ACLU Joins Fight Against Internet Surveillance 158
aychamo writes "The American Civil Liberties Union today joined an expanding group of organizations filing lawsuits against a new rule that increases the FBI's power to conduct surveillance on the Internet. The rule being challenged is one the Federal Communications Commission adopted in September, granting an FBI request to expand wiretapping authority to online communications.he ACLU charged in a petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the ruling goes beyond the authority of CALEA, which specifically exempted information services. "The ACLU seeks review of the CALEA order on the grounds that it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise contrary to law," the organization charged in its petition."
Fantastic, now how about the 2nd? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Colleges' costs for CALEA compliance (Score:3, Insightful)
Tough Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Good for you, ACLU (Score:1, Insightful)
Nevermind them. Yay ACLU. Keep up the good work.
Re:Tough Question (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean "will use it"? Ever been to the US since september 11, 2001?
Re:Tough Question (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tough Question (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not really opposed to granting law-enforcement the power to do surveillence on e-mail, traffic, or what-have-you - but it's ridiculous that every proposal that comes forward to expand police powers also involves no oversight or accountability.
If you think I'm a criminal and you want my ISP to disclose my e-mails then call a judge, present your evidence, get a warrant, collect the e-mails, notify me that I'm under investigation, and we're all set. The same as it works with everything else.
The hypocricy that comes with "we need to expand the law so the police have the same powers over this new-fangled technology thing" and "we must not extend the oversight principles while we're at it" is mind-boggling.
Re:Tough Question (Score:1, Insightful)
What do you mean "will use it"? Ever looked at the withholdings on your paycheck?
Re:Tough Question (Score:5, Insightful)
In the past century, governments have racke dup 180,000,000 deaths [erols.com].
Trusting a government with health care is strange. Trusting the government with killing is simply a matter of recognizing a core competency.
At least this time it's useful. (Score:3, Insightful)
LK
Re:ACLU (Score:5, Insightful)
No.. most of their stuff does not. Just most of the stuff that jokers like O'Reilly and Limbaugh like to focus on.
Almost all of their cases are about protecting the civil rights of the individual against the "man". You don't hear about most of those, because Fox News won't highlight them.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism is rare (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this to fight terrorists or to regulate the internet? or both?
How much privacy are people willing to give up in order to fight a war without a clear enemy?
Re:Terrorism is rare (Score:4, Insightful)
But sadly, I find myself in the distinct minority.
It's a tired old canard, but the terrorists really have won. America has changed because of 9/11. For the worse.
We're becoming what we used to despise and fight against during the cold war... a totalitarian police state.
Re:At least this time it's useful. (Score:5, Insightful)
seriously, some people don't get it. When the ACLU defends the KKK holding a protest march, they aren't agreeing with the KKK.. they are defending their right to march.
This makes the ACLU even more noble, in my opinion. The ability to defend a person or group that you loathe with every fiber of your being (at sometimes considerable monetary and PR expense to yourself), just to uphold a higher ideal, is downright saint-like.
Some people think it's about "defending the KKK" or "blocking harmless nativity scenes on public buildings" or "keeping the 10 commandments out of courtrooms". It is not... and the failure of a person to "get" the point says more about them than the ACLU.
"defending the KKK's right to protest" is about defending your right to espouse an unpopular idea.
"taking nativity scenes off of the government property" is about defending your right to not have your government endorse a particular religious viewpoint.
"taking the 10 commandments out of the courtroom" is about defending your right to not be pre-judged, even subliminally, because you don't share the religious beliefs of the people who will decide your fate.
"fighting against Intelligent Design in the classroom" is about defending your right, and your childrens' rights, to not be religiously indoctrinated by the state.
The ACLU will defend your civil rights, no matter how loathesome you or your viewpoints are. That makes them noble. Those that can't see that are too simple to get it.
