It really is stunning how rarely it appears that politicians who introduce bills "for the children" think through the obvious consequences of those bills. For years, we've discussed how COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, has had massive unintended consequences, mainly cutting off lots of useful sites from any kids under the age of 13. It's also led to parents encouraging their kids to lie about their age, when they realize that all their friends are on sites like Facebook. Also, many people point out that COPPA is really an attack on kid's free speech rights. California has passed its own Online Privacy Protection Act that goes a bit further, but apparently, at least one California politician wants to take things even further, and is doing so with a plan that seems incredibly poorly thought out.

California Assemblywoman Nora Campos proposed a bill a few weeks ago, AB 319, that would expand things so much that any sites that collect any information about anyone under the age of 18 would be required under law to reveal that personal information to parents if requested.

Now, think about that for a second. Since this is for any kids up to 18, we're talking about most of the teenage years for most kids. These are the years in which many teens rebel against their parents, which is, in many ways, a natural part of growing up and becoming an independent adult. To think that parents should be able to find out information directly from various sites about their kids' use of those sites seems incredibly problematic. There may be sites where the teens have tried to keep information private from their parents. And maybe that's because, say, the parents are anti-gay, and the child is gay. Do we really want parents to have easy access to that material? Or... what if it's a site for abused kids, and they are signing up to get help and to report that abuse? Under this law, it would appear that parents can check up on their kids on those sites.

What this bill would mean is that, in California, minors can get an abortion without parental notification, but they can't use Facebook. Also, under California law, teenagers may be emancipated as of age 14. But their parents can still spy on their online activities?

Oh yeah, and the parents can order those sites to no longer allow their children to use the sites any more. For troubled kids, seeking to connect with others who can help them at the point when they're struggling the most with their parents, it would seem like a situation that could have disastrous consequences.

An operator shall provide to a parent whose minor dependent has provided personal information to an Internet Web site or online service, upon request of the parent and proper identification, a description of the specific types of personal information collected from the minor by the operator, the opportunity at any time to refuse to permit the operator’s further use or maintenance in retrievable form, or future online collection, of personal information from the minor, and a means that is reasonable under the circumstances for the parent to obtain personal information collected from the minor.

I'm sure Campos is thinking that this is one of those "protect the children" bills that makes for nice headlines. But shouldn't someone actually think about the actual impact of these bills before they get introduced?

You may recall that last fall, the New Zealand government admitted that its equivalent of the NSA, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) had illegally spied on Kim Dotcom for US law enforcement. Like the NSA (in theory), the GCSB is not allowed to spy on people domestically. But they did exactly that. Now the other shoe has dropped, as Kim Dotcom has been allowed to sue the government over illegal surveillance, for which Dotcom may receive compensation. The NZ government had tried to argue that it was "inappropriate," but a court has rejected that idea. This also means that Dotcom (and his lawyers) will be told what information was captured and who it was sent to -- though the actual documents won't be shown to him.

We've noted already that the big telcos love CISPA, as it gives them widespread immunity to violate the privacy of users in handing over all sorts of information to the government. It appears that the efforts by various organizations like the ACLU, EFF and others to push back on CISPA as a blanket tool for the abuse of privacy is beginning to get to the telcos, because they've sent out their big guns -- former Congressmen and now both big telco lobbyists, Steve Largent and Rick Boucher -- to post a ridiculous, fact-lacking op-ed piece for CNN (with very little disclosure) arguing that CISPA is good for privacy.

We'll get to the argument in a moment, but first, while the article correctly notes that Largent leads CTIA, and that CTIA is a DC-lobbying group for telcos, it does not note that the telcos stand to benefit by getting broad immunity under CISPA. Worse is the disclosure around Boucher. Back when Boucher was in Congress, he was actually one of the good guys, especially on copyright issues. Yet, since losing his seat, he went to work for Sidley Austin, which is basically AT&T's legal caddie in DC. His disclosure leaves out Sidley's ridiculously close relationship with AT&T or how AT&T benefits from CISPA. Great work, CNN, making sure that your credibility continues to be at the scraping-bottom level.

As for the actual argument, let's sum it up this way: "CISPA is good for privacy, because CISPA will mean more security and security means more privacy." That's really is the argument, and it's misleading in the extreme:

The debate on cybersecurity has produced a sideshow centered around the belief that added security means a reduction in privacy. Such views are nonsense. Quite simply, digital privacy cannot exist without cybersecurity. Weak security equals weak privacy. Want better privacy? Raise your security game to prevent hackers from stealing private data. Let the experts from the private sector and government communicate with each other so when they see threats, they can alert others and work together to create a solution.

