Anti-Civil Liberties Legislation Progresses

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.

News Flash! - AP wires report bill blocked

[pyramid termite]

"The Bush administration's anti-terrorism legislation has stalled because of one senator's concern that it will erode civil liberties. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., tried to hurry the bill through Tuesday, but Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., refused Daschle's request to let the bill go through without debate or amendment."

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.

Please Sign This Petition

[The Slashdolt]

This [indefenseoffreedom.org] is a petition to keep people from taking your freedom. Stand up for your rights, please! Do it before it's too late. It's much more difficult to take back laws once they are in place.

Re:ACLU and Technology: All Civil Liberties?

[ChuckDivine]

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.?

Not generally fond of the ACLU, but...

[CodeShark]

...in this case, I am glad for the analysis which they have done. As I have read the basic news stories on this, all I ever heard was that certain politicians had "concerns", but no legal analysis of what is good and bad in the proposed changes to the current laws.

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?

Links (was: Re:News Flash! - AP wires report ..)

[pherris]

"Senator Blocks Attempt to Pass Bill"
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011010/us/atta ck s_terror_laws_2.html

BTW, you can thank him for doing the right thing at:
http://feingold.senate.gov/services/contactrdf.h tm l#form

pherris

Meanwhile, UK plans to halve trial by jury

[JPMH]

As part of a wider report into the future of the UK justice system published on Monday, Lord Justice Auld recommends removing the right of trial by jury in 50% of current cases.

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]
General reports: BBC [bbc.co.uk], Times [thetimes.co.uk], Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk], Guardian [guardian.co.uk], Independent [independent.co.uk]
(submitted to /. yro yesterday; rejected).

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.

Re:Obligatory idiot

[then, it was nigh]

Godwin's Law merely states that as a thread's length increases, the probability of using Nazis or the Holocaust as a metric to compare peoples' arguments approaches 1. There's nothing about who wins or who loses.

Not strictly true, according to the Jargon File [tuxedo.org]:

[...] There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. [...]

Re:ACLU and Technology: All Civil Liberties?

[BlueLines]

I have not seen ACLU participate in DMCA cases or against proposed legislation such as SSSCA. As a result, I assume the ACLU has no argument over such laws.

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

more effective, perhaps?

[cheezus]

The ACLU lets you send a free fax via the web to your senators on the issue. I've used their service for other issues, and have usually gotten a response, so that's a good indication that *someone* is reading the fax.

http://www.aclu.org/action/usa107.html [aclu.org]

Re:One thing that's missing here

[jiheison]

Read the article again. The F.B.I. was hamstrung by it's own bureaucracy, not the law. Moreover, they haven't uncovered any non-circumstancial evidence or any communications between the suspect and the hi-jackers. Finally, even if they had, it would not have set off any alarm bells BEFORE Sept. 11. As such, it would not have prevented anything.

National Id Cards

[Anonymous Coward]

What really scares me is the proposal for a national id card.

There was some nazi, uhmm excuse me, "Security Consultant", talking to some talking head on some network last night promoting national id cards. Basically, it would have biometric data in the card to identify you.

The real scary thing is that the government can set up scanners anywhere, to scan the card anywhere on your person, allowing the government to basically track your every move.

By the way, the leftist/liberals don't care about civil liberties any more than the extreme right. If your American, do yourself and your country a favor, and vote Libertarian

Re:Are we at war?

[dachshund]

Say, while we are at it, why don't we suspend our civil liberties to help fight the "war" on drugs too.

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.

Where to get your reps mailing address

[bear_phillips]

You can find your reps mailing address at Contacting the Congress [visi.com] .

My favorite Feingold quote

[Sarcasmooo!]

"What we are seeing on television are not really party conventions, where representative delegates come to confer and choose, rather, these are basically now corporate trade shows for the delegates, while the main show is behind closed doors at big dollar soft money fund-raisers, and those soft money contributions, make no mistake, are setting the agenda for the American congress, and for the United States as a whole.

So, my friends, these conventions are both examples and symbols of a broader problem. We have devolved from a representative democracy to a corporate democracy in this country. This is not a system of one person one vote, or one delegate one vote, but a system of one million dollars, one million votes. It is a system of legalized bribery and legalized extortion."

(the speech [tompaine.com])

Re:SEC. 503. LIMITED AUTHORITY TO PAY OVERTIME.

[krlynch]

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.

Re:Anthrax - Virus or Bacteria?

[Loewe_29]

Bacteria.

From http://www.bact.wisc.edu/MicrotextBook/disease/ant hrax.html:

"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."

Re:For the Nth time - Privacy isn't the concern

[evil_roy]

It would appear that most people aren't bothered at all.

Current Issue of Time (8 Oct):

68% of US citizens support wire-tapping without court approval

59% support holding terrorist suspects in jail without bail or time limits

55% support e-mail intercepts/scanning

57% support ID cards issued by Govt that must be carried

Re:My favorite Feingold quote

[Sarcasmooo!]

By definition corporations are instruments of government (and government is an instrument of the people, so corporations exist to serve the people). Hell, a 'corporate charter' is what makes a business a corporation as I understand it; and that's given by the government. The government isn't perfect, and it doesn't help that people tend not to do their civic duty by keeping it in check, but a democratic government isn't a bad thing. How would you suggest corporations which are just as powerful, and in fact, wealthier than most governments, be kept in check without a governing body to control them? Would you trade an oppressive government obsessed with greed and power for an oppressive group of multinational corporations -- obsessed with greed and power? We would be returning to the pre-union days where 1 out of 3 factory workers is eventually killed or mutilated on the job because, when business interests are the top priority, safety requirements aren't cost-effective.