Anti-Civil Liberties Legislation Progresses 348
hillct writes: "The ACLU has a very good comparison chart of anti-terrorism provisions in legislation currently being considered by congress. It covers the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001, the House Bill (PATRIOT Act) and the Senate Bill (USA Act), comparing it all to current law. We've all seen pieces of this information but the ACLU staffers did a great job consolidating it all." CDT also has a very good pdf guide to these about-to-be-passed laws. But the Onion has the best commentary.
Scary Part (Score:2, Insightful)
For the Nth time - YOU HAVE NO PRIVACY (Score:3, Redundant)
The only place you have privacy is in a room in your house with no windows. Otherwise assume you are being observed.
If you have a credit card, your entire purchase history is in a database.
If you have a drivers license or ssn which you use to identify yourself, your activities can be traced.
You phone can be trivially tapped.
You are being videotaped in most public buildings whether you know it or not.
Your internet connection is the most trivial of all to tap and trace.
Use TiVo? You viewing habits are in a database.
Where oh where is this privacy you are trying to protect? At least a national ID card would make everyone aware of the fact that they have ZERO privacy.
For the Nth time - Privacy isn't the concern (Score:3, Insightful)
If all they did was observe passively I wouldn't care. But it doesn't *stop* with mere observation.
Re:But we should ahve those privacies!! (Score:2, Interesting)
You picked a poor example. I can reconcile myself to corporate tracking of my debt payment habits. I find that a reasonable tradeoff for easier credit. I have a huge problem with my ISP (Time Wormer) having the absolute inability to manage without my SSN. I have a problem with stores tracking every purchase I make and tying them to me, not John Customer #235235632. I don't mind potential creditors knowing how likely I am to repay. I mind the fact that someone, somewhere knows every magazine I subscribe to, what sorts of books I buy, how often I eat Twinkies, my current and past medical condition, my address, phone number, how many kids I have and how old they are, and the list goes on. Worst of all, in many cases they're free to do WHATEVER they want with that data. I should be able to buy a DDJ, a WSJ, or a Playboy and have that info not go beyond the clerk, even if I don't use cash. I should be able to have genetic screenings performed without worrying that they might find something which would make getting life insurance harder, or impossible, or make getting a job more difficult. I should be able to eat Twinkies to my heart's content (actually I despise 'em, but that's beside the point) without wondering how long it'll be before the supermarket and my life insurance co partner and modify my rates based on my diet. Don't laugh, some people have seriously proposed it.
As always, there's a line of "reasonableness", for lack of a better word, which shouldn't be crossed.
And as always, it doesn't take the government to make this happen. It takes nothing more than enough of us saying no. No you can't have my SSN unless you have a legitimate use for it, no you can't examine my medical records before offering me a job, no I won't let you track my purchases in exchange for a so-called customer loyalty discount card, no I won't be your customer if you can't respect my privacy!
News Flash! - AP wires report bill blocked (Score:5, Informative)
I'm glad to see that one of our representatives feels a responsibility to have this discussed before it's passed. The article's available through Yahoo's home page - it would seem that Feingold wants to change several key provisions of the bill.
Re:News Flash! - AP wires report bill blocked (Score:2)
Re:News Flash! - AP wires report bill blocked (Score:3, Interesting)
Links (was: Re:News Flash! - AP wires report ..) (Score:4, Informative)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011010/us/att
BTW, you can thank him for doing the right thing at:
http://feingold.senate.gov/services/contactrdf.
pherris
Feingold also voted against the CDA (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't agree with everything he does, but on the basis of that one vote alone he earned a lot of respect from me. He was a relative newcomer and began making waves almost immediately with his campaign finance reform bill (with McCain), and his willingness to protect individual rights even when it's politically dangerous to take such a stand (like with the CDA, and now this).
Hat's off to him. If he runs again, he gets my vote. (I'm in Wisconsin). Tonight I'll look up the snail address to send him some dead trees letting him know this. (It's important to tell your representatives when you agree with them just as much as it's important to tell them when you disagree.)
My favorite Feingold quote (Score:5, Informative)
(the speech [tompaine.com])
Re:My favorite Feingold quote (Score:3, Informative)
The Onion (Score:2)
PETA == terrorists? (Score:4, Funny)
Under the definition proposed by the Administration, even acts of simple civil disobedience could lead organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to become targets of "terrorist" investigations.
Say, maybe these laws aren't so bad after all...
*ducks and runs* ... errm... *crouches down and runs* (don't want to offend the ducks)
Re:PETA == terrorists? (Score:2)
Oh wait, maybe they *are* terrorists...
Re:PETA == terrorists? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now here we have an anti-terrorism bill that may have the effect of - gasp! - shutting down PETA, which is viewed be MANY Americans as an extremist group whose members throw blood on people and support blowing up labs where animal testing takes place. In other words, this anti-terrorist bill may extend the definition of terrorism to include groups that many view as borderline terrorists anyway. They are strictly preaching to the choir on this one, and it does NO ONE any good when you preach to the converted.
They all need a good course in corporate law and communications. They need to learn the same rhetorical weapons that the corporatists who are dismantling are freedoms are using. They need to learn to persuade the mass of sheep who are Americans that there really ARE dangers to civil liberties or they will start to be ignored as the extremists they seem to be. And that would be a crying shame.
Re:PETA == terrorists! (Score:2)
Wrong. It makes them terrorists, in my book. They euthanize (i.e., kill) animals and they equate animals to humans; ergo, they advocate killing humans. Ask them, they don't deny it.