Except... no one is complaining about experts in the private sector and the government communicating with each other. So their whole argument is based on a lie. The worry is that CISPA also gives companies blanket immunity for sharing personal information of their users/customers with the government, and then allows the government to do whatever the hell it wants with that information. That's the opposite of "good security." In fact, it guarantees that it's more likely that this information will leak and be available to bad or malicious players.

Critics don't like the fact that CISPA enables information sharing between the federal government and the private sector in order to prevent cyberattacks and to pursue cybercriminals, hackers, fraudsters and others intent on harm. As they see it, such cooperation constitutes a potential privacy invasion that is so egregious as to merit no further consideration.

That's a blatant misrepresentation of the complaints. The concern is the sharing of personal information. Many were perfectly happy with the executive order, which allows for greater communication -- because it does not involve companies violating the privacy of its users.

Their concerns are, no doubt, well intended. But they are also out of touch with reality and risk unintended consequences that only serve to allow cybercriminals to operate with impunity.

Who's out of touch with reality? Those of us who accurately note the problem, or the two big telco lobbyists (who fail to note whom they're speaking for in the op-ed), who flat out misrepresent the concerns of privacy advocates?

The breadth and scale of the threat of cyberattacks on our nation's critical infrastructure -- financial institutions, electric and water utilities and air traffic control systems, to name just a few -- to say nothing of consumers' personal data, is no longer in debate

Great. If it's no debate, please point us to the evidence that there's a real risk (i.e., what is the actual harm and why can't it be taken care of currently via information sharing allowed under existing law?). We'll wait. We've been waiting. I imagine we'll be waiting some more.

Meanwhile, the avenues and opportunities by which hackers have to penetrate our networks are growing hand in hand with our increasingly mobile communications ecosystem. On the consumer side, for example, a recent study concludes more than 40% of U.S. smartphone users will click on unsafe links this year, potentially spreading malware that can steal data and dollars to their friends, family and colleagues.

And how will CISPA stop this?

Does that sound like a dynamic we would be well served to leave unaddressed? Should we keep our fingers crossed and hope things go OK? Or should we work together to provide the nation with the most effective reality-based cybersecurity we can achieve?

Again, what is the problem with existing laws that prevent us from tackling this "dynamic" today? Why does everyone refuse to answer that basic question. No one is suggesting that companies and infrastructure providers should just "keep our fingers crossed and hope things go OK." To pretend that's what privacy advocates are saying is simply a misrepresentation of reality by two lobbyists who know exactly what they're doing in smearing privacy advocates with lies.

Clearly, the latter is what we need: a cooperative approach, one that allows for lawful sharing of information on where, how, from whom, and in what guise cyberattacks and other forms of cybercrime are emerging so defenses can be prepared.

And... why should that involve personal information of users? And... what laws are currently blocking the necessary information sharing today? Please, do let us know. Because that's important and (not surprisingly) every CISPA supporter wants to ignore it.

At its heart, good security starts with good communication. When it comes to securing our critical infrastructure, shouldn't all parties be able to communicate with one another about what they are seeing and how attacks can be repelled?

Same questions as above.

Of course they should. That is why it so critical that Congress passes CISPA and the President signs it into law.

So... you completely misrepresent the position of privacy advocates, fail to explain why the bill is needed, pretend that the alternative to CISPA is to twiddle our thumbs and wait... and then insist that we need to pass the bill. Wow. You can take the politician out of his Congressional seat, but you can't stop the political doublespeak emanating from his mouth, apparently.

Debate is useful when it advances a discussion and removes obstacles to positive outcomes. However, to be constructive the debate must be based on reality, not abstractions.

Funny you point that out when your entire op-ed is not reality based.

Continued stasis serves no one, except hackers and those who would seek to do us harm.

"And passing blanket immunity protects our clients after we pass along private info of our clients. But let's ignore that part."

Why does CNN allow publication of such obvious crap?

