As of October, FBI To Allow Warrantless Investigations 574
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow Congressional hearings, but not to delay, the implementation of new FBI regulations that would allow them to spy on American citizens who are not suspected of any crime. As an editorial in the New York Times points out, this is a power that has a history of abuse. In times past, it was used to wiretap Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and to spy on other civil rights and anti-war protesters."
As Dekortage points out, "Several senators have formally complained that citizens could be investigated 'without any basis for suspicion,' which the Justice Department denies."
That sucks D: (Score:4, Insightful)
We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Insightful)
And what are us Americans going to do about it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing.
That's right, nothing.
No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.
People need to stand up and defend their rights, but unless it derails their daily lives, nothing will change. ....I hate being so negative...But you know it's true. :-/
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
WWJD (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this sort of thing, someone would have gotten a musket ball to the chest.
whoopie (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this any different from how they're operating now? What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place? Karl Rove tells Congress to take their subpoena, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways and shove it right up their collective asses. Consequences? So far, none. Will there ever be? Doubtful. Will it be any different for the FBI? Doubtful.
What.The.FUCK (Score:4, Insightful)
You can partially thank Obama's FISA vote for this. While this is not - specifically - a function of FISA, the loosening of surveillance regulations it implied.
And they said, "We don't spy on Americans."
Right.
This is how it's supposed to work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
Looks like we won't get that back without a bit of organized political action. I still recommend General Strikes. Shut the economy down and let the elites twist. Talk about a class war. Yeah, and they fucking won.
Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which, as anyone here will tell you, is a terrible argument.
COINTELPRO (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says they need to take anything before a judge? Look at what they did with COINTELPRO. [wikipedia.org] Infiltration, psychological warfare, legal harassment, and extralegal violence were all considered acceptable tactics.
Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.
He said, posting on slashdot.
But seriously, what do you want to happen? Would you like everyone to rise up in an armed revolt? The last time something like that happened, we were left with the bloodiest war in US history, and that was before the advent of a lot of the modern weapons of war. Write to their congressmen? I wrote to Harry Reid while I lived in Nevada, and what I got back was a form letter that looked like it could have been written by a white house aide!
Get involved in your local party politics; grassroots efforts are the only peaceful way to pull this off, and changing from within the system seems to be the best method. Or get involved and try to grow a third party to where they can take a seat in congress.
Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just so you all know, posting indignant posts on slashdot doesn't count as defending your rights. Preaching to the converted != protest.
Nice guy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's big of him. He'll "allow" Congress to hold hearings? Who wears the pants in this family, anyways?
Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. (Score:5, Insightful)
they're endangering the public
I think you've just hit upon what government doesn't ever want you to realize:
It is government itself that is the biggest threat to you, your family, and your freedom.
this is a power that has a history of abuse (from the summary)
Correction: The power itself is the abuse. How can a special "right" to bypass justice itself NOT be abuse? The concept of guilty before proven innocent -- in whatever slimy manifestation it appears -- is an attack on human rights before the discussion even started.
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Investigate is one thing, prosecute is another (Score:2, Insightful)
It will be interesting to see how this holds up at trial - just because the FBI does it doesn't make it legal. If anything, this may hinder prosecution if the "evidence" found in these activities is found to be inadmissible.
On the other hand, if the courts turn a blind eye to that whole "due process" bit it may well be time to move to a country that makes to pretense of "freedom".
Of course, I have nothing to hide (well, except the full bookshelf of banned Paladin Press books, a few chemicals, some explosives and a few other odds and ends).
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Insightful)
How do I encrypt a conversation with my family? Use pig latin?
"iHay oneyHay! owHay asWay ourYay ayDay?"
When the FBI talks about spying they mean spying. They aren't going to stop at snooping your email. They're going to bug your phone. They're going to snoop your physical mail. They're going to go through your banking records. If you raise sufficient attention (say by encrypting your trivial email) they may even park a black van down the street with a bunch of electronic equipment in the back.
Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the last link about senators complaining:
Among their fears: Americans could be targeted in part based on their race, ethnicity or religion
and
Citing remarks earlier by Mukasey about the new rules, the spokesman said an investigation would not be opened based solely on a person's race, ethnicity or religion.
That isn't the problem. I'm glad that they are attempting to slow it down and stop it, but why does it have to boil down to racism for them to stop it? Why can't they just say "this is completely against what the founders of our country intended"...?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:whoopie (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this any different from how they're operating now? What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place?
So it works like this:
Step 1: Do whatever you want to do.
Step 2: When Congress or the people complain, ignore or deny Step 1.
Step 3: Announce that you will do whatever it is you started in Step 1.
Step 4: What's the point in complaining, they're already doing it?
I'm sure there's profit in there somewhere.
Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. (Score:4, Insightful)
not legal, certainly not just, but sadly it is our current reality
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:3, Insightful)
If you raise sufficient attention (say by encrypting your trivial email) they may even park a black van down the street with a bunch of electronic equipment in the back.
That's the goal, I'd imagine. If we get them to waste enough resources on spying on ordinary citizens, we hope they will realize that it is hopeless.
In reality, they would probably come to the conclusion that they need to profile people better before they decide to spend such resources.
Not the best plan (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the Soviet Union they...oh wait, it is happening here.
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you say you're not a criminal? Why are you using encryption if you have nothing to hide, citizen? Prepare to be boarded.
You do not chase me because I run. I run because you chase me.
We need the USSR back. (Score:5, Insightful)
Raise your hands, everyone who is surprised by this...
yeah, that's what I thought.
We need the old USSR back. As odd as this seems, there was actually a sense of competition going on back then -- competition for goodness. I remember mocking the USSR for having secret courts, secret laws, secret prisons. Now WE have those things. I think that at least in part it's because we no longer have competition to compare and contrast our government's behavior to, so people are less apt to associate this kind of totalitarian behavior with The Evil Empire. As a result, we become The Evil Empire.
I'm not cheering for Russia as it stomps around in Georgia, mind you, but an odd side-effect of it might be that we start acting like the USA, rather than Trashcanistan.
armed result == bloodbath (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the best plan (Score:3, Insightful)
It's relevant to remember that they're going to be allowed to conduct warrantless investigations. This doesn't automatically mean they're going to go about investigating anyone and everyone on a whim.
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. (Score:2, Insightful)
Read carefully. From TFA (emphasis added):
Attorney General Michael Mukasey intends to let Congress have its say before signing controversial new guidelines that reportedly broaden the FBI's authority to conduct investigations. But he will not delay their implementation.
Sounds like he'll tell his agents to go ahead in October, and then when the agents are caught in a civil suite by some citizen who didn't like being spied on, Mr. Mukasey can deny responsibility because he hadn't signed the papers yet. Big Brother gets his illegal intel and a scape goat.
If any of you ignorant, fat, bible-thumping... (Score:1, Insightful)
...Yanks describe yourselves as being from "The land of the free and the home of the brave" ever again, I will kill you. Seriously, I'm not joking.
Don't Ask What Your Country Can Do For You (Score:3, Insightful)
Worrying about what other people are doing about it will only go so far. What are you doing about it? Posting on Slashdot - or preaching to the choir - doesn't count as an affirmative action.
Re:That sucks D: (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush was right: The consitution is just a damn piece of paper. Don't count on it to protect you. Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes. Keep voting Dems, Reps or the lot like it and you will sink deeper and deeper in shit untill you are stuck and can't get out. Because then you are fucked. And it won't be pretty.
Re:armed result == bloodbath (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the best plan (Score:5, Insightful)
no, they'll investigate specific people on an agenda.
That agenda might be making trouble for those who oppose policy, those who protest, those who question government statistics on economy, etc.
Re:There is still hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the democrats have certainly done all they can to reverse the trend in the last two years, from Nancy Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" all the way through congress "considering" a ban on lead in toys (what's to consider, guys?). I'm voting a straight "none of the above" ticket this time around, thanks.
Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
How many marches and protests did we have regarding the war in Iraq? What did Cheney say when asked what he thought about all the protesters? He said, "So?" (that may be a direct quote or a paraphrase, I honestly cannot recall. But it was certainly the gist of what he said).
So we find ourselves at a point where the peaceful protesting isn't doing any good, but people are not yet at the point for switching to a less softer stick.
Re:That sucks D: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and just in time for the election, too. Big surprise.
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the Founders are long dead and cannot speak for themselves. We the People, who were supposed to stand in their stead, have forgotten that.
One Wonders Why the FBI Wants This (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, TV... truly the opiate of the masses!
I agree entirely: people need to get out there and get involved. When the system is breaking, fix it from within, not through violence.
That said, it seems that politicians become corrupt or unable to fight the corruption after joining the ranks of other politicians. Say you become a Congressman. You have a plan, and there is no compromise! Ya, sure. You realize that, to get anything done, you have to compromise, you have to trade favors. Not long after, you find compromise to be easy. A little longer still, and you become compromised yourself. Now, you are part of the problem. I don't say this to discourage (OK, maybe I say it because I'm discouraged), but to show the limits of what can happen. For a political uprising to work, it must truly be an uprising, involving all walks of life in this (US) country. Not a few disgruntled partisans, not one minority, but universal.
Back to my agreeing with your statement, this means the grass roots efforts must involve people from the suburbs, the inner cities, and the country-side; it must involve the blue collar and white collar workers; it must involve the many religions and the non-believers.
Failing that, then yes, it must involve guns. I hope it never comes to that. I fear that it might.
Re:Trends shape history (Score:2, Insightful)
History is not made by individuals. History is made by trends. Specific individuals who are surfing at the leading edge of a trend may get the spotlight, and hence the credit, but really it was the trend that made the change, not the person.
A trend is only an idea. It cannot think, act, or change anything. It has neither will, nor power.
Individuals [wikipedia.org]
make [wikipedia.org]
history. [wikipedia.org]
Regulations like this do not pass because of an invisible hand guiding human affairs. They pass b/c somebody works toward that end. The same can be done, to the opposite effect. Sure, sitting around and shouting may not do much, but marching and shouting sometimes do the trick. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not the best plan (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (Score:4, Insightful)
When was the last time a TSA officer killed someone and got paid leave while they had an "internal investigation" and found the officer not guilty?
When was the last time that a TSA officer beat someone up in handcuffs and didn't get any consequences?
When was the last time TSA smashed someones door down and shot all of the dogs in the house, again without repercussions?
Hell, when was the last time a police officer got sent to jail?
(Not saying that TSA is bad, just saying that Police Officers are indeed a thug caste, who are all immune from prosecution on just about every law, and are assumed to be in the right when their word differs from anyone else)
I really, really wish this post would be worth of a "-1 Troll" moderation, but all you can say is "give more citations".
Re:We need the USSR back. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that actually works. The worst abuses of freedom in US history happened during the Cold War, after all. Remember J. Edgar Hoover? COINTELPRO? McCarthy? Spying on civil rights activists?
The whole problem is that nobody is willing to take the long view. People in government are willing to do anything to defeat the enemy of the day, and damn what consequences it has afterwards.
Man oh Man (Score:1, Insightful)
I knew this country would end up down this road eventually but I didn't think it would happen in my lifetime. Lets see what was it we hated about communist Russia, oh ya KGB. Seems the FBI thinks some of that power wasn't such a bad idea.
Decide to fly up and see grandma, Show me your papers (real id) oh you are on the watch list (terrorist watch list) to jail you go (nice little place in cuba) must watch your family now (warrantless investigation) guess I'll see you soon grandma (in cuba that is)
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:3, Insightful)
best thing is to format your hard drives, and get out more.
This means one thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder at what point the act of precisely pointing out how certain government actions are illegal, will become an illegal act? Everyone knows that the Founding Fathers employed terrorist tactics (for warfare at the time shooting from behind a tree instead of from a straight line in a field was the equivalent of using civilians for cover in today's warfare) So endorsing a return to their ideas of Rights is an implicit endorsement of fighting your government with terrorist tactics. It's not that far a stretch considering that asymetric warfare will be the only way to unseat the power elite in America should we as a society ever feel the need to do so. Voting between two brands of big government and centralized wealth, is a poor substitute for the kind of freedom this country was originally designed for. So at some point in the tightening of the DHS fist of security, accurately citing history will be a form of inciting terrorist acts.
