HR 46: Wiretapping, Forfeiture, Crypto Penalties 332
Thank you, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.). You've taken the inoffensive "Public Safety Medal of Valor" bill and quietly tacked on an amendment that does oh-so-much more. Wiretapping to record email and phone conversations of people suspected of computer crime (who needs that
Fourth Amendment
anyway?). Forfeiture (before you are convicted or even charged) of "devices used in ... intellectual property theft." And extra penalties for using crypto, nice way to stigmatize an entire industry there.
Dave Kopel's analysis
is at Cryptome, along with the bill text, etc.
Correction of Utah Residents (Score:3)
I remember how we used to delimit the population...
Utahn- a resident who agrees to see that there is life beyond the "Zion Curtain", and can hold even the merest discussion without slamming people for religion.
Utard- Those that think that there is nothing more to life than their own "piece" of the state Be that it be Delta,Moab,Happy Valley,Cottonwood Canyon, Park City (even though that is Colorado:) ), or the exiled Utah city of Pocatello
BTW this hold true for anyone in anystate... Just Utah was one of the easiest examples of this. But I now see it very prevelant in Upstate NY as well As Other places I've lived
*waiting for the flames*
Did anyone read to the end? Beaucoup $ (Score:4)
Take a bill about "A." Tack on things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with "A." (Which IMHO should be illegal.)
Bury a provision which will have every wage earning American paying $3 for the privilege of having somebody trample over their feet. And "voila," political contributors from the security equipemnt community will be amply rewarded for something that is unmonitored (and isn't going to happen since that costs money and the idea here is PROFIT!)
Why not start with a bill called the "Widows and Orphans" protection bill and tack on legalization for recreational pharmacopea, enforced under-age sex and very high-stakes gambling (televised Russian Roulette ["a la" Deer Hunter.]) Then lambaste anyone who dares vote against protection of widows and orphans.
The only thing that stops me from going out into the streets right now is that I'm secure in the knowledge that the collection mechanisms are already in place, the analysis equipment is already in place but the software lags way behind in capability and that I'm a Canadian and I can laugh at the Americans for screwing themselves with this utter stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
"Let's make EVERY law unconstitutional. At least some will get through" Yes, it's an exaggeration , but how far is that from the truth?
What's wrong with the crypto provision? (Score:2)
Bills & Version Control (Score:3)
It seems to me that Congress could use some version control. CVS [cvshome.org] anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
And where do PACs get this power? (Score:2)
Of course there are PACs that simply represent the interests of an industry, which have an agenda of their own - but they have no votes to offer, just money. Grassroots activism counts for a lot more than money.
Re:Just the encrpyt bit (Score:3)
To quote: "Makes you wanna Ralph, more than ever!"
You list a paragraph about how much you don't trust government authorities and yet you say that this should make us want someone who wants the government to have MORE power, almost to the point of socialism. How can you reconsile this in any rational thought process?
This bothers me more and more is that people wanted Ralph Nader for his consumer support background (which I am ALL in favor) and yet never bothered to read the Socialist manifesto that was the Green Party platform.
We don't need a bigger government we need a constitutional government that doesn't step over it's bounds. The government should protect us from the things that we cannot do ourselves (fight big business, foreign powers) and set laws that are within thier power as defined by the constituion. Everything else should pass to the states. And yet you people still call for the Green party and Nader under a platform that would pass EVERYTHING to the government to decide.
It just blows my mind!
Re:Fun with the government. (Score:2)
I dunno about (1, Funny), I'd have given him (1, Insightful).
This is steganography. Who could oppose the Public Safety Medal of Honor bill? ("No pr0n here, officer, I just have 6 gigabytes of uncompressed .BMPs of clouds! I like clouds! So big fluffy and random!")
And unlike what they propose to do with our stego, their stego is legal.
RIAA did it with the "work for hire" provisions, now it's the FBI's turn to do it.
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
Problem is who handles the impeachment. It's not as if impeaching President Clinton actually ment anything too.
Anyway simply being barred from public office is a mild punishment for high treason.
Line items.... (Score:3)
Too bad they killed Presidential Line Item Veto, although I seriously doubt that Clinton would've done a thing on this one...
Say goodbye to your rights, kids. It's gonna be a new Dark Ages for those of us here in the States....
Re:Bill naming (Score:2)
Re:Illinois did something right (Score:2)
I'll go on a limb and say that the next Amendment won't pass for another 200 years.
Cheers,
Slak
no more (Score:2)
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
Some people (including the Supreme Court) say the US constitution makes it illegal to ban abortions. Many (most?) constitutional scholars wouldn't agree with that interpretation.
Another example would be the recent liberal Violence Against Women Act which attempted to make rape a federal crime based on the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. I'm sure most people don't see rape (even though it's a terrible crime) as an issue that interferes with interstate commerce. The Supreme Court did not think so either.
What was strange about the Court's ruling was that the Supreme Court interpreted this interstate commerce clause totally differently than it had done since the New Deal. So those congressmen that proposed the Act had no way of knowing that the Supreme Court would strike it down.
Would you really want to bar those congressmen from holding public office just because of this misstep?
Just a bill (Score:4)
But guess who will be president when this bill will probably come across the desk looking for a signature? You guessed it...someone who probably doesn't understand much about encryption anyways.
This sounds awfully unconstitutional to me, or at least worthy of a contest in court.
More information (Score:5)
The Independence Institute [i2i.org] -- Kopel's organization. Note that the link on this page has the following quote regarding the bill:
Note: the bill's sponsors have recently agreed to remove all objectionable items, except for the encryption provision
Re: Just a bill (Score:2)
Let's face it... G.W. Bush would have a difficult enough time figuring out velcro.
*sigh*
Glad I voted for a different bush [sillyparty.com]...
