Surveillance in Washington DC And At Bookstores 448
dioscaido writes: "From reuters: 'Washington police are building what will be the nation's biggest network of surveillance cameras to monitor shopping areas, streets, monuments and other public places in the U.S. capital, a move that worries civil liberties groups, The Wall Street Journal said on Wednesday.'" Aragorn_2002 writes "I found this new article on Salon.com about how feds are subpoenaing book-purchasing records. Just imaging if they start to use DMCA and the new Anti-terrorist bill to subpoena someone buying books on breaking encryption." If you've ever ordered from Amazon, this might concern you. Update: 02/13 21:30 GMT by M : The full WSJ article is available on MSNBC.
Human Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know what the standards/practices are in the US concerning this, but in Canada, privacy is one of our fundamental rights (not that it is necessarily respected)
Privacy Rights (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Privacy Rights (Score:2)
Before we read too much into this oversight, it's important to remember that most of the privacy issues we face today are tied advances in technology that they could have never anticipated.
When you have never seen a message travel faster than walking pace, it's hard to anticipate the needs of a society where conversations with a person on the other side of the continent are unnoteworthy.
Re:Privacy Rights (Score:2)
(Btw legally I'm pro-choice, morally I'm pro-life)
Re:Human Rights (Score:2)
Believe it or not the US does not believe that people have a fundimental human right to food.
Standard Practices of the U.S. (Score:2, Interesting)
However, in times of war and for purposes of national security (which are subject to the whim of the president, atty general (hatchet man), or sec'y of defense (axe wielder) various or all rights may be suspended. It's up to citizens to challenge this in court and have it thrown out, but they get away with the dirty deed between the proclamation and suspension thereof.
Freedom indeed has it's price.
Other exciting unconstitutional behaviour, this morning I read that W. has decided to eliminate Saddam. Very nice, particularly since this is in violation of the constitution and harkens back to the bloody 50's and 60's when U.S. administrations toppled governments which didn't suit them without so much as declaring war. I have no love for Hussein, but this wrankles me, particularly because it's public information.
Re:Human Rights (Score:2)
Our "fundamental rights" are outlined in the Constitution, and the fourth amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If the government were to try to observe what you were doing in your home (without a warrant), that would be a violation of the fourth amendment. But the Constitution does not prohibit the government from observing what you do in a public place.
It's article 12 (Score:5, Informative)
human rights. To safe others the work of looking it
up:
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Re:Human Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Human Rights (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Human Rights (Score:2)
Re:Human Rights (Score:2)
Re:Yes in the US there *is* a right to privacy. (Score:2)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Careful Throwing the Term "Stupid" Around (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's my first question. What happens when the police officer who's using the surveillance equipment doesn't have your best interests in mind? What happens if the person using the gear uses it for something less than the greater good of the public?
Your argument fails to consider corruption, which by my measure is a bit stupid.
Here's another question. What happens when the person using the system isn't authorized to use it? I know a fellow who works in a public office (I won't say which one to protect the guilty) who regularly looks up criminal records and DMV information on people he knows, even though it's illegal, because he can, not because he should. When the signals from these cameras is sent to police cars, what exactly guarantees that it can't be intercepted or otherwise compromised?
Your argument fails to consider invasion, which by my measure is a bit more stupid.
Here's a third question. How many terrorists would have been caught on September 11 if the systems that were already in place and in use were actually used correctly? The answer is turning out to be many of them. There are video pictures of two of the the terrorists walking through the metal detectors in the Maine airport en route to hijacking a plane with metal box cutters. How would more cameras have made any difference in how the terrorists that acted on 9/11 did their deeds?
Your argument fails to consider utilization, which by my measure is a lot more stupid.
Here's my last question. Since these systems are subject to corruption and error, and are underutilized in their present state, how exactly is adding to the system going to give me complete security? What is more likely is that it will make it easier for corruption and invasion to work against me, and under- and misutilization will prevent any effective increase in my security.
Your argument fails to consider escalation, which by my measure is truly stupid.
Virg
Say Goodbye to the 4th Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Say Goodbye to the 4th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Say Goodbye to the 4th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
In basing the economy and culture on self-interest, there is little social importance placed on 'paying your interests forward' - that is, respecting that even if a decision doesn't affect you or your family right now ("Id never need an abortion", or "I'd never be an alcoholic", or "I'm not gay, so what do I care") doesn't mean it won't in the future.
