mudcat.org: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT

GUEST 27 Oct 01 - 10:06 AM
Donuel 27 Oct 01 - 10:08 AM
Clinton Hammond 27 Oct 01 - 10:11 AM
kendall 27 Oct 01 - 10:16 AM
Clinton Hammond 27 Oct 01 - 10:18 AM
GUEST,Jordan 27 Oct 01 - 10:20 AM
JedMarum 27 Oct 01 - 11:03 AM
Big Mick 27 Oct 01 - 11:07 AM
Metchosin 27 Oct 01 - 01:52 PM
wysiwyg 27 Oct 01 - 01:54 PM
53 27 Oct 01 - 01:57 PM
GUEST,Jordan 27 Oct 01 - 04:14 PM
tremodt 27 Oct 01 - 05:33 PM
DougR 27 Oct 01 - 06:59 PM
hesperis 27 Oct 01 - 11:01 PM
Clinton Hammond 28 Oct 01 - 10:29 AM
hesperis 28 Oct 01 - 01:26 PM
Wotcha 28 Oct 01 - 02:45 PM
Amos 29 Oct 01 - 02:35 PM
Mike Byers 30 Oct 01 - 10:49 AM
GUEST 30 Oct 01 - 12:18 PM
GUEST,Clint Keller 31 Oct 01 - 03:51 AM
GUEST 31 Oct 01 - 07:06 AM
Mike Byers 31 Oct 01 - 06:04 PM
GUEST,Clint Keller 31 Oct 01 - 07:29 PM
53 01 Nov 01 - 12:22 AM
GUEST 01 Nov 01 - 07:15 AM
GUEST 01 Nov 01 - 07:28 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:




Subject: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 10:06 AM

Considering the interest generated here regarding the USA Patriot Act, folks might be interested in visiting (or revisiting) the Electronic Frontier Foundation's excellent webpage on computer security and privacy.

And if you have kids using the computer either at home or school (especially university/college level, which appears will be targeted by the new bill), you might want to consider having them go the encrypted route for privacy and security in this "new era"--kids can be pretty naive when it comes to giving out private information on-line.

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/eff_privacy_top12.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 10:08 AM

How do I take the encrypted route with my PC


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 10:11 AM

You Americans and your bills...

hehehe


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: kendall
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 10:16 AM

If they keep this up, we may end up with no more rights than you Canadians!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 10:18 AM

You WISH you were Canadian!

:-P


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: GUEST,Jordan
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 10:20 AM

Can anyone list the Bill of Rights (ie, what the actual rights are?) As it was being bantered about of late over this bill (and as my daughter is studying such things right now in her history class, so I'm revisiting them myself), I find not many of us actually know what the Bill of Rights contains.

Anyone?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: JedMarum
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 11:03 AM

Once again, we have a GUEST who is soooo much smarter then the rest of us brainless, (or did he say lobotomized) Mudcatters - telling us very very important news that we just need to know - but, of course; are too stupid to grasp.

I don't know about the rest of you Mudcatters, but I for one, am certainly impressed with his eloquence and the force of his arguments. I'm convinced. We are all in serious serious trouble and we need to be VERY afraid. My privacy is NOT protected - in fact, God only knows who may be reading this very message!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 11:07 AM

I'm with you, fellow Beef Brother. Here I have been wandering around and not even being aware of the dire straights I have been in. Thank goodness for the faceless, nameless ones who keep me safe...........LOL.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 01:52 PM

Whoa Clinton, not so fast! I hope none of your friends are union memebers who work for the government. There is this little provision in the new anti-terrorist legislation in Canada that covers anyone "disrupting government services". It might make for "interesting times" for "terrorists" such as striking postal workers or nurses and unlike the US, there is no sunset clause.

I envy you your trust in government. This is the same pepper spray happy gang that promised to get rid of the dreaded GST if elected. Some poor misguided souls, still waiting, will freeze in hell.