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
Part of the task of a legislative assembly in a democracy is to ensure that laws passed are necessary and subject to critical examination. In the case of somwhere with a written constitution part of the latter should be comparativly easy.
I.e if there is any question about the consitutional standing of a bill or rider then throw it out, which would in itself cut down the amount of time wasted.
Sounds not dissimilar to the problems with the US patent office. Passing things as a default when the default should be to reject.
Re:Just a bill (Score:2)
One would hope, but the hope would be misplaced.
For fifteen years, the Rehnquist Court has been dismantling the Fourth Amendment. Expanding searches and seizures, removing traditional safeguards, and increasing police and prosecutorial power until it is now virtually unchecked, this Supreme Court has been the enemy of our ancient freedoms.
If this bill becomes law, it will face an inevitable court challenge. But defeating it has no guarantee, nor even a good likelihood, of success.
So to those who would say "just a bill, don't worry," I say: yes, it's just a bill. Worry. And take action by calling or writing your senator now.
False alarm? (Score:2)
The staffer that I talked to was a very nice fellow, and he did say that it's possible that it might have been slipped into one of the big omnibus appropriations bills, but HR 46 did not go through on its own.
--
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
The real estate situation around DC can't be that bad, so I figure you ought to do nicely on $2,000 a month.
Yes, it's that bad. I think it reasonable to allow for a one-bedroom apartment in a non-deluxe building in the District of Columbia. Such an apartment will go for about $1200 to $2400 a month.
This from someone who just moved to Montgomery County MD because I couldn't afford to stay in the District even though I wanted to.
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
Still don't get what I'm saying? Let's say you and I are sitting down at the recount table. We haven't been told -how- to count all these 'undervotes'. My 'personal judgement' is gonna be different from yours. Even if we're the two wisest, most honest people on earth, there's no telling that we're gonna both come to the same conclusions from this dented piece of paper.
As for the Justice chairs Bush has to fill... well, all he's said is that he wants Justices who'll stick to what's in the Constitution and what's on the lawbooks. Fine by me. You want to rewrite the law, you go to Congress, not Court. That's the way it's supposed to be. The Judicial is supposed to be non-activist branch of government.
---
War on Drugs/Guns (Score:2)
Why is it that my fellow geeks only care about this type of thing when it's knocking at their own front door? This type of thing threatens all of our freedom. Whether or not you're a terrorist, mafioso, child pornographer, or any of the other assorted nasties that are thrown up to gain public acceptance this will not stop at just the "Bad Guys".
I don't use crypto very much. A little SSH for secure terminal sessions and SSL because I want to learn about it, I even have a PGP public key somewhere around here for emergencies, but I think that we should be able to use crypto with no fear of persecution for it. If I want to send my girlfriend a sweet sappy love letter, I don't think that it's unreasonable to not want an FBI, NSA or even ISP snoop reading over it to see if it's an acceptable communication.
For the "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear." crowd, how long before it's YOU on the list of people engaged in unpopular activities? When will your model rocket hobby get you looked at because you *could* secretly be making missiles to carry Ricin or Anthrax? When will your reading habits come into question? Were you reading that book about Wicca because you're interested in pagan religions, or because you're planning a child sacrifice?(I know wiccans don't do that sort of thing, but the general public can be whipped up into a frenzy about anything. http://wm3.org)
When will your chemistry hobby make you a potential mad bomber? Will playing a *little too much* minesweeper make you a fanatic about ordnance disposal?
Sound far fetched? 100 years ago who would have believed that the Russians and Chinese would have killed upwards of 40 million of their own people?
20 years ago who would have believed that a sitting president would have been caught, impeached and tried for perjury? 10 years ago who would have believed that the most famous ex-football player ever would have been on trial for double murder?
Take a stand. Take it now. Or don't bitch when they come after you.
LK
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
-That- is partisanship -> That is -not- partisanship.
---
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:4)
The ruling, in a nutshell, said that a recount without rules (which is what the David Boise said he wanted) would lead to 'unequal treatment' of the votes.
Which is complete hogwash, of course. The votes are already treated unequally. They're cast and counted as each district decides to do. Some are hand-counted from the start. Some are impossible to recount due to the method of voting used. Why should recounts be any different? There were representatives from both parties present at each counting table. They only counted votes they could agree on, those where the intent was clear. Even the manufacturer of the vote-counting machines in a lot of the districts agreed that a recount was the best way to get a conclusive answer as to who the people elected. The margin of error of the machines was much greater than the lead that Bush had. We should have had a recount of all counties where a recount was possible. Excluding those that did hand counts from the start, those that used machines that don't allow for a recount, and possibly those that used optically read ballots with a very tiny margin of error, if that was agreeable to both sides. It should have been done this way from the start.
Even if we're the two wisest, most honest people on earth, there's no telling that we're gonna both come to the same conclusions from this dented piece of paper.
They managed to count many ballots by hand. Yes, they didn't agree on all of them, but quite often there was a clear intent discernable from looking at the ballot. Intent which even the opposing party would not deny. In the end, you end up with more votes counted and included than you get with machines.
Mr. Hatch represent$ hi$ contributor$ Screw Utah (Score:2)
The power lusting don't have to raise hundreds of millions of dollars running for election because there are NO elections. Its a crap-shoot instead of a $100,000,000 a year game that comes out of YOUR pockets.
The greedy can't curry favors because, there's no way they can know who's going in and since they only last one term, there are no "relationships" that evolve with the usual tit-for-tat, quid-pro-quo, "you fill my coffers and I'll fill yours."
