Information Technology Judiciary

[Nick Thompson]

Glen,

WHOA!

Or is that "WO!"

Or perhaps "WOE!"

I COMMENT BELOW IN CAPS TO DISTINGUISH MY COMMENTS FROM THE ORIGINAL TEXT.
I PROMISE i AM NOT SHOUTING. REALLY! THIS IS >>>>>SHOUTING<<<<<<<<.

Glen--I disagree. In fact, I think Nick's equation of expressing one's
political/ideological views with flatulence demonstrates Nick's egotism.
Not everyone thinks their opinions are purely factual, as apparently
Nick does.

NICK DOES NOT THINK THIS.  ON THE CONTRARY.  SORRY TO HAVE LEFT THIS IMPRESSION.

Glen -- Experts have just as much gas as ordinary people. In fact,
most "experts" (particularly those who refer to themselves as "experts")
seem to have WAY more GAS than ordinary people.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE.

Glen--So, an IT-Judiciary would essentially be a bunch of pompous ... [cough]
... experts with more flatulence than a normal political/ideological
discussion amongst non-experts.

THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON TO COMMENT ON THIS IDEA SO FAR, AND .I WILL TAKE WHAT COMMENT I CAN GET.

BUT DON'T YOU AGREE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "OPINIONATING" AND "ARGUING", A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "TALK SHOW" DISCOURSE AND TOUGH BUT USEFUL DISAGREEMENT? PERHAPS NOT.

ONE POINT I WOULD HATE TO SEE LOST IN THE FLAMES HERE IS THAT THE LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS THAT PROTECT INDIVIDUAL CIVIL LIBERTIES MAY BE ILL SUITED TO THE AGE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. LET'S SAY THAT IN GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IT IS MENTIONED THAT MALCOLM WOMBLY IS MAKING METHANE BOMBS IN HIS BASEMENT. THE FBI WANTS TO MAKE WOMBLY A TARGET OF AN INVESTIGATION. IT GOES TO A JUDGE, THE JUDGE EVALUATES THE PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE AND MAY OR MAY NOT GRANT A WARRANT.

NOW LET'S TAKE ANOTHER CASE. THE CIA HEARS THAT PERHAPS A DIRTY BOMB IS BEING ASSEMBLED IN SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD FROM APPARENTLY INNOCENT MATERIALS BEING PURCHASED IN NEWARK, NEW JERSEY.   IT HAS NO IDEA WHO IS DOING IT, BUT KNOWS THAT ANYBODY WHO IS DOING IT MUST LEAVE A PARTICULAR COMMUNICATIONS "SIGNaTURE" BEHIND. THE CIA WANTS TO SEND A BOT LOOKING FOR THAT SIGNATURE, WHICH MIGHT REQUIRE "TAPPING" EVERY PHONE IN NEWARK IN A SINGLE DAY. UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY JUST DO IT, RIGHT, AND BUGGER CONGRESS. PERHAPS THAT;S OK. BUT HOW WOULD WE FEEL IF THE SIGNATURE WERE NOT BOMBMAKING BUT SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE ......"SOCIALISM" THAT THE BOT IS LOOKING FOR. WOULDN'T WE LIKE SPECIAL JUDICIARY, SOPHISTICATED BOTH IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND IN COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY WHOSE JOB IT WAS TO EVALUATE THE GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAMS OF INFORMATION GATHERING?

AND ISN'T THE FRIAM LIST PARTICULARLY QUALIFIED BY EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE, TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCUSSION OF THIS IDEA?   THAT IS ALL i WAS TRYING TO SAY.  

ALL THE BEST,

NICK


Nicholas S. Thompson
Research Associate, Redfish Group, Santa Fe, NM (nick at redfish.com)
Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthompson at clarku.edu)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070809/fa5182b7/attachment.html 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> NOW LET'S TAKE ANOTHER CASE. THE CIA HEARS THAT PERHAPS A DIRTY BOMB
> IS BEING ASSEMBLED IN SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD FROM APPARENTLY INNOCENT
> MATERIALS BEING PURCHASED IN NEWARK, NEW JERSEY.   IT HAS NO IDEA WHO
> IS DOING IT, BUT KNOWS THAT ANYBODY WHO IS DOING IT MUST LEAVE A
> PARTICULAR COMMUNICATIONS "SIGNaTURE" BEHIND. THE CIA WANTS TO SEND A
> BOT LOOKING FOR THAT SIGNATURE, WHICH MIGHT REQUIRE "TAPPING" EVERY
> PHONE IN NEWARK IN A SINGLE DAY.
What's the signature of a ssh-tunneled VOIP connection? Oh wait it's a
encrypted channel that looks to a network protocol analyzer like any
other one.    There is no signature.   In one of those Afghanistan camps
they couldn't spend a few minutes to teach their buddies in martyrdom
how to do a port forward?  (Or too busy on the jungle gym and praying
and all that?!)

