http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25surveillance.html?pagewanted=2&hp

“They said my privacy wasn’t intruded on because the surveillance was covert.”

Wow. I mean, fucking wow. Local school bureacrats in UK have the power to covertly spy upon law-abiding citizens? Tap their internet connections, review their phone calls, videotape them…?

To say their privacy was not violated because the spying was done covertly… can you say doublespeak? Blackwhite? Is Ingsoc already here?

Doubleplus ungood.

WRT S.733, the issue received some publicity. Then, as with the Pataky case, the publicity died down. That’s how things work these days. It’s a democracy, but it’s a “managed” democracy. Things like outrage and loss of interest are taken into account. I’d ask that people call attention to S.733 periodically as the law moves forward.

WRT the big picture, I’m old enough, as are many people in the audience, to remember people’s remarks when 1984 rolled around. Look, they said, 1984 isn’t like the book “1984″. It’s Morning in America. In my opinion, it wasn’t Morning in America then, and it isn’t Morning in America now. “1984″ is coming. My advice in general is that the “sides” I often see don’t need to put aside their differences, but they do need to find common ground when it comes to things that are going to affect everybody’s lives for quite a long time.

I’ve heard of s.733 and it’s got me concerned. To be honest I’m more concerned now about liberty than I have been in a long time.

Section 14 may be a bigger problem. It essentially revokes all privacy safeguards on Internet use for all networks. The Fourth Amendment would go straight out the window with the explicit inclusion of “private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.” While Section 18 limits jurisdiction to federal networks, Section 14 allows the government to go after private networks without search warrants. The section also doesn’t limit the jurisdiction to acute attacks, either. That jurisdiction exists at all times.

The big problem isn’t that Obama might shut down the Internet. It’s that the bill essentially repeals the Fourth Amendment.

Yes, I do. I’m referring to the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, S.773. These things always have fine-sounding names. Cybersecurity sounds important. Who could argue against it? Mother Jones summarizes S.773 as follows:

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

In other words, since nothing is defined, we’re handing over the entire Internet, as far as US access goes, to the executive branch. This includes weblogs, conventional web sites, RSS feeds, E-mail, other resources. Mr. Miller’s site. Your site, if you have one. Everything.

The following comment from Digg strikes me as relevant:

This thing goes way beyond FISA in its power to invade our privacy. This would allow the federal government to take over and shut down any private network in the US as well as have complete carte blanch in the ability to look at private information… This is a huge power grab and yet where is the outrage?

My personal feeling is that, if free speech on the Internet goes, it’s all over. It doesn’t matter which “side” you’re on politically. Whichever “side” you’re on, do you want a future President on the other “side” to have this kind of power? Both “sides” should strongly oppose this law.

There’s legislation pending in the US that’ll allow the executive branch to shut down the Internet.

really? Do you have an HR or S number, or a THOMAS cite? I’d like to learn more.

Thanks for responding. I’m not sure what to do about all of this. Mr. Miller is gracious enough to allow discussion about this kind of thing in the forums. However, to use a metaphor that seems to fit, things don’t usually work out the way that they did in the Ender Wiggin novels. The series in question featured a blogger (Peter Wiggin) who took control of the entire world and changed everything based primarily on his clever and insightful posts I imagine that many posters would identify with Peter Wiggin, but the whole thing isn’t likely to happen here. Nothing will occur WRT these policies unless there’s a public outcry. I don’t believe that there’ll be one. That’s coming from somebody who’d advise you not to be “frightened” immediately. I’m concerned about the long haul.