Paranoia is my new litmus test for predictive accuracy.
In Soviet Union... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trapped (Score:5, Insightful)
If I use peaceful means, no one cares.
If I use violent means, people become martyrs and I am vilified.
Sometimes I feel like there is no solution to the current government's problem short of a revolution which will occur far down the road, long after I am gone, and that is rather frustrating.
Re:armed result == bloodbath (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorist actions could win the fight in theory, but in reality it's much harder to fight as a terrorist because the collateral damage turns the population against you. I just don't see any way an armed revolt could work given the realities of today's military.
Which is presumably why the vast power of the United States military, supported by numerous allied nations, subdued Iraq and established a secure replacement government so quickly. Oh, wait, they still haven't quite done that, have they?
You seem to be confusing terrorism with asymmetric warfare. The two concepts, while often encountered together, are quite different.
You are also assuming that all that military and security power would willingly turn against its own people if it really came to the crunch. That seems unlikely, and it would only take a relatively small amount of resistance in military units or intelligence organisations to cause a great deal of damage. After all, that is why these groups take security so seriously when confronting other foes.
The really sad thing is that the US government (and those of many other nations) have basically talked themselves into the current madness by overreacting to a small number of isolated but high profile events, developing a culture of fear, and giving absurdy disproportionate emphasis and resources to vaguely defined goals that are somehow supposed to prevent any further high profile bad events. In other words, the terrorists have won, because now the government is doing their job for them and forcing people to change their behaviour out of fear. Meanwhile, orders of magnitude more innocent lives have been lost in the resulting conflicts than ever were in the original attacks. Even worse, orders of magnitude more damage has been done by wasting time, money and public awareness on assorted wars on abstract nouns instead of basic things like making roads safer, curing illnesses, heating the homes of the elderly in winter, and improving the education and opportunities of our kids so they don't go on to become bored and disillusioned enough to explore lives of crime in the first place, any of which alone would do more to improve the health and happiness of the nations than any military action or national security effort ever could.
ammo box (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes.
Tell that to the Chinese. At the Tiananmen Square protests the 38th Army [revcom.us], responsible for security in Beijing, and other local units refused to fire on demonstrators. So the People's Army had to send in the 27th Army [nytimes.com], based outside of Beijing. Chinese officials were afraid the army would split into warring factions because of this. It would be even worse in the US military. I don't know about you but I served in the US Army and just as happened in Viet Nam when soldiers fragged [wikipedia.org] officers and others when they gave bad orders, plenty of people in the US military would do the same if they were ordered to fire on people in the US.
Falcon
Re:We need the USSR back. (Score:3, Insightful)
McCarthy was right. The Communists sought to undermine our government and system of civil rights. It appears as though they have won the war.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." -- Pogo
Re:ammo box (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, soldiers wouldn't fire on innocent civilians, but I reason they have no problem with "terrorists". People carying guns don't look innocent and if they pick up their guns to fight, expect a big intel spin on it. They will do it, I have no doubt about that.
best thing is to format your hard drives (Score:3, Insightful)
Formatting your hard drive doesn't erase or make the data unreadable. There are a nmuber of programs that can unformat a disk and recover the data. Googling unformat recovery [google.com] results in more than half a million results. The first result, Deleted NTFS Partition Recovery 1.0 [freedownloadmanager.org], recovers "ntfs data from deleted, formatted and damaged NTFS and NTFS5 file systems of windows operating systems." There are a number of other programs that do the same. Actually I have to use such a program to recover data on a hard disk on my Linux PC. It's motherboard failed and because it was under warranty I took it into the shop where I got it to have it repaired. I specifically told the tech not to erase or format that drive, it was the second hdd in the PC and used to store user data, but when reinstalling Linux he put it on automatic which did reformat the drive.