Imagine, the past month, and the year long run up to it, would never have occurred.
ok troll i'll take your bait. (Score:2)
the readers should take note of this and see how it applies to them. sure you say:
"i dont need guns so make them illegal" or "i dont use computers in libraries, so the filter software doesn't bother me"....
what you dont understand is that if your rights are taken away slowly then you are less likely to notice. the next right to be taken may be speech-then it's too late to complain.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
Re:More information (Score:2)
C'mon -- the guy called Salon less biased and better informed than the National Review. It was clear he was joking, even to me. And I'm a certified left-wing-pinko-yougurt-eating hippie. Hasn't anyone with mod points right now ever actually read the National Review or Salon?
Re:Illinois did something right (Score:3)
This sort of thing is not new; I am, frankly, surprised that there isn't more of an outcry for federal single subject rules. I guess the people who work the system for a living don't want it to change.
You've hit the point right there, I think. I've been wondering out loud for some time now whether or not I have the answer for that last problem -- the fact that half of our biggest institutional problems will never be solved because it negatively affects those in power.
If memory serves, a constitutional amendment requires 2/3 majority of both houses, but does not require presidential signature. Then, it requires 3/4 of the states to approve it. So, by design, getting an amendment passed and ratified is very difficult, especially if it affects congress in any way. (quick trivia quiz -- what's the last amendment to be added to the US constitution? One restricting congressional pay-raises to take effect the following term. How'd that get passed? It was part of the original bill of rights, but took over 200 years to get ratified. Most modern amendments include "drop dead" language if not ratified in some short number of years).
However, there is still hope (and here's where my memory may be failing). A majority of states may vote for a Constitutional Convention, in which amendments may be proposed, voted on, and (immediately, I think) ratified.
I have yet to hear anyone of any authority or voice advocate such a move, so I may be way off on this one. But it seems to me that this would be a fantastic avenue for issues with broad public support but little chance of congressional action, for example, Campaign Finance, Line-Item Veto, Same-Subject Legislation, or Term Limits. Unfortunately, it could also be a fast track for less constitutionally-appropriate, but popular, "hot button" issues like Internet Porn or Flag Burning.
Maybe this warrants a /. discussion in and of itself? Maybe (in a broader sense) /. needs a "Politics" section (or a sister "PolDot" site)? I'm really curious to hear others' thoughts on this one...
david.
Has anyone tried to read HR46? (Score:4)
It's the last link, as far as I can tell.
I don't see how section 308 is as bad as Dave Koppel feared? Am I misreading, or reading the wrong text?
It doesn't mention wiretapping, and where it does mention encryption:
(c) AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO USE OF ENCRYPTION- Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and, if appropriate, shall promulgate guidelines or policy statements or amend existing policy statements to ensure that the guidelines provide sufficiently stringent penalties to deter and punish persons who intentionally use encryption in connection with the commission or concealment of criminal acts sentenced under the guidelines.
It would seem that encryption used intentionally by criminals to hide the crime would have to face 'sufficiently stringent penalties'
Would this then only apply to those who have been accused *and* determined to be guilty of criminal acts 'sentanced under the guidelines'?
His fear of wiretapping comes from S2448RS, senate, not house...
Search for "wire, oral, and electronic communications", here [loc.gov].
It's section 8, under authority to...
However, there is no related section or subsection under HR46...
So the only problem I can tell is under HR46 section 304 clause (2)
(2) The criminal forfeiture of property under this subsection, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding relating thereto, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsection (d) of that section.'
Are there reasons to suspect this clause? It seems out of place, in a computer crime action...
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
Re:Correction of Utah Residents (Score:2)
Fact is, orrin wins by such wide margins that we're probably stuck with him until he dies anyhow. So many people here vote republican without even thinking about it that it's frightening.
Personally I'm a libertarian, one of 506 in happy valley according to the vote talleys. So I have the luxury of living in a state where my vote doesn't matter. You'd be surprised how relaxing that is. People don't ask or care who you support politically, presuming that they can spot a liberal at about a hundred yards, and just presume you're a republican. Makes it pretty easy to insert dissenting opinions into an argument without getting them stamped with a political affiliation before you're even finished stating them. Most people don't even understand what a libertarian is anyhow.
Orrin's been a mixed bag. He pulls some well meaning but incredibly badly executed stuff sometimes. Like the DMCA, which was written in order to fulfill the terms of an international treaty, but which is worded so poorly that it can be interpreted in some incredibly nefarious ways.
Over all I don't think he's done a bad job, but I wouldn't say I like him. Even considering that there's a shot of him standing next to my mother on his website.
Basically, so many people just vote republican across the board here that short of him getting caught in a motel room with some farm animals there's basically no way the nation will ever be rid of him, so your best bet is to never cut him any slack and get in his face whenever he annoys you.
I mean, whatcha gonna do?
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
It's not illegal if you can justify it and relate it to work. Just make sure all your lunches and dinners are "business lunches or dinners." Travel is paid for. Probably even the cost of an apartment in D.C. since it's job-related. Maybe stay in a hotel the whole time. Might get a good rate, and they have maid and laundry service.
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
Re:And you wondered... (Score:2)
But you are right in that libertarianism is far to ideal. Human beings are complicated creatures created by the random process of evolution to survive well in a hunting gathering enviornment...it would be a conicedence of unimaginable proportions to find out that the ideal form of government for these creatures is simply defined as that government which maximizes individual rights.
The truth is that a libertarian society could never correctly deal with a great deal of public goods. For instance national defense. In only the most idealized view of human nature would everyone in the United States contribute fairly to the common defense. What would actually happen is that people would (perhaps believing in that self deulded way they were contributing their fair share) gradually give less and less to the common defense and many people would give nothing at all.
It is however impossible to support differential milatary protection for differnt houses. Imagine the government protecting Jim's house from the Soviets but because Bob is behind on his contributions letting the tanks take that house.
Similar arguments apply for police protection (it is primarily deterant based not response based) and welfare (I know I fell happier if ppl aren't dying in the streets but would be just as happy if someone else was paying for it).
In short libertarinism is a nice idea but the laws of physics and human nature are staked against it.
