Senate Trashes Civil Liberties; House to Vote Today 963
The U.S. Senate passed its version of the "anti-terrorism" legislation last night. The Washington Post, CNN, and Wired all have stories. There are terrorists under every rock, and we must destroy our freedom in order to save it. Remember: gamblers are terrorists too. The House is apparently going to drop their version of the legislation and vote on a copy of the Senate bill.
I hope I did my part (Score:5, Interesting)
I received no auto-replies, no real replies, no acknowledgements, nothing.
Guess who's not getting my vote at the next election?
I swear, I'm gunna run for some public office and end this crap.
WTH? (Score:3, Interesting)
All right, related to the earlier story on our reps not paying attention to us, how *DO* we shine the light of reason into our government?
Perhaps it's time for more than letters, calls, and emails to our reps. Maybe it's time for a bunch of us to get together and get out in our communities and spread the word.
The reps may not be listening to a horde of geeks, but chances are good they'll start hearing us loud and clear if a more balanced mix of their constituents pipes up.
Now we have another problem (or rather a few). How *do* we get people (average Joe/Jane) to listen, and even discuss these issues? Everyone still seems on edge after the 9/11 attacks, but I'd like to believe that energy could be channeled in a positive direction.
Anyone got a site up specificially to discuss this stuff? I'll email all my friends the link.
Upheld (Score:5, Interesting)
Give me a minute... (Score:4, Interesting)
... ok ready..
First of all, this does not fall under the ben franklin remark about sacrificing liberty for safety etc etc...
terrorism is a semi-expensive business... it takes money to train people to fly a 757 into a tall building, pay off people, etc etc.
Osama and co. obviously is using one of the oldest tricks in the book to launder money.. gambling.. how many people complained when we shut down the mob run casinos in vegas? not many. why? because it helped shut down that element.
Osama and friends are more like pissed of rich boys than they are 'good muslims'. Chances are we wont find him, so the next best thing is to make it very crappy for him to live...
it's also been shown that they have used the net to transmit messages, and now maybe even TV.. if putting harsh restrictions on cryptography can hinder him as well, what all is lost? It's because of paranoia and people continually fighting the governments efforts that these people pulled off what they did. We complained about military spending, intelligence, etc... and now look what happened..
we say we want the govt to protect us, so when will we let them do their jobs?
I'm sure I'll have zero karma after this... (Score:5, Interesting)
I do think voting down the amendments was a bad thing. Please read the bill or at least the summations before commenting. Overall this is a bad bill, but that provision should be passsed (with the amendments attached)!
Senators are people too... (Score:1, Interesting)
First of all, they're just as scared as everyone else. They've got spouses and children and grandchildren that they don't want to see dead. So... they come up with a way that they think will cut the cancer off at the root. Problem is, whenever such social surgery is performed, some good tissue always goes with the cancer. In war, we usually don't think about the good tissue until after the fact.
Secondly, they know about as much about technology as the average American. In other words, not all that much. Recent and proposed legislation, from the SSSCA to the DMCA back to the CDA, all point to a lack of understanding about how technology and technological societies work.
The results in both cases: bad legislation.
What to do in response to this? Don't stop trying. I sent my letters (actual, handwritten letters) to my constituent senators regarding the SSSCA today. I don't know if they'll do any good; however, maybe if combined with a few dozen other
Finally, my apologies for my anonymousness. I'm sorta new here.
nightelf
Re:I'm sure I'll have zero karma after this... (Score:2, Interesting)
These bills would modify the PR/TT wiretaps to allow the recording of "routing" and "addressing" information on all electronic communication, but cannot contain any content. Now I don't know about you, but www.google.com/search?q=George+Bush sure seems to me like it gives away content. The bills don't define exactly what "content" is, and so it is up to the enforcement agencies to determine what is and what isn't content. Basically, we then allow agencies to read everything, for free. Judges have effectively been taken out of the picture.
Also, the constitution forbids "blank" warrants. You must describe exactly where the tapping is to take place. The USA and PATRIOT acts would allow nationwide taps. This completely disregards the jurisdiction of a judge (except some higher courts).
