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.
What happens next? (Score:1, Interesting)
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?
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.
Re:News Flash! - AP wires report bill blocked (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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...
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.
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
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.)
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".
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Re:The Constitution is not a suicide note (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd like to not have to sit in jail while waiting for my rights to be restored by a judge when they shouldn't have been taken away in the first place.
If you are sitting in jail, what's at stake is your right to beat the rap by claiming unreasonable search and seizure. If, for instance, you were a terrorist who had been arrested because of information provided by a foreign intelligence service obtained by a wiretap, you would not be able to argue that the evidence was inadmissable.
None of the things the ACLU is protesting would get you arrested. They make it easier for the prosecution to get a conviction by admiting things into evidence that would have previously been excluded.
It's curious that none of these provisions mention internment without trial, which is a big feature of the Britain's protection against terrorism act. The U.S. is holding approximately 600 people as material witnesses without trial. Apparently, when it comes to getting around habeus corpus [angelfire.com], the FBI already has all the power it needs.
Re:The ACLU - falling out of favor... and why... (Score:2, Interesting)
I completely agree, but I think it is tough to argue with taking that type of logical stance. When you look at other single interest lobbying groups (the NRA comes to mind quickly), they are fairly effective. I mean, you could argue that there have been various laws that doodle around the edges of restricting gun ownership, but regardless of how you feel about the notion, the NRA has managed to keep most firearms safely legal. The Constitution (US, of course) is pretty ambiguous about the whole thing -- throwing in a phrase about well regulated militias -- and yet consistently a right is found by the "common" person.
The real problem the ACLU has is that they are trying to protect a right that is even more ambiguous. The 4th amendment is clear in the beginning -- but then gets into warrants which takes away with the other hand what we just got with the first. The 5th Amendment also offers a small amount of protection -- but in general, once one is the subject of investigation and a warrant issued, the 5th amendment won't save you.
The ACLU has no real choice but to be for nearly absolutely freedom and privacy because the constitutional language doesn't give them any place to say, "This far, and no further." Once they give in to the notion that the government can have warrantless searches because of terrorists, there's no reason to stop for any other reason -- you get into "tests" of how "compelling" the government's interest is