Tyler Too writes "The NSA wiretap lawsuit filed by the EFF will apparently be moving forward. A federal judge has denied the government's request that the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T be dismissed. Among other things, the judge ruled that 'if the government has been truthful in its disclosures, divulging information on AT&T's role in the scandal should not cause any harm to national security.' The case will now move forward, pending a government appeal."
"if the government has been truthful in its disclosures, divulging information on AT&T's role in the scandal should not cause any harm to national security."
<voice=texan>
An' they hate us for our freedom. So...
</voice>
> But sounds good to me, but i'm a filthy liberal.
<voice=texan>
Yeah, it's all your fault! Fer six years some folks have been complaining that the government isn't listening to the people... an' now that it does, y'all are haulin' us into court for it! What gives?
</voice>
/me smacks the ignorant hillbilly upside the head. You sound like one of them Cee-En-En types. Don' chew know that all them thar activist judges is filthy lib'rals?
am not saying this to be mean or short-sighted but every time I see a very liberal person taklign about the wiretapping/phone records issue, they genuinely come across to me as someone who would rather see people DIE as in DEAD than have one single person's phone call monitored that shouldn't have been. Does it matter that they were talking about a recipe for fried chicken or a rendezvous at a restaurant? No.
That's funny. Every time I hear a very stereotypically "conservative" American talking about the wiretapping/phone records issue, they genuinely come across to me as someone who would rather see Americans live under constant surveillance with no actual freedom than have one single person stand a chance of being killed (or even injured) by some nebulous "terrorist" bogeyman-of-the-week.
The thing is, I can't figure out if it's blind stupidity alone, or stupidity mixed with blind hatred of the Bush administration, and by extension, the military and intelligence communities.
The thing is, I can't figure out if it's blind stupidity alone, or stupidity mixed with a blind hatred of anything they perceive as "liberal."
The issue here is not the NSA listening in on one particular person giving a recipe to a friend. It is the mentality that a surveillance society is a good thing. The NSA wiretaps are a product of that mentality, with the logical conclusion of it being totalitarianism. That is why people like me want to see programs like this smashed *now*, before they get even more out of hand.
... who would rather see Americans live under constant surveillance with no actual freedom than have one single person stand a chance of being killed...
Sheet. Didn't thousands if not millions of Americans more or less willfully die for the right of Americans to live freely and not under surveillance? Hell, I'd die if I knew that would be what I were doing.
You say >they genuinely come across to me as someone who would rather see people DIE as in DEAD than have one single person's phone call monitored that shouldn't have been. Patrick Henry said "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
I just got the EFF's "we're winning, now please donate more cash" spam and surfed over here to see if there were details. Scary how the two lined up so perfectly.
So yeah, if you have a few bucks, they could probably use it. I realize it's only our basic liberties, but let's be honest -- if you don't donate your spare cash to the EFF, you're just going to waste it on booze.
"if the government has been truthful in its disclosures, divulging information on AT&T's role in the scandal should not cause any harm to national security."
Is that like "if you have nothing to hide, you won't object to surveillance"? Seriously, poor government!
Is that like "if you have nothing to hide, you won't object to surveillance"? Seriously, poor government!
No, it's not like that. It's more like this:
"If you have been truthful to previous investigaters about your involvement in this, you won't mind us investigating your pal over here for any wrong-doing on his part."
The US Govt. tried to have the case against AT&T thrown out - not a case against itself. It's quite a diffrent matter.
"If you've not commited any crimes with your friend, you won't have anything to worry about if I ask your friend if he's commited any crimes with you", which does reduce to the grandparent post's phrasing. Basically, the judge is daring the Government to either let the case through (and risk disclosure) -or- be found guilty of lying.
Since the Government isn't a defendent, and as the US has no meaningful concept of "contempt of court" or perjury, the court can't do anything about it if the Government is found guilty of lying. On the other hand, this is election year, which is not a good year to be found guilty of anything, even if there is nothing the courts can do.
My guess is that the Government will do anything and everything to stall proceedings, such that if there is a trial, there's absolutely no risk of anything embarassing being said before polling day. If they're in power, they can clean things up afterwards. If they're not, it's no longer their problem.
Because the republicans are likely to impeach Bush? And before you talk about the dems pulling a majority congress out of their collective derriers in '06, you should be aware that it takes a supermajority [wikipedia.org] to convict.