They also steal pets from pet shows then kill them. Those are terrorist acts. Their aim is to terrorize people into no longer owning animals. Ask them, they don't deny it.
Martial Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Preventive detention using other laws... (Score:3)
I mean who of us doesn't break the occasional law? Maybe it's just speeding or making a copy of a friend's software or downloading an MP3 from Morpheus. They'd be happy to have an endless intermeshing of complex and confusing laws so that they can detain anybody before they become a "real threat".
What if tomorrow they outlawed uncertified, non-backdoored encryption standards. Then all of the terrorists who give two shits about our laws will still break them, but all of a sudden they can be arrested for these more minor infractions. This gives law enforcement a means to detain and prosecute them even if it isn't for the murder of thousands of people.
Sure, they'd also find all of these other people violating that law because we don't care to have the government being able to see everything at a moment's notice. But hey, what's the sacrifice of a couple crypto dissidents going to prison if we can make everybody safe.
*sigh*
Re:Martial Law (Score:3, Funny)
You mean they're not? Someone should tell Wal-Mart about this missed opportunity.
Re:Martial Law (Score:2)
Are we at war? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem I have is that Constitution reserves the right to declare war to Congress. If we need war powers, fine, declare war. It sure looks like one to me.
Otherwise, don't mess with my Bill of Rights.
Re:Are we at war? (Score:2)
Re:Are we at war? (Score:2)
Answer: When war was declared on Japan following the attack on pearl harbor (we never declared war on germany, although the axis pact obligated germany to declare war on the US as a result of our declaration against Hapan, IIRC).
Actually, that is not correct. Japan declared war on Dec 7, 1941 on the U.S. by attacking Pearl Harbor, and the United States Congress responded by declaring war against the Imperial Government of Japan [ou.edu] on Dec. 8, 1941. On December 11, 1941, the governments of Germany and Italy, pursuant to the Tri-Axis Pact, declared war on the United States, and the United States Congress responded by declaring war on both Germany and Italy [ou.edu] on Dec 11, 1941. (yes, the text on that particular page only contains the declaration against Germany, but see the Avalon Project [yale.edu], which includes some text of the proceedings in Congress, and in particular the votes and motions leading to the passage of all three declarations of war.)
Re:Are we at war? (Score:2)
My guess would be that Hitler was just fed up with our bogus neutrality, what with Lend / Lease and all that. Yeah, here we go: [yale.edu]
So? (Score:2)
Why should that matter? We're sending our people off to fight and die somewhere. To them, it's a war. Why doesn't Congress declare it?
Re:Are we at war? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now... these goals are kind of vauge to me. It is the kind of thing that could lend itself to a "war" that lasts for decades, all the while our civil liberties would be suspended "for the war". Say, while we are at it, why don't we suspend our civil liberties to help fight the "war" on drugs too. There's another war that I'm sure we will end in a month or two!
1984 allusions are running rampant at this moment, but "we have always been at war with Eurasia".
Re:Are we at war? (Score:2, Informative)
Don't worry, we already have. Take a look at some of the asset forfeiture [fear.org] laws commonly used to get drug dealers. If the law can't pin a case on you, it'll pin one on your property. Forget about the Constitution, forget about the right to a Jury trial.
Yes, pretty much we are. (Score:2)
The bill that Congress passed after 8.4 milliseconds of debate -- I forget its name, the one that basically gave the blank check to Dubya -- apparently is no different with respect to the Constitution from a declaration of war.
At least, that's what the talking heads have been saying.
Re:Are we at war? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Erm, Civil or Human Rights? (Score:3, Flamebait)
See:
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webamrcount
Note: This report covers events from January 1 to December 31 of 2000. By all accounts, the 2001 report will not be much different.
ACLU and Technology: All Civil Liberties? (Score:3, Interesting)
But, given that ACLU has a mission, stating the obvious, to promote liberties, why has the ACLU long been absent on issues related to technology? Is it merely because there is an absence of techie members in the ACLU to advance such causes? Or does ACLU really dislike issues related to technology?
Re:ACLU and Technology: All Civil Liberties? (Score:3, Informative)
This question and its answer have been posted before.
Simply put, the ACLU, while famous, is a small organization with a limited budget. At the few ACLU events I've attended (yes, I am a member), I've been one of the few (perhaps only) technologically savvy persons. The ACLU does not tend to be the lead organization on information technology issues because EFF takes on that role. It's called division of labor, not lack of interest. Does the EFF take stands on racial profiling, the drug war, etc.?
Re:ACLU and Technology: All Civil Liberties? (Score:5, Insightful)
But, given that ACLU has a mission, stating the obvious, to promote liberties, why has the ACLU long been absent on issues related to technology?
What are you talking about? The ACLU has a long history of defending tech rights, and were the first organization to challenge an Internet-related federal law and have it heard by the Supreme Court. Check out Reno v. ACLU [aclu.org] if you haven't done so before. This case was heard way, way back in 1997. The ACLU has also worked in conjunction with the EFF and/or EPIC on numerous occasions.
More recently they have filed amicus briefs in cases regarding anonymous speech [aclu.org] on the net, as well as in the DeCSS [aclu.org] case.
To state that the ACLU has "no argument" with laws such as the DMCA or the SSSCA is to argue from simple ignorance. Both of those laws directly conflict with the values that the ACLU tries to advance and preserve.
Re:ACLU and Technology: All Civil Liberties? (Score:3, Informative)
just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. in actuality, the ACLU filed a friend-of-court-brief [aclu.org] int the 2600 decss case.
