Congress vs. the Trolls....

Kris Weberg | January 9, 2006
Congress just passed, and the President just signed, a law barring any anonymous e-mail or web posting done with "intent to annoy." Really.

(link)

Can anyone explain how this is:

a) Practicably enforceable, given the vast volume of traffic on the Web and so on?

b) Not going to be abused by every online control-freak or arsehole with a grudge?

Scott Hardie | January 10, 2006
Interesting. Anything that shuts down Something Awful is ok in my book. But seriously, I doubt it will (could) be enforced, and if ever applied it would probably lose on first amendment grounds. On the other hand, it seems to be daily now that I can tick off the signs of our government's gradual shift into Soviet-style oppression of civil liberties; besides this issue, just today I read that your private mail can now be opened and read. (link) At what point did liberty stop being one of our supreme values as a nation?

Erik Bates | January 10, 2006
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | January 10, 2006
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin

Steve Dunn | January 10, 2006
As I understand it, the new law amends a 1934 telecommunications act that applied exclusively to telephones so that it now also applies to the internet, specifically VOIP. Rather than being a new infringement on liberty, it apparently just brings a 70 year-old law up to date with technology. Regardless, the First Amendment still applies, so any "annoying" communications not meeting the narrow exceptions to the First Amendment freedom of speech would still be protected.

Speaking of VOIP, I got Vonage several months ago and it's one of the best things I've ever done. I highly recommend VOIP. It's far more useful and flexible than ordinary phone service, and much less expensive. That's a good combo.

Kris Weberg | January 10, 2006
True, though I think there's a strong argument that the Web's norms ought to resemble those of print media more than those of phone conversation. An online post, something specifically mentioned in this law, isn't really much like a phone call -- it's somewhat closer, conceptually, to a flyer on a post office wall or a pamphlet stuck under a car window.

I wonder if the basically misguided premises of laws like these aren't the result of a legislature whose members are, with no insult intended, simply a generation removed from the tech revolution in general. They're applying inappropriate standards to the Internet because, I think, they don't quite "get it."

Amy Austin | January 11, 2006
I think that's quite possible, too, Kris. A very reasonable observation.

And Steve... a friend of mine has had Vonage for about a year now -- something that I was definitely considering, but with our cell phones and cable internet we have no need for a "land line" (even if VOIP). I think it's great, too, for all the reasons you mention, however... the one thing I have always disliked about calls with her is the amount of strange interferences and voice feedback that is frequently experienced. Of course, I've also experienced some feedback on calls with my folks, who (as far as I know) have a standard phone service -- the problem could be on my end of things with a cell phone. I think I will have to ask them now what service they are using.

Steve Dunn | January 11, 2006
Kris, I agree with you regarding internet postings. I just don't get the impression the new law is intended to cover the written word. I've gotten the impression that it's intended to make sure the existing law regarding telephone communications also applies to VOIP.

If they start throwing people in jail for Usenet postings that are arbitrarily labeled as "annoying," I promise I'll stand beside you in the street and throw rocks.

Amy, I've noticed the weird sound on the Vonage line, but I'm fine with it just because it is SO cheap. We were going to bail completely on the land line, but that number is associated with so many things (various financial institutions, government agencies, even the pizaa delivery place). Vonage was a nice way to keep the longstanding number at a very low cost.

Steve Dunn | January 11, 2006
Then again, on the other hand, Eugene Volokh, a law professor who knows exactly what the hell he's talking about, thinks we need to be concerned about this new law. Check here: (link)

Looks like we'll be in the streets sooner than I thought, Kris. Have you got the rocks, or do I need to bring some?

