DHS Wants To Monitor the Web For Terrorists 285
a user writes "Under the belief that terrorists are 'increasingly' recruiting US citizens, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano says that increased government monitoring of the Internet is necessary to thwart them. It is believed that Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hassan and attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad were inspired by radical Internet postings. Speaking at a meeting of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Napolitano said, 'We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where tradeoffs are inevitable.'"
When you are looking for a needle in a (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When you are looking for a needle in a (Score:5, Insightful)
Ben Franklin spinning in his grave (Score:5, Insightful)
We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin [quotationspage.com], Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!! (Score:-1, Insightful)
Perhaps it's all this doggone survelliance that's making them fights fer there freedom's? DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!
you got to be kidding me (Score:3, Insightful)
They'll eventually use this law to bust pot smoking Americans who upload themselves hitting the pipe on youtube.
Go To Hell (Score:5, Insightful)
First, you're full of crap.
Secondly, there are NO SITUATIONS in which that trade-off is acceptable. NONE. There is no such thing as, "We will abuse the rights of some, just a little bit, but it will work out net positive".
It's absolutely negative, fuck you, and get out of my country. You don't deserve to be here, YOU are a greater threat to my "American Way of Life" than that Fort Hood terrorist ever was, or could have been.
Ohhh, and Mrs... if you are reading this.. seriously fuck you. That's the most asinine and offensive statement towards my rights and liberties by a public official that I have heard in a long time.
Less Freedom != More Secuity (Score:4, Insightful)
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Also: If we outlaw the visiting of radical websites, only outlaws will visit radical websites?
At this rate it wont be long before we have a convictions based on "pre-crime" behavior ala Minority Report.
They won't catch anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Theatrical Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Hope and change (Score:0, Insightful)
that you can believe in.
who's to blame? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the fox is guarding the hen house, is he really to blame for taking more and more liberties (pun intended)?
Or those who:
a) put the fox in the hen house in the first place
b) leave the fox there even after knowing it ain't no good
c) fail consistently to adequately protect themselves from the fox and his intrusive methods despite having the tools to do so?
Re:When you are looking for a needle in a (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly. all this will do is make people more paranoid, furthering the "state of fear" that they already foster and to quote: "without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances." in most instances?? get real.
But they want people scared and paranoid. Scared people are much more willing to trade personal freedoms for "relief" from the fear of the "bad people" out there.
Tools are already in place, but not used (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When you are looking for a needle in a (Score:2, Insightful)
True - but this is a symptom of the hole we've dug ourselves into. Trouble with saying "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is that that cuts out all your options. All that's left is to kill everybody.
And here it is (Score:4, Insightful)
If nothing else, this proves that a Democrat administration is no more concerned about individual rights than the previous Republican administration was.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US this isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue. The Republicans tend to campaign on the 'national security' issue much more than the Democrats, and regularly use it in their talking points. When the Republicans are in power they advance this agenda openly (though we'll never be aware of most of the details). The Democrats tend to campaign on alliances and détente, though they don't use coordinated talking points effectively. When the Democrats are in power the also advance an agenda of national security, but do it quietly and "behind the scenes" (and we'll never be aware of most of the details). Both parties use & promote surveillance and other activities that attempt to skirt the limits of the Constitution and the laws. The Republicans take their flack for it up front and the Democrats take their flack for it when it exposes itself.
Re:When you are looking for a needle in a (Score:3, Insightful)
There were so many warnings
I'm sure there are so many warnings about a lot of people who'll never actually do anything. We have the benefit of hindsight in Nidal Hassan's case.
Re:Theatrical Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing to see here, move along people...
I disagree, there is a LOT to see here, and we should be fighting this nonsense, not just "moving along". Apathy is just as bad as 'its for the kids' when it comes to losing our rights and freedoms.
Re:They won't catch anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Case-in-point: there were dozens of warning signs about the September 11 attacks,
And just to be clear on what these "warning signs" were, one of the chiefest ones was a paper that described the risk that someone would do just this, and that plans to do so had been intercepted. Or in other words, we knew the attack was coming and we did nothing to prevent it. This is the kind of thing that just drives conspiracy theorists into a frenzy.
Re:Theatrical Security (Score:3, Insightful)
It reminds me of the Bystander Effect. Look it up if you're unfamiliar with it.
"Tradeoffs are inevitable?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that the issue of "terrorism" -- in the US, at least -- is no where near a level you could possibly consider epidemic, this is just a poor excuse for the government to spy on ALL its citizens.
And if the government doesn't like what you're doing, you'll wind up being labeled a "terrorist", and they will swoop down on you, kick your doors in, confiscate all of your computers and smartphones, and CDs/DVDs and anything else where you might be hiding "terrorist activities".
