The Center Stage

[Claire Diviner]

While I'm not sure how to word exactly how the loopholes can be used should CISPA passes, I've found several sources that go over how they can be abused. Take them at face value.

http://rt.com/news/cispa-sopa-freedoms-timm-255/

http://www.empowernetwork.com/netsuccess/blog/the-fbis-loophole-on-cispa/

http://www.isights.org/2012/04/cispa-amendment-would-tighten-loopholes-by-opening-more.html

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

@Sol Diviner: I'm still getting to your #1157, I haven't really had time to read it at the moment since I had been reading up on CISPA. Pointing this out at the moment so we are on the same page. I'm not planning on ignoring anything you've written, I just haven't gotten to it yet.

I will take a stab at something you said at the end of #1157 and something you are leading into with your latest post. Information like an IP address is a difficult concept to consider in the domain of private information. Especially since giving away an address is necessary for the host to receive packets and relay them back.

Such information through a technical perspective might be considered public, given the mutual exchange between say your computer and a website like smashboards. Even onion routing and proxies don't eliminate this necessity, but rather serve as a go between to obfuscate information between the client (the user) and the host (the target site). Generally someone is going to receive some information about you if you want to request information from others using the internet.

I am curious as to what you feel is the so called "extent of privacy" and what content in particular you think can be considered to be protected constitutionally as human rights.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I will take a stab at something you said at the end of #1157 and something you are leading into with your latest post. Information like an IP address is a difficult concept to consider in the domain of private information. Especially since giving away an address is necessary for the host to receive packets and relay them back.

Such information through a technical perspective might be considered public, given the mutual exchange between say your computer and a website like smashboards. Even onion routing and proxies don't eliminate this necessity, but rather serve as a go between to obfuscate information between the client (the user) and the host (the target site). Generally someone is going to receive some information about you if you want to request information from others using the internet.

I am curious as to what you feel is the so called "extent of privacy" and what content in particular you think can be considered to be protected constitutionally as human rights.

I already knew all about that. The thing that concerns me is the government being able to monitor citizens randomly at will, namely their activity online. If they catch that someone so much as download, say, an MP3 freely, they can track the IP of the offender and prosecute them for it. Yes, that can be seen as a very insignificant example, but it's still realistic.

They can also potentially use this to monitor emails, what websites people visit, and other various things. For those who abide by the law, it doesn't affect them at all, but for those who download things like music, movies, TV shows, game emulators with ROMs, that will be catastrophic to a lot of the population. Yes, there's too many people to catch and prosecute, but that won't stop them from prosecuting nonetheless.

The whole IP thing being between the client and the host is one thing, where only the two parties should be aware of the info, but for other parties - the government in this case - to attain that information whilst the client is unaware is invasion and **** of one's online privacy, which is the point I'm getting at. What videos a person watches on Youtube, or what websites they visit to read up on any particular news may seem harmless and illegal, thus saving them from the law, but it's a safe bet to assume that no one would want people to know that business regardless of how harmless it may seem.

 

[GwJ]

I'm not totally sure it's wrong for law enforcement to monitor somebody's activity if they've been caught breaking the law. Especially with piracy; where there's smoke, there's fire. If you catch someone download an MP3 illegally, they likely download other stuff illegally as well, whether it be MORE music, or other things, like copyrighted pictures of horses.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I'm not totally sure it's wrong for law enforcement to monitor somebody's activity if they've been caught breaking the law. Especially with piracy; where there's smoke, there's fire. If you catch someone download an MP3 illegally, they likely download other stuff illegally as well, whether it be MORE music, or other things, like copyrighted pictures of horses.

That's the issue: If law enforcement arrests someone for having done something illegal online, then that wouldn't be a problem. The real problem is how they go about doing it, and monitoring people - even the innocent ones - is not a good way to go about it, as again, it strips people of their privacy. The trick is to be able to catch criminal activity without breaking the Fourth Amendment. How they go about doing so is beyond me. If anyone can tell me how to monitor people's activities, illegal or otherwise, without invading their privacy, I'd sure love to hear it.