Amy Austin | January 11, 2006
Haha... that last post about having the rocks reads kind of funny without the one before it. ;-D

Steve, I agree that the nuisance of strange sounds are worth the flat rate long distance... especially if you tend to make a lot of long distance calls, like my family. (Just so you know, though, it's probably heard more often by those you're talking to than you yourself -- that's been my experience, anyway...) If I had to have a land line (a distinct possibility if we had bought our house on the other end of town, where our cell coverage seems to drop off), then this definitely would have been the route I chose. And having just changed our numbers to accomodate free calls from Iraq, I do understand what an inconvenience it is to have a longstanding number that you don't want to part with. But, when faced with paying for calls from Iraq or changing our number, I think the choice is quite clear. ;-DDD

Aaron Shurtleff | January 11, 2006
I hate to be that person, but I'm going to have to be, apparently. What exactly are you people writing in letters that you are so concerned that the government might be reading them? From the article, it only seems to be letters sent to or from overseas, so that doesn't apply to a lot of personal mail (or not a lot of mine, at least). The article also says nothing about when it came about that Customs officials started opening letters. Could this pre-date 9/11? Call me naive (and I'm sure someone will) but given the extreme paucity of information, this is much ado about nothing. Is there more information out there? Am I missing something? Is this one of those mysterious "Ah! But it's what you DON'T know!!!" paranoid reactions?

Aaron Shurtleff | January 11, 2006
And it is OK with me if the government wants to read my mail, I've got nothing to hide.

Amy Austin | January 11, 2006
Just because I've got nothing to hide, as well, doesn't mean that I want Big Brother reading my mail. It's a principle, Aaron -- I can't believe you don't see that. So you think you've got nothing to hide, huh? Well, what if you happened to have an overseas pen pal... and in your correspondence with this person, you happened to make a joke that some government official read (and we all know how bright bureaucrats can be) and took all wrong/out of context, and suddenly you're being surveilled or even pulled into some office for questioning! It's this same sort of subjectivity that started McCarthyism, and it really is that simple!! This is a backwards move for a country that believes in liberty and personal freedom.

And besides... if I were a terrorist in written communication with my overseas brethren, don't you think that's got to be the *least effective* means to plan something?!!! I mean, the time it would take just seems very inefficient. Even if they've got nothing but time on their hands to plan (and apparently, many do), don't you think that I could write in such a way that the real message would be encrypted? This would mean that many or all of my written communications would need to be scrutinized to determine that I am a threat to the country -- therefore, I don't even have to be suspect for my privacy to be totally invaded. Can you not see how this is just the first step toward being asked, "Papers, Comrade?"??? (And I'm talking about opening mail and monitoring communications here, not a simple change in the text of laws meant to protect against harrassment/stalking.)

Aaron Shurtleff | January 11, 2006
Well, in response to your what if, I could pose this one: What if, after a suicide bombing, let's say, they find, in the personal effects of one of the bombers, letters between him and someone overseas that showed that they had been plotting the bombing which had just been done? Would you say to yourself, "Darn! We might have stopped this, but, oh, well. At least John Q. Public can safely correspond with his penpal overseas, secure that he can say whatever he wants and no one will read his mail."? I mean, I'm not so dense that I can't see your point, but, just like my scenario, it's just a possibility. Reading mail might lead to "Papers, Comrade", but it might not. Reading overseas letters might stop the next 9/11, but it might not. There's no way to know what will happen until it happens.

Besides, if the uproar causes the Customs office to back off and publicly say they won't read mail anymore, why wouldn't terrorists start planning by mail. It might be slow, but if they know Customs isn't reading mail...

As far as written encryptions, aren't a lot of the phone messages that are intercepted encoded as well? I doubt terrorists are actually saying over the phone straight out what their plans are!

I guess my biggest problem is that it seems like everyone is so quick to assume that this will immediately become the slide towards Communism. It's similar to (and I can't believe I'm typing this) how people are afraid to ban the most absolutely horrific and senseless forms of abortion, for fear that as soon as they do, all abortions will become illegal. Is there really no middle ground?

I totally blame W! He has killed everyone's faith in the government! It's kinda ironic that a man who claims to be a man of faith has killed everyone else's faith in himself, his administration...hell, pretty much the whole Republican party!

Amy Austin | January 12, 2006
I see your point as well, but...

Reading overseas letters might stop the next 9/11, but it might not.

