House and Senate Reject E-mail Surveillance 260
vena writes "The Star Tribune reports the House and Senate today agreed not to allow email surveillance of American citizens proposed by the Total Information Awareness program. Additionally, negotiators agreed to halt all future funding on the program without extensive consultation with Congress."
Re:About time... (Score:5, Informative)
A better version of the article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/politics/12PRIV
ALL e-mail is archived (Score:5, Informative)
Storage is cheap, and tape is cheap. The one protection you might have is that they only have backups on tapes and that the tapes go bad after a few years. But if they back up onto optical media, they basically have a record of all your e-mails for all eternity.
Heck, I run a mail server and a backup server for my company. It's really handy when an IMAP user accidentally deletes an e-mail. I can just go back and restore that mailbox for them. Even for something a year old.
The point is, just because the law says you are safe this instant doesn't mean squat. All that you do is recorded. If you don't like that, then use something like nonymouse.com and/or PGP.
Meanwhile... (Score:2, Informative)
Great news! But why am I still worried? (Score:5, Informative)
But there are still many, many other ways in which personal information is aggregated and analyzed, without the benefit of an oversight committee, or even significant regulation. So I'm still worried.
And I have another creeping worry: what if convicted felon Poindexter might have actually done some good with his (admittedly grotesque, and probably wildly impractical) database?
I mean, I'm always the first to howl about how those who give up freedom to gain a little security deserve neither, but does anybody else wonder about this? I mean, things are getting a little tense in the world these days.
Action (Score:4, Informative)
I just got done writing 4 letters to my Congressmen about the Pariot Act 2 and war with Iraq. I know it is easier to post online about how something should be done, but it only took about an hour to go out, get stamps and envelopes, and write.
Perhaps take this as a chance to thank your Senator/Representative for voting against this (if they did!), and maybe even let them know your views on the Patriot Act 2, etc.
Find your Senator [senate.gov]
Find your Representative [house.gov]
Greetings, from most of the world (Score:3, Informative)
In most of the world we call different standards for different classifications "different standards".
Not double standards.
Uh... not in my "most of the world". Not in Webster's Dictionary's "most of the world" either:
One group would be americans, another group would be foreigners. Double means you have two specific standards and the contradiction is when you purport them to be general.
Wrong. (Score:1, Informative)
If you read carefully the NYT article you linked above, you'll notice the following:
"Now, without a new law specifically authorizing its use and a new, specific appropriation to pay for it, the program could not be used against United States citizens."
This little bit of news made my entire day, and I think it should make yours too
Re:not too sure... (Score:5, Informative)
It called "ex post facto" and it is a major part of the US Constitution. No law can be passed to make that provision irrelevant either, it would take a Constitutional amendment to. Ex Post Facto (latin, roughly translated: after the fact) is one of the basic parts of our freedom, and what seperates us from non-democratic societies.
The goal of the FBI in wiretapping isn't to arrest terrorists, its to find out what is being planned and attempt to prevent or derail it. Many of these individuals *could* be exported as enemy combatants anyway (quietly, Im sure) if they are not US citizens.
Doesn't make it right to wiretap everyone, but that is the goal.
What happened to this forum? (Score:5, Informative)
Apparenlty few read the article (including the poster) before replying.
If all take a moment to read any of the 3 articles published today reporting the conferees agreement, it should be clear that the agreement does not prohibit surveillance of electronic communication between US citizens.
The agreement addresses the use of the data collected in prosecuting citizens and includes congressional oversight of further funding and reasearch but does not prohibit the evesdropping.
The Monsters are Due on Maple Street (Score:2, Informative)
TVGuide: "March 4, 1960: The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street: Total power failure in a neighborhood sparks suspicions that it was caused by an alien invasion -- and that one walks among them."
Here [thetzsite.com] is a reasonably good synopsis.
And now, on-topic: Terrorists target governments, not citizens. However, the best way to attack a government is to let other people do it for you, and the best people to do that are the citizens of that country. The IRA was after the British government. The 9/11 terrorists were after the US government. The civilians are a means, not an end. (I should, however, note that there may be some exception with respect to Israel and Palestine, but don't regard this topic too highly, as it's only here so at least some of my post is on-topic.)
Re:About time... (Score:4, Informative)
From the American Library Association [ala.org]:
"Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association. The courts have established a First Amendment right to receive information in a publicly funded library. Further, the courts have upheld the right to privacy based on the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Many states provide guarantees of privacy in their constitutions and statute law. Numerous decisions in case law have defined and extended rights to privacy."
It includes references (four for that paragraph alone), if you want to argue with any specific point.
Re:About time... (Score:5, Informative)
IV
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.
IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(Hint: its not in the Bill of Rights)
It is indeed the Bill of Rights that guarantees the protection of individual liberties; you'll remember that the federalists argued that no such things is necessary, because enumerating specific rights only means that the government can find ways to infringe upon other rights, that have not been explicitly enumerated. The anti-federalists, on the other hand, were afraid of a strong central government, and wanted a bill of rights to serve as an explicit social contract between the people and the government.
Re:Double standards (Score:4, Informative)
I really do hope you're only joking, but allow me to remind you that the Constitution and Declaration of Independance do not suggest that governments somehow "assign" rights because of national origin, but are rather established to protect the people under their jurisdiction, because these are asserted to be the inalienable rights of mankind. The equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that all people under the jurisdiction of the United States are entitled to equal protection of the law. This principle has been upheld in the landmark case Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) [cornell.edu]. The court asserted that The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality. [...] Those subjects of the Emperor of China who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States, are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws.