Bush Wants Right to ISP Customer Data 565
bryan8m writes "Wired is reporting that the Bush administration wants back the ability to make ISPs turn over information on their customers. The U.S. Court of Appeals is handling the case and of course the feds want to hide details of it from the public. The law giving the government the power to seize communications records from 1986 was strengthened in 2001 by the Patriot Act and struck down after the ACLU challenged it."
Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now all of the sudden they are getting a read from the courts?
Fucking facists.
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're stepping on the toes of large, multi-national corporations many of whom have major media holdings and could make life very, very painful for the US government. Translation: they ARE being watched on this one, so they have to cross the 't's and dot the 'i's.
--Ryv
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:3, Insightful)
They will defend the US to the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds bad but... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with the importsance of this, I'd like to point at the importance of questioning if a power is needed at all, and not granting it if such a need cannot be proven. Checks and balances can only work when they are not bogged down in burocracy and procedure to be effective. Too much power with a too big counterweight (oversight by 'uninterested' 3rd parties) easily results in a substational amount of burocracy.
Diabloical (Score:5, Insightful)
But I must say, that this initiative is truely diabolical. My freedoms to surf the internet privately is clearly being breached here.
Are we going to see them applying the same interpretationist polcies that they use on television to the internet. I mean whos to say what constituits a "terrorist" website?
Goodbye my friends. I think 1984 has truely, and finally come alive, and its time for some of us to go underground.
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell yeah, it does.
not that the US is one, b
Give it a little more time... These things don't happen overnight.
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds bad but... (Score:5, Insightful)
This means no oversight, and opens the door for all kinds of abuse. Giving the government a little grief? No problem, they'll just have to make life hard for you.
I'm so glad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is an actual case with actual charges all that has to be done is *file the supoena*. This administration is doing just about everything in its power to 'legalize' the ability to exercise power above the law.
There was once when the 'republican" party and the 'conservatives' meant smaller govt, less spending, and less intrusiveness.
I cant imagine that we need secret laws and skulduggery against our own people to fight the phantom menace
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your comment reminded me of a thought I had regarding the fines that everyone wanted Microsoft to pay for using its monopoly to crush competition. Before the USDOJ action, Microsoft was one of those rare companies that made no significant political contributions to either party. I'm sure this had more to do with their wanting to stay out of someone's crosshairs, but they only made token lobbying efforts as well.
After the judgement, they dump a ton of cash on both parties and they lobby every bill that may have an impact on their business operations.
They're paying their fine: one congressman at a time.
Re:fight against terrorism or pirates? (Score:1, Insightful)
If they hate our freedom the only way we can stop them is buy taking away our freedom.
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:2, Insightful)
It looks more like a plutocracy with the wealth and power being concentrated in the top few percent of the population. The only direction now is down into despotism.
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Insightful)
In the United States the law is so hopelessly complex, the enforcement so arbitrary, and adherence to the concept of checks and balances is such a farce that very few people are entirely sure of the legality of all their actions. Or what the consequences would be. We have developed a culture of lawyers for precisely this purpose - we walk on pins and needles hoping to God we aren't crossing some local, state, or federal ordinance without realizing it.
To live in the United States without having a law degree or the money to employ someone with one full-time is to be a second-class citizen.
--Ryv
Re:Shaddup! (Score:2, Insightful)
We're still sitting ducks for someone sneaking shit onto an airplane while screeners profile for british shoe bombers (oh wait, they're not, they're profiling for "people who look like they might be muslim", ignoring the fact that muslims are in just about every country in the planet and every color humans come in), meanwhile El Al has had one successful hijacking in decades, and not for lack of people trying.
Re:Bush can have my ISP data... (Score:3, Insightful)
What does one thing have to do with the other?
It seems many of us are simply predisposed to attack anyone whose ideology is different from ours. Without thought.
Sadly, I think this is what our political leaders have taught us: shrill reponses to just about anything proposed by our enemies (those who don't align with our politics.) It is a scary, scary practice and one that is getting worse.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying I advocate the war or the topic. In fact, I've not even RTFA.
Ahem [gets on soapbox] (Score:5, Insightful)
How would people react if the Bush, or any, administration claimed the right to be able to tap anyone's phone for any reason?
From the article:
The legal filing with the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York comes amid a debate in Congress over renewal of the Patriot Act and whether to expand the FBI's power to seek records without the approval of a judge or grand jury.
And will they also seek the entitlement to search domestic residences without a warrant approved by an authority figure? Would I be far off in this seeming to be about the same? For those who lost their short term memory, and those who like repetition:
without the approval or a judge or grand jury
How do you respect a law like that?
Re:I'm so glad... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really that simple.
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
And we all love Republican's love of ethics. Like how Clinton gets head and it involves an impeachment and Senate trial. But god forbid someone even mention the shit Tom DeLay does. Or Bill Frist's violation of medical ethics with his famous diagnosis via heavily edited video tapes.
Re:They will defend the US to the point (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know. I've heard some interesting things about New Zealand. I'm sure it has its drawbacks too.
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently eveyone objected to my use of the word "socialist", so I changed it to keep everyone's panties smooth and not bunchy.
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Insightful)
- Welcome to the US of the 21st century where controversial bills are passed as riders to defense spending bills and passed by voice vote (so there's no record of who voted for or against). This has been going on for some time, but it has increased dramtically under Bush's administration, and not all of it after 9/11/2001. After 9/11 almost anything goes of course. Torture's been determined legal, secret searches are fine, but hey at least we caught Bin Laden right? Oh wait we didn't...
Does'nt this seem *too* close to a dictatorship - not that the US is one, but it increasingly is seeming that certain aspects are going in that directionWhat do I think? All I know is that it certainly feels like whatever any corporation wants they get, but whatever I want (and others like me want), even when it's constitutional freedoms, I don't get it because it would inconvenience some corporation. So I'd have to say we're well down that road to control by corporations and I wouldn't be surprised to see congress and the courts dissolved and the presidency turned into a dictatorship in my lifetime.
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Insightful)
- Actually it's getting easier to figure it out, all you have to ask is "Will this make some corporation mad?" if the answer is yes then it's probably against the law or soon will be. Also the consequences will be quite dire, you'd be better off murdering someone.
To live in the United States without having a law degree or the money to employ someone with one full-time is to be a second-class citizen.Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another "So What" (Score:4, Insightful)
I worry that your head is in the sand on this.
Re:Shaddup! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yer all a bunch of commie pinko liberal America-haters. Our President is doing the BEST HE CAN to protect us from terrorism, and he NEEDS these powers.
While I am a liberal, classical liberal, just as Thomas Jefferson was, I am not a "commie", I very much am a capitalist just as Adam Smith wrote about in "On the Wealth of Nations" [online-literature.com]. Others here seem to be fascists.
FalconRe:I'm so glad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Title is mis-leading. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well now. If you're gonna bash people for being liberal and stupid... perhaps you shouldn't be conservative and stupid.
Fact: it was impossible for anyone other than the authors of the Patriot Act to read it. There was no time. It was rammed through Congress at a time when questioning the content, even if there was time to read it, would have been considered unamerican. Perhaps you'd like to forget that little detail.
As for it passing again without much debate: we'll see. I can see it going both ways, and if it goes down without much debate, I will not be surprised. It's human nature for most people not to get too upset at slow erosion of rights--that's what this is, bit by bit dismantling of our rights. The people standing up (eg, Feingold) are cally "nuts". Go figure.
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Paranoia (Score:2, Insightful)
Can I have some of whatever you're drinking?
Re:Title is mis-leading. (Score:5, Insightful)
- No it didn't, but many congressmen (and women) have said afterward, repeatedly, that they were pressured into voting for it and given almost no time at all to review it. Many voted for it without having read more than a few pages. The pressure of 9/11 was used to force congress to pass the PATRIOT act without allowing them time to debate it. So yeah it was voted for near unaminously but even congress wasn't terribly happy about it. Try including all the facts instead of only the ones that paint the viewpoint you're shooting for.
and it doesn't look like it is going to pass with a narrow margin again this time.- Only portions of the act are up for renewal, very few in fact. The bulk of it is still intact and would take new legislation to remove it. Also it's by no means certain those portions up for renewal will pass, and even if they do it won't be so quick and easy. Numerous congresscritters have publically stated that they will _NOT_ be put in the same situation again and will be invesigating this fully before deciding this time. Multiple hearings have already been scheduled and many already completed.
So for all you liberal's out there that say my guy would never vote for this, and Bush is evil because he did. Check the vote records for this back in 2001. It's all posted on the Library of Congress website.You may say the article is biased, but frankly you're showing far more bias than it does. Also everything is biased, you have to realize this and learn to read the bias as well so you can make up your own mind. Personally I support some sections of the PATRIOT act and not others. If I had to chose between the whole thing going to get rid of the worst sections I'd err on the side of caution and say yes, it should be removed. As Benjamin Franklin said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
And frankly, do you really feel more secure now than you did before the PATRIOT act was passed? I don't, at best I feel I have the same level of security, at worst I have a new enemy -- my own government who treats me like a criminal in the name of "fighting terrorism".
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Any lawmaker that wants government to be more like business prefers dictatorship over democracy.
On the flipside... (Score:2, Insightful)
it has never made ANY sense to me as to why someone would willingly consent to a police search, but as i learned from my recent encounter, people really are too stupid to realize they have the right to say no.
Re:Look! He is making his Tribal identification cr (Score:3, Insightful)
He is announcing to all the world that he wants to associate himself with neoliberal economics.
I don't know what you mean by saying I assoiciate with neoliberal economics, as far as I'm concerned there isn't much difference between it and neoconservative economics, both are for corporate aristocracy. Just as Thomas Jefferson was, I am wary of the corporate aristocracy and believe more people should own and run their own small business. At the same tyme I believe in a small and limited government, and liberty. I don't want to live in any dictatorship, either rightwing or leftwing.
Unless you just want to be sarcastic and don't care otherwise, you might point out what you think are problems on the issues.
FalconRe:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just for the record, I AM a citizen of the United States, and I was in secondary school at the time. A senator who came to address some of the students gave an impassioned speech about how he would resign if anyone even brought charges of infidelity against him, and that it was unbecoming of a president to behave so immorally. Two weeks later, a woman DID come up with charges against him. Needless to say, that senator continued to work in Congress as he always had.
Posting AC to avoid the flame machine.
YOU JACKASS! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Call it by name (Score:4, Insightful)
What "tenuous implication"? That fascist Nazis posed as socialists to grab power from people who knew fascists were bad, as I explicitly stated in the post that triggered your delusions? Or the explicit statement that Bush poses as a "compassionate conservative", while denying the unnecessary pain and death he creates? Which parallel to the Nazis you expanded further, with your tales of a politician who takes over a credulous party by assuming labels like "conservative" or "socialist", depending on the preference of their targeted constituencies.
Sure, I learned in preschool (too scary to call it "kindergarten", eh?) to recognize an insane bully. Like Hitler, like Bush, and like you, Anonymous raving Coward. Fancy the fascism yourself, eh? Why not be strong enough to come out and strut it?
Re:Title is mis-leading. (Score:2, Insightful)
Too bad the filibuster didn't exist then. They could have extended debate! HA! Seriously, if you're sworn in as a congresscritter, grow some freakin' balls and do what you need to do instead of crying about pressure. If you're not smart enough to expect some arm twisting as a legislator for a country with 300,000,000 people and a $2,200,000,000,000 annual budget, then you don't belong in office.
(Of course, when Clinton did worse things than the Patriot Act allows and did them to real Americans none of these people said squat. This is all political.)
Re:I'm so glad... (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, we need 12 years of solid Democratic rule to even start erasing the damage the unfettered right has done to this nation. Only when the GOP shows some willingness to control it's whacked-out wing should it be allowed veto over anything.
This Memorial Day -- Remember America (Score:5, Insightful)
I've read that congress is considering revisions to the Patriot Act, and that President Bush is pushing for more powers to intrude in secret into lives of Americans. Please don't let our nation go down this road. I am asking people to discuss this issue and contact your congress person [house.gov] and senator [senate.gov] to let them know how you feel. Freedom is not free, it must fought for and held close dearly, in the statehouse and on the battlefield.
In America a battle is raging that is threatening our freedom in the name of terrorism. It used to be "drugs", then it was "the children", and now its "terrorists". The government doesn't care who the bogeyman is, it simply wants more power, and it will use any excuse possible to get it.
When the events of 9/11 occurred, everyone-- the politicians, the President, the newscasters, and the people everywhere-- said "We must go on with our lives, if we change who we are as a result of the trajedy then the terrorists have won..." I hate to say it then, because that's exactly what we did. We allowed our government to put in all these draconian measures that would have scared the pants off us if we had seen it in a hollywood movie on September 10th. We have fundamentally altered our country in response to what the terrorists did, and our freedom and liberty is at stake.
We are no longer as free as we were. We are no longer as kind to each other as before. We run around the world acting like the bully, and we've even lost the respect for ourselves-- our own moral compass and lamp of righteousness. We used to be the shining beacon of freedom and liberty for all the world to see. Now we're reviled and hated in many parts of the world and shunned by our friends and allies.
We've changed a lot since 9/11. Government agents can search your home and seize your property without anybody ever knowing what happened. They have even made talking about it a "national security" crime. These are things are supposed to happen in Cuba. These are things that happen in China. These are things that are supposed to happen only in the farthest, darkest, most oppressive corners of the world-- not in America, "the land of the free".
It has been said that people who give up their liberty for safety have neither. It would seem that since 9/11, Americans have looked away while lawmakers stripped away fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed to us under our constitution. Since the birth of this nation we have championed against tyranny, oppression, and the subjugation of humanity all around the world. What an irony that we must now remind ourselves of these very principles and warn our politicians to step lightly to avoid leading us into the abyss.
Step away from that edge! Guide us back into the light and liberty. America was great before, and shall be great again. All that is required is the wisdom and the courage to stand up and speak against what we all know is wrong. America has a mighty weapon, and its not our tanks, its not our ships, its not our weapons of mass destruction-- America's mightiest weaspon is ourselves. Our love for humanity, our reaching out to stop the oppressors of the world, our zest for life and our yearning to be free.
The terrorists who aim to defeat us can never win because they simply can't understand our spirit. But the politicians who govern us can defeat us. They are charged with protecting our spirit and keeping the beacon of liberty lit for all the generations that come. It is not the terrorists I fear. We have mighty armies and very smart people that will eventually defeat them, of this I am ce
Re:Title is mis-leading. (Score:3, Insightful)
less government (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's funny whenever anyone calls for less government. How do you define this?
I use the COnstitution of the USA as my guideline. Get rid of all the agencies, departments, and offices not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Here's a directory of federal agencies, LSU Libraries Federal Agencies Directory [lsu.edu], most of which aren't specifically authorized by the Constitution.
FalconRe:This Memorial Day -- Remember America (Score:2, Insightful)
No Use, I live in Minnesota with Senator Norm Coleman. He could care less about what I think, and besides, the last time I wrote him his reply addressed me as "Mrs."
Re:Shaddup! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting how the current president always gets put on the face of any government operation, as if it were all his idea.
The president doesn't want the names of ISP customers. The Lawyers want those names. The police want those names. The people who want additional power are the people who can actually use it. The president supports it because the idea sounded reasonable when it was presented to him. The only thing he's been personally campaigning about is social security. The rest is just side notes.
Fifty to one says he's got no idea what this whole argument is about. Do you really thing George W. Bush understands this debate?
Re:I'm so glad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They will defend the US to the point (Score:4, Insightful)
The remaining Bush faithful DO want to abandon their civil liberties in the name of security and morality and they want to dicatate the same course to the rest of the world if possible. They had enough of all the liberation that started in the 60's and they want to go back to America's glory days, the 50's, McCarthyism, rigid morality, sex is taboo, homosexuals are safely locked in the closet, censorship, etc. They especially want to strip other people of their civil liberties to get them in to line with what they consider proper behavior and to eliminate any chance that they might pose any threat, real or imagined to, to there comfy ignorant little lives.
There is unfortunately a pretty close correlation between this set of people and the fundementalist Christians in the U.S. who are of the opinion they put Bush in office so they now own the U.S., its government and all the people in it and its their prerogative to dictate to everyone else how to live and if the Constitution gets in the way then the Constitution needs to be ignored or amended. A few weeks ago I saw the scary sign of the times on the news. A church that decided no good Christain could possible vote Democrat, that it was practicly voting for the devil, and that they were now on going to be a political church and anyone who didn't support Bush and Republicans was no longer welcome in the house of God and Jesus. I wonder isolated incident or is it happening all over the country in varying degrees.
And of course as others have said in other posts the second part of the one two punch is there are a bunch of corporations who also own the government in general and the Bush administration in particular. They want two things, docile cowed workers and if they cant get them in the U.S they will get them in China, and they want docile cowed consumers who buy their products and can't complain it they are defective, unhealty dangerous or overpriced (cigarettes and asbestors being classic examples, predatory gas prices another).
Star Wars earned him all the money but the most prescient and important work from George Lucas was THX-1138 which was released on DVD recently and is really worth seeing. It makes you think what might happen if we let government, corporations and control freaks sieze control of our lives. Probably to late to stop it now, but at least you will recognize it as its happening.
Re:Shaddup! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the most effective way to run things would be to ensure that every person is well screened and all bagagge is checked. Unfortunatly, Bush is too busy giving rich people their taxes back so he can't afford to properly outfit the nations needs. Look at the coast guard's requests for protecting ports that go unanswered.
In a speech Ann Coulter listed about 20 attacks made against US forces by Muslim extremests. Her conclusion was that at some point it's not a racest profile it's the profile of the villian. The problem with this logic is that it doesn't acknowledge all of the attacks by domestic militant groups like the Oklahoma City bombing. It also opens up the search to too wide of a group. The equivalent would be to haul in every white male in his 30's and 40's ever time there is a serial killer. When 10% of the population matches the profile you have to make the profile more specific.
I believe the guy was French not British, btw.