And where is Obama in opposing all of this crass nonsense? Hell, I bet he supports it!
Welcome to the new boss! Same as the old boss!
"Monitoring" can mean two things. (Score:4, Insightful)
If by "monitoring" they mean "reading publically-available websites", then I have no civil-liberties problem with this. It might not be a good use of law enforcement resources (they'd benefit me, the taxpayer, more by finding the people who steal cars and break into houses), but there's nothing wrong with the DHS using publically-available information to do their job.
This, of course, is contingent upon them only using that information in an ethical way. If they want to subpoena my ISP and send the police to hassle me because I said "Fuck the police", then that's a problem. But that isn't directly related to the DHS' monitoring of the web.
Monitoring of private communication (email, IM, which websites I read) is a whole different ball game. Ethical arguments aside it is simply not practical -- the real "bad guys" can hide so deep behind cryptography and steganography that the only people turned up by this monitoring will be people who are a little too ardent (for their tastes) in saying "Fuck the police".
I'm visiting Italy, and they really do make it hard to get an internet connection that they can't investigate. I had to give my passport information to the hotel before they'd give me a damn wifi account (and they have accounts, on an authentication server that's always grossly overloaded, where in the US there'd just be a public AP). But of course anybody really up to no good would do their dirty work over Tor or through an anonymising proxy, while these sorts of "security" measures instead just make it hard for a bunch of scientists [www.infn.it] to check their experiments.
We can have all the discussions we want about whether there is a fundamental right to private anonymous communication, but the technological reality is that anyone who wants it enough will have it regardless. Monitoring etc. is just going to make /b/ load slowly because everyone has to load it over Tor.
Re:Go To Hell (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, I have never heard of the republicans referred to as leftist socialists. They are, after all, the party that started the trend toward more and more surveillance, and Bush administration officials have publicly voiced approval of Obama administration policies.
Oh, yeah, and the one socialist in the US Senate does not approve of the increased surveillance: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=1cabd1b9-84c1-4f8f-a93d-2731bfe273fe [senate.gov]
Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bring our troops home. Pull them out of the 100+ countries they are stationed in. End the war already. Close Guantanamo Bay already, and return that land to the Cubans. And stop supporting Israel so damned much!!!
Once the US starts minding its own business in the world, it'll see much less of this so-called "terrorism threat".
Meanwhile, China is laughing at the US. Whilst the US weakens itself by chasing paper tigers, China is building itself up economically. Notice how they DID NOT go into negative growth during the economic downturn, while the US did. Hello. Is anyone paying attention?
Growing your Military Industrial Complex destroys wealth. Building up your manufacturing and production to meet the civilian market grows your wealth. It's that simple. And something the United States is totally lost on.
Re:Go To Hell (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go To Hell (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Less Freedom != More Secuity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Go To Hell (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty certain that even in 2001, the total number of Americans killed by terrorists was a rather small fraction of the number of Americans killed on our highways. Sometimes, it's hard to put things in perspective, but it's worth the effort.
We have a voice (Score:2, Insightful)
I keep hearing on policies that are winding us down toward a Totalitarian Government. In response to these policies, I hear complaints, but never action.
I believe we need to band together and work toward informing the general public of what is going on. From that, we need to show our representatives that if they wish to stay in office, they need to start opposing these sort of laws.
I am not calling for any form of violent action. I ask of from all of you, these things.
1. Do some searching on the internet. There are plenty of reports of the abuse of these anti-privacy laws.
2. Go out and talk to those that live near you, show them what you found.
3. Ask the people you talk to to talk to everyone they know about what you have talked about.
Perhaps, in time organize protests.
If we sit back and unhappily watch as we are stripped of our rights, we apparently don't care about them as much as we say we do.
Re:Go To Hell (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh good, another person that blindly supports a political party.
There are stupid people in BOTH parties. These are PROGRESSIVE ideas and progressives have invaded both parties. Who care what party they are from if the policy is bad.
I guess you're okay with the situation now since it a Democrat in power? You should ALWAYS deny the government any additional power at the expense of your individual rights.
Re:Go To Hell (Score:3, Insightful)
You guess wrong, probably because you did not understand the point of my post. Here, I'll put it plainly for you: neither the democrats nor the republicans actually care about the rights of the people.
Government (Score:3, Insightful)
We should be more concerned about monitoring the DHS for internal threats against our own lives and property.
Re:situations vs. rights (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not dogma, it's truth and history: Every time security is embraced, liberty IS sacrificed.
No no no, this is all wrong. Liberty IS security. Every bit of liberty we lose decreases our security against tyrannical goverment.