"Code is law" (Score:2, Interesting)
jason
Re:We bitch about civil liberties on /. (Score:5, Interesting)
Big implicit assumption here is that there is a conflict between the two. I would argue that there isn't. Reducing freedom often reduces your security too. This is because, the freedom any government is most keen to irradicate, is the freedom to disagree with it. For instance, Germany wasn't a very free place before WWII, the lack of freedom and rampant patriotism allowed their leaders to drag them into a war which seriously decreased the security of the German people.
"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."
Herman Goering
The proposed law concentrates on classifying things like cyber-activism as terrorism. Most of this legislation is not aimed at reducing the chances of someone releasing anthrax at the super-bowl, it's aimed at reducing protest and dissent, which they are expecting for good reason.
The talk about innocent civilians being killed in Afghanistan misses the point IHMO. A question which is probably of more relevence to Americans is: are we benefitting from this action ?
Trying to irradicate terrorists with bombs is like trying to clean a windscreen with greasy fingers. You might shift the original bits of dirt, but you make a far worse mess in the process. The problem is not a few makeshift training camps in Afghanistan. Where did the terrorists learn to fly planes, where had they
been living for the past few years ? The root problem is the hatred in people's hearts. If you want to understand the hatred, don't read CNN, read some middle east papers and see what they say. Even if it's nothing but a pack of lies, it's worth knowing what the US is accused of.
To figure out whether this action might make us safer, there are two questions to answer:
(1) will it decrease the hatred (particuarly amongst muslims) ?
(2) will it make terrorists think that attacking the west is a bad idea ?
I'll leave the answer to question (1) as an exercise for the reader. The answer to (2) is less obvious, but I don't think you need a degree in psychology to figure it out. The kind of people capable of flying planes into buildings,
or releasing anthrax at a football game, will not be swayed by logic. It was never their strongpoint. Since we seem to believe we
can secure our goals through terror and bombs, I don't see any reason to expect better reasoning from terrorists.
For a hint as to where the push for war comes from, look at http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/10/11/17799.ht
This is Protection? (Score:2, Interesting)
Many people I work with seem happy enough to give up some freedoms to ensure that somehow they will be safe.
I always seem to get stange looks when I say 'fsck em! I don't want or need anyone's protection.' The powers that the government has right now are sufficient to get the job done. It's been one month since the WTC attack, and they have nabbed what around 600 people. They were able to do this without the aid of an anti terrorism act. Hell, would this new law enable the government to give us something other than 'we suspect that we might be attacked somewhere, sometime?' I doubt it.
This is window dressing when you put it next to what I personally suspect is coming our way from Congress and the President.
I don't know about anyone else, but I will fight for my liberties. I won't fight for the 'right' to burn lots of oil, make a profit, or for some corporation to be able to open their valu-mart without fear of it being attacked in some godforsaken corner of the globe. The dream and promise of America was never profit. It was freedom.
Hell, in the new america, you can start a war without having to declare it.
*end rant*
We're screwed. (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard "someone" on National Public Radio this morning interviewed. They were speaking about "network analysis", and the conversation was quietly interesting. NA covers credit card purchases, credit profiling,that sort of thing.
He said that law enforcement on the Federal level wants access to our marketing data.
You heard me right.
He said that businesses had more information about us than the government did -- implying, to me, some surprise that the government doesn't have as good a set of data on its citizens as biz does, and that that obviously, in the light of the new day, this should be rectified.
The Feds want to apply network analysis, the same kind of tech used to track your credit history, to be applied to everyone's data, so that they can work up a pattern of questionable behavior and jump on someone before they actually do a deed.
You heard me. Pre-emptive law enforcement.
Good enough for terrorists, for now. But remember, the current admin wants to expand the definitions of "terrorism" to someone who gets unauthorized access to a network or computer system. And I gor-un-tee that they will add more definitions of a "terrorist" as the decades wear on in their weary way.
We've lost a big one. One dissenting vote.
