From: "Sally Richards" <Sally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 18, 2004 11:21:20 AM PDT
To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:
Reply-To: Sally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
TERROR OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL? No, just Bush Demokracy in action....
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:21:20 -0700
Hi Dewayne - I had a few (okay, a LOT of) comments regarding the
terror on
Internet protocol email.
Terror
Rumsfeld’s favorite word (You'd think he was writing B-movie
collateral the way he throws that word around) – “War on terror,”
that's
what we continue to hear. Terror
what happened on 9/11 was terror. What
has happened since that time (and of our own government’s doing) is par
for the course with this Bush administration. It is a slippery slope
and
we have begun the descent...our technology and freedom have begun the
descent.
This thought that we have any freedoms left is a rather Pollyanna (and
you
know what happened to Pollyanna...). And the only time in hell the FCC
knew anything about technology was when Farber was there – and nobody
wanted to listen to him. Using "terror" as a tool to put more security
constraints on technology is what terrorizes me. The FCC has become a
joke; a big laugh at future technology’s expense. I have it on good
authority that Michael Powell has set his sites on governing the
Internet
and bringing it under the umbrella of his (archaic) jurisdiction. What
makes anyone think that the Patriot Act shield (or any number of other
"terrorist" acts in use or soon to be created for such purposes) would
exclude VoIP, or any other freedoms we "appear" to have regarding the
Internet? And does anyone really believe that ICANN duties will be
handed
over to an international governance w/o the FCC getting involved at the
11th hour? I asked this to the president of ICANN during a tele-press
conference and was met with a quick and definite statement that he had
heard nothing regarding the FCC’s plans.
To think there will be such an exclusion of any part of free speech or
private communication enabled by technology in this administration (or
herein out) is based in ignorance of the issues and not understanding
what
is currently being shoved through congress by the Right Hand of God,
otherwise known as George W. Bush's hand that answers his phone and
pushes
his mouse. Personally, I think he should be able to write 500 lines of
code that actually do something before he can comment on the Internet
(at
least he knows how to pronounce it, I'll give him that much credit).
Bush and Rumsfeld are one thing, but what happens when some of the
brightest our own kind begin looking for solutions for containing
technology? I have the utmost respect for DARPA and its past
accomplishments, but do keep an eye on DARPA for non-commercial
products
regarding Internet surveillance currently being discussed. And as much
as
I hate to say it, the DAR in DARPA now stands for Donald As-I-want-it
Rumsfeld. I cannot help but think that Licklider would be rolling his
eyes
and shaking his head at what we’ve become. And to think...if only ATT
had
purchased the "Internet" from ARPA when Larry and Len first went to
them
all of those years ago
. It would be much easier now for Rumsfeld to use
the Patriot Act gun (that weapon currently being used to blast holes in
our constitutional rights) once with ATT instead of having to deal with
all of those ISPs and the "unnecessary" press regarding them having a
problem with handing over our information and granting email and VIOP
"wiretaps."
How much of a fight do you think ATT is actually putting up about
giving
up your privacy (ask yourself that question when you've become their
client and your junk mail and solicitor calls go up exponentially -
even
though you've asked them to keep your info private - been there, done
that) with just a flash of the metaphoric Patriot Act badge? So, you've
got Rumsfeld and Bush in one corner shoving the Constitution in the
shredder and the FCC in the other corner with a stranglehold not only
on
the companies who have to crawl to it for licensing (and the FCC has a
very long memory), but also on the press - many news organizations are
members of media conglomerates that are up for licensing consideration.
There has been a chilling affect on many when it comes to doing the
right
thing, and it's not because they don't have an opinion. Is this fear of
speaking out causing the media to fold in? I have a brief and candid
interview with an executive member of the FCC staff whom I posed that
question to during a break at last year’s NAB conference. I will be
releasing that statement in the near future; I think the time is ripe
for
such candor. Stay tuned.
BTW, for those of you who aren't fighting the good fight in some way -
you
will have to explain to your children and children's children why you
let
our civil liberties slip away without a fight. If you have no
involvement,
you might want to consider contributing to the EFF http://eff.org and
the
ACLU http://aclu.org and let someone else do the fighting for you.
As technologists, there is a responsibility to protect the technology
you’ve created. To nurture it and see where it goes. And also to
self-regulate the amount of government interference you will allow.
Yes,
as technologists, you still have the power to create a better mousetrap
and distribute it to the public (thank you Phil Zimmerman -
http://www.philzimmermann.com for showing us this). I bet you never
thought in a million years when you were getting your EE (or whatever
brought you to the table) that one of the biggest future problems
facing
us would be protecting the growth of technology and the freedom it
allows.
Essentially, we are feeding the government tax dollars and technology
to
protect us from ourselves.
I am putting together a public forum in Palo Alto (we are planning on
having it at Stanford, but have to work out the details) regarding
privacy, civil liberties and Homeland Security in November (much larger
than the one I held in the Border's courtyard in Palo Alto in 2002).
Please contact me if you wish to submit an abstract, or wish to be put
on
the mailing list. Also, if you have a disruptive technology that
protects
privacy and passes due diligence, I will be putting together a panel of
high-profile VCs, who are concerned about the issues, to hear you out
during a private VC-only qualified session.<<
I also invite all of you to visit the FCC website
http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html to see what other pies it has its
fingers
in. There's a big reason why they lost Dave Farber, and it wasn't
because
they knew what they were doing.