The market (that by which we depend on to exist) has little interest in social rights until they affect a majority that hurts a bottom line. Large books stores are obstinately worried about their customers privacy, but only in so far as it will affect their profit margin. If each decision of this type alienates or resticts the liberty of 2% of their consumer base (especially if they are in the 'light users' category, which can be up to 70% of your customer base, but only 10% of your profits), they are unlikely to defend said restrictions vohemently. What the market fails to take into account is that once you've sufficiently chipped away at various liberties, ovet time, the cost of the social damage is far larger than the sum of the parts. This is when everyone wakes up and realizes that the attitude references in your post do do make up a larger social structure that we've depended on to justify the more destructive aspects of our political and economic system. Everyone is (or will be) in the same boat, so the 'It doest affect me' attitude really does the society, including the immediately unaffected, a disservice.
A wise observation on your part, in my opinion.
and the rest of it (Score:4, Interesting)
For those who want to argue that they weren't terrorists: get a grip - they would certainly fall under Ashcroft's definition if they tried similar things today, and would have been branded terrorists by the (British) government at the time had the word been in vogue then.
The constitution was written by people who understood that over time power gradually shifts away from the shareholders (people) into the hands of the management (politicians). They understood that monarchy and tyranny didn't arise overnight. Do you think people just one day decided to be ruled over by kings. You start off with a leader, chosen on merit who leads with consent of his people and you end up with heriditary tyrants. It's funny how far along this road you can get without anybody noticing. Do you really think that King Bush II got there on merit ? He inherited the position from his father with the help of his brother, Prince Jed. The fact that he lost Florida is interpreted with Orwellian brilliance as "results vindicate bush".
The writers of the consitituion understood this, and did their best to minimize the tendancy, but they knew that eventually another revolution would be necessary. What they didn't forsee was that technology would evolve that would make future revolutions virtually impossible. The technology for keeping a population under surveillance was unimaginable at the time.
The other thing they couldn't forsee was the level of propoganda and willful ignorance that is achievable with a TV nation.
It would cause too much friction to revoke the consititution. Instead they will just reinterpret the phrases until the document means something else entirely.
This comment is worthy of examination (Score:2)
Most people then lived in rural areas with little or no contact with government of any kind on a regular basis. Self-reliance wasn't a virtue, it was a way of life. Isolation was the norm, not the exception.
If Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson lived in a world where technologies presented instant and grave dangers to random individuals, you can be assured their writings would reflect that.
1984.. (Score:2)
I heard that somewhere in Europe they were putting in cameras all over the place. I Think it was England, in high crime areas. One guy ended up getting busted cause he LOOKED like one of the criminals on camera.
I'm told I look like a lot of poeple. I guess I am just your average 'joe'. This is kinda scary.
Re:1984.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:1984.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:1984.. (Score:2)
That kind of thing happens with or without technology. Eyewitnesses do make mistakes, especially under stress.
george orwell plaza under surveillance (Score:5, Funny)
what the heck where they thinking???
photo of orwell plaza surveillance [indymedia.org]
Bradbury not so far off? (Score:2)
Okay, maybe that won't actually happen, but it does make one feel just a bit paranoid knowing that our choice of books might be monitored... perhaps that will disuade some from buying books. What do the book publishers have to say about this, which may reduce their sales?
Re:Bradbury not so far off? (Score:3, Funny)
And this is wrong why?
Warmest regards,
Guy Montag
Re:Bradbury not so far off? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bradbury not so far off? (Score:2)
Humm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well since Amazon and Borders and everyone else is prbly selling records of what you buy to marketers, and if you buy with a credit card or debit card theres a record that can be sold or gotten by a court, is this news?
I'm trying to be paranoid here, but for craps sake, all these records are already tossed out in the public domain. Now the Feds are getting involved, that will last until it makes it to the Supreme Court, and in a more conservative court, this will get slapped down just like the IR survilance of dwellings did last year.
I just can't get upset about it. But then I don't buy my High Times or 2600 or booze related books and mags with plastic. The whole thing about not leaving a record for the Man is to use cash.
Military History, computer books, Car that's all plastic-able, "sensitive" things are for cash.
Re:Humm. (Score:2, Funny)
Military History means you are studying how to manage a military overthrow of the New Imperium with your elite militia.
Computer books means you are a terrorist hacker determining the best way to sabotage our economic infrastructure - or worse.
Cars... hmm, buying a car makes you a flight risk so they can hold you without bail. Buying books about cars means you are either a professional auto thief reading articles to find the best way to steal a vehicle, or you are a drug dealer identifying the best vehicle for smuggling in urban areas.
I have to give you a failing grade in Paranoia 101.
Terrorists (Score:2, Interesting)
[ot] Am I the only one who's read so many dumb and irrelevant Slashdot references to the DMCA that now even appropriate uses seem redundant?