Re:ACLU (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't there value in a debate over the limits of religious freedom? I don't agree that someone should be allowed to cover their face in a driver's license photo either, but I don't begrudge the ACLU for bringing the case. One of the biggest dangers we face as a society, hell, as humans, is that we tend to believe that certain ideas like "religious freedom" are unchanging and self-evident; they're not. In fact, they're sources of constant contestation and both shape and are shaped by society. Insofar as the ACLU's driver's license lawsuit forces us to think about the limits of religious freedom, and furthermore just what we mean by "religious freedom", I say it's worthwhile; we certainly wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise. The idea that it's wrong to even ask those questions is, in my opinion, a much bigger threat than any possible outcome of the lawsuit.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ACLU (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Read Federalist 29... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hey Billy-Bob, we're gonna go overthrow the government. You stand here and when the STEALTH F*CKING BOMBER comes over that hill and tries to drop a 500lb smart bomb on your ass, try to shoot him first with your Vietnam surplus
I think the point you should be trying to make is that the majority of the military needs to divided up and put under direct *local* civilian control. Therefore, if the federal government wanted to use the military against the people, they would have to convince the local civilian leadership to issue those orders, which would be a much safer situation, until the civilian leadership in New Hampshire decides to bomb New York... but nothing's perfect.
In the event that a particular state attempts to us its military against its own people, then a coalition of other states could get together and liberate that state (hopefully).
Re:Read Federalist 29... (Score:2, Insightful)
Take it easy bud, it's Friday. Relax.
The point about the media is conceded, so long as the media digs itself out of the hole it's in now, where it's just a mouthpiece for the administration anyway.
However, if I were the government, and wanted to shoot my own people, I suppose I'd commandeer all radio stations and TV stations to make sure that none of them were under the control of the "eeevil terrorists", and most of the public would go along with that because most of them are sheep, just like the Iraqis or anyone else in the world. They want the government to protect them, which is why they'll gladly give up the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and their guns in the interest of national security. The press will gleefully broadcast the press conference where the president tells the people that these measures are in their own best interest, and if you're not with us, you're against us. Then the press will show interviews with mouthpiece after mouthpiece that was recommended by the administration as a good source of balanced news.
And yes, the people could wage a guerilla war, but they're going to find it harder to do than the Iraqis because over here the gov't has your address on file, can tap nearly every means of communications you might use to organize (and with the patriot act, they have the right to do that just by labelling you a terrorist). They can stop all sources of funding for you (the banks are under federal control), and they don't just have 100,000 army guys to throw at you, they have every bit of the federal military, the national guard, and every single law enforcement officer will have your license plate number scrawled on their dashboard.
On top of that, you wouldn't be considered patriots, you'd be considered the bad guys because you blow things up, kill the good brave soldiers of the land, and otherwise be a disturbance of the peace, and people really care more about their SUV in the driveway, their cable TV, and their porn, and they don't really care about their freedoms. Therefore, everyone else will be ready to turn you in as well.
So yeah, it would be harder for a present day American to be a revolutionary, much harder than it is in Iraq. You're going to run out of willing suicide bombers in the US much faster than you will in Iraq.
Re:That's what the NRA is for (Score:1, Insightful)
What the ACLU is REALLY about... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh no, I get it.. Totally.
"When the ACLU defends the KKK holding a protest march, they aren't agreeing with the KKK.. they are defending their right to march."
I call for a 'common sense' rule here. Sending the KKK into an African-American neighborhood when you know this is going to start a riot is lunacy.
"This makes the ACLU even more noble, in my opinion."
Stupidity isn't noble no matter how good an idea it might have seemed over chianti and cheese the night before.
"The ability to defend a person or group that you loathe with every fiber of your being (at sometimes considerable monetary and PR expense to yourself), just to uphold a higher ideal, is downright saint-like."
It can be, but let's just see how many left-wing nut groups get priority over traditional values and ideals at the ACLU. It's not even close.
"Some people think it's about "defending the KKK" or "blocking harmless nativity scenes on public buildings" or "keeping the 10 commandments out of courtrooms". It is not... and the failure of a person to "get" the point says more about them than the ACLU."
Hmm.. Seems to me that sometimes religion helped form the basis of our country's values and beliefs. To not see this is to totally delude yourself of what real life was like here 100 or more years ago. Tearing that stuff down doesn't make it right - it puts us in the same category as the Taliban blowing up statues in the desert. Real smart stuff.
"defending the KKK's right to protest" is about defending your right to espouse an unpopular idea."
Granted. But there are exceptions to freedom of speech (the old yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theatre example comes to mind).
"taking nativity scenes off of the government property" is about defending your right to not have your government endorse a particular religious viewpoint."
Yeah, it makes ya feel good doesn't it? Let's tear down all the crosses at Arlington too! THE PEOPLE already expressed the viewpoint, that's why these things are there in the first place! You get ONE GUY who doesn't like it, and everyone else suffers. That makes sense... Not.
