In Palestine, impersonating God could be bad for your health

Eric Berry on Allfacebook.com reports that Walid Husayin of Qalqilya in Palestine is facing possible life in prison for claiming to be God in several Facebook groups he created. He also criticized the Islamic faith and created mock Quran verses that encouraged people to smoke marijuana.

It's somewhat risky to criticize Islam over the internet while in an Islamic country. It's a little riskier to claim to be God in an Islamic country. To do both from an internet cafe in a small conservative town in an Islamic country is asking for trouble.

Walid Husayin spent 7 hours a day on one computer of the local internet cafe. The owner became suspicious and had employee take screenshots while Walid was on the computer. He turned them over to the police, who arrested Walid while he was at the cafe blogging. The maximum sentence by law is life in prison, but people in Qalqilya - people he has known his entire life - want him executed by burning.

I guess we should count our blessings. In the U.S. we can say what we want about our government or any religion without fear of arrest. But as our government continues to monitor as many of the countries phone calls as it can and law enforcement seeks the power to decrypt any and all private encrypted communication, can we be sure that will always be the case?

Not if we don't make sure it is.

You've probably never heard of Oliver Drage

I hadn't until I checked the "Conspicuous Chatter" blog and saw the latest entry about enforcement of Britians Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000(RIPA).

Mr. Drage has been convicted of not giving his encryption key to investigators when they requested it, which is a violation of RIPA. He's been convicted of that crime and sentenced to 16 weeks in jail. Conspicuous Chatter is very clearly on the side of Mr. Drage and not happy with the way the BBC reports the story so I checked out what the BBC said.

The BBC reports that Oliver Drage was arrested by police investigating "Child Sexual Exploitation." Apparently they had enough evidence to arrest him and confiscate his computer, but not enough to charge him. His 50 character encryption key had them stumped, so they asked him for it. He refused. They charged him with violating RIPA and convicted him. The police reaction to the conviction and 16 week sentence:

Det Sgt Neil Fowler, of Lancashire police, said: "Drage was previously of good character so the immediate custodial sentence handed down by the judge in this case shows just how seriously the courts take this kind of offence.

I don't know British law, but I have to assume that 16 weeks is the stiffest sentence allowed for failing to surrender your password. Otherwise I can't imagine a judge not giving a longer sentence when the purpose is to get a man accused of sexually abusing children to give up the encryption key to his computer.

I don't know if he is guilty, and it's important to remember that although it looks incriminating, he could have perfectly legitimate reasons for not giving police the key. It could be principle. He could have some other type of incriminating evidence on his computer but be innocent of child sexual exploitation. It could be some other reason.

This is a question that is still being decided in the U.S. Is your encryption key protected by the Fifth Amendment? Should it be? I think the answer to both questions is yes. But cases like this one raise questions, I admit.

What do you think?

Does the Constitution guarantee a "right to privacy?"

The announcement last week that the FBI wants to be able to 'wiretap the internet' has brought a lot of discussion about privacy rights, and whether they are granted by the Constitution. I thought that, although I'm not a lawyer, Constitutional or otherwise, I'd take a take a look. A quick scan of the Bill of Rights gives me the impression that most of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution deal with either freedom or security:

The 4th Amendment is the one associated with the right to privacy. It says, specifically:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That seems to speak more to security than freedom. But privacy is implied - you can't have privacy without having security - it's kind of a byproduct. So there is an implication of privacy in the 4th Amendment. But is the implication enough to say that privacy is a right protected by the Constitution? Maybe if we look a little more we can find something a little more persuasive.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Deals with both freedom and security. Freedom of speech, security to assemble and petition the Government.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To me this is straight up security. And at least one founding father believed it applied to private citizens, not just military personnel:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" Thomas Jefferson

If you'd like some food for thought, chew on this a little. Security and privacy cannot be separated. One of our assurances that we will continue to have both is the 2nd Amendment guarantee that all citizens have the right to "keep and bear arms."

Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This is a guarantee of both security and freedom. Even in time of war soldiers can't just be thrust into the homes of private citizens. There there may even be the implication that even in time of war citizens should be able to refuse to house soldiers

We looked at the 4th Amendment above, so on to the 5th:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

A strong defense of our security in our persons. And no small protection of privacy. The protection against self-incrimination is the ultimate protection of privacy. Even if the government is certain we are guilty, they have to prove it without forcing us to tell our secrets.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The 6th Amendment is all about securing the rights of the accused. It is the core of "innocent until proven guilty" and the right to a fair trial.

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

This secures the right to jury trial for civil suits where a significant amount of money is involved. $20 was a lot more significant in the 18th century than it is now.