Living in Britain (Score:5, Interesting)
We've had a number of high profile cases where surveillance cameras have been instrumental in solving crimes, and I really don't have a problem with that - in fact, I'm pretty pleased with the results.
Re:Living in Britain (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Living in Britain (Score:5, Insightful)
Because what I consider wrong, and what the law considers wrong are sometimes at odds, the law frequently changes, so what isn't wrong today might be wrong tomorrow, and because what I consider wrong and what the public at large considers wrong are more frequently at odds.
If I want to buy books about growing pot or what the LSD experience is like or how to pilot a 777, it's nobody's goddamn business. If I use that information to do something illegal, then and only then does it become anyone else's business. I don't need to be harassed because I am interested in out-of-the mainstream activities, and that interest is no one's business unless it leads to lawbreaking behavior.
Freedom's Loss (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Freedom's Loss (Score:2)
You're right, in Britain we have cameras everywhere, and almost everyone likes them.
But I don't see the problem. You should have no expectation of privacy in a public place. When you're in public, you can be watched. That's why it's called a 'public' place. Why is this a difficult concept?
Re:Freedom's Loss (Score:2)
Personally, I demand my privacy and my right to bear arms.
Re:Freedom's Loss (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, so much for stalking laws. Should the government be allowed to stalk anyone, just because it's technically feasible?
I maintain that you actually do have an expectation of privacy in a public place. It's obviously not the same sort of privacy as in your bedroom, but it doesn't mean you must expect to be intently stared at and those stares archived at all times either. Hell, people should not have to expect to have a secret text dossier listing their every move either; isn't that one of the criticisms mentioned over and over about totalitarian regimes?
Public/private is not a simple division any more than any other arbitrary pair of 'opposing' terms.
Re:Freedom's Loss (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a difference between being in a public space, being watched and having your every move recorded.
First, if you are in a public space, usually nobody pays attention to you except for those who are interacting with you. That's fine.
Second, being watched: This is already an unusual situation, in which many people feel uncomfortable. Think stars: They regularly complain about lack of privacy. Being watched usually has greater impact on the behaviour of people because they notice that they are watched, which is not the case with CCTV cameras. One of the activities of anti-surveillance groups is therefore to create the same level of awareness by showing people that they are watched (pointing to the camera, creating camera-maps, etc).
Third, recordings: If you think about it, you not only have to relate your actions to the current situation but you also need to think about how your actions may look like from a distance, space and timewise. This can seriously inhibit natural behaviour and is the reason why, for example, many people liked usenet until archives of it were created.
Some people feel that even perfectly normal behaviour can have a negative impact on them when seen in a different, maybe willfully distorting, context.
Re:Freedom's Loss (Score:2)
Cash (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not paranoia if they're really out to get ya.
War on Terror: When is it too much? (Score:2)
You know, between the War on Terrorism and the decades-old War on Drugs, I am deeply concerned about the direction we are going in respect to our civil liberties. There have always been those who fervently believe that increased power for law enforcement officials are necessary to achieve their goals, whether it is abolishing marijuana or killing bin Laden. In the process, though, they tend to propose things that interfere with the freedoms of the general population.
I don't think the curtailing of freedoms is done on purpose, it is just a side-effect. But that hardly makes it any less egregious. I strenuously hope that bin Laden is dead, dead, DEAD and that we can begin to move forward again.
I am beginning to believe that the DEA and the ONDCP should simply be abolished. Leave the war on drugs up to the states; the federal government has NEVER been successful in fighting the drug war, and the means needed to make it successful are unacceptable to those who cherish liberty.
- Rev.Hello (Score:3, Funny)
J. Ashcroft
United States Attorney General and Executioner at Large
No checks and Balances for police (Score:2, Insightful)
Jack B. Nimble is better than Uncle Fester (Score:5, Funny)
Now that you have read this post, the highly sensitive combination of those two book names has gone into your computer. This fact has been duly recorded by Carnivore.
Re:Jack B. Nimble is better than Uncle Fester (Score:5, Informative)
The titles of those two books are now associated, with you, the reader. That could be construed as reasonable suspicion to arrest you for drug dealing and confiscate all your property under the asset forfeiture laws.
No, you don't get your property back if you're innocent.
Catcher in the Rye! (Score:3, Interesting)
IIRC, that's the book from Conspiracy Theory [imdb.com]. Apparently, a couple of famous assassins (Lee Harvey, and someone else?) read that book before their assassinations.
Anyway, the same thing happened in the movie (FBI checking out who buys certain books). Freaky.