You also seem to forget that Clinton was aquitted.
That would imply that judges have a sense of humor. And perhaps that they are not above cruel irony. Which, if true, speaks highly of the judiciary, in my opinion.
Most people haven't read a lot of judicial decisions, but it's no uncommon for them to have clever (if obfuscated) wording showing wit and distain for stupid plaintifs/defendants.
Is that like "if you have nothing to hide, you won't object to surveillance"? Seriously, poor government!
Absolutely.
The government is supposed to be "surveilled" by the public. It is our responsibility to watch the government as closely as we can. It's not hypocritical to object to cameras on street corners but to lobby for cameras in police cars. They work for us, not the other way around.
I certainly look forward to seeing just how much the phone companies have been aiding the NSA. With the abuses leaked regarding the "terrorist surveillence program" related to international phone calls, the warrantless surveilance of American citizens certainly needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the light of day.
Unless you consider the actaul act of surveillence an abuse, there have been no "abuses".
Most epople consider improperly authorized surveillance an abuse, I think you'll find.
No one has been blackmailed or otherwise had any information misused.
I think you meant to say "No one has been blackmailed or otherwise had any information misused as far as I know." Big difference, and they might well not be in a position to be shouting about it.
Let me take your troll at face value for a moment... You want to execute those responsible for initiating a program intended to protect American citizens.
I guess you believe everything the government tells you, hunh? I think it's quite remarkable you can divine intent from a statement made by people who also intended for everything to go well in Iraq, despite lack of a plan.
I am no conspiracy theorist, but given what the Nixon alumni in this administration have already proven that they are capable of, I thi
Intended to protect American citizens? Bullshit. Its intended to increase the powers of the government, its precisely *against* the founding principles of the US.
Given that the wiretaps were specifically aimed at people who made calls to or received calls from known terrorist phone numbers
No, they weren't. If thats all they were aimed at, the government would get a *warrant* against them. You know, like they've done hundreds of times in the past. The government was data mining the phone records of the *entire nation* not of specific people.
On a side rant- known terrorists? Its been proven in a court of law? Or they confessed to it? No? Then they aren't known terrorist, they're *suspected* terrorists, and are innocent until proven guilty.
Shame on them for this.
Shame on them? No, shame on you. Shame on you for throwing away our freedoms, shame on you for pissing all over the Constitution. And shame on the rest of America for letting sheep like you throw away what generations have fought and died for.
Shame on them? No, shame on you. Shame on you for throwing away our freedoms, shame on you for pissing all over the Constitution. And shame on the rest of America for letting sheep like you throw away what generations have fought and died for.
My God. Your post makes me want to weep. Partly because I'm just so thrilled to see someone stand up for the Constitution is such stark terms. But partly because it's completely sad to think that a post like yours is rare enough to evoke such a reaction.:(
you're off. the nsa taps were not aimed at known terrorist phone numbers. They were aimed at phones that made frequent calls to countries with known terrorist ties(namely, anywhere in the middle east). The data as to who was being called and where the calls were coming from was being used in order to narrow down possible terrorists. If they were known terrorist phone numbers, the wiretaps could begin immediately and concurrently, the administration could request clearance through FISA and the special co
So to say the warrantless wiretaps were required for security is only meaningful if the government was partaking in broad based surveilance of anyone who made any contact with person's from the middle east.
And how do we know that wasn't what the NSA was doing? We may yet find out that is what happened, as the judge let the case go through. Remember government officials: if you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind the public oversight.
AFAIK, the government has always gotten "national security" cases such as this thrown out of court, this change represents a very good historical first! The Right of Petition is still alive in the US!!!!
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday July 20 2006, @05:36PM (#15753226)
Is it so sad or what that it is in fact the two elected branches of government that are running the country into the ground while the other one with its appointments and life terms is the only thing standing in their way? I'm beginning to think people are really that stupid.
It's nice to see the intended balance of power in our government begin to stabilize once more. When one or more sides start to get out of hand, the other side steps in! Sort of like rock-paper-scissors, but C-SPAN covers the matches.
I eagerly await the incensed cries of "activist judges!"
It is nice to see the Judicial branch keep the Executive branch in check. What's even nicer is that the lower court will have the power to see if the Executive branch has been telling the truth without going to the supreme court. As a US citizen I am comforted by this news.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday July 20 2006, @04:59PM (#15752993)
I guess I'm stupid.
I don't understand how invading a country protects my freedom. Or how, terrorists threaten my freedom. They can blow shit up all they want, but I still have freedom of speech and religion. Or how by violating our civil rights, our Government protects our freedom. How is this true??
The only threat to my freedom has been my own Government. They are the ones (and unfortunately, the majority is letting them) who are trying to restrict the freedom of the press with their lawsuits over leaks. They are the ones who are violating citizens rights by spying on them.
This case is protecting our rights and fredoms that, let's see, were violated by our Government.
I'd rather live free and live with the vry remote possiblity of dying in a terrorist attach than having my Government take my rights away to protect my Freedom!
I've been voting and writing letters, but, unfortunately, the cowards run the show.
Hell yeah! At the very least this shows that the Bush administration can't arbitrarily say "national security" to cover up things that they've done that may not be entirely legal. With this, and the stuff about San Francisco and AT&T, its nice to know that AT&T might actually get in some trouble/lose some money because of what they've done. Maybe they should change their advertising slogan to Your World, Delivered...To The NSA.
The Ars article's title was: Federal judge doesn't buy state secrets argument in NSA wiretap case, which I think is a little misleading. Read this passage from State Your Secrets [fas.org] (an article by Louis Fisher appearing in the June, 2006 edition of Legal Times, reprinted courtesy of Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists [fas.org])
The responsibility for deciding questions of privilege and access to evidence is central to the role of a judge in conducting a trial.
This authority is well established. In his well-known 1940 treatise on evidence, John Wigmore recognized the existence of "state secrets" but also concluded that the scope of the privilege had to be decided by a judge, not executive officials. He agreed that there "must be a privilege for secrets of State, i.e. matters whose disclosure would endager [sic] the Nation's governmental requirements or its relations of friendship and profit with other nations." Yet he cautioned that this privilege "has been so often improperly invoked and so loosely misapplied that a strict definition of its legitimate limits must be made."
Wigmore considered the claim of "state secrets" so abstract and useless that he divided it into eight categories, including exemptions from giving testimony, attending court, providing evidence by deposition, and disclosing communications by informers to government prosecutors. But on the duty to give evidence, he was unambiguous: "Let it be understood, then, that there is no exemption, for officials as such, or for the Executive as such, from the universal testimonial duty to give evidence in judicial investigations." An exemption from attendance in court "does not involve any concession either of an exemption from the Executive's general testimonial duty to furnish evidence or of a judicial inability to enforce the performance of that duty."
Wigmore came down clearly on which branch should determine the necessity for secrecy. It was the judiciary: "Shall every subordinate in the department have access to the secret, and not the presiding officer of justice? Cannot the constitutionally coördinate body of government share the confidence? The truth cannot be escaped that a Court which abdicates its inherent function of determining the facts upon which the admissibility of evidence depends will furnish to bureaucratic officials too ample opportunities for abusing the privilege . . . Both principle and policy demand that the determination of the privilege shall be for the Court."
Basically, he's saying that, yes, there are state secrets, but the judiciary -- not the executive -- is responsible for determining how trials involving state secrets proceed. This idea of someone crying 'State Secrets!!!1!!1!one!11!!!' and automatically getting a case tossed out is relatively new, and, as most of us here believe, contrary to the basic premise of the court system.
A lot of people seem to be overlooking two basic facts:
1. The amount of information government truly needs to gather to protect us is also sufficient to greatly threaten our liberty. 2. Governments will inevitably gather much more information than they really need.
Examples of why we should expect government to gather huge amounts of information include, in no particular order:
A. All the call/e-mail/whatever connection information they're already getting, as documented in the news around NSA surveillance, AT&T's involvement, and so on. B. Laws to require ISPs or information service providers to keep records of which IP addresses connect to which sites (so as to fight child porn, piracy, whatever). C. Britain's moves towards complete video tracking of car movements (I get my reporting on this from The Register). D. Credit card transaction records. E. Forthcoming integrated electronic health records. (Those will have huge benefits to the saving of lives, quality of life, cost and efficiency of health care, etc. Whatever the privacy risks, they need to be managed so that health care is allowed to improve.)
And that's even without mentioning RFID.
What's slowing all this down is some political opposition, plus the huge technical difficulty of the required system integration projects. But in a small number of decades, it will all have happened. Our laws and oversight systems need to have evolved drastically by then. We have to start now.
I'm definitely not saying that we should cripple government in gathering and using information. Indeed, I'm an advisor to Cogito, a company with some of the most powerful relationship analysis software out there. http://www.dbms2.com/category/object-oriented-and- xml-technology/cogito/ [dbms2.com] But I think we need to radically upgrade our legal structures in response to these technological trends.
Maybe a carerr limiting move - depends on who gets elected in 2008!
There is already a faction in Congress trying to move the 9th District C of A (known to be a bunch of crazy motherf**er liberal hippies) to Boise or some other godforsaken place. Don't give them any ideas.
Aw crap... in researching the judge I did a more general search and pulled up the wrong judge.
Oddly, the real Judge Vaughn Walker was also appointed by Reagan and then appointed Chief Justice by George H. W. Bush. But, as you state, to the N.D. of California, not to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (which is in an entirely different part of the country).
So this probably was a "career limiting" move if the neo-cons retain control of the Republican party. They certainly won't reward him with a Appelatte court position and the Democrats are unlikely to appoint a conservative judge to the 9th.
Which makes it an even better story really... since it means that he's likely ruling with the law rather than with politics. And, better yet, it means the appeal has to go to the 9th Appellate court, which is unlikely to overturn his decision.
Funny... If you replaced your words with another famous "uhampered" security group we all know of we get something like this:
Personally I think we should let the Gestopo do its job. When Gestopo data starts being used to find Christian Democrats and Socialists we've got a problem, but as long as its used for national defense and national defense only I personally think its a good idea to let them do there job unhampered. Imagine if the Reichstag fire had been prevented by such a program? When I say national defense I mean attacks like Reichstag fire, Soviet invasions, etc. things killing hundreds or thousands of people.
Ironically, unhampered security groups do lead to invasions and killing of hundred of thousands of people. Personally I don't think that the NSA is even remotly comparable to the Gestopo, but what if in 20 years a power hungry psycho uses the massive amount of power we let the NSA have today to declare a defacto dictatorship?
If we make the Presidency so powerful and unhampered as well as its agencies then corrupt evil people desiring power will seek this position. We must keep the Presidents and security groups in check so that this never happens.
I Like His Logic (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like the "terrorists" might've won.
But sounds good to me, but i'm a filthy liberal.
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:5, Funny)
<voice=texan>
An' they hate us for our freedom. So...
</voice>
> But sounds good to me, but i'm a filthy liberal.
<voice=texan>
Yeah, it's all your fault! Fer six years some folks have been complaining that the government isn't listening to the people... an' now that it does, y'all are haulin' us into court for it! What gives?
</voice>
Parent
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:3, Funny)
You sound like one of them Cee-En-En types.
Don' chew know that all them thar activist judges is filthy lib'rals?
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny. Every time I hear a very stereotypically "conservative" American talking about the wiretapping/phone records issue, they genuinely come across to me as someone who would rather see Americans live under constant surveillance with no actual freedom than have one single person stand a chance of being killed (or even injured) by some nebulous "terrorist" bogeyman-of-the-week.
The thing is, I can't figure out if it's blind stupidity alone, or stupidity mixed with blind hatred of the Bush administration, and by extension, the military and intelligence communities.
The thing is, I can't figure out if it's blind stupidity alone, or stupidity mixed with a blind hatred of anything they perceive as "liberal."
The issue here is not the NSA listening in on one particular person giving a recipe to a friend. It is the mentality that a surveillance society is a good thing. The NSA wiretaps are a product of that mentality, with the logical conclusion of it being totalitarianism. That is why people like me want to see programs like this smashed *now*, before they get even more out of hand.
Parent
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:3, Interesting)
Sheet. Didn't thousands if not millions of Americans more or less willfully die for the right of Americans to live freely and not under surveillance? Hell, I'd die if I knew that would be what I were doing.
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but I wouldn't if I knew we were going to just go and screw it up like we're doing now!
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:5, Informative)
>they genuinely come across to me as someone who would rather see people DIE as in DEAD than have one single person's phone call monitored that shouldn't have been.
Patrick Henry said
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
Parent
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I Like His Logic (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is who it's being applied to. Private citizens have a right to privacy (that's why they're called "private!"); the government does not.
Parent
Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow (Score:5, Insightful)
So yeah, if you have a few bucks, they could probably use it. I realize it's only our basic liberties, but let's be honest -- if you don't donate your spare cash to the EFF, you're just going to waste it on booze.
Re:Either the EFF is fast or /. is slow (Score:3, Funny)
too bad we can't waste it on girls.
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Is that like "if you have nothing to hide, you won't object to surveillance"? Seriously, poor government!
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not like that. It's more like this:
"If you have been truthful to previous investigaters about your involvement in this, you won't mind us investigating your pal over here for any wrong-doing on his part."
The US Govt. tried to have the case against AT&T thrown out - not a case against itself. It's quite a diffrent matter.
Soko
Parent
More like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the Government isn't a defendent, and as the US has no meaningful concept of "contempt of court" or perjury, the court can't do anything about it if the Government is found guilty of lying. On the other hand, this is election year, which is not a good year to be found guilty of anything, even if there is nothing the courts can do.
My guess is that the Government will do anything and everything to stall proceedings, such that if there is a trial, there's absolutely no risk of anything embarassing being said before polling day. If they're in power, they can clean things up afterwards. If they're not, it's no longer their problem.
Parent
Re:More like... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:More like... (Score:3, Informative)
You also seem to forget that Clinton was aquitted.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that like "if you have nothing to hide, you won't object to surveillance"? Seriously, poor government!
Absolutely.
The government is supposed to be "surveilled" by the public. It is our responsibility to watch the government as closely as we can. It's not hypocritical to object to cameras on street corners but to lobby for cameras in police cars. They work for us, not the other way around.
Parent
How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most epople consider improperly authorized surveillance an abuse, I think you'll find.
I think you meant to say "No one has been blackmailed or otherwise had any information misused as far as I know." Big difference, and they might well not be in a position to be shouting about it.
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:3, Insightful)
Certain portions of the mis-named Patriot Act make it illegal to shout about it.
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:4, Funny)
It's not mis-named; the Ministry of Truth named it that on purpose!
Parent
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I mean it's not like they've been using it to discover reporter's confidential sources [abcnews.com] or anything.
Parent
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess you believe everything the government tells you, hunh? I think it's quite remarkable you can divine intent from a statement made by people who also intended for everything to go well in Iraq, despite lack of a plan.
I am no conspiracy theorist, but given what the Nixon alumni in this administration have already proven that they are capable of, I thi
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:3, Insightful)
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The enemies of the constitution are enemies of the U.S. The constitution protects us from unlawful search and seizure. QED.
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they weren't. If thats all they were aimed at, the government would get a *warrant* against them. You know, like they've done hundreds of times in the past. The government was data mining the phone records of the *entire nation* not of specific people.
On a side rant- known terrorists? Its been proven in a court of law? Or they confessed to it? No? Then they aren't known terrorist, they're *suspected* terrorists, and are innocent until proven guilty.
Shame on them? No, shame on you. Shame on you for throwing away our freedoms, shame on you for pissing all over the Constitution. And shame on the rest of America for letting sheep like you throw away what generations have fought and died for.
Parent
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:5, Insightful)
My God. Your post makes me want to weep. Partly because I'm just so thrilled to see someone stand up for the Constitution is such stark terms. But partly because it's completely sad to think that a post like yours is rare enough to evoke such a reaction. :(
Parent
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How Far Into the Rabbit Hole Are We? (Score:3, Insightful)
And how do we know that wasn't what the NSA was doing? We may yet find out that is what happened, as the judge let the case go through. Remember government officials: if you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind the public oversight.
A First in History (Score:4, Interesting)
sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Quite a Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the US justice system working? We'll have to wait and see...
The balance begins to reassert itself. (Score:5, Interesting)
Judicial branch doing it's job (Score:5, Interesting)
YES! (Score:3, Interesting)
*does a little dance*
*realises that we still have a LONG way to go*
*frowns*
I'm stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand how invading a country protects my freedom. Or how, terrorists threaten my freedom. They can blow shit up all they want, but I still have freedom of speech and religion. Or how by violating our civil rights, our Government protects our freedom. How is this true??