What we should worry about is being pressured into accepting far more
prescriptive measures.    The gist of it will be to make everything
illegal and only opening up special use cases one at a time, e.g. using
the internet to pay creditors, go shopping, and take instructions from
your employer.  

As for data mining of essentially public transaction records (they are
for sale), there may be some birds eye view of international social
networks that is useful for intelligence analysts to have, but it's not
a wiretap.

> WOULDN'T WE LIKE SPECIAL JUDICIARY, SOPHISTICATED BOTH IN
> CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND IN COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY WHOSE JOB IT WAS TO
> EVALUATE THE GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAMS OF INFORMATION GATHERING?
If the NSA spooks developed a quantum code breaking technology, you
seriously think that information would ever find its way to a
judiciary?  Short of that, ubiquitous encryption technology will prevent
information gathering efforts from accomplishing much.    It would just
be another redundant government organization to pacify confused citizens
with lip service.

[glen ep ropella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> NICK DOES NOT THINK THIS.  ON THE CONTRARY.  SORRY TO HAVE LEFT THIS
>  IMPRESSION.

Whew!  I'm glad of that.

> BUT DON'T YOU AGREE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "OPINIONATING" AND
>  "ARGUING", A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "TALK SHOW" DISCOURSE AND TOUGH BUT
>  USEFUL DISAGREEMENT? PERHAPS NOT.

No.  I _do_ see a distinction between the participants, though.
Thoughtful, contemplative people (TCP) versus knee-jerk, always running
off at the mouth people (KAROM).  I usually have very good arguments
with TCP regardless of the subject.  A group of TCP can cover any topic
quite thoroughly including vague, ill-defined things like politics,
where a group of KAROM can't cover anything in any topic area.

So, what you're seeing is the difference between TCP (often made up of
lawyers when considering people like judges and congress) versus KAROM
when you walk in on a bunch of half-drunk liberals in a bar.  (Don't get
me wrong, I'm not generally a KAROM... but I play one frequently! ;-)

> ONE POINT I WOULD HATE TO SEE LOST IN THE FLAMES HERE IS THAT THE
> LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS THAT PROTECT INDIVIDUAL CIVIL LIBERTIES MAY BE
> ILL SUITED TO THE AGE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

I doubt it.  Technologists are prone to suggesting things like this.  We
(perhaps not you) are highly susceptible to the idea that technology can
fundamentally change the nature of human behavior and society.  And
there's not a lot of clear evidence that this is the case.  My skeptical
nature tells me that there is NO "age of IT".  Humans are just as we
were when we first started hoeing the dirt 6k years ago, perhaps even
before that.  The only difference is that we have softer skin and spend
way too much time staring at the bells and whistles on our artifacts.

Now what _does_ change is the concept of "civil liberties".  That's
such a vague and ill-defined thing that it changes from second
to second and from grid point to grid point.  What I think of as a civil
liberty here in my house on the river may be completely different from
what a New Yorker in her high-rise condo thinks.  For example, I'm not
at all comfortable with video cameras recording the traffic on the
public thoroughfare of the state-owned river.  Such a video camera is a
violation of privacy.  But, Sally the New Yorker might think video
cameras on the street corners are a public asset because it helps her
feel safe when she comes home late from work.  And the subjective nature
of concepts like "civil liberties" means that it's _always_ been and
always will be vague and ill-defined.

I.e. it's not the humans that have changed in the face of technology,
it's the technology that's changed.  Hence, human-centered civil
liberties are no more or less stable than they always have been.

Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> As for data mining of essentially public transaction records (they
> are for sale), there may be some birds eye view of international
> social networks that is useful for intelligence analysts to have, but
>  it's not a wiretap.

If "wiretap" is the technology that's changed, then laws (also a
technology) relating to wiretaps should change in a commensurate way.
But, Marcus is right in that what's being discussed is not really a
"wiretap".  In fact, the concept of a "wiretap" is pretty silly given
today's technology.  But that doesn't mean the gist of the laws circling
"wiretaps" are obsolete.  It just means that "wiretap" means more than
technology.  It means "listening in on a supposedly private conversation".