How old were you when the War Measures Act was invoked? It might explain your rosy perceptions. Even in times of relative freedom and peace, this government manages to overstep the boundaries, with impunity, when dealing with legitimate dissent, but a government on a mission, in times of hysteria, can cast a very wide and dangerous net indeed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 01:54 PM

Hold the phone, CatPals. This is not written anything like the other troll-posts, and it is just info in case people want it. Let's not throw every baby out when we see bathwater, huh?

Guest, thank you especially for using the BS: prefix in titling the thread.

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: 53
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 01:57 PM

you got something to hide? BOB


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: GUEST,Jordan
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 04:14 PM

Big Mike,

It isn't the faceless, nameless GUESTs in Mudcat I fear, it's the faceless, nameless FBI agents secretly going through my home, secretly tapping my phone, my voice and email, my snail mail, my office, without any warrants, and once the warrant becomes required, being able to file for it in a jurisdiction far, far away where I have no means to fight it in a court of law (like Washington D.C. where the FBI is, and I'm not).

Let's get real here--anonymous Internet posters aren't exactly a threat to anyone's privacy or personal liberties, no matter how annoying you find them.

For myself, I don't find them anymore annoying than a whole lot of people who post their names, frankly, but each to their own.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: tremodt
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 05:33 PM

how can i encrypt my messages


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: DougR
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 06:59 PM

No doubt about it ...the sky is falling.

dougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: hesperis
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 11:01 PM

I want a clickable link to this stuff.

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/eff_privacy_top12.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Oct 01 - 10:29 AM

I'm with DougR...

Like the song says,

"Nothing rhymes with paranoia"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: hesperis
Date: 28 Oct 01 - 01:26 PM

Well, a lot of the measures suggested are in fact perfectly reasonable. You wouldn't give your home phone number and personal address out to just anyone *offline*, would you? So why do it online?

And if you feel perfectly safe in doing that online or off, then you've probably never been harassed.

Paranoia just means that you believe that the world is out to get *you personally* and therefore you take it too far. But there is such a thing as a reasonable wish for privacy, guys.

I don't think that normal people need worry about encrypting their personal email, unless they have things in there so sensitive that they can't take even a 0.01 percent chance of it getting in the wrong hands. But making sure that your browser isn't telling perfect strangers all about you or your surfing habits is a reasonable measure.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: Wotcha
Date: 28 Oct 01 - 02:45 PM

The computer trespasser provisions of section 217 of the Act make perfect sense unless you happen to be a trespasser ... and Max is given the authority to monitor trespassers under the Act (as a provider or owner of a computer system). A good deal if you have invested in a system ...
Cheers,
Brian


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 01 - 02:35 PM

The Bill of Rights comprises Amendments I to X as shown below to the original Constitution.  I include Amendments XI  through XV for interest.

A.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                                      Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

                                      Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

                                      Amendment IV

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.

                                      Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

                                      Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

                                     Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

                                     Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

                                      Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                                      Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AMENDMENT XI

    Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

    Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

    The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
    against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
 
 

                                  AMENDMENT XII

    Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

    Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

    The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall
    not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in
    distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and
    of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit
    sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate
    shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; --
    The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole
    number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not
    exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the
    President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a
    quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be
    necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve
    upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or
    other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the
    Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then
    from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of
    two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person
    constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

    *Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.
 
 

                                 AMENDMENT XIII

    Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

    Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

    Section 1.
    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall
    exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2.
    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
 
 

                                 AMENDMENT XIV

    Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

    Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
    the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
    the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
    person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 2.
    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number
    of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for
    President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or
    the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and
    citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
    representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of
    male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    Section 3.
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
    military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
    officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support
    the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
    enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Section 4.
    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and
    bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State
    shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the
    loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    Section 5.
    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    *Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
 

                                  AMENDMENT XV

    Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

    Section 1.
    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
    race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

    Section 2.
    The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
 

Then, in 1913, they passed the Amendment establishing Income Tax, and things have been going to hell in a handbasket ever since....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: Mike Byers
Date: 30 Oct 01 - 10:49 AM

