From johnalexhebert at gmail.com  Sat Feb  6 12:41:49 2010
From: johnalexhebert at gmail.com (John Hebert)
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:41:49 -0600
Subject: [brlug-poly] Police to get more access to your data?
Message-ID: <bef4c75c1002061041h5650ff3dk8abbc6a67c4ebc0d@mail.gmail.com>

Karthik,

You stated "IANAL but doesn't the US Constitution, with few
exceptions, apply to all Citizens and non-citizens alike?".

I am not sure what you meant by that. Do you mean that McCullagh was
exercising his 1st Amendment rights, or the author of the survey of
police officers concerning the secure web? Both the article and the
articles linked are not concise and do address emotionally charged
topics, so I want to make sure I understand you.

Looking forward to some intelligent discussion on this list! :)

John

On Feb 5, 2010, at 4:09 AM, John Hebert wrote:

>* My thoughts:*>* *>* 1) Use Freenet (http://freenetproject.org/) to store and share your data, as well as to chat and browse anonymously on an encrypted peer-to-peer network. Sure, it still depends on keeping your passphrase private, but how far would the FBI go to force someone to give their passphrase? Start practicing holding your breath underwater.*>* *>* 2) The article  is misleadingly titled "Police want backdoor to Web users' private data" (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10446503-38.html?tag=digg2), but it is about the results of a survey of some law enforcement officers. I was more worried about David Duke's poll surveys than this yellow journalism by Declan McCullagh. Shame, shame, SHAME on you Dustin for even mentioning this article on the mailing list. Oh, wait. It is your mailing list...*>* *>* 3) Law enforcement can and do use actual investigative techniques to find those who create child pornography (i.e.; photography of people less than 18 years of age performing sexual activity). A well-designed and secured network for law enforcement to do their jobs is a good thing. Think about this: law enforcement officials are using email now to exchange information about investigations. (!!!)*>* *>*  It seems kinda ass-backwards for some law enforcement officials to take away the 5th Amendment for all US citizens because some citizens keep a collection of certain bits on the computers when there are cases of actual sexual abuse of children (again, under 18 years) within this country, not to mention other countries. Those US citizens who vote with their cable TV remotes and support taking away the 5th may not want to visit certain other countries. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent. Look for the big black spot on the map. *>* *>* 4) Stupid border guards don't know the difference between child pornography and hentai.*>* *>* Extra bonus points for comments on the philosophical problems involved with enforcing pornography laws perceived with analog interfaces.*>* *>* John*

*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.brlug.net/pipermail/politics_brlug.net/attachments/20100206/492a1f64/attachment.html 

From karthik at poobal.net  Sat Feb  6 19:22:11 2010
From: karthik at poobal.net (Karthik Poobalasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 19:22:11 -0600
Subject: [brlug-poly] Police to get more access to your data?
In-Reply-To: <bef4c75c1002061041h5650ff3dk8abbc6a67c4ebc0d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <bef4c75c1002061041h5650ff3dk8abbc6a67c4ebc0d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E5C213EE-E7E2-4B19-8C99-7D79723F8FB9@poobal.net>

Hi John, 
I should have quoted the point I was commenting about. :) 

<snip>
"It seems kinda ass-backwards for some law enforcement officials to take away the 5th Amendment for all US citizens because some citizens keep a collection of certain bits on the computers when there are cases of actual sexual abuse of children (again, under 18 years) within this country, not to mention other countries."
</snip>
My understanding is except for few things like voting (some states do allow non-citizen permanent residents to vote for state elections), the Bill of Rights and the Constitution applies to all residents, US Citizens & Aliens alike as long as you on US Soil. I just wanted to bring that point into the discussion. Nothing more. 


