Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

A Polite Message from the Surveillance State

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted January 29, 2008.


If only the government would warn you when it was recording your conversations, like Google.
Advertisement

Say what you want about Google being an evil corporate overlord that steals all of your private data, turns it into info-mulch, and then injects it into the technoslaves to keep them drugged and helpless. There are still some good things about the company. For example, Google's IM program, Google Talk, sends you a warning message alerting you when the person on the other end of your chat is recording your chat session.

Just the other day I was chatting with somebody about something slightly personal and noticed that she'd suddenly turned on Record for our chat. I knew everything I was saying was being logged and filed in her Gmail. In this case I wasn't too concerned. For one thing, I wasn't saying anything I'd regret seeing in print. I'm used to the idea that anything I say on chat might be recorded and logged.

What was different about this experience was that Google warned me first -- told me point-blank that I was basically under surveillance from the Google server, which would automatically log and save that conversation. I appreciated that. It meant I could opt out of the conversation and preserve my privacy. It also meant that other people using Gtalk, who might not have had the expectation that all of their chat sessions might be recorded, would be enlightened.

It also reminded me forcefully that Google is a far more polite and privacy-concerned evil overlord than the United States government.

Right now members of Congress are trying to pass a law that would grant immunity to large telcos like AT&T that have been spying on their customers' private phone conversations and passing along what they've learned to the National Security Agency. The law, called the Protect America Act, would allow telephone and Internet providers to hand over all private data on their networks to the government -- without notifying their customers and without any court supervision of what amounts to mass wiretapping.

Last year the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued AT&T for violating the Fourth Amendment when a whistle-blower at AT&T revealed that the company was handing over private information to the NSA without warrants. That case has been working its way through the courts, and making some headway; in fact, it was starting to look like AT&T would be forced to pay damages to its customers for violating their rights. But the Protect America Act would stop this court case in its tracks by granting retroactive immunity to AT&T and any other company that spied on people for the NSA without warrants.

The whole situation is insane. First, it's outrageous that telcos would illegally hand over their private customer data to the government. And second, it's even more outrageous that when its scheme was discovered, the government tried to pass a law making it retroactively legal for AT&T to have broken one of the most fundamental of our civil rights: protection of our private data from the government.

Imagine what would happen if the phone and Internet systems in our country had the same warnings on them that Gtalk has. Every time you picked up the phone to make a call or logged on to the Internet, you'd get a helpful little message: "Warning: the government is recording everything that you are saying and doing right now." Holy crap.

The good news is that it's not too late. The Protect America Act must pass both houses of Congress to become law, so you can still alert your local congress critters in the House that you don't want retroactive immunity for telcos that are logging your private conversations for the NSA. Find out more at stopthespying.org.

And remember, everything you say and do is being logged. This polite message has been brought to you by the surveillance state.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: google, government, surveillance

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who yells "Fuck you!" into her phone as often as she can -- you know, just to let the NSA know how she really feels.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Jan 29, 2008 6:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine if everyone took the time to familiarize themselves with the issues, choose the best alternative and then vote on it.

Wouldn't that be GREAT?

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Retroactive law?
Posted by: aethr on Jan 29, 2008 9:45 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But the Protect America Act would stop this court case in its tracks by granting retroactive immunity to AT&T and any other company that spied on people for the NSA without warrants."

So that clause in the Constitution that says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" no longer has any meaning, or is it just the "ex post facto" part that's invalid?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» umm... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: etroactive law? Posted by: Romantic Violence
Presidential Candidate Voting Records
Posted by: heathehren on Jan 29, 2008 10:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama, Hillary, and Edwards have voted for the Patriot Act, and the Real ID Act. Only Edwards now says he opposes the Real ID.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Starting To Get That Creepy Feeling Yet?
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 30, 2008 2:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I'm not a geek, I've always been an early adopter and technology friendly, but some of the crap coming to the net is really starting to give me the creeps. I do not want anyone to know every last friggin' detail of my life--especially not a for-profit company.

Somewhere George Orwell is spinning in his grave like a washing machine, wondering when we will all wake up. Every technology necessary for 1984 is now commonplace or will be very soon. We also now have a government run by creeps who think you have little to no right to privacy and a whole industry determined to mine every last detail of your life so it can be packaged and sold like Coca Cola.

BTW- all the new Passports issued by the State Department contain RFID chips. Any enemy geek wanting to target Americans could easily mark you with your Passport. How's that for enhanced security?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

False hope
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 30, 2008 11:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The good news is that it's not too late. The Protect America Act must pass both houses of Congress to become law, so you can still alert your local congress critters in the House that you don't want retroactive immunity for telcos that are logging your private conversations for the NSA.