The NSA's new super digital spying facility in Bluffdale, Utah got plenty of attention about a year ago, thanks to a detailed article in Wired Magazine by James Bamford that revealed many details of the center's existence. Last week, on something of a whim, Forbes reporter Kash Hill, who was nearby for another reason, decided to just drive up to the facility to see what she could see. It turns out that it was surprisingly easy to drive right up to the parking lot (though she later realized she had missed two small signs, saying that the road was private and that trespassing was not allowed). Still, you'd think that the place, even while (or perhaps especially while) under construction, wouldn't be that easy to access. Amusingly, it appears that whoever the NSA hired to program their entrance sign has a sense of humor: However, the guards who eventually came to see what Hill was doing didn't have quite the same sense of humor, asking her repeatedly to delete all the photos she had taken, and taking her ID (and that of the other person in the car who, thankfully, happened to be a knowledgeable lawyer who was able to speak up for their rights). You can read the entire harrowing tale at that link above, but Hill is eventually allowed to leave, though she did agree to delete a couple images that showed the license plate on a guard SUV, realizing that she just wanted to get out of there. The whole story is a bit surreal.

While I don't always agree with him (who do I always agree with?), like many folks who follow legal issues, Judge Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the court of appeals for the 9th circuit, is one of my favorite judges. Known almost as much for his ability to entertain as for his clear, well-written (and frequently funny) judicial rulings, one thing that's always been clear is that, unlike some judges, Kozinski is both down to earth and really inquisitive when it comes to understanding how things really work, rather than just accepting common wisdom. Last night, Judge Kozinski gave a lecture at Santa Clara University on "The Two Faces of Anonymity." As I expected, it was entertaining and insightful, with a few Kozinski-esque surprises thrown in.

By far the most entertaining part of the evening was Kozinski sharing (with screenshots) his experience exploring the "hidden web." He claims that when he told his children about the topic of the talk, they told him he needed to explore the hidden web. So, "with some trepidation," he downloaded Tor and dove in, starting out at Silk Road, which still remains the most well known hidden website out there. As we've noted in the past, for all the excitement and press attention Silk Road has received for being a totally anonymous online marketplace used mainly for buying and selling drugs and other illicit goods, it still is a fairly small business. Still, Judge Kozinski detailed his exploration of the market, including checking out various drugs (including many he'd never heard of before). He also looked into the ability to buy forged documents and lots of counterfeit software. From there, he moved over to Silk Road spin-off, The Armory, to see what weapons they had for sale, including 6lbs of C4 explosives. Of course, this is the point that we realize that Kozinski's claims of just having done this recently are probably a fabrication, given that The Armory shut down last summer. It's possible he didn't actually do any of this, but got screenshots from elsewhere online, but there's just something amusing in thinking about Judge Kozinski sitting at home surfing through these sites. He showed a few sites for hiring hitmen, and joked that two of them had such similar language and pricing that he was tempted to report them to the FTC for likely collusion.

He marveled at how much like regular online stores these sites were -- including things like seller ratings -- and compared it to his experiences with eBay. Of course, he also noted that it's entirely possible the whole thing is a front by the feds to track these kinds of things, but if so, he was impressed with the level of detail.

While much of this was entertaining, the point (I think!) was to highlight all of the kinds of things that anonymity enables -- but it wasn't in a necessarily negative or judgmental way (even if he's suggested his concerns in the past). Instead, it was more of a realist approach to what's happening out there and how there are interesting challenges presented concerning both anonymity and privacy -- which he notes are related but not the same thing. To show the difference, he discussed your neighbors across the way, where they may not be anonymous to you, but what they do in their bedroom is kept private from you. Yet, take a random couple in Times Square on New Years Eve doing the same thing -- and they may be "anonymous," but not private at all.

While he did express some concerns about where all this leads, including a dig at anonymous comments online, his biggest concern appeared to be about government abuse thanks to technology. He spent a fair bit of time on the NSA's infamous spy center in Utah, which is supposedly storing a ridiculous amount of information on us all. He pointed out that having that much information in the hands of government is dangerous, and suggested it's likely to be abused. As an example, he pointed to the story from all the way back in 2001 when he and other federal judges discovered that the feds were monitoring their internet usage, something the judges had never been told about.

He explained that the software had been put on the computers to protect the judiciary intranet from being attacked by hackers from China or whatever, but most of the time they weren't doing anything at all, so it wasn't long before the scope began to creep, and someone realized that, hey, if that monitoring software is on those computers, it could also be used to spy on what sites judges were surfing. The judges only found out about it when a judge was called out for his inappropriate surfing habits.