 

[GwJ]

The real problem is how they go about doing it, and monitoring people - even the innocent ones - is not a good way to go about it, as again, it strips people of their privacy.

I was posting under the supposition that a person has already been caught. For example, torrents can be tracked by anyone who knows how to stick a tracker into the torrent. It's all public domain.

Can it be considered invading someone's privacy for being tracked under the context that they are pirating when they've already been caught pirating?

The trick is to be able to catch criminal activity without breaking the Fourth Amendment. How they go about doing so is beyond me.

See above. It's easier than you think.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I was posting under the supposition that a person has already been caught. For example, torrents can be tracked by anyone who knows how to stick a tracker into the torrent. It's all public domain.

Can it be considered invading someone's privacy for being tracked under the context that they are pirating when they've already been caught pirating?

Sticking a tracker onto a torrent to catch someone will be okay, so as long as the tracker doesn't monitor everything else outside of the fact that the person is downloading the baited torrent. In that sense, the pirate in question earned whatever the law does to him/her, but only if it's for just that one offense. If the tracker sticks, and they use it to see his/her other activities, like websites visited, files opened, etc., then that would be where I believe they crossed the line. Again, in the case of the torrent with a tracker on it, the data is between the client and host, in this case, the host being the feds having uploaded the torrent, so in that sense, it'd be fair enough.

 

[GwJ]

All trackers do is identify which IPs download which torrent. For example, a friend of mine was caught and warned by the government because he downloaded a Resident Evil 4 torrent that had a tracker stuck in it that was monitored. Trackers aren't like keyloggers that monitor what you type or like other malware that can actually track everything. However, getting caught like that, in my eyes, is valid reason to further track that person in the same way that a person being pulled over can get their car checked if they find illegal drugs in their pocket.

 

[Claire Diviner]

All trackers do is identify which IPs download which torrent. For example, a friend of mine was caught and warned by the government because he downloaded a Resident Evil 4 torrent that had a tracker stuck in it that was monitored. Trackers aren't like keyloggers that monitor what you type or like other malware that can actually track everything. However, getting caught like that, in my eyes, is valid reason to further track that person in the same way that a person being pulled over can get their car checked if they find illegal drugs in their pocket.

The thing is, if their tracker finds someone pirating software, they wouldn't need to monitor their every move, since they already have evidence of piracy to prosecute the offender, making further tracking redundant and invasive.

 

[GwJ]

If the police find someone in possession of marijuana, why don't they just stop there? They've already caught them on charges for possession anyway, making further tracking redundant and invasive.

 

[Claire Diviner]

If the police find someone in possession of marijuana, why don't they just stop there? They've already caught them on charges for possession anyway, making further tracking redundant and invasive.

What they can do, is take the evidence from their tracker and gain a warrant to search their computer for any illegally pirated files, in which case, it would be legal if they merely searched. Monitoring the person's online activity is different than searching a person's hard drive. In your example, they see someone has possession of marijuana. It can be assumed they have more, so they can get a warrant to search his/her house for any illegal drugs. Now if they were to keep track and spy on the person's day-to-day life because of that one incident where he was caught with pot would be not only excessive, but it also invades the person's privacy, especially if he's not aware of it.

 

[GwJ]

Just for the record, law enforcement DOES follow around drug offenders.

And again, I don't think it's unjustified. Like I said, people who are caught pirating probably pirate on a regular basis. I don't see it as being unjustified or against their respect of privacy to track their downloads for more piracy.

 

[Claire Diviner]

And again, I don't think it's unjustified. Like I said, people who are caught pirating probably pirate on a regular basis. I don't see it as being unjustified or against their respect of privacy to track their downloads for more piracy.