Americans are too stupid, and ignorant, to understand the freedoms that they are giving up, the implications of what they are doing for future generations and the current world, and to undertake rational risk analysis of the current, tiny, threat of the bin Laden nutcases.
Americans scare me.
Re:The Details, RTFL (Score:3, Interesting)
And Now, The Rest Of The Story: (Score:4, Interesting)
The above article appeared yesterday at www.janes.com [janes.com]
"It now appears certain that any effort to
regenerate Afghanistan is predicated upon
the removal of the Taliban, and the terrorist
attacks upon New York and Washington
have given the US a perfect opportunity to
legitimise its plan to do just that (which
existed well before 11 September). "
The link for this discussion is :
www.janes.com [janes.com]
You draw your own conclusions in conjunction with the Caspian Sea Region oil link at the U.S. Department of Energy:
Caspian Sea Region [doe.gov]
Re:"Freedoms Curtailed in Defence of Liberty" (Score:4, Interesting)
Ironically, that attitude is part of the reason that the US is in this mess. The US government has this tendency to support whatever foreign government appears works to it's best interest, without regard for that government's human rights record. Often, it is easier for the US to work with a totalitarian power since that power can ensure cooperation with the US, rather than be swayed by the opinion of the populace. The US helps them stay in power so that they can supress anti-US sentiment (at least on the surface) and other more useful favors. In the meantime, those being surpressed become quite angry at the US. Over time, they can grow to truly hate the US because the life the US has provided for them is the antithesis of what the US likes to portray itself as promoting (freedom and democracy).
Curtailing civil liberties may be a good solution in the short term to reduce the likelihood of another attack, but it does not address the root of the problem. I wouldn't mind these restrictions if they were temporary and if the US actually began doing something meaningful to help establish some freedom and democracy, even if it meant that those receiving this expressed anti-US sentiment. But I don't expect to ever see that.
Sadly, the US citizens tend to be too wrapped up in their own lives to learn about this situation. Not that it's incredibly obivious. The media is often a little more interested in letting us know about 's problems than reporting about US supported regimes oppressing their populaces. Besides, who wants to hear about all of that terrible stuff when you feel like you can't do anything about it.
I'm reminded of a Churchill quote. During WWII, one of his advisors suggested closing down museums, etc. to reduce spending. He responded, "Good God man! What the hell are we fighting for?" Seems even more appropriate today.
-Jennifer
Re:The lone cowboy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously. Look at the attack and what they are finding out from the investigation. None of their stupid laws would have prevented 9-11.
Those terrorists commited the biggest social hack the world has ever seen. They got themselves into the country, blended in extremely well and got all of their training and information from our institutions. They then counted on complete cooperation of the crew and passengers because for the past 30 years we've been running under the asumption that this was the SOP for dealing with highjackings.
There doesn't appear to be any high-tech, superspy secret communications between the terrorists. More than likely they hooked up at the nudie bar and transmitted info between lap dances.
What parts of the ATA/USA/PATRIOT bills are going to protect us from that? None. But I see a lot of parts of those bills that will allow law enforcement to harrass innocent people because they are kinda "Arabic looking" or because somebody is a "hacker."
We need more human intelligence. Not more laws. Not more toys like Carnivore. Information is useless without interpretation.
And that is what bit us on 9-11.
Re:Upheld (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides, these are anti-terrorism laws. At this point in American history anyone even accused of a terrorism-related activity is going to have his/her life ruined, and not just passively... actively destroyed by millions of Americans, guilty or not. Heck, Muslims and Arabs are being targeted even though they are fine people and good citizens. Even non-Muslims and non-Arabs who look a little dusky are being targeted.
And not to be too pessimistic, but look at all the crap Americans were willing to take as lumps in the Drug War (which often affected regular folks), and then think about how drugs really weren't that bad... now think about how this War is against "evil" fanatics who killed 6000 Americans and destroyed a several blocks worth of real estate in downtown New York. If there were a way to urine or blood test for terrorism, you can bet that by next year this time it would be impossible to find any job in the country that didn't require the test, even if there were no law saying they had to do such tests.