This is exactly true, and there is no such thing as an "immediate" slide towards Communism -- it's always gradual. Hitler didn't eradicate millions of Jews overnight... there was a lot of sociopolitical grooming that led up to that -- a lot of countrymen putting "faith" in their leader, in his administration, in a political party.

If you can't see how such a small and seemingly innocuous encroachment on civil liberty can begin to foster an environment of tolerance for the increasing, but subtle, removal of that which defines us as a democracy, then here's an interesting link for you: (link) (It's a bit long, but well worth the read, I think...)

I maintain that the "slippery slope" of risking greater losses to our freedom definitely outweighs the possibility -- whether great or minute -- of such furtive methods preventing "another 9/11"... and I wholly agree with the quote that Kris mentioned above. To be more specific: They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Emphasis added, of course.)

Kris Weberg | January 12, 2006
Aaron -- public policy based on public panic is pretty much NEVER a good idea. Nor are policies in which unprecedented intrusions into privacy are justified by "what if" scenarios.

Scott Hardie | January 13, 2006
The government opening and reading the mail of its private citizens is a hallmark of a police state, not a free nation. Same goes for national id cards. Are Muslims going to be required to wear an armband with a star & crescent on it? I'm not going to make a case for the immorality of it, partly because that's been well-argued already and partly because I think that's self-evident, but I will point out that it's creepy and un-American.

Aaron Shurtleff | January 13, 2006
Sorry. It took me this long to get through the link, which is why I haven't been back. That was pretty darn thought-provoking.

Well, then, I confess I can't disagree with any of that. But, now, if I may, I posit what, to me, is the next logical step in the train of thought: What can we do? (By "we", I of course mean we as a society, not necessarily just we people at TC). I mean, OK, here we are, at this point in history, and I, personally, am not feeling especially secure. How would any of you suggest we go about shoring up domestic security, but do it in such a way that no one's essential liberties are taken away? It seems to be quite a difficult proposition, but maybe that's just me being uneducated. Well, TC, educate me! :)

Kris Weberg | January 14, 2006
I'm sorry you don't feel secure. I'm not sure why your feeling of unease means that the President should be allowed to authorize illegal phone taps and surveillance of citizens without evidence.

The government has yet to institute perfectly legal, existing-statute-mandated manual searches of .all incoming cargo. They haven't spent the money on border security they ought to, They haven't aggressively enforced laws related to all sorts of international shipping programs, laws that are perfectly Constitutional but would cost tax money and disgruntle businessmen.

Instead, they're tappiung phones and reading mail, illegally, unConstitutionally, and rather creepily. That makes ME feel insecure right there.

Terrorists might kill me someday. Bad thing. But you know, I might be hit by a car. I might trip on the stairs and break my neck. I might be mugged by some first-time criminal out for drug money whom the police have never heard of. And my government might decide I need to be spied upon because my mom makes overseas calls to her relatives in India, which has a sizeable Muslim population.

I don't want ANY of those things to happen. NONE of them make me more secure.

Actually, given that they aren't presenting any evidence, how do we know they're tapping the right phones or reading the right mail? Maybe they're just wasting time and attention that could be used to make us genuinely more secure.

Kris Weberg | January 17, 2006
Well, here's a shocker -- apparently warrantless wiretapping doesn't help much after all:

(link)

In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

Jackie Mason | January 19, 2006
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | January 19, 2006
If we can't trust Dick Cheney, who can we trust?

Kris Weberg | January 19, 2006
Whether we believe the government does things like this without our knowledge, once we know for sure that something questionable is going on, we as citizens can demand that it be stopped.

Knowledge is potential action; mere suspicion is not, unless you're...well, the government.

Amy Austin | January 19, 2006
Aaron, I wish I had some satisfactory answer to give you... unfortunately, it's much simpler to bitch and whine on an Internet forum like TC than it is to effect actual change -- one reason that it's good *not* to be the king (or President). But I'd like to think that there is actually some good in that... for instance, by provoking you into thought about the above. If what I or anyone else here says causes you to give pause to the attitude that it's okay for the government to infringe on civil liberties "as long as they have a good reason" -- then I think that's a change for the better. Sort of a "think globally, act locally" attitude.