I imagine you would be more likely to encounter security problems from commercial interests or "hackers" than from the government. Even if a government had the capability to read everyone's e-mail, doing so would be a daunting task. Lavasoft's Ad-aware is a useful, free program for detecting commercial spyware, and www.grc.com also has some valuable information on making Windows less vulnerable to intrusions. There are several encryption schemes available for e-mail and while they're useful for sending sensitive information such as credit card numbers, financial data, medical information, etc. most people don't really need to encrypt their e-mail. If you're truly worried about computer privacy, the most important rule is to never keep anything you want to protect on a networked machine. And when you replace or discard storage devices such as HDs, it's a good idea to insure data cannot be recovered from these. Drilling a few holes through a HD works nicely for this. I've also found that the shiny "plates" from old HDs (as well as CDs) can also be used to make some nifty mobiles and artwork, too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 01 - 12:18 PM

I agree largely with the "who is threatened by the government" assessment Mike, except for those who are involved in political organizing, commentary through the arts, etc which is critical of government policy or political leaders. Or their families, friends, work colleagues, etc.

Under the new act, those are *exactly* the people who should be worried, considering how broadly they are casting the net.

The language the Bush administration is using (ie the "evildoers" language) can easily be used, once everyone is conditioned to hearing it, to describe their political enemies and those dissenters exercising their constitutionally protected rights to disagree with official policy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 31 Oct 01 - 03:51 AM

I'm old; I remember the internment of the Japanese in WW II, and I remember Joe Mcarthy and I remember the Un-American Activities Committee, and the Bay of Tonkin incident. I remember J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon.

But nowadays you can trust that the people in government won't abuse their power, because they're different. Aren't they?

clint


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 01 - 07:06 AM

Yes Clint, some of us believe they are different.

They're worse. ;)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: Mike Byers
Date: 31 Oct 01 - 06:04 PM

I've been critical of the government from time to time--it's my right (and duty) as a citizen to be so if I think something wrong is going on. Is anyone going to stop me? No, I don't think so, and I'm not concerned about MiB showing up at my place, either. Do I care if the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. know this? No, I don't really care; in fact some of my written criticism has been directed at these agencies in the past. I happen to think the Bill of Rights works, and I don't see anyone in government today big enough to tear it down so long as people will stand up for themselves and not act like sheep. Yeah, I remember Nixon, too. I've got a photo of myself and a pal, taken on the Plain of Jars the same day Nixon said "there are no Americans on the ground in Laos." Well, government lies are nothing new, are they? But I will have to say that in the current situation, government has done better than I'd have guessed they'd do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 31 Oct 01 - 07:29 PM

"I happen to think the Bill of Rights works, and I don't see anyone in government today big enough to tear it down so long as people will stand up for themselves and not act like sheep."

My point exactly.

clint


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: 53
Date: 01 Nov 01 - 12:22 AM

if you don't have anything to hide, then you shouldn't need to worry? now should you. BOB


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 01 - 07:15 AM

Bob,

Political dissidents don't have anything to hide. So why do you suppose they have been the main targets of the types of harrassment we've been talking about in this thread, throughout US history?

There is a huge difference between working to change a democratic government democratically, and committing crimes. Why do you suppose the government intelligence and policing agencies (none of whom are elected, mind you) can't seem to tell the difference between a political activist and a criminial?

I'm with clint--the climate of nationalist furor right now is one of the dimensions which makes it so difficult to support this legislation. Those of us with experience as political activists know that the majority of people *will* behave like sheep, and will *not* defend the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens who come under attack.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Computer Privacy Under the USA ACT
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 01 - 07:28 AM

Oh--and I neglected to mention, neither will the majority of our politicians defend the constitutional rights of their constituents who come under attack from this legislation--they copped out of their responsibilities (in their minds, at least) with their "sunset" clause.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 14 July 2:01 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.