Could You Prove That The Government Was Watching You Illegally?
from the I-always-feel-like-somebody's-watching-me dept
Wired has an article about a court dismissing a lawsuit by a guy who claimed the government was spying on him. The claims sound pretty much like your run-of-the-mill tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoid, so it's no surprise that the government tossed out the lawsuit. But, as David Kravets points out in the article, what if the government actually did put someone under 24-hour surveillance. Would there be any way to prove it? Since the government won't admit to things like who's on the no-fly list and still supports warrantless wiretaps, it could very easily make anyone who really is under surveillance out to be a nutcase tinfoil-hat wearing lunatic. It seems quite unlikely that was true in this case (or in most cases of such claims), but it does seem bizarre that if you really were in such a situation, proving it would be almost impossible as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: paranoia, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
very relevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, that is the problem with these 'state secrets'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, that is the problem with these 'state secrets'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
easy
yea that works
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Power to the people
Ben Franklin
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course you are being watched! This is news?
If you use a phone, or send anything over the Internet in plain-text, the government has full access to that data. The only question is what "keywords" they're using in their sweeping searches on all that data, and they'll never tell us that.
The main problem with this guy isn't any tin foil hats -- it's the fact that he's not alone. The question is who is NOT being watched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
No, the question is "does it matter if they are watching?"
Do you have anything to hide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
Sincerely,
The United States Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
So don't be too quick to give up your freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
it's not that. it's that administrations (and their priorities) change. that's all.
the folks at the helm today may be totally trustworthy and will only use this surveillance and the information gleaned from its use to prevent terrorism, but those people won't be around forever. what happens when a new administration uses it in support one side of a highly politicized or controversial issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
fascist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
Of course I have something to hide! Credit card numbers, account balances, health history, favorite TV shows that I'm embarrassed about, half of what I did in college, that one paper on feminism, what I *really* think about George Bush....
Can you honestly tell me that you want a government who can't even keep a secret watch list *really secret at all* to have access to all your data? As if it wont instantly leak to criminals no matter how "secret" they think they're keeping it? More of that data is probably put to use by the Mob insiders than the Fed. Do you want the Mafia (name your favorite) to have all your conversations on record?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
That is perhaps the single, most idiotic excuse someone has put forth to justify ANYTHING.
So, if I stop you on the street and strip search you, why should you care - as long as you have nothing to hide?
If everytime you talk to your girlfriend, wife or other significant other - I'm listening - why should that bother you - as long as you have nothing to hide?
When you are in confession and I'm sitting between you and the preist, why should you care - as long as you have nothing to hide.
When the government comes and carts you away and throws you in prison unjustly - why should it matter, as long as you have nothing to hide.
I'm sure "Do you have anything to hide?" was on the lips of many Germans as the secret police raided the homes of their neighbors and sent their friends to concentration camps.
It starts small - but it always ends messy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
I'll add this ... if you have nothing to hide, why do you have curtains/blinds on your windows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
proof
There should be an "obvious" test for constitutionality of any actions performed by people ordered to do something. If something is "obviously" unconstitutional, then the people carrying out the spying/whatever should be sentenced to prison time and all people above those people revive increasingly harsher punishment for not keeping watch of their subordinates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for a sting
If you then toss recording equipment around your house car and place of work you could figure out whos doing the spying and sue them directly for stalking (walk right up to them, knock, serve them with john doe papers.)
If the gov really thinks your a threat there going to come knocking at some point which you've proven you've been spied on because they raided your house and hopefully your setup auto loads to the net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for a sting
you don't have to be a threat to be under surveillance. government employees with high-level security clearances are often under observation as a purely preventative measure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trust me
You can't tap her phone line, search her e-mail, or otherwise invade her privacy without reasonable cause. Yet you'll have a much harder time establishing reasonable cause without invading her privacy.
The best you can do (apart from tipping well and paying cash) is to trust her for now and hope that if she does do something malicious, she'll slip up and leave enough of a trail for someone to catch her.
Ditto for the government. Trust that they're not screwing you and hope that if they are, they'll leave enough clues for you to justifiably raise a stink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trust me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it happened in the movies!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't cause any problems if no one is listening, but you could really mess with them if they are listening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Putting something in the same foot as child molesters, rapists and terrorists is a sure way to take any safeguards that exist for privacy or unreasonable surveillance and searches.
For those who argue the "Have you anything to hide" here is a video from a law teacher explaining why you shouldn't ever talk to the police and the explaining that nobody in the country can know all the laws that exist not even the government knows so how people can be sure they have not broken the law?
(Don't talk to the police)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
That video is relevant because when you are being watched anyone can catch you doing little things that can be illegal and then people have leverage over you and you can be forced to take instances you would otherwise not. Surveillance is like talking to the police.