Re:Catcher in the Rye! (Score:2)
I don't think this will fly (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I don't think this will fly (Score:2)
That's if the usually underpaid and undertrained person that the cops talk to happens to know that. The cops know damn well that most people don't know when they shouldn't answer questions, and will frame their questions carefully enough that any info they get will be usable -- at least in the investigation, if not in court.
(IANAL, but I don't think it's against the law for them to ask, it's just that they can't officially demand it. That may vary depending on state or local regs, and probably does.)
rights are being upheld in this case (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the article says the records have not been turned over after more than 2 years because lawyers got involved. According to the article, "Through the years, the protections accorded materials covered by the First Amendment, such as books and newspapers, have evolved to protect the institutions that provide those materials as well."
I think this article is more about how the rights are being successfully upheld rather than taken away.
Re:rights are being upheld in this case (Score:2)
The Tattered Cover Bookstore is one of the largest independent bookstores in the nation and has a well-earned reputation for taking the needs of an informed populace seriously. E.g., carrying books too controversial for the chains, or fighting overly-broad "anti-obscenity" constitutional amendments.
Would the large corporate chain bookstores be willing to fight this battle? Would it even come up, or would they only carry "safe" books?
Big deal. (Score:2)
Alright, I'm not fond of security cameras all over the friggin' place. It's pretty annoying at the post office now when at any given moment you're being monitored on no less than three cameras. It sorta feels like you can't go anywhere without being monitored.
Then again, we all learn to cope. Sure, I've been recorded all over town and guess how many times the police have come to my door? Never. How many times have they investigated me? Never. We all know that the NSA and CIA collect all kinds of information--but the real problem is in interpretation. I may be on a lot of magnetic tape; but my guess is that few (if any) people have actually reviewed that or done anything about it.
People go to DC to see the museums, monuments, etc. They may also go to case out a future terrorist act. That's all fine and legal. When you go into buildings in DC, they already make you go through metal detectors and some even ask for your ID. Yes, that information can be tracked just like everything else. But so long as you're not doing anything that provokes attention, you're fine.
I actually would like to know that if someone places a bomb near the Washington Monument we could review the tapes of past and potentially catch any of the main suspect's helpers. I wouldn't mind a police officer monitoring what's going on in the Navy Square (or whatever it's called) and so when I get mugged and thrown in the fountain there's a police car on it's way to pick up my attacker and help me out. In London, this sort of thing has just become a way of life. People there actually prefer having the cameras.
Can DC cameras fix the traffic? (Score:2)
Oh...and there's a rather large number of buildings which don't require going through metal detectors. The feds may have 'em, but I know the private buildings don't. I haven't been to the Smithsonian or any of the museums, so I don't know they've reacted so far.
If the cameras are used right, I'm all for 'em, and I come into DC every weekday, and some weekends. For those who aren't in the area, and are bitching about the cameras, don't come to DC. The traffic's bad enough without you here.
Remember the movie Seven? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hum. Guess it might not be all that illeal in the future, eh?
Re:Remember the movie Seven? (Score:2)
~z
Re:Remember the movie Seven? (Score:3, Offtopic)
It usually gets lumped together with serial killers and presidential assassins. That might be because not only is a good little book, but it's also a fairly short book. When you're busy destroying lives and gunning down politicians, I guess you don't have much time to sit down in your favorite reading chair and dive into Proust. So you look for short books. 'Catcher in the Rye' usually fits the bill.
Of course, these killers might also like other short books like 'Animal Farm' and '1984'. (And why do serial killers only like books on the boring old junior high reading list?)
Anyway, a couple weeks ago, I sat down in my favorite reading chair and -- for the first time in about 20 years -- re-read 'Catcher in the Rye.'
It's a disturbing book, no doubt. But it's disturbing because it's quite good and Salinger -- in this and his short stories -- is really an incredible stylist. But I wondered -- still sitting my favorite reading chair -- *why* everybody makes such a big deal about the book. Holden is messed up -- and paranoid or schizophrenic or maybe A.D.D. -- but why is this little book such a touchstone for the sickos in American society? I mean, is it because they -- in the best high-school book report sense of the term -- "identify with the main character?"
"Hey, I like it because Holden is me! I'm Holden! That's me!"
Anyway, I was thrown by how much I couldn't put my finger on the book. I'm someone who *does* sit down and read Proust and Melville and Faulkner and Pynchon and DeLillo and Cormac McCarthy (best American writer writing today, BTW) so I didn't expect to like 'Catcher'. But there's something really pretty unsettling in the way Salinger tells his story.