Re:Fuck you, Michael (Score:1, Interesting)
A sample (p.44:
NIKARCHOS (policeman)
You're under arrest.
THEBAN
What for?
NIKARCHOS.
These, for a start.
You've imported terrorist lampwicks.
THEBAN
How can lampwicks be terrorist?
NIKARCHOS
Incendiary devices. In a shipyard-whoosh!
DIKAIOPOLIS
A lampwick. A shipyard. Whoosh?
NIKARCHOS
No question.
DIKAIOPOLIS
How?
NIKARCHOS
Your Theban terrorist attaches it
To a cockroach, lights it, floats it down the drain
To the nearest shipyard. North wind. Whoosh!
Our entire armada, up in smoke
DIKAIOPOLIS
Because of a wick and a cockroach?
NIKARCHOS
That's my case.
This play was first performed in 425 BC, 2400 years ago, and won first prize(comedy). It seems a pity that we have advanced so little since then.
Sage Advice from ex-military Guy (Score:2, Interesting)
In all the chest-beating about how to defeat "terrorism," there are some interesting things being said by folks who used to be part of the establishment. This article [rmbowman.com] by Robert M. Bowman ( Lt. Col., USAF retired) titled "What Can We Do About Terrorism?" came across my email this afternoon. He makes the following interesting point:
"People in Canada enjoy better democracy, more freedom, and greater human rights than we do. So do the people of Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian embassies? Or Swedish embassies. No."
Too bad the spineless cowards in Congress couldn't get testimony from guys like this before they rushed headlong into a decision to take away our constitutional rights.
A better democracy (Score:2, Interesting)
I have no time to be an expert on every issue. I can't take all the evidence into account and make a good decision. I have to earn my living and have fun, the few hours left a day are not enough to be an expert on every issue. So instead of making a rational decision, I will just vote on sentiment. So we do need experts in the government to make law and journalists to check the governments work and lay out the facts to me in short. Every election I have a chance to decide if the guy/party I voted on is doing good enough.
Unfortunately (for you, as I'm dutch) the US has an extremely weak representative democracy. The focus on districts gears the national government towards local issues, instead of the national issues that they should govern on. The district-system has also effectively created the weak two-party system that has made your politics into a fight. The Democrats are in power, let's vote for our bills. The Republicans are in power, let's undo the things the Democrats did and do what we want.
I believe that the national votes should be counted for the whole country and not per district. This would mean that smaller parties (like Ralph Nader's party) would be able to get into congress. This will greatly increase the diversity of congress and will necessitate coalitions. Thus the political parties will be forced to work together. It will also mean that some minority groups will be able to get a seat in congress and will be able to air their views and question the decisions made by the coalition. Currently a party that has support of 49% of the population, can still be totally unrepresented in congress (if they are barely beaten in every district).
Of course there will always be conflicts between local and national concerns (like drilling off the coast of Florida). I will explain how the dutch system deals with this issue. The local government (chosen in seperate elections) chooses the people to represent them in the Upper House. The Upper House can turn down every Act of Parliament (but they may not amend). We choose the parliament's members directly, 15% of the dutch votes to a political party translates in about 15% of the seats in the Lower House.
Thus the politicians we have chosen (indirectly in our case) to represent our local views put a check on the actions of the 'national' politicians. This is IMHO much better than politicians that are chosen for both their local and national opinion (as they are chosen per district). Is it not true that many national issues have little relation with local issues? Examples include the missile defense system, international politics, etc.
Choosing politicians per district ties them very strongly to the opinions of a fairly uniform group of people. This leads to weak politicians who are afraid to do anything that will go against the sentiments of the local population. On the other hand, if he is chosen by a much more diverse group of people, spread out over the country, he will have the best chance of being re-elected by hanging to ideals. He might lose a few votes by going against the wishes of the people from a state or district, but this will be compensated by the people from the rest of the country who reward him for being steadfast (or will abandon him if he isn't).
A (random) example is an enviromentalist who chooses to forgo his principles when a polluting factory treatens to leave his state (and thus brings harm to the local economy). Such a scenario is much less likely with nationally chosen politicians.