While he didn't say anything explicitly about it, it seems like this should be a pretty clear warning to folks who are supporting laws like CISPA. When you increase information sharing to the government for one purpose, you can almost guarantee that there will be scope creep over time. Someone will point out that "hey, we're already doing this for security, so why not for spying on people...."

Similarly, Kozinski is worried about how all this number crunching and data collection by governments means that people are going to be "targeted" for heightened scrutiny based on some algorithms, even if their activity is perfectly legal. He even noted that he's assuming that his own decision to download Tor and check out Silk Road and other sites probably means that he set off some alarms and may be in for heightened scrutiny. When asked about that later during the Q&A, he admitted that it might just be his own paranoia, but he wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

When asked about how to push back on all this government surveillance, he said that everyone keeps pointing to the courts, and saying that it's their responsibility to limit the government's powers, but suggested that the courts are limited, because it's not clear that anonymity and privacy are really Constitutional issues. Or, he said, if there is a basis for them in the Constitution, it's fairly weak, and could easily be overcome by "other concerns." Personally, I think that he downplayed both the First Amendment's protection of anonymity as confirmed by the Supreme Court, as well as the 4th Amendment's (too often ignored) protection of privacy. Still, he seemed to think that this was really an issue where it was up to Congress to prevent abuses. That's kind of depressing if you remember Congress' recent "debate" and subsequent rubberstamping of the FISA Amendments Act, giving the NSA much more power to spy on Americans with little oversight.

One other bit of useful info: he seemed fairly convinced by Justice Sotomayor's statements on the 3rd party doctrine in the US v. Jones case about GPS tracking. If you don't recall, the 3rd party doctrine basically says that you don't have privacy rights in information that you've left in the control of a third party. That's obviously quite problematic in an age of cloud computing, where all your data is probably in the hands of third parties. The government has been relying on this fact to access all sorts of data with little oversight for quite some time. It's good to see Kozinski hint at the idea that the 3rd party doctrine just isn't reasonable any more in the information era.

There were plenty of other tidbits, but basically it was an interesting discussion of privacy and anonymity, with a strong focus in how the government is collecting way too much information on us all these days. There was also some brief talk of how much information companies are collecting too -- including his apparent uncomfortableness with things like Google Maps' Street View and Satellite View (he joked about how you can see him sunbathing nude if you can find his house). But, for the most part, he seemed to think that this was an area where the government was doing a better job keeping companies somewhat in check.

Oh yeah, and one other amusing tidbit: in talking about how easy it is to track us all due to our mobile phones, he asked how many people had smartphones (or, more specifically, "phones with email on them") and noted that when he talks to lawyers, they all do. He noted that lawyers always had their email near them to respond to clients quickly, because otherwise you get fired, but this cool tool "given to you by work" just shackles you while also denting your privacy. And then he claimed that when work gives him a smartphone, he gets it without a sim and then sells the device on eBay. Maybe he should try selling it on Silk Road next time...

We've been troubled by a series of court rulings that have given police broad powers to search mobile phones without a warrant. California lawmakers tried to pass some legislation preventing such searches, but Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill to keep law enforcement happy.

Of course, most people have no idea what the police can pull off of your phone when it's searched, but the ACLU has, thankfully, revealed some documents that ICE filed in a court case. It turns out they can get quite a lot. Using a single "data extraction session" they were able to pull:

• call activity
• phone book directory information
• stored voicemails and text messages
• photos and videos
• apps
• eight different passwords
• 659 geolocation points, including 227 cell towers and 403 WiFi networks with which the cell phone had previously connected.

As the ACLU notes, this is a hell of a lot more information than law enforcement could ever reasonably achieve in the past -- especially without a warrant.

Before the age of smartphones, it was impossible for police to gather this much private information about a person's communications, historical movements, and private life during an arrest. Our pockets and bags simply aren't big enough to carry paper records revealing that much data. We would have never carried around several years' worth of correspondence, for example—but today, five-year-old emails are just a few clicks away using the smartphone in your pocket. The fact that we now carry this much private, sensitive information around with us means that the government is able to get this information, too.

The type of data stored on a smartphone can paint a near-complete picture of even the most private details of someone's personal life. Call history, voicemails, text messages and photographs can provide a catalogue of how—and with whom—a person spends his or her time, exposing everything from intimate photographs to 2 AM text messages. Web browsing history may include Google searches for Alcoholics Anonymous or local gay bars. Apps can expose what you’re reading and listening to. Location information might uncover a visit to an abortion clinic, a political protest, or a psychiatrist.