-BlueLines
Integrity Versus Security (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of information on the web has recently been deleted. While it is true that Google has much of this material cached [searchenginewatch.com], more and more information related to war, disease, and terrorism will go away.
While we need to worry about security, we also need to care about security. When folks get information, they can make choices. When choice is available, we have room for freedom.
Please Sign This Petition (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Please Sign This Petition (Score:2)
more effective, perhaps? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.aclu.org/action/usa107.html [aclu.org]
Re:more effective, perhaps? (Score:2)
They read faxes and this method doesn't even cost a phone call (sorry, now I sound like Sally Struthers... for less than the cost of a cup of coffee..., ACK.).
Re:Please Sign This Petition (Score:2)
What I'd like to see is an 'issue' site where you could not only sign a petition but pump in your zip code and get a shotgun blast of response methods: a standard letter (editable); fax numbers to your representatives, important staffers, and committee members; auto-email capability; postal addresses and a pretty print page for snail mailing; etc.
Basically a page with a couple of input boxes, some checkboxes and a submit button that fires off a flurry of righteous indignation!
Re:Please Sign This Petition (Score:2, Insightful)
Big Holes in Small Countries (Score:2, Insightful)
One last time (Score:3, Insightful)
You know there is a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The is a petition to retain your Civil Rights at Defend Your Freedom dot org [defendyourfreedom.org]. I have seen stuff on this sort of thing from everyone including the KKK to the ACLU, Pat Buchanon, and Common Cause. Something strange is going on when people across the spectrum are bitching, not just the wierdos [rense.com].
Heck, even the Department of Homeland Security sounds like something out of Nazi Germany. This is unfortunate given the allegations that the Bush grandfather made his fortune in trade with that country.
There is a whole lot of political dirty laundry out there that needs to be washed.
Sounds like Stalin to me. (Score:3, Interesting)
While it hardly matters where such hideous things first evolved, you might consider Stalin's campain against "wreckers" [google.com] particularly chilling. As part of his attempt to undermine potential opposition (ie any profesional, priest, officer, or person who had ever read anything) he made them all into potential forgien agents. Films were made where the vilian took money from the Germans to destroy factories and harvests. It terrorized the whole society and shook it to the core. In a country with an accute shortage of competent engineers, engineers were put on trial, jailed and even executed for supposed sabotage. They made great scape goats for his faild social policies.
Hitler got most of his tricks from the old man of steel. Orwell, having survived the conflict between the two, imagined governments that were continously at war and lobbed missiles at their own people to keep them upset. Kill Goldstien!
We are not there yet, but SSCA, DMCA, and other oppresive laws aimed at putting desperatly needed IT folks in jail are ominous. The popular culture has not been kind to hackers lately. How do you like being portrayed as a criminal interested only in stealing music, spam, breaking into military computers and stealing credit cards? Perceptions are powerful and bad ones can hurt you.
Re:You know there is a problem (Score:2)
so we shoot anyone who speaks up, and allow the complacent coach potato middle ground be the basis for normality. Hoooray for Apathy! Everyone else is under too much stress, and needs to be drugged out.
You can take a good thing too far.
My position is that at least people who care about politics will do something, will speak up. People who do not have time to think deserve the hell they create. I just don't want to be there with them. The "American Dream" has degenerated to "the Right to be Lazy." which is how MS got rich, by promising Laziness (It will be easier!)
feh
This one's scary (Score:3, Insightful)
Interception of computer trespasser communications (House 105, Senate 217)-
Allows ISP's, universities, network administrators to authorize surveillance without judicial order
Who left these entities to decide what's right or wrong? IMHO, this is too much power left to entities not expert in the field of law.
What's even worse is that there is no expectation of privacy for "unauthorized use" although that term is not defined. So it's up to the individual interpreter of the proposed law. Even the downloading of an unauthorized mp3 can allow the tapping of all communications by that individual, with no time limit!
The effects could be far-reaching, from unnecessary accusations of terrorism, to less privacy in the workplace.
How many times must this happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How many times must this happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
And we have an age distribution that's peaking at over 40, so there are fewer people who are willing to take chances to defy the government.
And we have a centralized control of the major media, by people that are inclined to go along (or even push a bit) in any plan to centralize control.
And we have politicians who depend on large corporate sponsors to be able to afford to campaign for election.
So it's a bit difficult for the average american to find out what's really going on, much less to do anything about it. (Individual people are, on the average, quite a lot easier to control than a mob. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes not.)
In the current situation, without any reference to external entities, we would naturally tend to drift in a more centralized and authoritarian direction. But we have a *** at the top who doesn't have the patience to wait for a drift. And then there's a (probably) external "cause celebre" to take advantage of. And
I would wager that a lot of people are looking for a way out.
One thing that's missing here (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm beginning to see a purely visceral response: terrorism => we are in danger => police need more powers.
On another note, where is the debate? I keep hearing that there will be one, but has anyone seen a member of the administration make a reasoned defense of these bills? Outlined why they are needed? Responded to criticism? Has there even been any criticism in the major media? (links would be appreciated)
Re:One thing that's missing here (Score:2)
Actually, covert wiretaps, etc, used in a manner to provocatively obtain "evidence" might get thrown out of court. Entrapment is not looked highly upon by the legal profession, even if it is becoming popular with the political arena.
Since I'm not convinced that =ANY= covert operation can work without some degree of entrapment, any law designed to gather evidence in such a manner may be on legally shaky ground to start with.