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:3)
A "Violence Against " law violates the 14th ammendment anyway. Not withstanding that the US has fought a war of independance and a civil war where state sponsered discrimination was part of the reason for the war.
Indeed the VAWA is a prime example of redundant legislation pushed by a special interest group in direct contravention of a written constitution. (Probably worstening an existing problem of sexist rape laws too.)
Re:False alarm? (Score:3)
HR46 <strong>did</strong> go through without the amendment. Hatch added the amendment in the senate, so it has to go back through the house. It has not done so yet, and will not do so before January.
--
Heh... (Score:2)
I mentioned this when posting on another topic, but it seems appropriate again....
I remember hearing of a short story, I think it was by Clarke. It was about a future in which elections -had- been done with, and representatives were chosen by a big computer which would choose based purely on qualification.
Anyone actually -wanting- to be in political office would be immediately disqualified. And, once selected, the only way to get out of a position would be to do a good job of it.
So, you'd have a lot of really, really qualified folks doing great jobs as President or Congressman or whatever... just so they could get out of office and on with their lives.
Wouldn't it be nice....
---
If you want the real information... (Score:3)
You will also find that the related bill is S.39 [loc.gov], and that the Senate has not yet taken up the amended bill.
The short summary is, don't bother calling you Representative, call your Senator instead. Don't bother calling the White House, since Bush isn't there yet (and the odds of his voting against this is approximately nil.)
Thalia
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
Especially one where the title alone makes it obvious that the attempt is to contravne the constitution (which definitly includes all so called "hate crime" issues or other ways of creating discriminatory legislation.)
Re:Fallout from the Drug war (Score:2)
FYI here is part of the statue on seizure in FL:
Re:Wtf? (Score:3)
Try "envelopes" instead of ski masks. The fastest way to illustrate to people why *I* prefer encryption is to use the postcard/envelope analogy.
"Obviously you have something to hide, since you keep sending your paper mail in envelopes ('enhanced privacy' envelopes, no less!), than using postcards for everything. What criminal activities are you engaging in?"
I think now's a good time to set up my own anon remailer, and start regularly sending encrypted traffic through it and the rest of the remailer network. Synchronously. Of varying sizes. So there's no way to prove that a particular message happens to be real and not just cover traffic.
Or it could be too late.
--
Re:Just a bill (Score:2)
Re:Weird take at it (Score:2)
Joe McCarthy was pretty much run outta town after several years.
The investigation of underground Communists in the government continued.
Since the fall of Communism in Russia and the opening of the secret files from that era, it's been pretty conclusively shown that the people accused were Communists, they were engaged in Treason and Seditious acts....
It was a good thing that the Rosenbergs were executed. It was a good thing that Alger Hiss was taken down.
A lot of the people who squeal in dismay about McCarthyism don't have a clue what they're ranting about.
We Need Bill Moderation (Score:5)
Re:Just a bill (Score:2)
I really hope the Florida thing was an abberation, not a sudden change in his philosophy. As a whole, I would expect him to be a strong ally in these cases of excessive federal power.
Isn't HR46 dead? (Score:3)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:Just the encrpyt bit (Score:2)
Re:More information (Score:2)
Weird take at it (Score:5)
Re:Applies to deliberate encryption (Score:2)
Likewise, encryption is a hair's breadth away from being the thing that designates you a criminal.
Between this and Carnivore, encryption may soon be determined to be an evasion of the long arm of the law.
This might mean that if you encrypt your email, the FBI can get authorization to tap your phone.
Now how could the FBI determine that you encrypted an email message? Wouldn't that be illegal? Soon it will become legal, trust me...
As a Utahn, let me tell you how it is (Score:5)
So, I went to the local Linux Users Group and stood up at the meeting (only a dozen people show up) and asked for help in organizing against Hatch. As I was talking it was apparent by the way they were looking at their shoes that there was complete disinterest in doing anything, and that they were going to vote for Hatch anyway.
The fact of the matter is that people vote for Hatch because "they are supposed to". One state representative went so far as to say that you "can't be a mormon and vote for a democrat at the same time," (exact words). Whether you are a mormon or not, Hatch is seen as "church endorsed" and the mormon church carries enough influence to affect any election they want to. There are many "heriditary republicans" that will vote republican on election day no matter what, without giving it a second thought. Also, there is a large segment that will vote for Hatch as he is pro-NRA, and everybody loves their guns here. Take all this together and you can see why he got re-elected by a landslide.
Utahns are being raped left and right by bad political representation on the local level as well. Our taxes and utilites are going up, as the legislature did away with the public commision that oversees utility rates (the bill was written by the local gas utility)
The only question is how hard do Utahns want to scream before they've had enough???
If you live in Salt Lake County, and want to organize, email me kphil@hotmail.com
Make Congress Work (Score:5)
Congress says they tack things on to cut down on the amount of meetings they have to have about bills...so what.
They are getting paid a LOT of money and were elected cause they lied to say the wanted to make America a better place. Fine...get off your ass and out of meetings with special interest groups and do something.
Make the salary of a congressman equal to the average salary of the American worker, and then we'll get the right kind of people in there.
Re:More information (Score:2)
The presesnce of this group is a fabrication of the Republican Party to make sure that people of a conservative bent don't listen to the news.
If there was a "m.l.m." we would have been pounded for the last year and a half with information about G. W. Bush's speckled past.
Not more than a word about it through the whole election.
Not more than a word about it through the whole election.
Not more than a word about it through the whole election.
Not more than a word about it through the whole election.
Not more than a word about it through the whole election.
If there's a "mainstream liberal press" then show me what was written on any of the above.
All I'd ask in return is that we all remember the reportage on Whitewater, et al., the millions (~$25mil?) of dollars in research and investigation into anything they could find and the only thing that was actually prosecuted was lying under oath about a blowjob.