That's another thing. To track someone's other downloads wouldn't be a problem, so as long as they're the ones hosting it with a tracker attached to it. Otherwise, monitoring a person's personal activities is going overboard. The Fourth Amendment is constantly being bended and at some points broken and has been a problem for a while even to this day, and the CISPA bill and others like it are trying to make it "okay" to bend and twist the Fourth Amendment in the online world. It only means control and power potential over more people than ever before.

 

[GwJ]

To track someone's other downloads wouldn't be a problem, so as long as they're the ones hosting it with a tracker attached to it. Otherwise, monitoring a person's personal activities is going overboard.

That's not what trackers do. Trackers just report back which IPs download a specific torrent. Trackers don't track anything else. You can't make a tracker report back a person's download history.

So, with that being said, it looks like you agree with me then that tracking someone's downloads isn't a problem as long as they've already been caught.

 

[Claire Diviner]

That's not what trackers do. Trackers just report back which IPs download a specific torrent. Trackers don't track anything else. You can't make a tracker report back a person's download history.

I know.

So, with that being said, it looks like you agree with me then that tracking someone's downloads isn't a problem as long as they've already been caught.

So as long as they don't track their history or other online activities and keep tabs on only the tracker-laced downloads the pirate is stealing, then yes, that would be perfectly fine and legal.

 

[GwJ]

And how do you propose they do that? Trackers are put in manually by the person doing the tracking. And if you want to track one person, you have to basically trick them into downloading a specific torrent.

I am proposing monitoring all incoming downloads for a certain period of time.

 

[Claire Diviner]

And how do you propose they do that? Trackers are put in manually by the person doing the tracking. And if you want to track one person, you have to basically trick them into downloading a specific torrent.

That's why they have dummy torrents that contain legit files, but with trackers attached to them. They just have to make it appear good enough, which they often do anyway, so tracking people who download that one torrent shouldn't be too difficult as there are tens of thousands of people torrenting and pirating every minute, even as we debate. It's not hard for them to come across at least one person who decides to click on their dummy torrent.

I am proposing monitoring all incoming downloads for a certain period of time.

I suppose if it's just downloads, without seeing what sites they visit or emails they type, or anything of the sort, then it can work on paper as long as it doesn't breach privacy, and it's "privacy" that's the main concern and point of this debate. To be honest, it's still hardly necessary since they already have the evidence needed to convict the person the moment he/she clicked on their torrent.

 

[GwJ]

That's why they have dummy torrents that contain legit files, but with trackers attached to them. They just have to make it appear good enough, which they often do anyway, so tracking people who download that one torrent shouldn't be too difficult as there are tens of thousands of people torrenting and pirating every minute, even as we debate. It's not hard for them to come across at least one person who decides to click on their dummy torrent.

The problem with dummy torrents is that it's not an efficient way to track specific people. It's a great way to initially catch people, but it can't follow people. That's why I was proposing to further track the specific IPs who are tracked to have downloaded a dummy torrent.

I suppose if it's just downloads, without seeing what sites they visit or emails they type, or anything of the sort, then it can work on paper as long as it doesn't breach privacy, and it's "privacy" that's the main concern and point of this debate. To be honest, it's still hardly necessary since they already have the evidence needed to convict the person the moment he/she clicked on their torrent.

If it's just downloads, what room is there for privacy breaching? Tracking what IPs download is not done user-side. They don't have to 'hack' the person they're tracking, the ISPs cooperate with them or however it's done, but it can be easily set up so that the only thing that can be tracked is downloads.

 

[Claire Diviner]

The problem with dummy torrents is that it's not an efficient way to track specific people. It's a great way to initially catch people, but it can't follow people. That's why I was proposing to further track the specific IPs who are tracked to have downloaded a dummy torrent.

I understand what you're saying. The thing is, because their dummy was being torrented by one or more people, that would really be all the evidence they need to prosecute them without the need to go overboard in breaching the person's privacy.