The whole idea that law enforcement can search your mobile phone is based on the idea that they can search items in your possession. But that never took into account the digital record that is stored in your mobile phone that goes way, way beyond what someone in the past could effectively carry in a box or a bag or something.

It's been proven before by various government agencies and it still holds true: if you give someone more access than oversight when it comes to collected personal information, you can't be surprised when this tool gets abused.

The latest abuse of a government-harvested database was uncovered by state auditors in Minnesota. The report details extensive misuse of driver's license records by law enforcement agencies.

The review by the state's legislative auditor — highly anticipated by legislators and privacy advocates — said officers need better training in allowed uses of the protected data, and local and state agencies should do more to monitor use. Beyond 88 incidents of misuse documented in state records last year, auditors found even more suspicious activity buried in audit trails.

More than half of the 11,000 law enforcement users of the Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) website in that time frame queried themselves or people with the same last name, for example, or disproportionately searched for people of one sex.

This study's findings will likely result in some additions to legislation proposed earlier this year, which seeks to add penalties and transparency to data breaches by government employees, requiring local agencies to post full investigation reports online should any breach occur. The legislation itself was written in response to a severe data breach traced back to a single government employee.

The legislation came on the heels of news that a former employee at the Department of Natural Resources had viewed thousands of drivers license records — almost exclusively of women — without a permissible use. That employee, John Hunt, is now facing criminal charges, and his actions have spurred five federal lawsuits against the state.

This employee might have been caught more quickly, but Hunt likely knew the limitations of the DPS auditing system and stayed below the radar, despite making nearly 19,000 queries to the database over the course of five years.

The report also recommended that because audits by the DPS largely detect heavy users, rather than suspicious use, local agencies should conduct more proactive monitoring. They suggested the department beef up its abilities to assist local agencies.

[Public safety commissioner Mona] Dohman said in an interview that the queries were so spread out that he did not emerge in their monthly review of the top 50 users.

In addition to the larger breaches, there were also cases where failure to deactivate accounts resulted in additional misuse of the DVS system.

During the 18 months ending June 30, 2012, 13 users conducted queries using access privileges associated with law enforcement agencies that no longer existed. Over the same time period, three former employees of state law enforcement agencies, as well as four former employees of local law enforcement agencies, accessed the DVS Web site using usernames and passwords that should have been disabled.

The current process for disabling accounts is almost farcical in its slowness. The report points out that the DVS allows accounts to remain dormant for 120 days before inactivating them. While this is a huge improvement over the 500 days it used to allow, it's still plenty of time for anyone looking to query a database they should no longer have access to.

Compounding the existing misuse issues is the fact that law enforcement agencies have exempted themselves from many of the policies affecting authorized civilian users. To begin with, sworn officers are not required to attend training or refresher courses on proper use of the DVS system, including policies regarding general security and appropriate data use. Officers are also exempted from the same user agreement that greets civilians at login and are otherwise not held accountable by any agreement when utilizing the DVS database.

DPS (Dept. of Public Safety) has not implemented other access management practices for all users. For example, DPS does not require a user agreement for sworn officers with access to the DVS Web site. Civilian law enforcement employees must sign a user agreement justifying their need for driver's license information, including their specific needs for access to driver's license photographs. DVS staff review the agreements before granting access. BCA (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension) has a signed intra-agency agreement with DVS. Agencies with employees who access BCA systems sign an agreement taking responsibility for access by their staff, among other things. Thus, it is only sworn officers who use the DVS Web site for whom DPS does not require an agreement, signed by the user or his or her employer, taking responsibility for appropriate access.

The findings of this study will certainly raise questions about this law enforcement double-standard. The proposed legislation and its attendant penalties and openness is, unsurprisingly, being fought by the law enforcement community.

House author Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, said she has already met resistance from some law enforcement entities.

"If you have bad actors in your bunch, then why shouldn't the public know about it?" Holberg said. "It seems like nobody wants any sunshine around this issue. And I think it would do a lot to rebuild the public trust if there was more public awareness of misuse and consequences."