I wished I had an external hdd for backups, because the hdd holding the user files was 750GB and had more than 500GB on it using DVDs it would have taken more than 90 disks. Now I have a 500GB and a 750GB external hdd. I use the 500GB drive but haven't used the 750GB drive yet.
Falcon
Re:ammo box (Score:5, Insightful)
People carying guns don't look innocent
They may not look innocent to someone from a big city but they look fine to others. Growing up many people I knew owned firearms. My dad, who retired from the US Air Force, gave me a .22 long rifle rifle before I was 10. Between him and my best friend's dad we were taken out for target practice a bunch of tymes. And I knew others who did the same. Actually at least several tymes a year we'd have barbecues with 20 to 50 people where we'd cook gator tail, seafood, frog legs, venison, and wild boar or hog. Hunting, and fishing, was big with these people. And saying they only use rifles and not guns, handguns, shows you don't know much if anything about hog hunting. A handgun is needed for this, even after being shot a hog can attack you and hunters know this so they also carry a gun. The same applies to alligators.
Falcon
Re:We should start encrypting everything (Score:3, Insightful)
When is https://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] going to be anything more than a redirect to http://slashdot.org [slashdot.org]? How many subscriptions would pay for the beefier hardware to support SSL for most of the users?
So much for (Score:4, Insightful)
So much for the Democratic majority putting a stop to government abuses as they promised. I'm sure the DailyKos crowd will denounce Bush for this. He deserves lots of blame, but the Democrats deserve contempt. They have the numbers to push through almost anything they want. From where I'm sitting, however, nothing has changed. The government is still violating the Constitution, my Rights no longer matter, the people in power are still enjoying their pork (pork spending has, in fact, increased with the Democratic majority).
Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. The government needs an enema.
Since when did POW's ever get court trials? (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, excuse me, but when did POW's or unlawful combatants ever get access to civilian courts? Seems to me the history and legal precedent (Civil War, WWII) was to use military tribunals. Your post suggests that Bush made up some new legal approach. If anything, the current paradigm gives more rights (district court review of habeas corpus; DC Circuit and SCOTUS appellate review) to those less deserving (unlawful combatants not complying with any aspect of Geneva) than any enemy combatant in American military history. But suddenly, because it is Bush prosecuting this war, the enemy deserve to be Miranda'd and Mark Geragos defending the in a civilian court?
Re:That sucks D: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a completely different situation. First, American soldiers, by and large, don't know Arabic. This means that they're dependent on a relatively small pool of translators, which can be (and are) targeted for assassination and intimidation. Once its translators have been killed or scared off, the US Army is blind, deaf and dumb - making for a much easier target.
Second, there's the lack of cultural knowledge. Even if all American soldiers spoke perfect Arabic and perfect Kurdish, they'd still have a hard time in Iraq, just like you'd have a hard time (initially) after moving to a new city. It takes time to learn the local culture, the local slang, and which neighborhoods are the trouble spots. A local with years of experience is going to fit in much better than the interloper, even if the two have identical skin color and speak the same language.
Finally, there's the problem of supply lines. All the resources for our troops have to be shipped out from the US. While airlifts can rush troops into a conflict area, it is extremely difficult to supply an army by air. Therefore, the US has to rely on ocean shipping, which is cheap, but very slow.
Fighting an insurgency on home soil, the US army would be subject to none of these disadvantages. Language and cultural barriers would be slim, and the problem of supply lines would be significantly ameliorated. Meanwhile, the insurgents would have to find safe havens, which would be significantly more difficult, given that the US is a larger country, and has a significantly larger interior region that would be relatively safe from border raids.
Re:What.The.FUCK (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks like we won't get that back without a bit of organized political action. I still recommend General Strikes. Shut the economy down and let the elites twist.