"taking the 10 commandments out of the courtroom" is about defending your right to not be pre-judged, even subliminally, because you don't share the religious beliefs of the people who will decide your fate."
No, it's about erasing 250+ years of history because it happen to offend someone. Why don't we start aiming artillary at statues now and get it over with?
"fighting against Intelligent Design in the classroom" is about defending your right, and your childrens' rights, to not be religiously indoctrinated by the state."
When even Einstein admits that there's an underlying 'glue' to the universe, how can it be bad to at least acknoledge that there might be more to our universe than particles and atoms? Oh.. But we can teach the kids about the possibilities of alien life?! What's the difference there?
"The ACLU will defend your civil rights, no matter how loathesome you or your viewpoints are."
Bullshit. They defend your rights if it will:
1) Help further their cause through advertising the most extreme cases.
2) Eliminate any and all forms of public (or private) religious expression.
3) Further the left wing agenda by keeping any disention quiet. The ACLU is about QUIETING voices, not opening them up.
"That makes them noble. Those that can't see that are too simple to get it."
I suppose you could say that they were all just... simple... way back then, huh? Our founders would weep at how groups like the ACLU have tied up simple decency and common sense. It's high time to take this country back from the lawyers before they kill our society, our conscience, and our nation as a 'United' force.
Re:What the ACLU is REALLY about... (Score:1, Insightful)
So very true. It's just common sense to have the government outlaw any marches that might offend someone.
"Stupidity isn't noble no matter how good an idea it might have seemed over chianti and cheese the night before."
I know what you mean. Those ACLU people go around actually considering implications, and who in his right mind does that? They must be eating cheese that went bad, damaging their minds to the degree that they actually believe they have the power to think for themselves.
If only we could teach them that their "nobility" is nothing compared to the beneficence of the Fatherland.
"... but let's just see how many left-wing nut groups get priority over traditional values and ideals at the ACLU. It's not even close."
Again, right on point. They should be supporting the traditional values of burning heretics, policing bedrooms, and sending nonconformists off to the gulag. What the hell is with these people, supporting left-wing crap like individual freedom?!?
"Hmm.. Seems to me that sometimes religion helped form the basis of our country's values and beliefs. To not see this is to totally delude yourself of what real life was like here 100 or more years ago. Tearing that stuff down doesn't make it right - it puts us in the same category as the Taliban blowing up statues in the desert. Real smart stuff."
They are, truly, deluded. If there were any respect for the basis of our country's values, we'd get a few slaves apiece and could all prosper. Needless to say, the slaves would know their place unlike the ACLU-abetted insolents of today.
"... there are exceptions to freedom of speech (the old yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theatre example comes to mind)."
Yes, and I find it sad that people don't support many of the exceptions necessary for our Homeland Leaders to protect us. There should be no freedom of speech when it's not absolutely necessary for the good of the King, in my humble opinion.
"Yeah, it makes ya feel good doesn't it? Let's tear down all the crosses at Arlington too! THE PEOPLE already expressed the viewpoint, that's why these things are there in the first place! You get ONE GUY who doesn't like it, and everyone else suffers. That makes sense... Not."
I just know it. Why, just the other day, I went down to the local courthouse and erected a 5-foot statue of Jesus Christ our savior the Lord. Anyway, when I was done, they tried to take it down! I yelled at them, because I had already put it up and I thought it was only the proper thing, to have Jesus overseeing justice. What right do they have to make me suffer like that?
"No, it's about erasing 250+ years of history because it happen to offend someone. Why don't we start aiming artillary at statues now and get it over with?"
To be honest, I think we should hold jury trials (if we hold them at all, which really isn't necessary) in prehistoric archeological sites, to be more true to our heritage. Also, if anyone speaks ill of the local gods, we throw him over the cliff and leave his carcass for the saber-toothed tigers.
"When even Einstein admits that there's an underlying 'glue' to the universe, how can it be bad to at least acknoledge that there might be more to our universe than particles and atoms? Oh.. But we can teach the kids about the possibilities of alien life?! What's the difference there?"
I never understood why my son's high-school class taught him that purple five-legged aliens lived on Pluto. Apparently they've also been telling the students that Earth was created by extra-terrestrial Satanists. All because of the ACLU!
"Bullshit. They defend your rights if it will:
1) Help further their cause through advertising the most extreme cases."
Yep, always furthering their cause to further their