NEWS: FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited

John Navas contributed wisdom to news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

On the one hand, this is a serious breach of our personal security.

On the other hand, most "carriers" of our personal information keep records which are often used to solve crimes. At least the tv shows and movies make it seem that way until the average public doesnt even blink at the idea of someone viewing a "criminals" personal records.

It might be that too many will view this as nothing different from a package service keeping records on what you mail and where it goes. Or a cable company keeping records on what channels you get. Or at most like the phone companies records which only a "law entity" can get.

Gandalf Parker

Gandalf Parker wrote in news:Xns9D1B37297108Bgandalfparker@199.245.68.61:

Or, it can be viewed that with a telephone record, it is absolutely one person using a telephone number to call another absolute number......a web page though, even though you go to xxxxx.com.......xxxxx.com can pull data from multiple other sources to show you as part of it's webpage, or what- have-you, and the user may have absolutely no clue, and could get labelled as (whatever) because of that.

DanS contributed wisdom to news:Xns9D1B583FF779thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:

Actually the thing that worries me more is when I see news articles talking about "found evidence on his computer" and I wonder if they understand the difference between cache and actually copying something to your machine.

Im sure that later a computer expert cleared everything up but for some reason retractions end up much deeper and less noticable than the original article. :)

Gandalf Parker

The Americans have a stronger Constitution than yours.

Gandalf Parker wrote in news:Xns9D1B74FA02DBEgandalfparker@199.245.68.61:

Maybe they do...maybe they don't......are those thumbnail size pics of naked women yours ? or where they just cache'd from some website that showed them to get you to click on them ? Or maybe they are bigger because they were from a popup window.

You can't be sure of anything.

Warren Oates wrote in news:000e38a6$0$27139$ snipped-for-privacy@news.astraweb.com:

Unless of course big-business is behind it. If so, they'd just 'buy' the laws they need.

It's a farce. Special-interest groups should not be allowed to lobby the government, and corporate money should not be able to be 'donated' to candidates funding.

I think they voted Obama AS THE ALTERNATIVE to privacy invasion. Poor americans. What "Feeeeerrr" can do do a nation. Shall we go back to discussing wireless ? []'s

I think you misspelled the word "had".

bullshite

This sort of thing happens everywhere. Remember _Jurassic Park_, where the girl ''hacks'' the server, quoting, "This is the UNIX system, I know this!" and is meanwhile depicted clicking a mouse pointer numerous times?

The difference between these two depictions is that _The Italian Job_ was funny, whereas the scene from _Jurassic Park_ was just stupid.

--keith

I'm all for consspiracy theories, but what evidence do you cite that traffic light cameras have a 5-10% error rate? I've read about this matter extensively and from everything I've read, the error rate is way down in the noise, something like 0.03%, or less than 1/100th of what you cite. The sensors don't come on until the light turns red and the the camera doesn't snap the photo unless the car rolls over the intersection line while the light is red. Fairly simple, actually.

Now, as to safeguards for innocent web browsing, I think the people who run the FBI are very aware that any given website is going to have lots of sources of content and that people will accidentally visit sites they don't wish to visit.

I don't share a mistrust of government as much as I have a mistrust of private industry. We can control the government because we vote and influence others who vote and give money to campaigns. On the other hand, we have no voice against companies such as Google. We can't vote unless we own their stock, and few of us are rich enough to own enough Google stock to make our voices heard.

So, trusing the FBI versus trusting Google to do the right thing, I think I trust the FBI more.

Teevee producers feel the need to add sound effects every time something computerish happens. All the shows do it, NCIS, Bones, even drivel like Medium. The computers all go "deedle deedle deep deep deep" anytime they (the producers) want us to know that someone is interacting with the computer. My computer only makes a noise when it's broken.

[follow-up unset -- wtf is ba.internet anyway?]

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in news:hl0p7p$but$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

Here in Western New York, Buffalo specifically, there was some push to install redlight cameras that has been thwarted for the time being. There were heated discussions about it, the effectiveness, and the legality of it.

It is widely believed here that installation of said cameras are nothing more than a way for the city to get more money. They claim it is for safety purposes, but read this.....

The municipalites have no monetary outlay. The company that mfgs the equipment designs the system, installs it, and does the monitoring, for no cost. In return, they get to keep 2/3's of the fines paid by a camera issued ticket.

It all comes down to correct calibration and doing it often if you were subjected to the environ these cams are you would drift as well although I suspect more than 2% would be optimistic worst case

I've read about this matter

That's what the authorities want you to believe and you know why there are many external factors which do make them less accurate The

ALways misstrust goverment , after all it's the one who taxes is unfair and sends you to die in times of war , you get little say in the matter

We can control the government because we vote and influence others

foolish idea imho

>

"FBI agents for years sought sensitive records from telephone companies through e-mails, sticky notes, sneak peeks and other "startling" methods that violated electronic privacy law and federal policy, according to a Justice Department inspector general report released Wednesday."

NarusInsight is in wide use, not only in the US but worldwide. "One third of the world's largest carriers use Narus solutions to protect and manage their IP networks. Narus has built a truly global footprint with carrier and government customers across the Americas, EMEA and AsiaPAC."

From 2006:-

It is a purely financial concern we have them here in Au and never has there been proof of anything but revenue they do burn well though with some fuel added might be a way to recycle old tyres mebe :)

It seems like about ten years since the FBI's "Carnivore" internet surveilance system became public knowledge. Around 2003 one article claimed that Carnivore had been replaced with something new and better.

The tracking of webpage visits sounds like old news.

And I think one of the biggest red light camera mfgs is out of Australia...or is that New Zealand ?

What I did find interesting in the article is that it plainly states that it *IS* all about the money. If it *IS* truly about safety, why would the municipalities get rid of them once it's shown that they are actually bringing in *less* money after a while ? (Since people do adjust their driving habits as to not get tickets.)

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:34:36 -0600, DanS wrote in :

In theory, but in practice at least some of these cameras are going off at the wrong times, deliberately or accidentally. After noticing a particular camera in San Francisco go off more than once at odd times, I spent some time monitoring it, and it's definitely sometimes firing when the light is _not_ red, what percentage of the time I cannot say for sure.

Which gives the company a powerful incentive to "accidentally" take pictures when the light is not red.

Privatizing law enforcement is just plain wrong, not that public agencies are necessarily clean either -- California used to be infamous for "speed traps" (and still is in some areas), but the speed trap law doesn't apply to red light cameras.