(See here [uhuh.com] for a nice summary of what those millions of research and investigation dollars were an attempt to substantiate.)
Please, SOMEBODY, show me the liberal press.
There's a story here they're gonna LOVE!!!!
(For crissakes Time (!!) just named G. W. Bush as Person of the Year [time.com]!)
If informed, Utahns would probably pressure Hatch (Score:2)
I see the dichotomy that you're talking about -- many people have strong constitutionalist sentiments and a beleif in protecting individual rights. And yet civil liberty issues often go ignored. I think it's largely because the press ignores the issue and people don't get informed. To many Utahns, civil liberties are still simply about guns and freedom to worship (which are included, yes, but not the end of the list).
It's not totally so: for example, in the last election, a proposition curtailing powers of forfeiture and seizure passed with something like 67% approval. I think this shows that when the issues are brought before them, Utahns would tend to favor personal liberties. They just need to be better informed.
Illinois did something right (Score:4)
Perhaps we need a similar constitutional amendment for Federal legislation?
Oh no! (Score:2)
So what this is saying, if I ssh from my Sun box at work to my Linux box at home, then I fire up my Napster/Gnutella Client and download some music I don't own, I'm (for a lack of a better way of putting it) fucked?
Wtf? (Score:5)
Great. So I can get my house wire-tapped, computer(s) seized, and e-mail (and all other 'electronic' communication) read because someone suspects that I made a false statement on a student loan application? This does not bode well...
What can we do to get this thing killed?
--Just Another Pimp A$$ Perl Hacker
Constitutional Conventions (Score:2)
The last time the USA held a constitutional convention, they were told to modify the current constitution (or "Articles of Confederation") and instead replaced the entire structure of government. All suggestions that a "limited" convention could be held that would discuss a single subject matter, or that the scope of such a convention could be contained has been suggested as faulty. All that would keep any new government that came from such a convention is if the existing government wouldn't acknowledge the legitimacy of the new one.
Essentially, it would be a mess, and cause some real confusion (as if the mess in Florida wasn't enough).
Who's going to oppose it? (Score:2)
This leaves the will of the American people. Unfortunately the American public doesn't give a damn. Unreasonable search and seizures are a pain, but only if the police show up during the football game, luckily, we can't even tell if they are wiretapping, therefore, its okay, since it doesn't bother us. As for encryption, 99% of the email users out there don't even know it exists, for them, email magically leaves one computer and arrives at a different computer, without occupying any of the points inbetween. Under this theory, email is one of the safest ways to communicate with another human being, since its common knowledge that you can't intercept messages as they travel through the ether.
Us humans are short-sighted bastards. If it doesn't affect us immediately in a way we can see, we usually don't care.
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:4)
If you propose a law or amendment that is later deemed unconstitutional, it is an impeachable offense, and bars you from holding public office again. Ditto if you repeatedly vote for such laws.
This will be overturned by the supreme court... (Score:3)
Secondly, can we make it so only people who read the articles can post? Maybe have 2 or 3 changing multiple choice questions they have to answer correctly about it before they are allowed to post.
-Adam
"After playing with Netscape 6 for a while, I've come to the conclusions it doesn't even support IPv4..."
- noted on an IPV6 mailing list.
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
No, that's not exactly how it worked... if both parties agreed on a ballot, it was counted. If they disagreed, it was put into a pile of disputed ballots, which were then reviewed by the canvassing board. (Which in the counties in question were either all Democrat, or majority Democrat). Personally, I thought the Palm Beach canvassing board (and especially that judge, whose name I now forget) were really fair. Of course, Gore wasn't happy with 'em and kept taking them to court to try to force them to count the ballots the way Gore wanted 'em counted.
Re:Just the encrpyt bit (Score:2)
I still stand by my original post about the hypocracy of voting for Nader when you say that you don't trust the government as far as you can throw them. I've been re-reading the federalist papers more and more lately and I've been miffed overall at the state of things. ESPECIALLY when I read articles like this.
Re:Weird take at it (Score:2)
As Senator Hatch is my representative, I know I will be sending him a hand-written letter expressing my disapproval. This action is certainly not representative of me.
Re:Correction of Utah Residents (Score:2)
I also remember reading recently that the Salt Lake metro area had the highest percentage of residents that owned a computer of any metro area in the US. Politically, it's a solid Republican state. Bush got 70+% of the votes in UT. No wonder I liked living there so much.
Re:I just got off the phone w/my congressman's off (Score:3)
Simple. They get to go back to their voters and say, "See? I voted to enhance your security and put the bad guys away. It's not MY fault it didn't make it into law." Happens all the time.
...phil
When are we going to wake up? (Score:3)
While we're at it, we should require certain types of laws, ie ones that stomp on our constitution, to garner a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate instead of just a majority.
Re:I can understand the encryption provision (Score:3)
What they WANT is to the ability to do this to anyone, anytime, while using a bare minimum of physical resources. I don't believe making it this easy to violate civil liberties is in the best interests of our society.
I don't (Score:2)
So if they can convict you of something without accessing the encrypted files, they can also baselessly use those same encrypted files against you, under the umbrella that you refuse to decrypt them, and that encrypted files used in a crime are themselves criminal...
Is this like making a punishment worse for illegally owning a gun, even if the gun had nothing to do with the crime or the punishment?
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
Re:Correction of Utah Residents (Score:2)
If you want the pics I'll send them...
knock knock...
are you the FBI....
No, I'd just like to talk to you about moroni
Re:As a Utahn, let me tell you how it is (Score:3)
But I'm a little bit worried about this point:
mormon church carries enough influence to affect any election they want to
That's pretty much true. But the implication that they use this influence to get behind parties or candidates -- such as Hatch -- doesn't seem quite right to me. The official line of the church is that no party or candidate is endorsed by the church. Occasionally the church becomes involved in an issue/initiative (MX missile, Gambling, Religious Freedom Act, Gay Marriage -- generally moral issues), but I've never heard the church endorse any person or party specifically. I've heard them repeatedly emphasize that they don't do that and don't want anyone to pretend they have been endorsed by the church. The "Republicans are Righteous" view is an unfortunate cultural side effect, not religious dogma.