It's pretty hard to rebuild public trust when you don't trust the public. Or, at least, don't trust them enough to be honest with them. The law enforcement fraternity has never been one for openness and consistency. As the study notes, misuse of the DVS system is handled differently by every law enforcement agency, if it's even punished at all. The lack of a codified "best practices" or even a basic "user agreement" that holds the individual officer responsible for his actions has led to widespread misuse. Minnesota's legislators are on the right track and this audit offers some very sound suggestions, but the feeling that those who enforce the law should be exempted from these same laws is somewhat endemic in law enforcement, meaning this has the potential to get worse before it gets any better. If they aren't careful, this legislation could reach passage with very few "teeth" intact, if it gets there at all.

The Internet as a mass medium is still relatively young, so it's no surprise that its function in society and in our daily lives is still being defined. One important question concerns the nature of our actions online: to what extent are they public? Here's one rather extreme view, expressed by Jürgen Maurer, vice-president of Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office, as reported by Der Spiegel (original in German):

Anyone on the Internet has left the private sphere, and finds themselves in a kind of public sphere.

That's no mere detail, of course: actions that are perfectly acceptable in the private sphere may not be in public, and vice versa, so it's crucially important to know where you are at a given time. For example, there are many things you might get up to in the privacy of your own home that would not be allowed in public. Similarly, it's generally regarded as OK for the police to keep an eye on what happens in public places, but their interest in people's bedrooms most certainly wouldn't be.

Since Maurer seems to believe that anything you do online, however personal and intimate, takes place in "a kind of public sphere," perhaps he'd like to follow that through, and start posting all his Internet activity online for the public to enjoy. Or maybe his idea of the public sphere online really just means "a place where the police don't need to get a warrant to spy on people...."

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

This is insane. Some politicians in New Hampshire have put forth a bill that would make it illegal to do aerial photography of any "residential dwelling." The key text of HB-619-FN is as follows:

A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground. This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects.

If you're thinking that this would make it a misdemeanor (which is still a crime...) for people to work on things like Mapquest, Google Maps and Bing Maps -- all of which have "aerial" views (often called "satellite view," though some are assisted by airplanes as well) -- to even exist, well, then, you have a point. Also, I don't know about you, but I've taken plenty of photographs out the window of an airplane, which have certainly included images of residential dwellings which revealed "forms identifiable as... man-made objects."

This seems like an extremist view of what "privacy" should be about, ignoring the fact that an aerial shot of your house is simply not a privacy issue. I am reminded, not surprisingly, of the story which resulted in the coining of "The Streisand Effect," in which Barbara Streisand sued a photographer for taking an aerial photograph of her house, as part of a project to photograph the entire California coastline from a helicopter (to study the impact of erosion). It was crazy to think of that as a privacy violation, and the court clearly agreed, siding with the photographer over Streisand.

And, it appears, lots of other courts have said that photographing someone's residence is perfectly legal:

Many courts have held that it’s not illegal to photograph a residence, such as the case in California and South Carolina and the issue has been addressed by other lawyers here and here. Usually the issue is whether the photograph invades the privacy of a person, which is difficult to do from the air, but is already addressed by case law.

Hopefully the legislature in New Hampshire realizes this is a complete overreach in the name of bogus privacy claims and drops the bill.

[If there's a new form of communication out there, you can be damn sure that the Department of Justice wants a piece of it. And if it doesn't, your local law enforcement, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA and any number of other government agencies do. The DOJ's justification seems to be that any new form of communication doesn't deserve protection from government snooping simply because there's no specific legal precedent preventing it from requesting the data. Julian Sanchez summed up this attitude concisely in this Tweet:

If the telephone were a new invention, DOJ would be insisting the phone company record & store all conversations, Just In Case.

— Julian Sanchez (@normative) December 3, 2012

To that end, here's that Tweet brought to thrilling life, via the fake news-like article below.]

PRESIDENT MCKINLEY ASSASSINATED! RECOVERS BRIEFLY BEFORE FINALLY SUCCUMBING TO ILL EFFECTS OF 'INTERNAL BULLET SYNDROME'!

While our grand nation still mourns the passing of President McKinley at the hands of an assassin, our fine gentlemen in Congress are meeting with our other fine gentlemen in the Department of Justice in an effort to prevent future tragedies such as this.

The assassin, Leon Czolgosz, an American-born foreigner of Polish descent, fired two bullets in a cowardly fashion at our nation's leader, striking our President in his glorious abdomen. The cowardly bullet then refused to exit the President's body, turning the wound gangrenous, a medical condition which can only be cured by amputation. A plan to save the President through an experimental "abdomendectomy" was briefly entertained before McKinley's sudden onset of death made the discussion irrelevant.