Then, there's the matter of the Sep 11th attrocity. If the USA or the UK had any real evidence - enough to warrant any sort of investigation - that any of the suspects was a threat to the populace, don't you think they would have arrested them?
The UK has anti-terrorist laws, permitting arrest on suspicion, for indefinite periods. Yet this was never applied. Conclusion - the evidence (none of which has EVER been published) never existed.
Re:One thing that's missing here (Score:2, Informative)
Re:One thing that's missing here (Score:2, Insightful)
The article only states that the Justice department must approve the request, not that they didn't have enough evidence from the French Intelligence and the testimony of the flight school people. It seems that the FBI's answer to this problem, rather than trying to improve the coordination between the two agencies, is simply to ask for power to not be required to seek Justice dept. approval at all.
This might actually make us less secure, if it leads to less cooperation between the agencies.
But thanks for the link. I think that before *any* legislation is introduced, the FBI needs to perform a thorough audit of where it failed, and then really see if the best way to fix its bugs is to increase its power. It may be mostly a matter of improving its policies/communication/training. After all the other options have been eliminated, then it can introduce some new bills to expand its authority. Only then. What's happening now is that Ashcroft is just presenting the same wishlist he himself attacked after the Oklahoma bombings.
btw, I agree that roving wiretaps are a good idea, since the person, and not his communication device, needs to be monitored. That's about the only reasonable provision I see so far.
Finally, as to the police-state crack, well people have reason to be suspicious of government. Remember the shoot-outs and assasinations of black panther groups in the 60's. Nixon's "enemies" list, the fbi files on Martin Luther King, clinton's "filegate" scandals. racial profiling. Recently, police infiltrators in the Genoa demonstrations wrecked violence in an attempt to justify a crackdown. Before that, police in Seattle seized a copy of indymedia.org's server logs, and put in place a gag order to prevent the site from reporting this. These were purely political acts, not fights against terrorism. They used the gag order to release public statements against indymedia which the site was forbidden from replying to. So the moral of the the story is that govt. has and will use its police powers to attack legitimate political dissent. Perhaps that's why so many are suspicious of giving them greater authority, especially without a demonstrated need for it.
Re:One thing that's missing here (Score:3, Insightful)
I argued that we should be hesitant to expand state power, because historically this power has been used to stifle dissent and political opposition.
About the Indymedia incident, the police obtained the supena fraudulently,
claiming that Bush's travel plans were posted to the web, thereby hurrying the supena through on national security grounds.
(no such itinerary was posted).
requiring the source of a news media story requires personal review by the Attorney General and proof that alternative methods wont work. None of this was done in this case.
the gag order on Indymedia was an abuse of govt. authority, since it requires at least that US laws be violated (no US law was violated). The gag order was later repealed on these and other grounds.
.. you like to throw around justifying the Taliban sheltering of bin Laden while his followers kill THOUSANDS. .
Lefties seem to have trouble realizing that the law is the law, and if you want to fight it, do it properly from within the system.
It seems that you don't think that the laws need to be followed, or at least that the govt. need not follow its own regulations. This is the kind of abuse of power that those of us who care about freedom of the press are worried about.
BULLSHIT. Even some of the anarchists and communists there acknowledged that any "infiltrators" were few and far between, and that THEY were responsible for trashing the city.
oh..so only "a few" infiltrators are ok, huh? I don't want any infiltrators, thank you. Because I don't think that the govt's job is to break up protests it doesn't agree with. Are you beginning to understand why some of us are suspicious of state power?? Btw, the 600 neo-nazi infiltrators were videotaped talking with the police. They wore black uniforms and gas masks and were widely reported to commit most of the violence. Details [twnside.org.sg] here [dyne.org].
I have no doubt those carabinieri would have been killed by those thugs if the police hadn't DEFENDED themselves.
I'm sure you have no doubt of many things, but a G8 inquiry into the killing as well as eyewitness accounts contradicts you. In fact most of the violence was perpetrated by the police on the demonstrators (see above or do a simple google search. Le monde also has good coverage.)
Typical lefty doublespeak..
If you think that the Genoa protest was about "smashing the state," then I am horrified at your ignorance. There were 300,000 mostly peaceful demostrators there, who were attacked, beaten with baton clubs, tear gassed, and infiltrated by black masked police agents. They were protesting serious issues of our day, such as what power private investors have to nullify local laws, wether nations will be forced to adopt new IP laws, what power a nation has over its currency, and wether committees of beaurocrats will be able determine how a govt. chooses to spend its money. If you have any idea of the nature of the protests, of the NGO's, working groups, or organizational drives which went on during Genoa, then you would be embarrassed by your accusation.
But my post was not really relevant to which side of the "globalization" debate you fall on, although I seem to have pushed a hot-button with you with that example. I was citing examples of abuses of state power (you were unable to counter any of my other examples). Specifically, the dangers of the ATA in expanding the definition of "terrorist" to include civil disobedience and protest. You just made my point perfectly in this line:
This is why you're seen as terrorists - because you are
First of all, Mr. Anonymous Coward, I am not a terrorist, and the fact that you can so blithely call me one, in these times, because of my words illustrates exactly what we are fighting against. The 300,000 in genoa were not terrorists. "lefties" -- whom you know so well -- are also not terrorists.
I've never justified the Taliban in sheltering bin laden. It seems that if I don't agree with whatever war rhetoric you happen to favor, then I must automatically be on the side of the enemy, in your mind. Maybe, like Bush's press secretary said, I had better "watch what I say". Is a twinkle of revelation entering your mind why many of us are concerned about the lack of debate or endagerment of our freedoms?