The only threat to my freedom has been my own Government. They are the ones (and unfortunately, the majority is letting them) who are trying to restrict the freedom of the press with their lawsuits over leaks. They are the ones who are violating citizens rights by spying on them.
This case is protecting our rights and fredoms that, let's see, were violated by our Government.
I'd rather live free and live with the vry remote possiblity of dying in a terrorist attach than having my Government take my rights away to protect my Freedom!
I've been voting and writing letters, but, unfortunately, the cowards run the show.
Re:I'm stupid (Score:3, Informative)
[...]
Irony, thy name is slashdot.
Re:I'm stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
When people talk about freedom (real freedom, not the politician's word), what are they talking about? FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT.
Governments are to be feared. The natural tendency of any government to expand it's power over it's people must be continuously fought.
Parent
One step closer (Score:3, Informative)
Misleading Ars Article Title (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, he's saying that, yes, there are state secrets, but the judiciary -- not the executive -- is responsible for determining how trials involving state secrets proceed. This idea of someone crying 'State Secrets!!!1!!1!one!11!!!' and automatically getting a case tossed out is relatively new, and, as most of us here believe, contrary to the basic premise of the court system.
The way we protect liberty will have to change (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The amount of information government truly needs to gather to protect us is also sufficient to greatly threaten our liberty.
2. Governments will inevitably gather much more information than they really need.
As a result, it is necessary to design legal systems (and where possible to restrain the design of technical systems) so that even though government has the information, it doesn't commonly use it in nefarious ways. I've written a series of articles about that. Most of them can be found starting from the link http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/06/freedom-ev
Examples of why we should expect government to gather huge amounts of information include, in no particular order:
A. All the call/e-mail/whatever connection information they're already getting, as documented in the news around NSA surveillance, AT&T's involvement, and so on.
B. Laws to require ISPs or information service providers to keep records of which IP addresses connect to which sites (so as to fight child porn, piracy, whatever).
C. Britain's moves towards complete video tracking of car movements (I get my reporting on this from The Register).
D. Credit card transaction records.
E. Forthcoming integrated electronic health records. (Those will have huge benefits to the saving of lives, quality of life, cost and efficiency of health care, etc. Whatever the privacy risks, they need to be managed so that health care is allowed to improve.)
And that's even without mentioning RFID.
What's slowing all this down is some political opposition, plus the huge technical difficulty of the required system integration projects. But in a small number of decades, it will all have happened. Our laws and oversight systems need to have evolved drastically by then. We have to start now.
I'm definitely not saying that we should cripple government in gathering and using information. Indeed, I'm an advisor to Cogito, a company with some of the most powerful relationship analysis software out there. http://www.dbms2.com/category/object-oriented-and
Re:Btw... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:no career ambitions (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
VAUGHN not JOHN Walker (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe a carerr limiting move - depends on who gets elected in 2008!
There is already a faction in Congress trying to move the 9th District C of A (known to be a bunch of crazy motherf**er liberal hippies) to Boise or some other godforsaken place. Don't give them any ideas.
Re:VAUGHN not JOHN Walker (Score:5, Informative)
Aw crap... in researching the judge I did a more general search and pulled up the wrong judge.
Oddly, the real Judge Vaughn Walker was also appointed by Reagan and then appointed Chief Justice by George H. W. Bush. But, as you state, to the N.D. of California, not to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (which is in an entirely different part of the country).
So this probably was a "career limiting" move if the neo-cons retain control of the Republican party. They certainly won't reward him with a Appelatte court position and the Democrats are unlikely to appoint a conservative judge to the 9th.
Which makes it an even better story really... since it means that he's likely ruling with the law rather than with politics. And, better yet, it means the appeal has to go to the 9th Appellate court, which is unlikely to overturn his decision.
Someone go mod down my earlier post. Thanks.
Parent
Re:Some degree of balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, unhampered security groups do lead to invasions and killing of hundred of thousands of people. Personally I don't think that the NSA is even remotly comparable to the Gestopo, but what if in 20 years a power hungry psycho uses the massive amount of power we let the NSA have today to declare a defacto dictatorship?
If we make the Presidency so powerful and unhampered as well as its agencies then corrupt evil people desiring power will seek this position. We must keep the Presidents and security groups in check so that this never happens.
Parent