I *still* don't know why it is so identified with American wonkiness. Or wonkiness in the American psyche. Maybe we'll raid the latest den of religious extremists and, in order to get a better fix on the American psyche, we'll discover that they, too, have gravitated to Salinger's book and his short stories (which, IMHO, are even stranger than the book.)
But how come none of the wackos ever read Samuel Beckett? If there's anything that seems to model contemporary American isolationism it's Beckett. Sluggishness, lethargy, malaise. Isn't this what's wrong with American culture? We're mired in our own glorious narcissism? LOL.
Anyway, yes mods, yes, yes, yes -- this is off-topic. So, yes, call this off-topic and have a field-day modding me down. This post is an easy-target.
Re:Remember the movie Seven? (Score:2)
Stasi (Score:2)
Right now they're subpoenaing purchase records regarding a specific customer, how long before they demand a list of customers who have bought a certain book or books from a certain author?
And does anyone really think they're not already doing that?
Paranoia yes, but I'll just keep paying cash thank you
You must learn to love the cameras. (Score:2, Funny)
So, under FOIA the content of the tapes of all these cameras is public property right? That' will be very useful to future in-the-beltway memoirs-writers.
Travis
Re:You must learn to love the cameras. (Score:2)
Nice thought, but I doubt most memoirs-writers will have the resources necessary to successfully follow through on a FOIA request. And the policy of the current administration is to make using FOIA even harder. The FOIA was a nice idea, but it's becoming essentially worthless for anything really important.
Well, I'm boned. (Score:2)
Well, I'm boned.
I confess to also having read Kafka's The Trial [topcities.com], and as I have no particular desire to go through that, I'm submitting the following "Ask Slashdot" question:
"I read literature. Should I shoot myself or hang myself before they come for me?"
(Yeah, I know I could just order a copy of Final Exit [bookflash.com], but I probably wouldn't be able to afford the resulting increase in my health insurance premiums ;-)
Good for the goose -- Good for the gander!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Surveillance of itself is not good or evil. But when only the government has access to the surveillance video then a small group of people get to decided on what to keep and what to discard and peoples' motives should always be suspect.
If law enforcement wants surveillance on every street corner then fine let it be. However, the citizens need to DEMAND free access to the surveilance cameras and not just after the costly legal process of a subpoena (i.e. display the images over the web). This technology already exists, the infastructure can be installed right along with the cameras. Then every citizen can see unadulterated the actual events taking place in a location and draw their own conclusions and not have to rely on the molested interpretation of the involved parties.
If law enforcment can surveil the citizens, the citizens should be able to surveil law enforcment.
Re:Good for the goose -- Good for the gander!!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good for the goose -- Good for the gander!!!! (Score:3)
Re:Good for the goose -- Good for the gander!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the point with your statement.
What you want here is not *just* global easy access to the surviellance feeds (realtime only? or archived also?) but ALSO you want to have government also under the camera's view.
So long as law enforcement gets to choose where the cameras go, it still isn't equal access.
What you want here is cameras that also cover every meeting place government representatives or employees meet. No more behind-closed-doors meetings. No more closed sessions of Congress. (For that matter, no more voice votes in Congress, if a Congressman doesn't support something enough to have his name attached to it, there is a problem with the vote.)
This could actually be a good thing for open government processes. Hey, Cheney's energy task force meetings might have been available for viewing.
If citizens are survielled in public, government needs to be under surviellance also. "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't object to this" huh? That works both ways.
And yes, this would have all sorts of horrible consequences. "Classified for national security" would probably be much more common as an excuse to avoid the public eye. And suddenly "privacy rights" would be a wonderful thing too.
Re:Good for the goose -- Good for the gander!!!! (Score:2)
Like I stated, the surveillance is bad enough. I just don't believe that group has the political clout needed to stop this surveillance.
So, if we assume that the surveillance is going to be installed then we, as citizens, must demand to have access video.
I don't like large corporations profiling me. But at least I know their motive -- PROFIT. I can deal with the PROFIT motive and change my activities enough to screw up their profile. However, when a small group or individual gets exclusive access to this kind of information I have no idea what their motives are -- political gain, scape goat, black mail, revenge, etc.
the majority (Score:2)
"Hey, I am doing nothing wrong, and if it helps catch people that are, so much the better."
Well, the problem starts when innocent people are accused of doing something by mistake.
Remember, right now there are (apparently) a lot of people out there that are still scared by Sept 11. So, anything like this will be seen as a good thing. Maybe (and this is a HUGE MAYBE) the government is doing this without the intent to gain power over the average citizen. I seriously doubt it, but it could happen. Either way, the people here that are freaking out over this need to understand one thing: You are a minute majority. Even if everyone on slashdot agreed, how many does that make? 750,000? Peanuts to the government.