Do I think it is possible to stop any type of surveillance?
No but what you can do is regulate their use, you may not be able to stop surveillance or know about but you can regulate it in such a manner that it will never be used to compel people to do things that are wrong. The wrong part must be agreed by individuals inside society and to know that the government have to have transparency so "National Security" issues should not be an excuse to hide things from the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For those saying you "have nothing to hide" here are a few quotes ...
The Congressional Research Service can no longer even count the number of federal crimes. The federal criminal laws are over 37,000 pages in length.
One example: 16 U.S.C. 3370 (Lacey Act)
It is unlawful for any person to … import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian Tribal law or law or regulation of any state or any foreign law.
So basically, if you are in possession of a fish, animal, or plant that is illegal anywhere in the entire world, even if just a state law, or an Indian Tribal law, then you are in violation of a federal criminal statue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 25th, 2009 @ 3:34am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could You Prove That The Government Was Watching You Illegally?
Next Question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could You Prove That The Government Was Watching You Illegally?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Things like the creation of The Maiden Lane Family of companies, named after Claire Trevor, a character I debated with my fiancee at length on the phone for hours, bring a something of an off-smile.
I enter into this inspired by Song: Sweet Disposition, by The Temper Tramp
Shamelessly recommended by: Jeff Robbin via first few seconds of his demo of iTunes 9.
If anything at all, I suppose I am more curious why when I try search for "Jeff Robbin presents" (In an effort to determine which Dev/Mac world he presented at, of course) he's somehow comes up listed as an author of "The pleasure of finding things out: the best short works of Richard P. Feynman"
Nonetheless, it's a good song. Apple's next big announcement should be outside SFO area. At least I think so.
I just did what Malcolm Gladwell said he liked, and the very thing Mike Masnick hates.
Taking things from here and moving them to --------------------------------------------------------------------> here.
Mike hates storytellers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
please explain what relevance this has with the article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... illegally?
Is this a trick question? ;-)
However, if it would be true, maybe they ought to learn from the native americans who supposedly stayed away from crazy people lest they be infected too, or in this case affected to the effect of negative, and useless, government spending, because that's always criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to tell if the government is watching you
If your lamp says "Gazuntight" you have a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government misfeasance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double Standard
Even if I had electronic evidence of clear misconduct by a government official, I would be charged with a "wiretap violation", and the evidence I had collected in my criminal investigation would be considered inadmissible in court.
If that same bureaucrat felt that it was pertinent to an investigation (subject to that individual person's discretion, of course), they could track and record me without my knowledge, and use that knowledge against me with impunity.
Evidence should be evidence. I consider this fear of scrutiny a preemptive admission of guilt. We have to assume that everyone who works for the government is doing something wrong at every opportunity. I don't want to think of my government in this way, especially when I'm helping to finance its existence, but if this were untrue, then they wouldn't hate cameras-- in fact, they would love them, because they would present a perfect opportunity to show everyone what a great job they're doing.
Skeptics: Next time you see a police officer, pull out your Blackberry and start filming him. Try videotaping inside a courthouse. They're like cockroaches-- they scatter when you turn on the lights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
already happened
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's still happening to me
I guess, it's ok if you don't know for that, but what if you know that for sure? Depending on your toughs they can act with some sick sounds and yes, they can make you a mad men if they wish to.
So, in that case you are going to get very mentally sick and unstable person, and your mind might create phobia pictures that are not even related with your personality, because your mind could make wrong pictures because of fears to being captured by government for something that you have never done. The worst thing it's not stopping and you might get more and more sick and eventually lose your mind.
I guess government has opened Pandora's box that with time will destroy society. Just think that in future that husband can read mind of his wife and vise verse etc. It's going to be hell of life for all of us as time comes with more and more advanced technology .
Are aluminum shield are helping? I think they does, all depends of frequency they are using, but I assume they can change the frequencies, but I'm not that educated for this question.
That's my opinion and belive it or not it's the truth. Only thing that I know that I'm not paranoid person and never have been,
but it's difficult to believe in some things until you feel it on yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's still happening to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing to hide
Maybe all "American" citizens should just take the walls off of their houses so all the little pervs can watch their children bathe nude and then the pervs will stop spouting the nothing to hide crap. That is all they are after you know. Sarcasm of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government Surveillance
Extremely smart individuals, educated or uneducated are very likely to be under lifetime surveillance in the United States.
If you have an unmeasurable IQ, or if you have a extreme high unmeasurable IQ, your likely hood of being under surveillance, increases with the larger the estimated number, that is assigned as your IQ.
Certainly if your IQ is over 300 you are under life time surveillance, but only if they know what your IQ is.
I recommend that parents refuse to allow the testing of their children when it comes to IQ test.
Being under Surveillance is no fun, and surveillance for this reason is unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]