Just be lucky you live in AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where you can spew your totalitarian bullshit with impunity, while right-thinking people freely ignore and refute your sick ideology.
Yes, America *is* the land of the free and the home of the brave. But we have to share this country with you, Anonymous Coward. And you are trying to make it less free, with your "totalitarian" rhetoric:
You attack as terrorist those whose politics you don't agree with.
You defend police violence because the "lefties" "deserve whatever happens" to them.
You equate those who disagree with you as "justifying the Taliban."
But some of us actually want to preserve the bill of rights, specifically, "freedom of assembly" and "freedom of the press". You may be ignorant of how much this country has benefitied from public protest, from the Boston Tea Party (property was destroyed! Terrorism!) to the civil rights marches, to the Pullman strike and 8 hour work days. That's a big part of why we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. But I wont accuse you of being a terrorist, nor will I claim to understand everything in that angry head of yours. All I can do is pray that you are in no way connected with govt. or a law enforcement agency. Also, I can ask of you this:
Don't wrap your totalitarian rhetoric in our Old Glory. It's hard enough trying to care for her with the ATA and DMCA to worry about.
You need not set your flamebait to her stars.
Why, oh why... (Score:5, Interesting)
Although I think they ran the best series of reaction pieces to 9/11 I've seen, particularly "God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule" and "Terrorists Surprised to find Selves in Hell".
Of course, with new info pointing to the fact that only ~6 of the 'jackers actually knew it was a suicide mission might lend credence to that last story...
Re:Why, oh why... (Score:2)
This legislation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm...PETA/ELF (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I might get flamed for this, but...
While I do not support laws that infringe on any of the Amendments to the Constitution...
Some of the things that groups like the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) do...is terrorism.
http://www.nationalreview.com/search-results/co
"Eco-terrorism, sponsored by loosely knit groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, began in earnest in 1998, with the burning down of a mountaintop ski resort in Vail Colorado, the release of 10,000 minks from an Oregon mink farm, and the burning of a slaughterhouse. Eco-terrorism has proliferated since then, although, until recently, fear of provoking further retaliation has prevented targeted businesses from publicizing the problem. Biotechnology projects are the latest targets, with a fire set to the offices of a global biotech project at Michigan State University in Lansing and various experimental crop sites destroyed."
Events like that, terrorizing people that wear fur or leather, it's not right. In a society based on Common Law, like the US, those things that are not illegal are legal, wearing leather or fur, or raising minks for fur, isn't illegal and it's not right for a private citizen to attack that property. Many of the *LF groups are starting down the same path as Hezbollah and Hamas did in the 60s and 70s. If those domestic groups practice the same kind of distributed terror as Aryan Nation or Hezbollah, the Police and FBI should go after them with the same tools as they go after other "hate" groups.
PETA branding people for a choice of calories is no more right than Aryan Nation branding people for a choice of mate or church.
Re:ELF/ALF not "terrorists" (Score:2)
I can see releasing 10,000 minks as being a crime, but terrorism? How so? Are refineries and factories that pollute the environment terrorists too?
Re:ELF/ALF not "terrorists" (Score:2)
It goes both ways, i'm sure you could pick out quite a few corporations that act against the good of society to the point of being deemed terrorists. (oil companies with their own private armies in 3rd world nations for example).
What do you think the chances are of any major global corporation being held responsible for their terrorist actions? (Hint: start with 0 and work your way down)
Not generally fond of the ACLU, but... (Score:3, Informative)
My interest in posting is to pose questions as to the various facets of the currently proposed laws could be improved to so that the various gov't agencies who are charged with keeping the rest of us reasonably safe have a better legal tool set with which to do so, without the significant loss of civil liberties.
So, what are the /. thoughts/analysis on these questions: Is the ACLU analysis spot on? extremist? Not harsh enough?... Are there other views on these various points that we should consider important enough to not protest all of the changes? and finally, my pet question: how can we get the ACLU as up in arms about the DCMA and the SSSCA as they are about these acts?
The problem with the Onion.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, you read that correctly, and I'm not being sarcastic.
I'd bet any major newspaper could run that story word-for-word, and the majority of US sheeple would not only believe it happened, but agree with the "government's" position.
It's just too subtle.
SEC. 503. LIMITED AUTHORITY TO PAY OVERTIME. (Score:2)
You have to love it when governments squeeze seemingly unrelated items into a bill they are trying to pass. Check out Secion 503 of the Patriot Act (emphasis mine):
SEC. 503. LIMITED AUTHORITY TO PAY OVERTIME.
Would someone please tell me how this helps in the "fight against terrorism"? Never mind that it seems like an awful lot of overtime, just how does it help the anti-terrorism cause to limit overtime pay? Employees of the above departments might be forced to work a lot more overtime given the new restrictions that might be placed on their work and this just serves to screw them if they happen to work quite a lot more. This just seems like a petty section.
ian.
Re:SEC. 503. LIMITED AUTHORITY TO PAY OVERTIME. (Score:3, Informative)
If you reread what the part just before what you highlighted (the part that says "striking the following each place it occurs"), you will see that they are REMOVING the restriction on overtime pay, exactly the opposite of what you are complaining about.
