Some individuals have it in their heads that since it was an emergency, that the telecoms should be granted immunity to any illegal acts. This ignores the entire issue of after the emergency, illegal acts were still going on. I’m sorry, but I don’t fall into the idea that the government is above the law, and I believe that retroactive immunity is bad for US citizens. I believe immunity to any group of people complying with illegal orders regardless of the situation is bad for citizens. Correcting my previous statement to be less broad. I believe granting immunity to the telecoms in this particular context is counter to our rights as citizens and creates (or can create) a way to hide misdeeds. I am very concerned how this will turn out and I’m very concerned with what is coming down the line as far as our ‘digital’ rights as they were. Our rights in general are in peril, as I’m sure some of us are already aware.

As any parent will tell you (and I have a child, so I’m aware of how it works and I know the things I did when I was a teenager) you can’t always know what your children are doing. You hope they have enough sense to do/not do the things you’ve instilled in them. It doesn’t always work out that way, but we all have to learn our trade as human beings in a variety of ways. I learned a lot of mine from just being who I am. Other facets of being me I gathered from my parents. I didn’t do a lot of the things my parents did, such as drink or smoke. I still don’t. That’s just who I am. I do however have anger management issues on occasion, this is a problem I’ve been solving with my understanding of Zen. I’m pretty sure my anger management is an issue having to do with my father. My father was (he’s changed a lot since my childhood) an angry man in my opinion. I don’t remember a lot of my childhood because of that issue with my father. I don’t know if that’s intentional or not, but that’s the way it is.

So, do I think that Lori Drew is a poor parent? Well, yes I do. I also think the law has taken a really poor route of getting her charged as well, and that’s really more the focus of what I’m writing about anyhow. I imagine Lori Drew isn’t a dumb person, and should have known better than to do the things she did to facilitate the cruelty that was perpetuated upon that girl whom killed herself. Her name is, Megan Meier. Perhaps you’ve read about it in the news. Admittedly, I only heard about this case because it involves something that involves my field. Lori Drew was indicted based on laws designed to prosecute crackers. No, I don’t mean white people (in case anyone read it that way, it that’s funny, no that’s not what I’m saying). I believe the media uses the term hacker. It’s totally incorrect, but I’m done fighting that battle with people.

Lori Drew’s indictment totally flies in the face of what the laws were designed to accomplish. Am I glad she’s being prosecuted? Well, I don’t know. What transpired under her supervision was heinous to me, I imagine to a lot of people; however, her prosecution is going to create issues I think with regards to technology. In particular, what kind of precedence is this going to set in our country with regards to the Internet? If I don’t want to be spammed by every random company that puts up a TOS that says I have to enter information that identifies me to that website (say to register a game or to get an e-mail account to use as a spam filter/throw away account or any other random issue) will I be prosecuted later on for fraud under the laws in which Lori Drew is being indicted?

I’m of the opinion that’s a bad thing. I mean, am I committing some sort of fraud just by posting here? The issue, as I understand it at least, is that the indictment is a civil issue, and they are using it as a means to create a criminal case. I wonder why they aren’t using some of the other laws that relate directly to children or in particular harassment? I probably have not scoured the net well enough to answer that question.