Once upon a time, in my more idealistic college youthfulness, I would have said that the way to implement change is TO VOTE!!! But now, I'm not so sure. I think I have more respect now for the ability of "the people" to put public pressure on its offices than to elect them... which is kind of sad, but understandable -- after all, not many folks lack good judgment in hindsight and even fewer are truly visionaries when it comes to sociopolitics. (I am speaking of both the voting public and those who run for office.) When all is said and done, it's obviously much easier to criticize the current plan than to come up with a better solution. But knowing what *isn't* an acceptable plan is half the battle, and that's the point in this particular case.

And Kris brought up some excellent points about our shipping policies -- it's just another example of how "money is power"... the Homeland folks would rather give us private citizens a shakedown at the airport and inconvenience *us* for an hour or two than to rattle the moneymakers. He's right -- it would cost money and "disgruntle businessmen"... so instead they turn to the easier/cheaper (but less effective) solutions like making us all take off our shoes and tapping our phones. It's human nature (and definitely government's) to pick the path of least resistance and to favor the short-term return over the long. But it ought to be the Long Haul that the government is paying attention to.

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -- Samuel Adams

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness Positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. -- Thomas Paine

Jackie Mason | January 22, 2006
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | January 22, 2006
Call me a crazy idealist, but I'd liek a government that does neither and instead focuses in intelligence on Al Quaeda, the specific terror network with strong ties to Saudi Arabian anit-government sentiment and Pakistani tribal regions, the one that was actually responsible for the attack on 9/11.

Notice that those countries and goals I mentioned are neither in America nor in Iraq. Notice also that nowehere does the abrogation of Constitutional rights enter into it.

I'd also like a government that is realistic about how to stop terrorists from entering the country and carrying out attacks, by doing things like scanning air and ship cargo, and enforcing not just illegal immigration laws but also those laws that allow prosecution of any business that hires illegal immigrants, allows illegal immigrants to take flight school lessons without looking to hard at them, etc. Those, not evil American Talibanists, were the people HERE who helped create the situation that enabled the 9/11 attacks. And I can just about fucking guarantee that those folks weren't on the phone to Afghanistan.

Amy Austin | January 22, 2006
Kris -- you crazy idealist, you -- I agree with you 100%. ;-)

Jackie Mason | January 22, 2006
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | January 23, 2006
The problem, Jackie, is that the same rights that are being violated here are so basic that the ramifications can turn ugly very quickly.

For instance, warrants for wiretaps are the result of a 4th amendment issue; the warrant means that the court reviewed some kind of evidence and permitted the taps. In fact, the warrants the administration asn't bothered to get, thanks to the Foreign Intelligence Services Act, allow you to tap for 72 hours -- 3 days -- with no warrant, and to use that stuff as evidence FOR the warrant.

They can't even be bothered to do that. Even with a head start of 3 days and a top-secret court whose records have to be declassified before anyone can see them, they can't be bothered with the law.


Which tells me they don't care much about the law. It tells me that they believe that the 4th amendment can be suspended by the President in any national emergency or during a military action overseas. Considering that the 4th amendment also covers physical searches, and that it's no less meaningful than other amendments...well, wouldn't you rather stop the potential damage now, when it's just a useless record about your fiance agreeing to buy milk?

Because if these guys, or some future, corrupt administration can cite precedent for the President's bendy-twisty game with an already-stretched Bill of Rights, odds are you'll have already been deprived of the means to fight back.

Aaron Shurtleff | January 24, 2006
As a person who works in the agricultural industry, I say that getting rid of illegal immigrants (while I agree would be great and for the best for this country) isn't going to happen, and I don't care WHO is in office and what their political affiliations are. If they even tried, the price of produce would shoot up like a rocket (since illegal immigrants are paid like shit, replacing them with people who would get the minimum wage would cost a lot, and that would passed on to the consumers). And that's just one aspect, I'm sure that there are others that I couldn't even begin to come up with.

And I also have to say that I am slightly uncomfortable with the idea that what is being done now is "OK" or "not so bad" because worse things have been done in the past.