Meanwhile, UK plans to halve trial by jury (Score:5, Informative)
The right to trial by jury would be abolished in all instances where the sentence was likely to be less than two years. This would include most prosecutions under sec. 296 of the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act (the UK's DMCA), as well as serious reputation-destroying charges such as theft, assault and drug offences, where defendants can at the moment insist on jury trials. To prevent "perverse" decisions, Auld also recommends that judges should be allowed to ask juries specific menus of questions about the facts of the case instead of innocent-or-guilty verdicts, reserving the final decision for the judge themself.
In a democratic system, the last ditch defence against a really bad law is that a jury can refuse to convict, in spite of the evidence, if they think that the prosecution is unfair or unreasonable. Cases thrown out by UK juries against the evidence in recent years include vandalism charges against GM crop protesters, official secrets charges against civil service whistleblowers and shoplifting charges against confused elderly people. Juries have also tended to be more critical of police evidence than judges and court officials; and to have had more relaxed views in obscenity and pornography cases.
Specific comment: Independent [independent.co.uk], Guardian [guardian.co.uk] /. yro yesterday; rejected).
General reports: BBC [bbc.co.uk], Times [thetimes.co.uk], Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk], Guardian [guardian.co.uk], Independent [independent.co.uk]
(submitted to
And remember, as this week's NTK [ntk.net] points out, bad UK law is often just version 0.1 for bad law in the US.
I'm the hell out of here. (Score:2, Troll)
Re:I'm the hell out of here. (Score:2)
Troll? Why Troll? I bet there are thousands of Americans who'll be fleeing this country soon. But not, I think, to Canada; it's too close to the US. I myself would be more partial to The Netherlands. They at least know what civil liberties are. They at least don't legislate morality. They at least just keep their noses out of their citizens' private affairs. To hear Ashcroft talk, US citizens have no private affairs now.
Let me share a nice quote I saw today with you all...
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering
I'd say it's abundantly apparent "our" leaders have read that statement from Hitler's right-hand man before.
Re:I'm the hell out of here. (Score:2)
I'll take the opportunity to mention that if WW III goes all-out, I may head north, quickly, and try to start a small safe community with some friends and other individuals interested in staying alive. If you have access to solar panels, stuff that can be used to convert biomass to energy, building materials, water filtration equipment, etc... just keep this in mind, in case... you know... shit happens.
The Constitution is a balancing act (Score:2)
When the country was founded, there was a HUGE debate over whether "we, the people" could be trusted to govern ourselves. Those who favored democracy felt we did; those who wanted to create a mini-Great Britain didn't. So in the end, we got a balancing act in which we democratically elect representatives, in whom we trust to do the right thing. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but that's besides the point. The point is, we have a hybrid system on purpose.
So in the wake of 9/11 we can expect the balance to be reopened for debate. The question is still and always has been this: can you trust an open society of common people to make the right decisions and act like good citizens? Or do you have to have a central government provide a high degree oversight and control?
I'm voting that we've still got what it takes. I hope the changes that get passed are minor ones. To do otherwise would be to give up on the "great experiment" that is the point of having a separate country in the first place.
International Students (Score:4, Interesting)
I fully understand that Americans are frightened and need to protect themselves, but I don't think this particular proposal will have the intended effect. Students are a small minority of foreigners in this country and it's easier to get here other ways. If you just enter on a vacation, for example, you don't need proof of acceptance to a school or financial documents. I do agree that the student visa system needs an overhaul and better security, but not a moratorium. For that matter, in light of the terrible events on Sept. 11, the entire immigration system needs to be scrutinized. Anyway, I offer my personal condolences to the Americans in the
Judicial review (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Judicial review (Score:2)
You aren't paying attention.... the correct statement would be "Everything the Administration wants to do, it can do right now if judges approve." The administration argument on many of these items is that, when conducting nationwide investigations to prevent or prosecute terrorism and organized crime, the current need to obtain many approvals from many judges in many different jurisdictions is so time consuming and beaurocratically stifling, that they aren't able to effectively carry out their job. And in certain instances they are correctly claiming that they are not allowed to do certain things (they can't tap the phone used by a given individual, but can only tap a given phone line, for example, or having to avoid official criminal investigations in situations which might also have counterintelligence and antiterrorism components, because they have different, mutually exclusive requirements and conditions)
As to your claim that this is just a power trip: not liking Ashcroft is one thing, but distorting his words to support your desires is intellectually dishonest. You ought to be clear of the facts before spouting your opinion about them.
Ugh... (Score:2)
The lack of judicial oversight, the broadened definition of "terrorism" to include common civil disobedience tactics, and the ability to continue surveillance after it's no longer useful to an investigation all sounds tailor-made for keeping tabs on and incarcerating political dissidents.
Time to waste more postage on my representatives...
OK,
- B
Danger in latting go of civil liberties (Score:2)
A shame to see that in all the polls I have seen recently on CNN and in newspapers, whenever the question is about abolishing a civil liberty, roughly 80% is in favour. I sure hope we get back to thinking again soon.
what the constitution protects (Score:2, Insightful)
On a side note, I must point out that the Constitution does not protect you from your ISP or other access/content provider spying on you or your activities. If they determine you are being bad and then go to the authorities, you could be investigated further, and probably legally.
Our best hope here is that after these laws pass (and they probably will) that a relatively benign case makes its way to the Supreme Court, and that they will strike the law down as unconstitutional.
I think I've got a new signature... (Score:2)
What do you think? Keep the old one, or replace with the new one?
-S
My letter to Feingold (Score:2)
Their rush to defend our freedoms by destroying them chills me. I am more afraid of THEIR efforts than the actions of the most black-hearted terrorist, as it is abundantly clear which will have more disasterous long term effects.