"Czolgosz's actions mark a turning point for this nation," stated one lawmaker. "We can no longer expect our presidents to remain sans bullet wounds if we do not engage these activists on their own level. We vow to take action, together with the members of Department of Justice, and other unnamed or unformed national security agencies. We are declaring war on anarchy."

LAWMAKERS DECLARE WAR ON IDEOLOGY, TELEPHONES!

Lawmakers have nearly unanimously approved the Department of Justice's recommendation that anarchists be hunted down and brought to justice before another such tragedy can occur. Citizens who have overheard derogatory comments about our fine Government are encouraged to report these occurrences to the Department of Justice by calling KL5-5503 between the hours of 8 am and 12 pm alternating Tuesdays. All calls are confidential and no information will be shared with anyone not currently on the party line.

"Anarchy isn't simply an ideology," stated one irate Congressman who wished to remain anonymous. "It's a threat to our American way of life, one that relies heavily on an unchallenged government and a careful blend of horse and automobile travel."

The Department of Justice has also recommended, in order to battle this rising tide of anarchy, our nation's telephone companies be required to transcribe every conversation occurring via this possibly dangerous communication device. A spokesman for the DOJ stated: "Czolgosz and his contemporaries were known 'early adopters,' and had been misusing our nascent 'talking boxes' to recruit Americans for anarchist activities, including fundraising picnics with no distinct starting time and a plan to violently overthrow the leadership currently controlling Ward 32."

The telephone, which allows young ne'er-do-wells to talk avidly of destroying the nation, is to be feared and distrusted, according to the Department. Its report, composed in great haste and at great length, recommends that all telephone companies build a secure room in which a security agent may be placed to record telephone conversations. This room will give the agent access to all phone lines as well as grant them the right to interrupt recorded conversations with requests to "slow down a bit," "please repeat that," and "English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?" All calls are to be dictated live to each agent's personal assistant, using a secure typewriter built to exacting and impossible specifications.

CONVERSATIONS RECORDED FOR 'CONTINUED SAFETY OF THE NATION!' CRAZY MAN WORRIES ABOUT 'PRIVACY!'

The Department's spokesman has pointed out that, despite listening in on every conversation transmitted via US phone lines, it only has an interest in suspicious conversations and derogatory comments about the US government (including derogatory comments about interruptions by surveillance agents). "Americans who harbor only warm, patriotic feelings towards our President and Government have nothing to worry about and should feel free to discuss any number of subjects without fear of recrimination, including sporting events, lurid gossip, suspicious goings on in the immigrant district, the superiority of the horse and buggy, violations of the "No Child Left Behind" labor law, non-lurid gossip, jazz as an overrated genre, the rejuvenating powers of Cooper's All-In-One Snake Oil™, gambling winnings over $500 and post-millennial anxiety."

An obviously insane lawmaker protested this proposition, claiming that transcribing every phone call made by American citizens is a clear violation of their "expectation of privacy." This phrase generated blank stares from nearly all in attendance at the proposal's mooting. One enraged Senator fired back: "We've been using 'moot point' incorrectly for several years now, no doubt due to the seeds of confusion sown by C... zolog... whatshisname and his ilk! It means 'something to be debated,' rather than 'something already decided!' Curse their anarchic blood!" Another responded: "Americans have no 'expectation of privacy' because any good American has nothing to hide. Speaking of which, we should require all markets and dry goods purveyors to log the names and addresses of those purchasing drapes, blinds and roll-down window shades!"

If the plan is adopted, the Department of Justice expects it will generate nearly 100,000 pages of banal conversation each day, spiking severely on Mothers' Day. These recorded conversations will be forwarded via courier to the home office in Washington DC where agents are expected to maintain a pace of 30 baseless extrapolations per 12-hour shift. "This is an undertaking of grave importance if the safety of the American public is to be ensured," stated a Department of Justice spokesman who wished remain anonymous and have his privacy respected. "The greatest threat to our nation is the free-thinking American citizen, whose lofty ideals and 'this system sucks' attitude pose a risk to the health and well-being of every elected official, except possibly Teddy Roosevelt, who has armed himself with a large stick and has already beaten two interlopers to death just this morning alone. Our war on anarchy and communication has no clear end point, but we will not be deterred or underfunded!"