RTFA: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071231-adob…

It all began with a post at UNEASYsilence titled “Lies, Lies and Adobe Spies” which caught on to the fact that Adobe CS3 apps were calling out to a suspiciously-crafted IP address. As it turns out, the IP in question-192.168.112.2O7.net note the capital O instead of a zero-is not an IP at all, but rather a domain owned by statistics-tracking firm Omniture.

wow, this is a pretty clever & shady trick.

Yep – straight from the internet tube: the Senate will pick this one up in January.

To quote Harry Reid, “in Nevada we don’t like wiretaps… we’re very private people, and I think that’s where America is.” He continued, “Because we believe this retroactive immunity needs to be studied very closely, it doesn’t mean we’re any less patriotic than anyone else.”

Dodd wrapped it up by quoting Frank Church, who chaired the initial FISA discussions: “Domestic surveillance activities threaten to undermine our democratic society… Personal privacy is protected because it is essential to our liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Current as of 1638PST. They’re working late in DC, tonight!

RTFA: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/17/…

The impact of amnesty on these investigations:

GG: So, if Congress were to enact a law providing amnesty to telecoms — something like the Bush administration is demanding, whereby the telecoms would receive retroactive amnesty — that would essentially put a halt to your lawsuit?

CC: We would certainly argue that it didn’t, but it’s fair to say that it would put a pretty large hurdle in front of us for going forward. . . . GG: But you would expect AT&T’s lawyers and the telecom industry to argue that the amnesty they got from Congress does in fact bar those claims as well?

CC: Yes. Their goal is plainly to get rid of these litigations full stop. They don’t want the courts to ever rule on whether this is legal or not. That’s their goal. . . .

It’s certainly the goal of the administration and the phone companies to ensure that there’s never a decision about what’s been going on is legal or not. The telecom cases are the last, best hope.GG: In all of these cases that might result in an adjudication as to whether the surveillance programs were illegal, the Bush administration has been actively invovled in trying to block these cases from proceeding at all?

CC: That’s right – they made the same “states secrets” argument as they made in our case in all these other cases as well.GG: And having lost the “state secrets” argument in your case, and also in the ACLU case originally, they’re now attempting to put a stop to these cases through the amnesty law that they’re seeking?

CC: I think that’s right. They’re afraid. I think it’s fair to say that they’re worried they’re not going to win with the rules of the game as they were set up at the time they started spying on everyone. They’re running to Congress to try to change the rules of the game going forward, and trying to cover up what’s happened in the past. And the question is – - is Congress going to go for this?

Great interview.

RTFA: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_7175561?ncli…

ince 2001, the Bush administration and America’s leading telecommunications carriers have been blatantly violating the law and the privacy of millions of Americans. Working together, they have engaged in a comprehensive and insidious warrantless dragnet surveillance program that ignores the careful legal safeguards set forth by Congress. Under this program, the carriers intercept and disclose to the government the telephone and Internet communications of millions of their customers, along with detailed records about customers’ communications.
Since January 2006, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been litigating Hepting vs. AT&T, a case arising from AT&T’s participation in the illegal surveillance. The case is brought on behalf of all of AT&T’s customers to stop the ongoing conduct and to hold the company responsible in order to compensate the millions of ordinary Americans who have been affected. This should also serve to discourage the telecom giant from agreeing to such illegal schemes in the future.

But if you’ve done nothing wrong, then what do YOU have to worry about? Well, if you are still worried about people committing crimes AGAINST you, then I don’t suppose you need to be concerned by your personal activities, at all. Instead, it’s the actions of others that might concern you. We express such concerns about the behavior of others as LAW, and we extend legal authority to certain individuals in order that they might “stop” people who break the laws.

Although I’ve done nothing wrong (and therefore shouldn’t be concerned that my phone calls are monitored), I am still concerned by this monitoring activity, because such activity is illegal, and I AM concerned about the illegal actions of others. We can debate whether or not this monitoring SHOULD be illegal, but as it stands, we’re just at the point of being concerned about it.

It’s okay to be concerned that the US government is monitoring its citizens. Before this point, it wasn’t obvious that such eavesdropping took place. Prior to 2001, if you were simply AFRAID that the government might be monitoring you, then unless you had proof, you were merely PARANOID. Now it is no longer a matter of paranoia. Now that the issue has been dragged out into the public for all US citizens to consider, what is the consensus?

We must ask ourselves as a nation:

1. are we confident that we can maintain a free society without private communication?
2. when members of our government violate the law we created, can we successfuly seek justice using existing legal structures? Are we free to petition our government for redress of grievances?
3. without transparency in government, can we maintain a free and democratic society?

It’s a little unpleasant to consider, but this is the situation we have been thrust into.