In my opinion, if we separate out e-mail, I think it's pretty silly for
anyone to think e-mail is _private_.  Hence wiretapping laws don't apply
to e-mail at all.  I tend to think anything I write in an e-mail that
isn't encrypted is public.... like talking in a crowded room or writing
a love letter on a postcard instead of using an envelope.  (Oh God how I
wish my clients would understand this point.)

A better concept of wiretapping with respect to e-mail would be
a government mandated back door to encryption algorithms.  As long as it
was encrypted, it would be considered private.  And a "wiretap" would be
the decryption (via the back door) of such private comm.

The same consideration can be given to calls made on a cell phone or
over VOIP.  Basically, any time the _medium_ is public, the unencrypted
traffic over that medium is also public.  And as long as you,
personally, have the capability, you have the right to listen in.  (e.g.
in a crowded room, you just need good ears; for cell phones, you just
need a receiver and the protocols)  Why would we require a government
agent to get a warrant for listening to a conversation in a public room?
 Of course this does have implications w.r.t. private corporations like
AT&T cooperating with the government without their customers' consent.

>> WOULDN'T WE LIKE SPECIAL JUDICIARY, SOPHISTICATED BOTH IN
>> CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND IN COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY WHOSE JOB IT WAS TO
>> EVALUATE THE GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAMS OF INFORMATION GATHERING?
>
> It would just be another redundant government organization to pacify
> confused citizens with lip service.

All true conservatives will agree.  A special judiciary, sophisticated
in constitutional law and computer technology will _merely_ place more
humans on the public payroll.  At best it's a waste of money.  At worst,
it's more bureaucracy that wastes money at an exponential rate.

> AND ISN'T THE FRIAM LIST PARTICULARLY QUALIFIED BY EXPERIENCE AND
> KNOWLEDGE, TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCUSSION OF THIS IDEA?   THAT IS
> ALL i WAS TRYING TO SAY.

Now, if I stop speaking as a tax paying citizen and start speaking as if
I were a member of this elite group of experts, then I can see _many_
reasons for advocating such an arm of the government!  Wouldn't it be
cool to be consulted by the powerful elite about heavy matters of state
like wiretapping laws?  Wouldn't it be a good solid stroke to the old
ego to get in high profile arguments with people like John Yoo, Steven
Aftergood, and Ray Kurzweil?  Not to mention a pleasant fattening of the
old wallet ...  And to reap all that reward directly from the free money
doled out by the taxpayer to boot?!?

- From that perspective, it's easy to see the attraction.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the
government and I'm here to help. -- Ronald Reagan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGvIQeZeB+vOTnLkoRArnTAKCC+8q15toO1uz+u42DGVuCqpp31ACcC42b
qtmh17HdOTIEW1j06rlbMtg=
=PI8u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen,

I generally agree with your remarks.   However, I don't think government
mandated backdoors are a wise idea because governments can be much as
the problem as the solution.  Consider a modern day case of Nazi
Germany, and trying to get money, instructions, or supplies to relatives
so that they could escape or hide.  I think its reasonable to assume
that the spies of such a world power would be able to steal the back
door keys and algorithms from another, and one would want to be very
sure that communication could occur in a secure way.   I would rest much
easier knowing there were no such back doors.

Marcus

[glen ep ropella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> I would rest much easier knowing there were no such back doors.

Yep, that's true and I agree.  Besides, with the immense sums of money
we heap on agencies like the NSA so that they (and few others) have the
ability to crack encryption codes, back-doors are rendered moot.  If
they know who they're targeting, they can crack the encryption the
targets use.  The one problem with that is that we would be implicitly
condoning the continuation of huge (secret) budgets for these
agencies.... as Bush might say, "in the interests of national security".
 A conservative might rather choose to give the government a back door,
reduce the funding of the NSA, and proceed to mitigate against the
alternate set of risks you cite if it might consume fewer resources.

Personally, I'd rather defund the NSA, not provide back doors, and
restrict government to a tiny portion of political activities.  But I
have no evidence that would result in a more civil society. [grin]
- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough
to take it all away. -- Barry Goldwater
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGvJzlZeB+vOTnLkoRAlYAAJ9AXw+6jXf9mXvs+xeVRJuG1nKRagCgtpyO
fho8q8E6dcVgunGgE9aGCF0=
=/Njk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> The one problem with that is that we would be implicitly
> condoning the continuation of huge (secret) budgets for these
> agencies....
Large and expensive public-funded projects don't necessarily bother me.
  For one thing, from time to time there are menacing foreign
governments and hostile non-state actors to worry about.   But at the
end of the day, people should not fear their government, their
government should fear the people.