Re:Go To Hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot offers HTTPS to subscribers.
Re:That is the point. (Score:1, Insightful)
Please, "anti-christian propaganda" is not propaganda. You have learned (probably from a church) that when christianity is viewed in anyway other than practising it, is an attack on christianity, and is therefore lies, as christianity (and your particular denomination) is the one true truth.
And for you to call something "anti-christian propaganda" you are missing the point of what you were reading.
All religion is bullshit. They all are based on the same fallacy: We cannot prove there is no invisible super-human-type entity that made the universe and/or oversees us all, so there must be one. And here's his representative on Earth, that bloke in a frock (and probably his knob in a young boy).
And religions promise "the truth", but "the truth" is unknowable. Anyone who accepts that a truth is knowable is liable to be manipulated by other people.
Which religion is actually teaching the truth, if they all claim to? Maybe it's one, but most likely it is none.
Please get you mind out of the fucked up thinking that leads people to accept religion[1]. The religions push people to think in these ways, so as to make sure the religion has followers. And those followers give money, and power, to those running the religions.
[1] I think people often call this faith. ie take what another person says at face value, and don't doubt it. And no, they won't be trying to manipulate you. Oh no.
Re:When you are looking for a needle in a (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh pft. That only counts when the wrong person is president. When a Dem is president it is apparently perfectly acceptable to go on long anti-government/presidential rants while wearing the uniform. In fact, as far as I can tell that whole "disparaging remarks" bit is completely reversed when a non Republican is in office. Go ahead and try to report someone saying "someone should just shoot him" through a long chain of people who vocally agree.
It isn't some liberal whining policy nonsense that stopped anyone reporting and any attempt to blame that is just more of the same political scapegoating bullshit. What it was is that those people were spineless no integrity clowns just happy to write a shiny review and pass him off to someone else. God forbid they jeopardize their own ability to make disparaging remarks when they don't agree with their leadership or have to actually show an ounce of leadership ability while dealing with problem troops. Honestly, if those people were paying any attention to anything other then their own self absorbed world they probably could have headed off the problem before Mr nutjob went totally bonkers. I am 100% certain that he had to listen to the same crap I have heard for years. Babbling about kill all the muslims, cheering at civilian casualties, other such disgusting behavior. I had a friend take shit for being an "arab" because he was dark skinned... He was a fucking Hawaiian. There is an identical total lack of leadership in dealing with that kind of crap. We have soldiers of arabic descent that have their lives threatened on a daily basis in the field by the very people who are supposed to be serving with them. If your own team is constantly threatening you, what do you think that will do for unit cohesion? Do you think that guy is ever going to believe they won't just leave him to die somewhere? Maybe they will just kill him and cover it up. A total and complete lack of integrity is tearing the military to ribbons, not some liberal agenda.
Just watch, that kid that supposedly leaked those documents... When it turns out that they include a bunch of dirty dealing of the Big O and Hillary they will be cheering that he is a hero instead of a traitor. However, if it implicates Bush/Cheney then they will still be screaming "off with his head".
Re:Tools are already in place, but not used (Score:3, Insightful)
"...being an Islamic extremist."
I'm not sure if I've read this correctly, but I thought that they knew that he was a Muslim but not that he was an extremist. I'm not American but I don't think that it has yet been made illegal to follow any specific religion - nor should that ever be the case! An individual's religious beliefs has nothing to do with the State. Many of those close to him DID know that he held extremist views but, apparently, they did not take the necessary steps of raising the matter with anyone who could assess his suitability for either his post or for buying firearms. There were lots of mistakes made but I don't think that the FBI were to blame for them. It wasn't the case that the FBI 'had no problem' with the person that you describe - rather, they we not aware of the facts because nobody bothered to tell them.
Not being an American, I might have missed some critical reporting but that's how I recall it being reported here.
A quick guide to slashdot posting (Score:2, Insightful)
1. <insert creepy government entity> wants to <insert generalized ability of impossible complexity>
2. Oh noze!
Here are some examples:
-The Pentagon wants to monitor your sweat glands
-DARPA wants to grow future armies from lunch meat
-Joe Lieberman wants to quarantine fat people
Re:Go To Hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the sick thing about all this. . . is the whole POINT of terrorism, is to TERRORIZE the target population, and cause them to react in this way (limit freedoms, increase fear, racial xenophobia, escalate conflict, provoke war, draw attention, etc.). And the US played right into it.
These arguments were made in the wake of 9/11 - of course. But were immediately drowned-out among the "OMG! brown people blowing up stuff on our soil!" (because there was nowhere near the national concern, of course, over the threat posed by Tim McVeigh or various domestic militia movements - who hate our liberal democracy just as much as Osama bin Laden. And for the same ideological reasons).