"heriditary republicans" that will vote republican on election day no matter what, without giving it a second thought
I think it's the "second thought" that people have problems with, rather than the church. They want things to be simple. So there's two politcal parties: God-fearing armed free market capitalists, and pinko gay-loving baby killing communists. Black and white. Vote Republican.
A "reactionary left" or "group of angry liberals" can only exacerbate the problem in Utah, I think. Trying to blame the problem on the Mormon Church won't help a bit. The only solution I can think of is to somehow raise the level of dialogue [perl.com]. People in Utah really need to learn how to investigate policy and issues and discuss them w/o the usual polemics (really, that probably goes for people everywhere, but I live here, so that's where I see it).
Re:More information (Score:2)
As for the comparison to Salon, I think it's rather silly to claim that Salon is "less biased." Like NR, it's an opinion journal. You expect bias in these places. That is why you read them.
PLEASE WRITE YOUR REP (Score:5)
Just my $.02
Take the time, write something meaningful and express how much you dislike this bill.
Thanks in advance
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
The US House already has such a rule. An explanation of this rule can be found here [house.gov]. However the Senate has subjected itself to far fewer rules than the House. Therefore Senator Hatch is within the rules to suggest a stupid thing like this. If you want this changed, now is your chance. Matters of agenda rules are adopted individualy by each house of Congress [cornell.edu]. The rules for the upcoming Senate session have not been approved yet and won't be until sometime next month. Write to your Senator(s) now and express your concerns.
Make the salary of a congressman equal to the average salary of the American worker, and then we'll get the right kind of people in there.
It is interesting to note what the salaries of the US representatives are.
While these salaries are substantially higher than the average salary in this country they do not seem to be excessive given the responsibility of the position. It has always been held as an important value that our representatives be paid well. Our founding fathers valued the idea of a paid legislature [cornell.edu] as a means to keep Congress from being populated only by the super rich who can afford not to work. This has been fairly successful, particularly in the House._____________
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:2)
Re:Protect the people? (Score:2)
Re:And you wondered... (Score:3)
And people are biased, and people are greedy, and people run the government. It always amazes me how some folks think that the govenment is somehow this "unbiased" organization that is out to protect our interests. Unfortunatly, its made up of those same dumb, biased, greedy folks that they claim they need protection from, except now those dumb, biased, greedy people have the ability to change laws to screw with us.
I wear gloves (Score:2)
Let me play devils advocate for a minute though. Kopel mentions wearing gloves, which I agree is a reasonable analogy, but isn't evading arrest via destruction of evidence similar and punished seperate from the crime being concealed in many instances?
Oh, and neener neener neener, we posted it on Poliglut first.
--
Supreme Court (Score:2)
stuff, right...? In Case #12, 1928 (Olmstead vs. United States).
Unfortunately, they ruled 5-4 in favor of
Olmstead's conviction, but I personally believe
that it is time for this to stop. This "Line
Item..." gives the Federal Government _way_ too
much power to punish people without them even
knowing what it's for. If this bill is passed,
then I really think that someone needs to
challenge the legality and Constitutionality of
it in the Supreme Court...
BTW, I can see it now:
"31337 H4X0RZ vs. United States"
Case #blah-blah-blah-blah...
Wouldn't that be great lol
Re:Isn't HR46 dead? (Score:5)
...phil
Re:Heh... (Score:2)
Not to mention Plato, and others
Defending Libertarianism (Score:2)
On what planet, exactly? Or, okay, in what country? There are probably still democracies in which this is the case, but I can't agree that ours is one of them. As an activist in areas ranging from drug policy to free speech to electronic freedom to consumer protection, I would submit that the power of money is paramount in the year 2000. Political realities demand it. If other politicians are exchanging influence for cash, yours probably will be too -- or else she won't be able to pay for the ads, and she probably won't get elected. There are brave exceptions, of course, but they're few and far between. Even when a political battle goes my way, it's usually because an organization like the ACLU or the EFF -- with the help of my financial contributions -- has been able to *pay* to fight the expensive legal or legislative fights that are, sadly, vital to overturning unconstitutional legislation.
And yes, I am a member of the Libertarian Party, and I regularly vote that way (though I also vote for Democrats and sometimes even Republicans, based on the candidates and my perception of the closeness of the race). As such, while I'll try to be succinct, I'd like to counter just a couple of the accusations which have been made against Libertarians in this thread.
First of all, not all Libertarians wish to abolish the income tax, eliminate foreign aid, and axe all government programs that aren't directly involved in protecting liberties. That's the perception of some, but it's far from reality. I happen to agree with those who have argued that pure libertarianism would never work. But, so what? I would argue that neither pure conservatism nor pure liberalism would work either; there are strengths and weaknesses to both, and the reason that there are so many passionate people on both sides probably has something to do with the fact that the "best" course lies somewhere in between. I am a Libertarian because I have seen, time and time again, that neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties are any longer truly committed to protecting civil liberties. The economic axis of the political map gets most of the attention, while with respect to the personal-freedom axis, both major parties are content to blame the other for our undeniable shift toward authoritarianism. And most of us buy it, though even a cursory perusal of the Congressional Record and voting logs makes it clear that attacking civil liberties has become a truly bipartisan sport. Following the money trails may help me understand why this is, but it doesn't make me want to be a part of it any more than I have to.