If it's just downloads, what room is there for privacy breaching? Tracking what IPs download is not done user-side. They don't have to 'hack' the person they're tracking, the ISPs cooperate with them or however it's done, but it can be easily set up so that the only thing that can be tracked is downloads.

It does sound good on paper, but in practice, it flirts with the line between privacy and invasion of that. ISPs can cooperate, but then they would break that barrier of confidentiality and privacy as well. I guess when the pieces come together, it boils down to making it impossible to monitor a person's downloads without breaking the Fourth Amendment. The only way for them to get around that is with the dummy torrent idea as stated above.

 

[GwJ]

I understand what you're saying. The thing is, because their dummy was being torrented by one or more people, that would really be all the evidence they need to prosecute them without the need to go overboard in breaching the person's privacy.

But again, the purpose of the dummy torrent's tracker would be to provide probable cause to further investigate, not to pin everyone on minor copyright charges. In fact, this is already the mentality used by law enforcement. Most instances I've heard of where people are caught by the government, they're told that they must delete what they downloaded and if they're caught again, they will be prosecuted.

It does sound good on paper, but in practice, it flirts with the line between privacy and invasion of that. ISPs can cooperate, but then they would break that barrier of confidentiality and privacy as well. I guess when the pieces come together, it boils down to making it impossible to monitor a person's downloads without breaking the Fourth Amendment. The only way for them to get around that is with the dummy torrent idea as stated above.

Well, the way around that is to have a law that allows it; that's the reason we're having things like SOPA, CISPA, et cetera. The law would create an exception which would need to be justifiable.


Now keep in mind this: I have not read CISPA whatsoever. Everything I know about it, which is very little, has been all here-say. Therefore, don't take what I'm saying as support for CISPA; take it as support for the method of prosecuting criminals with the methods listed above.

 

[Claire Diviner]

But again, the purpose of the dummy torrent's tracker would be to provide probable cause to further investigate, not to pin everyone on minor copyright charges. In fact, this is already the mentality used by law enforcement. Most instances I've heard of where people are caught by the government, they're told that they must delete what they downloaded and if they're caught again, they will be prosecuted.

So then there's no real need for SOPA, PIPA, or CISPA.

Well, the way around that is to have a law that allows it; that's the reason we're having things like SOPA, CISPA, et cetera. The law would create an exception which would need to be justifiable.

If they make a law that allows it, it will conflict with the Fourth Amendment, and will thus be a law that will either be repealed/overturned. Maybe not immediately, but eventually, and only when it's dealt enough damage to the confidence of the citizens.

Now keep in mind this: I have not read CISPA whatsoever. Everything I know about it, which is very little, has been all here-say. Therefore, don't take what I'm saying as support for CISPA; take it as support for the method of prosecuting criminals with the methods listed above.

I figured you weren't supporting it. It would probably help if you read up on it though. That way, you can see what the bill proposes. Simple download tracking - if the bill is made law - would be the least of our worries.

 

[GwJ]

So then there's no real need for SOPA, PIPA, or CISPA.

Maybe not, but I do think there needs to be a law that sets the limits and allowances for taking care of cyber criminals like this.

If they make a law that allows it, it will conflict with the Fourth Amendment, and will thus be a law that will either be repealed/overturned. Maybe not immediately, but eventually, and only when it's dealt enough damage to the confidence of the citizens.

Not exactly. By allowing it, I mean that by making it a law, it will no longer be an unreasonable search. It'd be a reasonable search. The fourth amendment is an easy amendment to follow. You just need to make sure what you're doing is lawful, which is done by...making laws.

I figured you weren't supporting it. It would probably help if you read up on it though. That way, you can see what the bill proposes. Simple download tracking - if the bill is made law - would be the least of our worries.

Yeah, I'll get around to that soon.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Maybe not, but I do think there needs to be a law that sets the limits and allowances for taking care of cyber criminals like this.

While true, the law needs to be within reason.