Also, I found a more concise workup of the case details written by Prof. Orin S. Kerr, The George Washington Law School.  http://volokh.com/posts/1197670606.shtml


--
Karthik Poobalasubramanian
karthik at poobal.net
(225) 341-5855
skype: poobal


On Feb 6, 2010, at 12:41 PM, John Hebert wrote:

> Karthik,
> You stated "IANAL but doesn't the US Constitution, with few exceptions, apply to all Citizens and non-citizens alike?".
> I am not sure what you meant by that. Do you mean that McCullagh was exercising his 1st Amendment rights, or the author of the survey of police officers concerning the secure web? Both the article and the articles linked are not concise and do address emotionally charged topics, so I want to make sure I understand you.
> Looking forward to some intelligent discussion on this list! :)
> John
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 4:09 AM, John Hebert wrote:
> 
> >
>  My thoughts:
> 
> >
>  
> 
> > 1) Use Freenet (http://freenetproject.org/
> ) to store and share your data, as well as to chat and browse anonymously on an encrypted peer-to-peer network. Sure, it still depends on keeping your passphrase private, but how far would the FBI go to force someone to give their passphrase? Start practicing holding your breath underwater.
> 
> >
>  
> 
> > 2) The article  is misleadingly titled "Police want backdoor to Web users' private data" (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10446503-38.html?tag=digg2
> ), but it is about the results of a survey of some law enforcement officers. I was more worried about David Duke's poll surveys than this yellow journalism by Declan McCullagh. Shame, shame, SHAME on you Dustin for even mentioning this article on the mailing list. Oh, wait. It is your mailing list...
> 
> >
>  
> 
> >
>  3) Law enforcement can and do use actual investigative techniques to find those who create child pornography (i.e.; photography of people less than 18 years of age performing sexual activity). A well-designed and secured network for law enforcement to do their jobs is a good thing. Think about this: law enforcement officials are using email now to exchange information about investigations. (!!!)
> 
> >
>  
> 
> >  It seems kinda ass-backwards for some law enforcement officials to take away the 5th Amendment for all US citizens because some citizens keep a collection of certain bits on the computers when there are cases of actual sexual abuse of children (again, under 18 years) within this country, not to mention other countries. Those US citizens who vote with their cable TV remotes and support taking away the 5th may not want to visit certain other countries. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent.
>  Look for the big black spot on the map. 
> 
> >
>  
> 
> >
>  4) Stupid border guards don't know the difference between child pornography and hentai.
> 
> >
>  
> 
> >
>  Extra bonus points for comments on the philosophical problems involved with enforcing pornography laws perceived with analog interfaces.
> 
> >
>  
> 
> > John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Politics mailing list
> Politics at brlug.net
> http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/politics_brlug.net



From johnalexhebert at gmail.com  Sun Feb  7 13:41:36 2010
From: johnalexhebert at gmail.com (John Hebert)
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:41:36 -0600
Subject: [brlug-poly] Politics Digest, Vol 8, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1265565605.6058.politics_brlug.net@brlug.net>
References: <mailman.3.1265565605.6058.politics_brlug.net@brlug.net>
Message-ID: <bef4c75c1002071141p4a49bd56sd63f60edae830809@mail.gmail.com>

>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 19:22:11 -0600
> From: Karthik Poobalasubramanian <karthik at poobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [brlug-poly] Police to get more access to your data?
> To: politics at brlug.net
> Message-ID: <E5C213EE-E7E2-4B19-8C99-7D79723F8FB9 at poobal.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi John,
> I should have quoted the point I was commenting about. :)
>
> <snip>
> "It seems kinda ass-backwards for some law enforcement officials to take
> away the 5th Amendment for all US citizens because some citizens keep a
> collection of certain bits on the computers when there are cases of actual
> sexual abuse of children (again, under 18 years) within this country, not to
> mention other countries."
> </snip>
> My understanding is except for few things like voting (some states do allow
> non-citizen permanent residents to vote for state elections), the Bill of
> Rights and the Constitution applies to all residents, US Citizens & Aliens
> alike as long as you on US Soil. I just wanted to bring that point into the
> discussion. Nothing more.
>

Yes, the 5th ("secure in one's own affairs") _currently_ does apply to all
citizens, but statement was made in the context that some law enforcement
officials and citizens believe that certain crimes such as child pornography
justify taking away the right to privacy.

IMO, there is never a legal, moral or ethical justification for taking away
the rights of all citizens because of the crimes of some citizens.

Also, I found a more concise workup of the case details written by Prof.
> Orin S. Kerr, The George Washington Law School.
> http://volokh.com/posts/1197670606.shtml


I will read up on this soon and respond.

Thanks!

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.brlug.net/pipermail/politics_brlug.net/attachments/20100207/c1baf49b/attachment.html