I would also take issue with the suggestion that Libertarians wish to take power out of the hands of the government and put it into the hands of the corporations. Far from it. Indeed, another of the primary reasons I became a Libertarian was to fight the undeniable influence of the latter on the former. Look at the Napster battle. Look at the DVD/DeCSS battle. Heck, look at the Drug War, and follow the money trails back from the most vociferous warriors in Congress to the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries, all of whom have major vested interests in keeping illicit substances illicit (even for medicinal purposes). All of this stuff tends to annoy Libertarians -- who, not coincidentally, tend to be among the strongest advocates of the kind of campaign finance reform to which *most* Republicrat politicians pay lip service and little else, since they just don't see it as being in their best interests.
Finally, there's the last major accusation which is regularly made against Libertarian/Green/Reform/Natural Law etc. voters, which is that we're "throwing our votes away." However you happen to come down on the Nader issue, I'd say that a glance at the Florida totals would demonstrate that this isn't the case. Enough Florida progressives simply couldn't vote for Gore with a clean conscience that he lost the election. It's that simple. Don't feel like playing that kind of roulette and taking a chance that you'll be helping the candidate you consider the greater of two evils? Hey, fine! Just *register* Libertarian; it'll still have an impact. Or give to the ACLU, the EFF, or other groups that fight for liberties. All I ask is that you don't judge my party until you're sure you know what we're about.
Ethan
Re:Wtf? (Score:3)
The only people that should be worried are those that have something to hide.
Ranger Rick, the Night Watch
But seriously, this whole idea is ridiculous. There is *no* reason they should need to "wire-tap" e-mail when there are other legal ways to get information from "suspected criminals". And saying that encryption is a sign of criminal activity is like arresting people who buy ski masks. Preposterous. Maybe we do need a Slashdot PAC.
1st Law Of Networking: Loose ends are bad, termination is good.
Re:Make Congress Work (Score:5)
Make the salary of a congressman equal to the average salary of the American worker, and then we'll get the right kind of people in there.
I'm afraid you've got it wrong, my friend. Congress Critters aren't paid ENOUGH to be common men, not vice-versa. Why? Well, I believe that Congress people are paid $120,000/year. What do they have to do with that? Well, first off they must maintain a residence in their home state. This isn't a cheap prospect, as likely many of them WILL keep their primary residence there (unlike Hillary...). Then, they must maintain a residence in Washington, D.C. One of the most expensive real estate markets in the whole world. Then, they have the travel costs between their two homes. Finally, tack in all the costs of just plain living (food, gas, etc.). What you have is an amount that a common man (w/o a huge pre-existing bank account) can't hope to match on a $120,000/year salary.
One story I heard involved three Representatives from some state who WERE your average American workers. They were sharing a one-bedroom apartment in Washington, as that's all they could afford.
Before you go and complain about something like this, it's useful to get the facts straight.
Re:More information (Score:2)
There is also a sexist element in AA, so its not purely based on race.
Also getting rid of the effects of it will probably take a long time. Since it causes something similar to a drug addition. Remove it and no-one is likely to trust anyone from a group of people it was used to favour until they prove themselves competant and able. In the end AA probably does a lot to hurt the people its advocates claim it is there to help.
Re:Weird take at it (Score:2)
It's also possible that the "witchfinder general" killed some real "witches" or criminals....
Catching people enguaged in treason by enguaging in high treason yourself dosn't really make much sense.
Re:You're either against pedophiles or u r 1 of th (Score:3)
> I agree, and I propose we start with yours.
Guys, while I have stopped reading Slashdot regularly a while ago and certainly don't give a hoot about Karma (after reaching 50 it looses its charms), flagging this post as Flaimbait is a joke. Did you actually read what the guy wrote: "Everything needs limits, even freedom." What kind of idiotic statement is that? So let's take the analogy further: everything needs limits, even breathing. Heck, it WAS everything after all, wasn't it?
Re:Probably not (Score:3)
Re:Illinois did something right (Score:5)
California, Colorado, Maryland, Florida, and several other states have a similar single subject requirement for legislation. The scope in each state varies; sometimes the single subject rules apply only to acts of the legislature, other times only to the acts of the people in a referendum, still other times to both.
If your state doesn't have such a rule, the Hastings School of Law [uchastings.edu] has information about making a change.
In an admittedly short search, I couldn't find any current movement to enact a federal single subject law or constitutional ammendment. I believe such a rule is necessary to avoid repeats of just such actions as those of Senator Hatch, despite what this guy [mindspring.com] has to say about it.
This sort of thing is not new; I am, frankly, surprised that there isn't more of an outcry for federal single subject rules. I guess the people who work the system for a living don't want it to change.
I just got off the phone w/my congressman's office (Score:5)
The bill passed the House on the 15th, so don't bother calling. However, a different version was passed in the Senate, which would mean that it has to get sent back (House & Senate must pass identical versions of the bill) to the House, which has already recessed. So, in order for it to get passed it would have to get reintroduced next year. We'll have to look into this next year. But there's no need to call. (It passed on the 15th)
Bill naming (Score:4)
The bill (H.R. 46), as amended, was read the third time and passed. The title was amended so as to read: To provide a national medal for public safety officers who act with extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty, to enhance computer crime enforcement and Internet security, and for other purposes.
Please read the content before commenting
Re:When are we going to wake up? (Score:3)
1. A requirement that all bills be read in their entirety on the floor by their sponsor. (Any amendment would require a re-reading of the bill as amended, to prevent evasion via obfuscatory add/delete amendments.)
1a. Only members who attend the reading can vote for the bill. (This would not limit voting against the bill....)
2. All laws expire in some reasonable period (e.g. twenty years).
Points 1 and 2 could theoretically be done by Congressional rules of procedure (only allowing votes on bills that have been read, and which include a sunset clause), but it would probably require a Constitutional amendment to make it stick the first time it became politically inconvenient.
/.
Just the encrpyt bit (Score:4)
Makes you wanna Ralph, more than ever!