The only way to stop this type of legislature is to tell people about it, not bitch on slashdot.
btw, I am totally against this type of behavior, I am disgusted that the government would use this time to gain a lot of ground in their invasion of our privacy.
Re:the majority (Score:2)
Don't forget the possibility of some influential entity [riaa.org] deciding that perfectly legal activities [n3.net] should be criminalized to protect their interests.
Goodbye American Rights... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was quiet because I didn't deal in drugs...
When they took the 6th Amendment away
I was quiet because I had never been arrested...
When they took the 2nd Amendment away
I was quiet because I didn't own a gun...
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment away
and all I can do is be quiet...
Re:Goodbye American Rights... (Score:3, Insightful)
You bitch about other's speech, yet you use that same part of the constitution....
Even though morons like you use the Anon coward right and abuse it, I support it fully and will fight to keep it there.
remember WE are fighting for your right to be an asshole... isnt that great?
Re:Goodbye American Rights... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never done drugs other than alcohol and caffeine.
I think drug use should be decriminalized. Marijuana is the largest cash crop in North America. I think Philip Morris (Oops, "Altria!") could make a fscking fortune growing and selling pot, and I think the IRS and state governments could make just as big a fscking fortune taxing the sale thereof.
I also think that both the federal and state governments could save a fscking fortune by not having to house potheads and crackheads in jail. Bust the ones who drive while impaired and who get aggressive. DWI's still a crime, so's assault.
Note that I'm talking about saving taxpayer dollars by lightening the load on prisons, not downsizing law enforcement.
I'd feel safer walking the streets at night if I knew that (a) I was unlikely to be mugged for $10 in my pocket, because drugs were affordable (due to increased supply), and (b) it was more likely there'd be a cop on the street to kick the guy's ass anyways (due to cops having more free time).
More importantly, I'd also feel a hell of a lot safer getting on a plane if I knew that (c) the law enforcement effort currently targeted against drug use were channeled into securing our borders and our transportation networks against terrorists.
Legalize drugs and you generate billions in tax revenues, save billions on prison expenses, eliminate the motivation for most gang violence, and simultaneously free up the resources of a million cops to secure their communities against other criminals such as sexual predators and terrorists. Everybody wins, even the cops.
The War on Drugs is obsolete; it's a WOMBAT: a Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time. Our tax dollars can be better spent elsewhere.
Re:Goodbye American Rights... (Score:3, Insightful)
How much more affordable can they get? $10 is less than a tank of gas, less than a movie ticket + popcorn & soda, about the price of lunch at a restaurant, etc. Make drugs ten times cheaper and some people will still go broke over them, because they can't think of anything else, just as they go broke over alcohol.
But I'm in favor of legalizing drugs too. Drug money finances organized crime and police corruption, just like illegal gambling and prostitution do. I'm in favor of legalizing anything that causes no harm to *innocent* people. If people want to destroy themselves, let them, as long as they cause no harm to unwilling third parties.
Time to mess with the federal government (Score:3, Funny)
Still got Amazon.com gift certificates you haven't taken advantage of yet? Why, here's an opportunity to protest this invasion of your privacy and even acquire some interesting midnight reading to boot. Choose from among these exciting titles:
Remember to support your local bookstores.
Disclaimer: US government lackeys tend to be humorless, so I'll make it clear now that I've not read any of these books. I love America more than sliced bread itself. Yeah! Nuke their ass! Take their gas! GOD BLESS AMERICA! Wooo!
Re:Time to mess with the federal government (Score:2)
How to make friends and influence people.
lol, snarf.
Who's watching all of these? (Score:2)
How many cameras are there going to be? How many people monitoring them? I expect the answers are "lots" and "zero", respectively. The tapes will be looked at after a crime is committed - either to identify a criminal or to use as evidence. I might worry about mis-identification for people who look like other people, but how is that different/worse than the mis-identifications that go on all the time by eyewitnesses?
This is pointless (Score:2)
Buy books in person with cash so there is no record of what you purchased.
I imagine the large booksellers are most upset about this because
- It will make their customers aware of just how much information the stores collect (and sell)
- Why should direct marketing companies buy customer info from the booksellers when the government gets it for free?
- It will cost Amazon more than anyone else if people stop providing personal info when making book purchases
The best part is that this isn't going to stop a determined criminal who is probably already taking precautions against this, such as paying with cash or using stolen credit card info.In other news, the Virginia Attorney General has subpoenaed a list of all public school students who borrowed Harry Potter novels from libraries. "We will catch these heathens; In God We Trust [yahoo.com]!"