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Another that protects both security and freedom. It secures our persons and our rights against cruel and vindictive actions by representatives of government.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is all about security and freedom. It says that the the U.S. Constitution is an inclusive document, not an exclusive one. That means that it does not list all of the rights belonging to the people, and the fact that it doesn't does not mean the rights not listed are less important than the rights that are. So the fact that a right to privacy is not mentioned specifically means nothing. The fact that it is implied in several places means a lot.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This amendment protects the rights and freedoms of the States and the People by stating explicitly that if the the Constitution does not specifically state that a power is given to the Federal government, it belongs to either the States, or the people. Unfortunately phrases such as "common good" are so vague that they can, and have, been used to greatly expand the powers of Federal government.

Looking at the Bill of Rights, I see 1, 2, 4 and 5 dealing directly with personal security, and by implication, personal privacy. The 9th Amendment explicitly states that the rights listed in the Constitution are not the only rights we enjoy as citizens, which bolsters the case that we have a right to privacy and should quiet the people who say "There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Whether it's there or not is irrelevant because the Constitution is not exclusive.

I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like someone with some (a lot of) money, time and a sharp lawyer could carefully pick a company or two that make use of internet data mining and sue them for violating our Constitutional right to privacy. Any takers?

U.S. Bill of Rights quoted from USConstitution.net

Copyright, heritage, audio, preservation, Library of Congress

In Reuters story on Yahoo, Lynn Adler reports that the FBI seized John Lennons fingerprints just before they were auctioned off. There was some confusion on the part of the auction house about why the FBI would be concerned about the fingerprints of a man 30 years dead.

While I understand the confusion, the FBI's concern was that the fingerprints, which were part of John Lennon's citizenship application, might have been taken from his government files. If they were, they shouldn't have been available to be auctioned off.

The story didn't say if the FBI discovered the fingerprints were actually taken from government files, but it started me thinking. Does the government have the right to confiscate fingerprint records, or should it? Today I would say no, in most cases. But technology, law enforcement, and crime are rapidly changing. So will the answer still be no in 10 years? 20? 50? What will be possible in that time frame?

It is surprisingly easy to forge fingerprints. Superglue, a bottlecap, some woodglue and a little care and patience make it possible, and instructions are easy to find on the internet. I'm not sure a fake fingerprint made that way will last very long, but with a little more time and technology it could be possible to have fake fingerprints that last through hours of hard wear.

Looking at how easy it is to fake fingerprints, I can see the FBI not wanting a full set of celebrity fingerprints floating around in the wild. If it were possible to wear fake fingerprints without loosing significant tactile sensitivity I could see a black market built around the fingerprints of dead people. It would be relatively easy for a crooked funeral home to record fingerprints and sell them on the black market. Or perhaps a hospital or city morgue. In that case having fingerprint records of everyone who dies might be an important way to make sure law enforcement makes efficient use of resources. Knowing that the fingerprints you've discovered at a crime scene belong to a dead person would save time that would otherwise be spent looking for a dead person.

I don't actually expect to see that type of forgery becoming widespread in my lifetime. Unless you want to make it look like a particular person it makes a lot more sense to avoid leaving fingerprints. But what about other biometric data. Will it one day be possible to forge rhetina scans? What about genetic data?

Have you seen the movie, Gattaca? It's the story of a world in which most children are genetically tailored to have all the best traits of both parents. Children born the old fashioned way are discriminated against. The protagonist buck's the system by faking his genetic identity. But it's not easy, and the authorities are tipped off when they find an eyelash that does not match anyone who should be working where the hero is working. Gattaca is the story of genetic fingerprinting carried to the extreme as a means of identification and class discrimination.

There are a lot of good reasons to give the authorities more power to gather data and spy on citizens in aggregate. And there are a lot of reasons to limit that power. It is a constant tug of war for control between governmental authority, whether it's local, state, or federal, and citizens. And that tug of war must continue. Anarchy is not a good system of government, but neither is the "Big Brother of Orwell's "1984" or the Huxley's vision of "Brave New World." There is a lot of room between total individual freedom and total government control, and it's up to us to make sure we don't travel too far toward the extremes.

Social Networks enhance political protesting in Middle East

In an opinion piece by Mona Eltahawy at the Washington Post tells us that free speech is getting a boost in the Middle East, thanks to social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. This is the result of an event I blogged about a little over a month ago, the death of Khaled Said.
Khaled Said's alleged murder by two Egyptian police officers spread quickly on Facebook and Twitter. Shortly after that Facebook groups were started in Khaleds name, and protests were organized.
Ms. Eltahawy discusses the events since his death, including the trial of two of the officers involved in the beating. The trial isn't over, but the fact that there was a trial says a lot.
The beauty and power of the internet is wrapped up in the fact that no one really controls it. As governments and industries try to control what can be transmitted and who can transmit it the freedom that many of  us take for granted is threatened. It may not seem like a big deal to those of us in countries who enjoy constitutional protections, but the activists in countries that don't enjoy those protections can tell you that it is a very big deal, indeed.