I *do* have a problem with allowing terrorists to succeed, in their goal, of shutting down 4th amendment and 1st amendment protections. (and 6th and 8th). Out of fear. Via the tried and true mechanism that gives this method of warfare it's name. They (the terrorists) spent far less money than the RIAA did lobbying to violate our 1st and 4th amendment rights. (Probably, both the terrorist groups, and the RIAA/MPAA spent less money on provoking the fear that gets our rights violated, than WE spend, as taxpayers, on the national infrastructure of lawyers and police to violate our own rights.)
That's the sick thing.
We pay tax money, to FORCE our citizens to become educated - we learn in history, and civics classes, about our rights, our constitution, and what terrorism is (at least we did in the 1980s and 1970s when I went to school) - but then, apparently, we get into the voting booth, and we've forgotten all about that, and we're wetting our pants in fear over what our President's business-partner's rogue son is doing in 'stan, "Oh Please, big brother! please take our rights away! We're so terrified of what we're seeing on FoxNews! OMG! SCARY! We'll pay ANY PRICE to feel safe! Please save us!!!"
Re:you got to be kidding me (Score:4, Insightful)
I think their main concern right now is the people using the Internet to point out their failures. Those are the 'radical terrorists' that truly scare politicians. Typically the real (violent) terrorists are pretty good from a politicians perspective: they're the ultimate excuse provider for any drastic control measure the government wouldn't have gotten away with otherwise.
Most of the people here calling Janet Napolitano and the government at large on their bullshit are the real threat in their mind, the ones making a rational case of just how wrong they are. A government with genuine concern towards terrorism typically attempts to limit its media exposure, as the US did in the 60s and 70s. Nowadays, terrorism is very useful politically, any little accident has a 'could it be terrorists? news at 5' angle added to it.
Terrorism is part of any system that has political inequalities (so pretty much any political system). Any control method used to stamp it is much more likely to fuel it in the long run, it makes the controlling force seen as the oppressor, which is the key element in any terrorist cause. If there genuinely is a brewing home-grown terrorism in the US, I'd suggest that it might have something to do with the government starting to oppress its own people. Not really out of malicious intent, but merely out of stupidity incompetence. That is on a systemic level, not individual... The people at the top live in a reality distortion field that would make Steve Jobs jealous, and the people at the bottom, good intentioned as they may be, are simply not in a capacity to do good.
Re:Go To Hell (Score:2, Insightful)
neither the democrats nor the republicans actually care about the rights of the people.
It's not about Left versus Right, it's about YOU versus THEM. THEM being the elitists who don't give a rats ass about YOU. Anything that THEM can do to "stir the pot" allows YOU to worry about trivial matters instead of focusing on the main point of eliminating the middle class (however wide a range you wish it to be) and having only the very rich and the very poor. The poor who will fight the rich mans wars while struggling at the same time to put food on the table, clothe and shelter their families. YOU are nothing but grist for the mill. I do not espouse anarchy, but when the elite start stratifying themselves into classes, they're doomed. Changes are coming. They always have. It's the only constant.
Re:It sure is theatre! (Score:3, Insightful)
First, they do invade privacy it's just that folks have given up in arguing with the Government or there's the folks who are stupid enough to believe that it's important - I know a couple of them.
Secondly, that Nigerian boarded the aircraft IN NIGERIA! How many of these scanners do you think are going to be in piss poor third world countries?!
Didn't he go through security again in Amsterdam before boarding the NW flight 253? I don't really care about the body scans myself even though I do consider them to be an invasion of my privacy. I'd much rather keep the janitorial staff from rummaging through my luggage. Bomb sniffing dogs are cheaper in the long run.
Even if we actually manage to secure the airports without making it painful for the average citizen to fly, the terrorists will simply focus on something else. There are potentially thousands of other viable targets such as the railways, subways, water supplies, refineries, the dikes surrounding New Orleans, etc. The whole reason terrorism is successful is that we're bankrupting ourselves to protect against a threat that is trivial to pose. An enemy spent less than $5000 to talk an impressionable Nigerian into boarding a plane with a bomb in his pants and suddenly the US is spending $200 million on body scanners.
Re:you got to be kidding me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fear is an important ingredient for terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, welcome to 2001. People already fight anything that doesn't perfectly align with their hollywood interpretation of a normal life.
When people are scared of an unseen boogeyman, they become paralyzed. Rational thought goes out the window and they become highly susceptible to "soothing" thought control, which is how one morphs a supposed democracy into the current plutocracy. Fear makes society malleable, the greater and more ominous the scare, the less people notice when you crank up the oppression.