Of great interest regarding this original story (that started me off on
this tangent) is this quote pulled from the article originally
mentioned
in the email below:
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Parsky if investigators had ever been
hampered in their efforts to track the Internet communications of
criminals. Parsky offered no specific examples.
"You are now looking for a solution for a problem that has not been
documented," Wyden said.
_______________________________________
Where have we heard this before? What ever happened to good ol' fashion
subpoenas? Bush democracy (demokracy) in action. That somewhat sums of
privacy and civil liberties these days. It's obviously time for a
change
of wind. Perhaps it’s time to think about the future, or bend your
technology-wise butt over the Patriot Act log of submission. Take into
consideration that I myself am an official member of the "red bin"
club,
you know...that SSSS on the bottom of your boarding pass that allows
for
"random" bodily search and seizures. Where you're taken aside and
given a
red bin to dump all your personal belongings for hand search and you’re
personally pawed over by an agent of our government with a metal
detector
wand. That search is not so random for some of us
. I was talking to John
Gilmore at a party the other evening -- at least they only detain him
when
he’s wearing his “Suspected terrorist” pin (I tend to leave mine at
home
when traveling), or not producing an ID.
Expect Rumsfeld ( http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html - they
forgot to mention the fact that he is the man who brought us aspartame
when he was CEO of Searle and a few of his previous “Fortune 500”
adventures) ramifications when you speak out, but it's nice to know
that
he's not the only one who can have lists. He does make my Top 10 of
"Most
influential people who will turn the Constitution into worthless
confetti"
list.
If you haven’t already, please leaf through the Army-McCarthy hearing
transcripts. What some of you may, or may not, know is that although
many
of those interrogations were held during public hearings and some were
even televised – 395 Americans were interrogated in private – facing
McCarthy and his staff alone regarding their alleged involvement in
communist activities. Sounding familiar?
"By providing broad public access to the transcripts of this era, we
hope
that the excesses of McCarthyism will serve as a cautionary tale for
future generations," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, of the
transcripts
upon their release. “And by making these transcripts [available] - not
just to scholars who go to the archives, but to everyone who wishes to
see
them - we hope to further educate the young people of today about this
very unfortunate chapter in American history."
It’s not just the young people. How old is Rumsfeld? You don't take
away
liberties to ensure them. I personally know about someone who never
recovered from his imprisonment because of refusing to give up the
“goods”
on his friends and name names. Not that he knew of any “communists,”
McCarthy was just looking to force people to give him more and more
names.
It was a witch hunt with a wide net. I did a great deal of research
into
Dashiell Hammett’s (PI, writer) life and tracked down the woman he was
seeing at the time he became very ill. He was just starting to pick up
momentum in his career again when he was jailed for his silence – his
tuberculosis returned because of the poor conditions in the prison and
his
health went downhill quickly. He died from those complications. It’s
stories like this that make me wonder how many lives are being ruined
because of the complete disregard for habeas corpus at Guantanamo. How
many people have lost their jobs, their homes, had their family abandon
them, spent all of their assets on legal resources? How many? If there
was
a court of humanity Bush wouldn’t be available for a second term.
We can learn from the past. I wish I could force Rumsfeld to read those
transcripts (I would say Bush, too, but I have a feeling the spaghetti
wouldn’t stick to the wall on that one). I can’t make Rumsfeld read the
transcripts, all I can do is make you aware of them. Those people were
just people caught in circumstances well beyond their control. Many of
them were blacklisted from their professions. Many lives and future
intellectual property met a tragic end. They were, for the most part,
highly creative people trying to make the world a more interesting
place.
Intellectuals who were suspect by the nature of their very being. I
imagine many of these creative people were very much like you. Imagine
yourself in the wrong place and time. Go, download, read --
http://www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate12cp107.html
Okay, I’ll climb off my soapbox and ask you to review the facts. Follow
the results of the senate discussion mentioned in the original email. I
find the whole thing very suspect – a token to the democrats at best.
Why
do they need a hearing when they have the Patriot Act? I’m too cynical
to
take the discussions as a positive sign. Let’s just wait and see where
the
concerns end up. And what good does it do if no one knows what they’re
talking about in the discussion? Brad Templeton pointed out some
interesting things regarding the facts in his latest posting.
Anyhow, I’m finally circling back around and trying to gather up this
wide
net of diatribe -- this was meant to be only a suggestion to you to
protect the technology you’ve created and (I hope) will continue to
create
in the face of adversity. Create, vote, speak out (loudly).
Keep fighting the good fight.
Cheers,
Sally
Sally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---------- Original Message -----------
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Dewayne-Net Technology List" <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:29:36 -0700
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] TERROR OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL?
TERROR OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL?
A senior Justice Department official has told a Senate committee
That law enforcement faces new threats from Internet-based telephone
services, and warned that legislative efforts to deregulate VoIP (Voice
over Internet Protocol) services could undermine the ability of law
enforcement officials to investigate criminal or terrorist activity.
The
Justice Department has asked the FCC to require Internet phone
companies
to design electronic conduits in their networks that would make it
easier
to tap conversations.
James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology says that a
better approach would be for investigators to work cooperatively with
Internet phone providers. (Washington Post 16 Jun 2004)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47882-2004Jun16.html>