This sort of logic in the face of the past eight years of voting records in Congress is a false hope. And it has to stop.

The evidence shows congress critters don't give a shit what we think, only the lobbyist who sends them skiing or tanning or helps them buy their tenth unsustainable house. The only hope is outright revolt.

...or petrocollapse. I plan on laughing my ass off when all the monieds have to hire blackwater to protect their Walmart-by-SUV excursions. I'll have stones for sale, cheap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: False hope Posted by: Romantic Violence
Record this...
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Jan 30, 2008 8:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I am an anarchist in a broken system that's failing miserably, to extinction, in fact. Should I be ashamed of being a radical in the context of abject failure? I'm not.

Quite the opposite. I proudly oppose the incumbent outlaw regime that has usurped the US government. I WON"T pay taxes to a government that puts people in jail for growing their own safe and effective herbal therapeutic, I have grown marijuana, publicly, openly, for the past sixteen years, as part of my individual spiritual expression of Article One.

Is there anything else that the government would like to know about me? I truly don't care. Go ahead and bust me.

We have nothing to fear but the atmosphere itself, so go ahead and bug my phone, tap my computer and go f**k yourself if you think I'm going to worry about some a**hole snooping into what I think.

Jeez, George, get a life. If we don't plant hemp this spring, in spite of everything we know about Cannabis and all the benefits it provides, then we have much more to worry about than just global warming -- it's called economic intransigence, and it will kill us a lot sooner than climate change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Got the important part out front:
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 31, 2008 11:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm used to the idea that anything I say on chat might be recorded and logged.

Except I'd add that you should have no expectation of privacy what so ever when you log on to the internet, no matter how good your router and firewall are, no matter how paranoidly (no problem making up words here) you encrypt your bits and bytes. They are still a stream of 1's and 0's, and someone somewhere will have the ability to turn those one's and zero's back into chunks of higher ordered information.

Having said that, we should not have to worry that a government of the people, by the people, for the people should be allowed to park itself on our desktops, or in our earpieces.

I believe the first and fourth amendments to the U.S. Constitution tell us we have a right to free expression, and an expectation that our government can not impose itself into our homes without cause to monitor that expression.

-----snip-----Few provisions of the Bill of Rights grew so directly out of the experience of the colonials as the Fourth Amendment, embodying as it did the protection against the utilization of the ''writs of assistance.'' But while the insistence on freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as a fundamental right gained expression in the Colonies late and as a result of experience, 1 there was also a rich English experience to draw on. ''Every man's house is his castle'' was a maxim much celebrated in England, as was demonstrated in Semayne's Case, decided in 1603. 2 A civil case of execution of process, Semayne's Case nonetheless recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the King's agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute the King's process. Most famous of the English cases was Entick v. Carrington, 3 one of a series of civil actions against state officers who, pursuant to general warrants, had raided many homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes' polemical pamphlets attacking not only governmental policies but the King himself. 4


Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken into his house, broken into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts, pamphlets and the like. In an opinion sweeping in terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized subversive ''of all the comforts of society,'' and the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a person's papers rather than only those alleged to be criminal in nature ''contrary to the genius of the law of England.'' 5 Besides its general character, said the court, the warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. Entick v. Carrington, the Supreme Court has said, is a ''great judgment,'' ''one of the landmarks of English liberty,'' ''one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution,'' and a guide to an understanding of what the Framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment. 6


In the colonies, smuggling rather than seditious libel afforded the leading examples of the necessity for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to enforce the revenue laws, English authorities made use of writs of assistance, which were general warrants authorizing the bearer to enter any house or other place to search for and seize ''prohibited and uncustomed'' goods, and commanding all subjects to assist in these endeavors. The writs once issued remained in force throughout the lifetime of the sovereign and six months thereafter...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I assume I am being spied upon
Posted by: donnambirdlady on Jan 31, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe it seems paranoid but I noticed that certain of my e-mails routinely take a couple of days or more to reach me. This includes most of my United Nations news stories, which I subscribe to via United Nations News service. I assume they are held up while someone checks to see what I am getting from the UN who then releases the messages once they are finished.

I also assume that phone calls are no longer strictly private.

I am not involved in anything which should concern anyone, I just think we have a paranoid Government that spies on everybody.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't expect the gun toters to fight against over-surveillance.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 31, 2008 8:01 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they cared about freedom as they claim they do, they wouldn't be worried only about "losing" their guns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]