Protect the people? (Score:4)
I realize that sounds harsh, but I also realize that it is true. People have been programmed to believe that it is very, very important for the government (and the big businesses that are actually in charge of the government) to protect them from themselves and their neighbors. Personally that makes me sick. But there are so many people that actually believe in this sort of thinking that it is really difficult to get anyone to listen to you if you believe that freedom is more important than protection.
I realize that there is a fine line that must be balanced upon between freedom and protection in any well-run society, but lately it seems that the balance has swung completely over to the side of protection. No common sense is applied. No one cares about freedom. In fact, I've even seen arguments along the lines of, "What about my freedom to be sure that my child will never have to see a pornographic picture?" That isn't freedom you are asking for. You are asking for society to be in charge of raising your child.
I'm sorry if people see this as a fameish rant, but it is high time that people get interested in themselves again. You cannot expect to live a sheltered existence and still have freedom. You can have one or the other. And while the adults of this world were raised during the "enlightened child-rearing" age, when kids were taught that mommy and daddy would filter and sanitize all things for them, we must, at some point, convince those very adults that it is very important to make sure that you learn how to "filter" things for yourself.
As an example, I came from such a family. My parents believed (still believe, even at 27 years old with my own wife and family) that they could filter and sanitize the world as it came to me. I quickly learned that the world is not as safe a place as they wanted me to believe. And I managed, by fighting against the controlling instincts of my parents, to develop the ability to ignore things that were "bad" for me. I've never been drunk, I've never had the urge to smoke, I've never tried drugs, and the worst habit I have is playing guitar loudly. I managed to survive all the peer pressure, advertising campaigns and all the other garbage that goes on as a kid and not succumb to the "evils of the world". I developed my own mind, and learned to make my own decisions. But today that is considered bad. It is far more important to be told how to decide things by parents, teachers and eventually (once you outgrow those) the government and business where you work. It is a sad reality, and one that I hope reverses at some point.
This "tack a 'little' rule on a bill and hope it passes" garbage is something that isn't necissary. It was developed as a way to pass unsavory things by attaching them to more wanted things and has survived unchanged for a long time. Why we allow it is beyond me. I know the excuses that are given (it costs us less money and all that garbage), but shouldn't things be wieghed on their own merits? Why should we have to decided something purely on the basis of whether it is "attached" to something more important? This is what our government and the businesses that run our government want us to believe. Doesn't it seem ridiculous?
Imagine going to an interview and being told, "We can hire you, but only if you are willing to leave your wife, move out of your house, and live in a cardboard box". While this is an extreme example, you would have to decide between taking that job and losing everything else, or losing that job opportunity and keeping everything else. These are the sorts of ridiculous decisions that get made day in and day out by our congress. It just doesn't make sense. Line item veto you say? Line items shouldn't exists at all. It should be one item is one item, period. Otherwise it's just an excuse to pass more legislation that opresses the "idiot masses". The sad thing is, there are enough people that want to be oppressed now, in the name of protection, that we probably won't see it change. God, what a mess. I pray that someone finds a way to do something.
Secret message for Orrin (Score:3)
Version: 5.5.3a
qTDKKD/773DLpla/98RTsUdd/3k5lsON39/66DAda
ieu93ERKSL34k/KoqcxCxKISS839DKd8Dk7LALd/K
kdla/a95alkDIkdKetUksMYdaclkaaeie93/3K2Kk
qTDKKD/773DLpla/98RTsASSi/4k5lllseETOON39
ieu93ERKSL34k/KoqcxCxMRKE839DKd8Dk7LALd/K
kdla/a95alkDIkdKetUksHATCHlkaaeie93/3K2Kk
qTDKKD/773DLpla/98RTs5lllseETOON39/66Da89
ieu93ERKSL34k/KoqcxCxCMKE839LALd/K3j93la3
kdla/a95alkDIkdKetUkslKdaclkaaeie93ladueq
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
Re:When are we going to wake up? (Score:3)
We already have that, plus the added requirement that 3/4 of the states ratify such a "law." It is called amending the constitution, which, as any law which "stomps on our constitution" must, be definition, be a constitutional amendment, is a pretty good safeguard.
The problem is that congress and the president (irrespective of party affiliation), and increasingly the courts as well, play it very fast and loose with the constitution and even ignore it altogether when public opinion is sufficiently strong (currently forfeiture laws wrt the war on drugs, free speech wrt child pornography, historically upholding segregation for decades, etc. etc.)
What we need is for a government which actually adheres to the constitution. However, a very useful stopgap would be a measure/amendment requiring riders to be directly related to the bill's main subject.
Re:More information (Score:3)
> Yeah, why would anyone expect you to read other points of view. That's preposterous! God forbid you be open minded! Have you ever actually read the National Review, or are you just not reading it because liberalism tells you that it's bad?
Amen, limejuice.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the article's appearance in NR makes this bill an even bigger red flag.
Traditionally (yeah, I'm stereotyping, sue me :-) liberals are expected to raise a stink over stuff like this, and conservatives aren't.
When something comes out that makes even conserviatives quake in their boots, it's a sign that more evil than normal is oozing down from Capitol Hill.
IMHO - H.R. 46 is the "other shoe" we've been waiting to see drop in the Carnivore saga. For everyone who's ever said "You're paranoid, FBI won't do $EVIL_THING, because that'd be illegal" -- well, H.R. 46 basically makes it legal.
The riders attached to H.R. 46 are evil, pure evil. And they're the kind of evil that doesn't care if you're liberal or conservative.
To the original flamer - as limejuice suggested, don't let the fact that the article appeared on a conservative web site blind you to the reality of what H.R. 46 contained.
Re:More information (Score:3)
Don't do that when I have a mouthful of coffee. You're just lucky my cat doesn't do laps.
/.