Please continue to defend our civil liberties by preventing kneejerk reactionary responses similar to what we saw in the McCarthy Era and the Cold War.
Freedom must be protected at all costs (Score:3, Insightful)
Weaken or remove one strand, and the rope is
weakened... There are bad people in the world,
ever watchful for opportunities to seize dominance
over others. For good people to stand idly by is
to welcome the erosion and eventual collapse of
all our freedoms." David F. Linowes
At the point where all freedoms are up for grabs, so is everything America stands for and is embeded in the Constiution. These crisis brings us incrementally closer to more rights losses, many of which are covert in the eyes of average Americans. If we want to protect are freedom, we must act now and set a precedent: under no circumstances will we give up our rights for utilitarian ends.
F-bacher
Flash! Onion Becomes Serious Paper! (Score:2)
"I was reading this article, expecting a laugh, but the laugh never came!" sobbed one long-time Onion reader. "I depend on the Onion to distract me from facts, and what do they do!" After speaking with us she left for her lawyer's office intending to sue.
Other online news entities were similarly stunned. Matt Drudge refused to talk with us; Joe Farah of World Net Daily simply stated, "it's war!" CmdrTaco of Slashdot said that "it'll be nice to have someone who actually REPORTS the news."
Onion Prints Historic First Retraction (Score:2)
One Onion staffmember spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It was just too realistic. People actually thought this was a real story! I guess that's kind of scary." He continued: "I mean, what do we have to do to, label every page with 'WARNING: Contains Satire, Witty Postmodern Observations and a General Sense of Cynicism'? Why don't people get it?"
"I mean, sheesh, we regularly run stories that anthropomorphise animals and quote God as using the f-bomb. How much more obvious can we be?"
The internet community was unavailable for comment.
The Constitution is not a suicide note (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously the best restriction on traditional liberties is no restriction. However, given the terrorist threat, the ACLU would be more helpful by saying what restrictions it thinks are acceptable or useful or even necessary rather than dismissing them all as if nothing changed on Sept. 11.
For instance, it says: "Few of the provisions being discussed are needed for the current terrorism investigations, so Congress should take the time to do it right." But it does not say which of the "few" it feels are necessary and that Congress should therefore act on expeditiously.
In addition, all of these acts are subject to judicial review under the Constitution. No Constitutional right can be removed by an act of Congress. If there is a problem, it is that some of the so-called rights we take for granted are not protected by the Constitution.
The ACLU only says a few provisions explicitely violate the U.S. Constitution: (1) Nationwide pen register/trap and trace orders and roving wiretaps, and (2) Criminal evidence uncovered using an intelligence (FISA) wiretap. It doesn't mention a Constitutional test for the others, which should be the first objection raised.
One question is whether the terrorists pose a greater real and immediate threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than the provisions mentioned by the ACLU. If so, the laws that are providing shelter for the terrorists are going to have to be changed.
Another of the Founding Fathers (Score:2, Interesting)
I do not think he would have had kind words for those who wish to restrict our liberties in exchange for a marginal improvement in "security".
Where to get your reps mailing address (Score:2, Informative)
Every Citizen a Criminal (Score:5, Interesting)
1. There is supposed to be a state of constant war. Orwell states that this constant war is used to keep the people nationallistcally proud of their country, while suffering privations for the "war effort" Remember the theory that the bombs were dropped by Oceana itself (not suggesting in any way that the terroists were not responsible just emphasiszing that in order for docility there needs to be a constant anxiety about war)? The constant state of war also lends people to worry about the nessecities of war and not the niceties of freedom and comfort.
2. Every citizen a criminal. The only way to keep people in check was to criminalize everything, down to thought. The understanding is that if you can be caught at anything, you will watch everything that you do or say. If posting negative comments about the party (Bill Maher) got you tortured or killed, you'd be likely not to speak out. If thinking ill about the party could get you busted by the goon squad, then you would even fear yourself.
3. The most frightening thing about taking away liberties is that it is a slippery slope. Remember that once the Party had a modicum of power, it's only goal was power. Soon after a few generation, there would be no thoughtcrime or punishment, because man would cease to be man in any recognisable sense. In other words, there would be no thought as we know it and so no thought crime. Today it's internet, tv and newspapers, tomorrow it's your desktop, the day after, your home and in a few years, your children have no concept of home. Scary. All too real.
What we need to do is make a conscious decision to effectively protest this crime against America and technology by having a "Tech out" like if this gets passed that we just do our jobs like normal, but when we get home, don't sit in front of the screen. I know that's a lot to ask of people who live and breath by the I/O but there has to be an effective voice to speak out against our liberties getting trampled on in the name of freedom. As too often is the case, we are conscientious objectors with no active participation until there is no protection in place to allow participation. It happened to a very civilized Germany, It happened in Afghanistan, it happened in the former Soviet Union, it most certainly could happen here.
Speak up, speak loud and speak out.
Technology is part of the key (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, George Orwell never said that a translation like this would happen over night. In fact, that would be impossible as long as we have people who are very enthusiastic about their rights. It will take genertations to get them out of the gene pool. But the threat of terrorist attacks on the US, on it's own soil (If Russia had tried to invade the US, we would have been in the same situation, but only magnified by 100), has made the transition process a little easier. You won't wake up tomorrow with Big Brother watching your every move. It will come incrementally over time, so you don't even notice the transition.
F-bacher
"Only violence stops violence." (Score:2)
U.S. government:
"We must take your freedom away so that you can continue to have freedom."