Re:This is pointless (Score:2)
More to the point, why should the government have to go through the trouble of a subpoena and the associated legal crap that goes with it, when they can just buy the damn records like any other marketroid?
If your friendly neighborhood DMA goon can buy your purchasing records from your credit card company ("Hi, my client is a chemical supply company that wants to send a targeted mailing to amateur chemists. Here's $0.10 per name, we need the list of all snail-mail addresses of people who've bought books X, Y, and Z"), why can't Officer Friendly?
As I recall.. (Score:2)
Full Public Access. (Score:2)
1> These are your tax dollars that are going to pay for it. You have a right to the information these cameras provide.
2> If the assertion is true that these cameras are in public, and only public spaces; then there is no expectation of privacy - and all should be able to access the data.
These cameras are going in whether we want them or not. The real danger here is that the access to their data may be restricted to an "elite" few. Sure, exposure of this network to everyone might be "bad" in that it would allow someone who has a vendetta to track down someone. But I would balance that danger against restricted access to "authorities" any day of the week.
- Woodie
Re:Full Public Access. (Score:2)
books and flight attendents (Score:2, Insightful)
remember the secret service agent that wasn't allowed on the plane cuz he was middle eastern? the part about that story that really got me: The flight attendant rifled through his bag after he was escorted off the aircraft. in it, she found a book on middle eastern history... and he had to defend the nature of the book publicly. that is wrong.
Cyborgasm ?? (Score:2)
Perhaps the most wide-ranging request for customer information of this kind came in the summer of 2000, when Ohio authorities subpoenaed Amazon.com. They requested records of all the people in a large part of Ohio who had purchased the "Cyborgasm I" and "Cyborgasm II" audio CDs, trying to identify a stalking suspect who had sent the CDs to his victims.
Holy shit! I bought Cyborgasm #1 from Amazon.com a few years ago. I'm not from Ohio, but that is downright creepy.
Check those records kids..let's see, judging by the handful of random books and CDs I've bought from Amazon, I'm a pot-smoking accountant who listens to new age music, writes cryptography software with "vi", and has a fascination with women's health...
You never had any privacy, deal with it (Score:4, Interesting)
What is happening now is simply the culmination of the long ongoing process to surveil society totally.
Since its inevitable, you might as well look at the good side - retinal scanners may cut lines at airports from four hours to one hour. Would you rather stand in line four times as long to protect the sanctity of your retinal image?
The problem with surveilance (Score:2)
Privacy on Public streets? (Score:3, Interesting)
The travesty here is not that we HAVE security cameras everywhere. It's that we live in a society where we NEED security cameras everywhere.
Seven? (Score:3, Interesting)
Freeman tells Pitt that it is a secret and it is a "gray" area, but for years the Feds have been monitoring reading habits. If people take out certain flagged books, for example a book about nuclear weapons, their library records are fed to the FBI computer. Since you need to have some form of ID and residence to get a library card, they have access to your name and address too. Nice and convenient.
While this movie is a work of fiction, I would not be suprised if it were true. Over the last 20 years the Federal government has spent billions on wiring up the libraries and replacing the card catalogs with computers that can be used to both search for books and Internet research. It would be pretty conveneint for the FBI to say, "Hey, we are already putting computers into the libraries. Why don't we add a little something to them to give them value to us."
Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?
--Jon
Incrementing Towards Dystopia (Score:2)
"You are building in a surveillance infrastructure, and how it's used now is not likely how it's going to be used two years from now or five years from now."
A very telling statement. A lot of people here in the US trust that their government and all of its agencies will always do 'the right thing' in the end, and that no one in our government is out there to turn the world into a 1984esque police state. Although I don't think that the government will transition to this dystopia in one clear cut step, it will reach a police state if it continues making tiny steps towards this ultimate goal.
Building a surveillance infrastructure is one of those steps -- not necessarily a huge deal in and of itself, but it sets the stage for misuse. Maybe the people using it ARE only using it to get the bad guys, but what happens when they think YOU are the bad guy. I, for one, don't trust every government employee to not be corrupt, nor do I think that this is necessarily a tool that we want any agency to have.
On Book record subpoenaing
"It's a business record, a single business record," he said. "We're not exploring the reading habits of the suspect. We're not asking [them] to tell us everyone they sold the book to. The warrant only seeks to know if the suspect bought books about manufacturing of methamphetamine at meth labs."
Where does it stop after that? Giving away ANY information impinges on my First Amendment rights. I don't want to base my book purchases on what other people think I should or should not read. People shouldn't have to worry about what books they read or what movies they watch because they fear what would happen if it came to public light. Here again, certain agencies within the government are trying to create an infrastructure which allows them to discover information to which they should not have access. I realize that this could expedite certain legal cases (a few were listed in the article), but the potential for misuse in the future is not a risk that I think the American people should be willing to take.