Not exactly. By allowing it, I mean that by making it a law, it will no longer be an unreasonable search. It'd be a reasonable search. The fourth amendment is an easy amendment to follow. You just need to make sure what you're doing is lawful, which is done by...making laws.

Yes, but laws can be repealed if they don't follow an amendment, which has happened many times before.

 

[GwJ]

While true, the law needs to be within reason.

Of course it does, and I said what kind of law would be within reason.

Yes, but laws can be repealed if they don't follow an amendment, which has happened many times before.

That is correct.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Well, it would seem we've come to a mutual agreement then? Frankly, I can't think of anything else to add to the debate, unless someone else has anything they wish to add on the CISPA bill and the potential for privacy invasion.

 

[GwJ]

It was bound to come to a mutual agreement. I'm hard-pressed to think that somebody will disagree with law enforcement prosecuting criminals.

 

[Claire Diviner]

It was bound to come to a mutual agreement. I'm hard-pressed to think that somebody will disagree with law enforcement prosecuting criminals.

I too am all for it, so as long as it follow amendments, and so as long as innocent people aren't caught in the crossfire.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

If you're more or less done with this topic of conversation, feel free to try discussing something else. I already gave you a kudo yesterday so I'm not exactly the person that you need to win over at this point. The DH tends to be a bit dead so you're more or less going to be initiating conversations there as well if you have a topic that you want to discuss. I also don't mind if you're just in it for the pink user title. :3

 

[GoldShadow]

Just reminding would-be DHers that this thread is available if you feel you're ready for the DH but that no one has noticed you.

 

[Muhti]

So if I made a thread. I have to post it here? To get it reviewed to prove if Im a good debater? O.o okay?

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=328707

 

[GwJ]

I didn't actually get voted in by debating in here, so my memory may be foggy, but I think the way the Center Stage works is something like this:

In an alternative method to getting voted in through just the threads you make, you can challenge another debater and do it here and I'm guessing this debate holds some more weight than one in a random thread and is more likely to result in you getting voted in assuming you debate successfully. (Note, successfully does not mean victoriously)

 

[Jon Farron]

I think what they're looking for is:

1) Being able to back up your claims.
2) Being able to debate calmly, without exploding on people who disagree with you.
3) Confidence
4) Meaningful posts, not just "I agree with dis guy". Posts with thought put into them.
5) Knowing when you've lost, and not going on and on annoying everyone.

 

[Muhti]

I think what they're looking for is:

1) Being able to back up your claims.
2) Being able to debate calmly, without exploding on people who disagree with you.
3) Confidence
4) Meaningful posts, not just "I agree with dis guy". Posts with thought put into them.
5) Knowing when you've lost, and not going on and on annoying everyone.

So I basically got all 5 except for the part on where I have to back my claims. I suppose I must improve on that.

 

[GwJ]

Don't think of it as a checklist. You'll get voted in when you're noticed enough. If you feel you've been good enough, give someone who's a debater a nudge and he'll check your stuff out and vote if he feels fit.

 

[Muhti]

Hm, seems fair enough. The problem is I don't see many active debates except for 3 (1 is slowly fading away). Which is kind of sad. I'm thinking of a topic to add, except for a topic where I cant show much proof (such as my Illuminati thread)

 

[GwJ]

That's the downside of it. Just don't actively try and get in the debate hall.

You're not missing much anyway.

 

[Claire Diviner]

It doesn't take or require much to get noticed. We debaters check the DH more often than you may think... or at least I do. Just post a topic you feel everyone will find interest in, but also make sure it's a topic you like yourself.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I constantly peek in this place, however vain my checks may be. Maybe I'll think of a topic that can actually get some discussion going, maybe.

 

[Jon Farron]

Do debates outside of the DH count?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Do debates outside of the DH count?

theeboredone got in for his posts in the Pool Room as well, so as long as you show good debating skills both in and out of the DH, you've got a shot.