"Only violence stops violence."
Secrecy and weapons sales corrupt democracy: " What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Are we doomed ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The suspension of civil rights during war is ok ? what is happening here for christs sake.
Suspension of civil rights is NEVER acceptable. Full stop. What happened a month ago can happen again today or next week or next year, all the talk of rhetoric and sabre rattling and bombing will never ever change the simple fact that one or 2 determined people who believe in their actions can get around almost any security.
After vietnam one would think that the US would have learned this fact of life.
Terrible things happen in this world and innocent people die - horrific acts of pain and suffering, murder, torture, rape etc.
Allowing the government to take away ANY of your rights because in the heat of anger you think it its a goos idea is not only insane its EXACTLY how Hitler gained power in Germany with minimal real support, how Lenin took Russia etc.
We need to be vigilant today and toomorrow and forever to ensure that the democratic process is never circumvented for any reason - we choose the government and the government should always be answerable to the public - NO EXCEPTIONS
What do we do in years to come if we give up civil rights now and the government decides that in a state of emergency to suspend elections and habeas corpus, to declare martial law or other actions ?
All the planes in the sky and the troops on the ground cannot prevent this sort of action happening again and throwing away civil liberties and democratic processes show those in the world who claim the US is a bully that they have a point.
We should always ensure that the power this nation and its allies wield is applied fairly and honestly with restraint and compassion - there is no need for innocent people of ANY race to suffer in the pursuit of any group of people - and this includes the millions of innocent Afghanis who have suffered through nothing but war for almost 30 years.
Lets not give away our freedoms, not now not ever.
The Whitehouse urges Network Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
It may seem like a good point. But what seems scary to me is that the Whitehouse has been trying to control slant and news since this thing has happened. The Bill Maher thing is one example, as is the fact that it was disproven that the Whitehouse and Airforce were targets that day, even though both Cheney and Rice insisted that it was true.
Something is up, and parnoid conspiracy theory aside, its getting pretty scary. Last night on Bill Maher, the republican strategist said that CNN was on the verge of being sued by the Gov for creating the Anthrax scare, cos they have been "right on the line of what the first amendment protects" (paraphrase, it was late). Its all too convienient if you ask me.
The War on Drugs was just the beginning (Score:5, Insightful)
I see a parallel here in recent events. The government has just come up with another way to criminalize otherwise innocent people. We already have a greater percent of the population incarcerated than any nation (but, hey, it's good for the economy [prisonactivist.org]!).
The scariest thing, to me, is that if the government spent as much time and money trying to educate us about drugs, rather then spend it on propaganda [lindesmith.org], we might not have so many lives destroyed. Similarly, if we spent as much time and money on finding a peaceful solution [indymedia.org] to the terrorist problem, instead of bombing the hell out of people and whittling away at US Citizens' civil liberties, maybe we could get somewhere.
Meanwhile, I'm a bit scared that my political beliefs [greenpartyusa.org] will get me thrown in a jail. Please, you may not agree that we shouldn't be bombing Afghanastan, and you may not agree with my politics, but every single American is in danger of losing our freedoms. And that's what we are supposed to be fighting for in the first place, isn't it?
Speak out! [indymedia.org]
Re:ACLU (Score:2, Funny)
...umm yes because as it stands your post makes no sense and conveys no information at all.
Re:ACLU (Score:2, Funny)
It could be a sort of Zen rhetorical question. A sort of 'is it really important if I say more, or less, cosmically speaking?'.
Or he could just be a first post Troll who is wondering how much he has to write to get past the lameness filters. The subject is just a red herring.
Or perhaps I'm hungry. Yes that seems more likely. -- hhgttg
Actually, yes. (Score:2)
-russ
The ACLU - falling out of favor... and why... (Score:2)
Slippery slope arguments are notoriously difficult to make. In order to justify your actions using a slippery slope argument you must defend any and all instances of the situation you propose to protect. While I support the ACLU, you have to realize why their support doesn't have a much broader base than it does. I believe that support for civil liberties runs far deeper that one can see by looking at supporters of the ACLU because they have chosen to use this simplistic principle to articulate justification for their actions. They have created for themselves a political policy cul-de-sac from which they have yet to emrge. They find themselves defending the most morally reprehensible instances and people who find their civil liberties infringed upon. Potential supporters then look upon these actions and can't seperate them from the vary laudable goals of the organization as a whole.
While Slippery Slope arguments are common in civil liberties discussions, it is important that they don't act to drive away potential supporters of the overall set of principles.
--CTH
Re:What happened to key escrow? (Score:2)
Re:What happened to key escrow? (Score:2)
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I am so tired of seeing that, no matter how approproiate it may be.
Invoking Godwin's law, clause 9/11: this discussion is now over.
Re:Obligatory idiot (Score:2, Informative)
Not strictly true, according to the Jargon File [tuxedo.org]:
Re:What is left to defend? (Score:2)
Re:Does this quote bother you as much as me? (Score:2)
Re:Anthrax - Virus or Bacteria? (Score:2, Informative)
From http://www.bact.wisc.edu/MicrotextBook/disease/an
"The anthrax bacillus was the first bacterium shown to be the cause of a disease. In 1877, Robert Koch grew it in pure culture, demonstrated its ability to form endospores, and produced experimental anthrax by injecting it into animals.
"Bacillus anthracis is a very large, Gram positive, sporeforming rod (1-1.5um x 4-10um). The organism is readily cultivated on ordinary nutrient medium and grows best aerobically, but will also multiply under anaerobic conditions."