Sounds good until you realize that the average American household has $8,000 worth of credit card debt--not to mention mortgages, car loans, etc. Most Americans are one or two paychecks away from financial ruin. Americans in general are too spineless, and dependent on the "system", to ever revolt against it.
not exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That sucks D: (Score:3, Insightful)
Idiot. Who do you think provides the supplies that drive the US war machine? If the US government declared war on the populous, who is going to pay the taxes to support the military? Or supply their food? Or manufacture the weapons and ammo?
Re:ammo box (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh bullshit.
Rebellions are started by rabble-rousers. Usually a small group of people get together and cause a big fuss.
In the past, a determined group of 50 people could march on a town-hall meeting and pretty much overpower the local authorities by force. This was the case in almost every society where rebellion was successful, be it revolutionary France, pre-renaissance Scotland, Hapsburg Austria, colonial America, etc.
If a group of pissed off radicals with guns entered a US city, there would not be substantial resistance to shooting them down.
You don't just suddenly get 40% of the population to take up arms against the country. It doesn't happen spontaneously. It's a bit of a grass-roots thing and our government is EXTREMELY good at rooting out grass-roots armed resistance.
"the people of the US" in this sense is a misnomer. They wouldn't be out shooting Jane Soccer Mom... it would start with that crazy hippie who screams about freedom and those hackers who must have been up to no good.
If they showed up on the steps of the capitol with weapons, what do you think would happen? If they weren't shot on site, they would be met by a well-trained force of anti-riot police bearing full body armor, riot shields, tear gas, mace and loaded weapons.
One of the reasons for the riot police using so much "non-lethal" weaponry is that there far less resistance to shooting at protesters with that stuff, but it's enough to put down almost any crowd, as violent political protests in massively corrupt countries like Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and others have shown.
You simply don't have a pissed off band of civilians having ANY success against a large group of trained combatants with specialized crowd dispersal devices COMBINED with tactical weapons advantages.
I just don't see it happening.
Re:Hmmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you're trolling, but you're invoking a common right-wing argument that simply needs to be shot down, so I'm going to reply anyway.
Here's the thing: You, as non-Muslims, cannot stop radical Islam. That is not a threat, it is a statement of fact. You cannot stop radical Islam because one of the major arguments, if not _the_ major argument, that terrorist leaders use to recruit people into their organizations is how the West is evil and is out to destroy Islam. The old argument that every survivor of a US bomb attack in Iraq becomes a terrorist or a sympathiser has been surpassed, and now every Muslim who sees his people being shot, bombed and invaded every night by the US is going to become more and more open to the few loudmouth idiots that will tell him they're doing it because they hate Islam, because they want to wipe Islam off the planet. Every time the US kills one radical Muslim, it is likely to create maybe five more, and the number of them will grow as long as you keep feeding the arguments of the loudmouth idiots that recruit them.
Now, on the other hand, you _can_ stop your government being stupid. At least, with far less bloodshed. So vote out the bad apples, write long letters to the good ones, and if all else fails, yes, you may have to rise up against your government. You rose up against us and cast off an oppressive leadership, and I respect you immensely for it. You can vote them out, if you got off your arses and did something about it every now and then. You could gun them out if it came to it, with your massively armed citizenry and an army that I would hope still believes in the reasons the country was founded, and would side with the people. Do it. Now I'm not saying that looking down my nose because I'm British, and we've backed ourselves into a corner on this as well, but you're the country that broke away from us to 'gain their freedom' - the whole point of your country's existence is based on a dream of liberty and justice. Act like it.
My Contribuition - ROT13 (I'm Serious) (Score:3, Insightful)
I write code for a living. I send nothing across a wire I haven't encrypted (AES). Nothing I store in a data base is human readable. If my program needs a parameter file, I convert each entry even to something as simple as ROT13, then for fun maybe I'll swap the first and last bytes. It doesn't have to be fancy just enough that scanners won't pick it up.
The only way the Government is going to be able to mass search everything is if they don't have to work for it. And as programmers we've been feeding them nothing but plain text. No wonder they're so twittered about reading everybody's stuff. They can!
The next time you write code and create a file convert it to something non-readable. The next time you design a system that connects over a wire use secure sockets. We're the solution. Quit handing your data over on a silver platter. I don't.
-[d]-