On the simpsons (Score:2, Funny)
Does anyone remember the Simpsons where you see the feds monitoring book buying habits?
Ok mod me off topic now I feel better.
Paranoia and Pragmatism (Score:3, Interesting)
The post is Slashdot FUD. FUD from Slashdot.
I think we live in a continuum. We could have a society where we were completely anonymous, total privacy in every aspect of modern life. But terrorists could get away with the most unbelievable bullshit without being detected. Or we could live in a ridiculously intrusive society where we could not so much as take a dump in a public restroom without being retinal scanned. But then, terrorists would be hard pressed to pull off a really destructive attack.
If you are saying privacy restrictions do nothing to fight terror I think you are being a little peremptory. Of course you could have a lot of your rights curtailed and terrorists could still get away with something terrible, but there are no guarantees in life, so you have proved nothing by saying that. But you are being quite ridiculous if you say curtailing our rights somewhat does nothing to fight terror. Of course it does.
Look, be pragmatic folks. We lose some of our rights, but gain some security. Pre-September 11th I would see no reason to even consider that. But there's no use denying reality. There are people out there who are not really interested in our best interests and use our rights against us. Our allegiance to privacy is admirable, but I would also say in todays world, somewhat naive.
Ok, ok! Scream about how curtailing some of our rights means the terrorists win! I HEAR YOU. Guess what? They did win something on September 11th. Drop the emotional passion a notch, please? The voraciousness of your passion is admirable. But take a deep breath, be a little less emotional, and a little more pragmatic. The prevailing winds of today, 2002, post-Sept. 11th, with evil people bent on our destruction still running around, means simply we should be a little more intrusive into our rights in order to protect ourselves. Relax, there is nothing wrong with that, it is being prudent, it is being pragmatic, that is all, end of story.
For those of you who think CIA spooks have some secret agenda and privacy rights-curtailing has nothing to do with our security but is instead a conspiracy to rob us of our rights... or that they are bumbling fools and they mean well but they can't really protect us, just waste a lot of our money and remove some of our rights, then fine. I can not argue with you. Go watch the X-Files or talk about the Freemasons and JFK and scream bloody murder about historical parallels with Stalin, McCarthy, I don't care, take your pick. Whatever...
Is it possible the government is made of up of a bunch of common folk who are just looking out for our common good and doing simple steps to increase our security from madmen? No! Whodathunkit! IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE! It just can't be! That scenario seems like no Hollywood movie I've ever seen!
And one more thing: Won't someone please think of the children!
pfffttt...
Ooooo fun smuggling books... (Score:2)
Quote from Ben Franklin (Score:2, Interesting)
It's ok for me with certain conditions (Score:2)
Second, no monitoring or tracking using live data, this should be used to get proof or see what hapened afterwards, not used to track citizens
Provided these two conditions are respected, I have no problems with cameras everywhere. :-(
But guess what, there is no way these two conditions will be respected
What books and what records? (Score:2)
How much do you want to bet that after 9-11, there was a significant increases in purchases of "The Koran"?? I know Barnes&Nobel had that book prominantly displayed. And why not? I'm quite sure that most of the purchases weren't by potential terrorists but by citizens looking to understand their motives. But those people could be unfairly targeted for pure curiosity in a perfectly legal book.
-Restil
This goes both ways you know (Score:2, Interesting)
Or perhaps... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
It's little more than an expensive feel good toy.
Re:1984 Add this one: #@ +1 ; New @# (Score:2)
My prediction; Bush will probably hold onto popularity long enough for a second term. Unless he vetoes campaign finance reform, in which case I think McCain will very publicly not endorse him, costing him the few percentage points he needs to win.
Now I have to remember to check this old post in 3 year.
Re:Worry about Amazon purchases? (Score:2)
Correction: So far nobody has decided that any of the things that you do are wrong. Lucky you. Do you really want to assume that's always going to be true?
Re:New Disclaimers (Score:2)
That's the beauty of the system being proposed. If you burn the books, people might get upset.
Plus, by banning or burning the book, you get people interested in the book who might not otherwise have read it. (Remember DeCSS?)
Instead, just track the purchase of the books, and keep tabs on the suspicious ones. Gives you better intelligence data, and the rest of the population is none the wiser.
Think of a police informant doing a drug buy with marked money - the presence of the marked money in the suspect's wallet indicates guilt at the time of arrest, and the suspect never knows which of his "customers" turned him in.