Do You Know Where Your Privacy Is? 184
blankmange writes "CNET is reporting coverage of the Computers Freedom and Privacy Conference, being held in San Francisco this week. 'The conference, normally a forum for digerati to pose a series of frightening "what if" scenarios, has morphed into an event where participants' worst surveillance nightmares may be poised to come true following the terrorist attacks.' Sounds like we may want to listen for any definitive solutions that come from this conference."
patriot act (Score:2, Interesting)
another law do to mass hysteria and paranoia
Re:patriot act (Score:1, Insightful)
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America or the various ammendments does it state that Privacy is a guaranteed right. However, the Second Ammendment to the United States Constitution as specified in the Bill Of Rights states that the right to bear arms will not be infringed upon.
If you were truely concerned about "rights," you would be just as insulted by "gun control" legislation that denies honest citizens their rights under Ammendment II. Instead, you guys are up in arms simply because you're afraid that the Government is going to stop your MP3 downloads and cut off your access to piracy sites.
Hypocrisy [dictionary.com] - You all profess to be above all others and support people's rights... unless you don't like those rights. To hell with the fact that they're guaranteed...
After all, some rights are more equal than others.
Re: right to carry firearms (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm always been an advocate of preserving the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to keep and bear firearms!
What's sad is that the framers of the Constitution didn't have the ability to envision today's society with gigantic computer databases capable of data-mining. Nor did they forsee parabolic microphones that can eavesdrop on conversations from hundreds of feet away, infra-red cameras that let you see past walls and curtains, and many other things. If they lived in this world, I think you'd see a pronounced right to privacy in there too.
Anyway, the right for individual citizens to own and carry firearms was a key piece of the "freedom" puzzle back then, and still is today. The bottom line is, without this right, citizens will always be forced to bow down to government that still has ready access to these instruments controlling immediate "life or death".
The gun control advocates are looking at the "big picture" with tunnel vision. They see killing (and accidental death) as a bad thing which clearly gets lessened if you take away citizens access to firearms. I don't really have an argument with that. It's just a question of values. Do we strive for freedom and liberty, or do we strive for control and safety? It's pretty easy to design a safe world, at the expense of almost all individual rights. But sorry pal, that's not the world I want to live in!
Re:patriot act (Score:2)
That is fucking bullshit.
It's a strange day that most people don't even see the meaning in "show me your papers or else."
What a sad state of afairs.
I just preregistered bombthe.us, I wonder how long it will be before the fbi threatens me.
Not at 64k feet (Score:2)
National ID cards (Score:5, Interesting)
A national ID would not prevent terrorism. An identity card is only as good as the information that establishes identity in the first place. Terrorists and criminals will continue to be able to obtain -- by legal and illegal means -- the documents needed to get a government ID, such as birth certificates and social security numbers. A national ID would create a false sense of security because it would enable individuals with an ID -- who may in fact be terrorists -- to avoid heightened security measures.
A national ID would depend on a massive bureaucracy that would limit our basic freedoms. A national ID system would depend on both the issuance of an ID card and the integration of huge amounts of personal information included in state and federal government databases. One employee mistake, an underlying database error or common fraud could take away an individual's ability to move freely from place to place or even make them unemployable until the government fixed their "file."
A national ID could require all Americans to carry an internal passport at all times, compromising our privacy, limiting our freedom, and exposing us to unfair discrimination based on national origin or religion. A national ID would foster new forms of discrimination and harassment. The ID could be used to stop, question, or challenge anyone perceived as looking or sounding "foreign" or individuals of certain religious affiliations.
By the way you can send a free fax to your congressmen opposing the national ID at the aclu's website at:
http://www.aclu.org/action/id107.html
I say we do everything possible to run their faxes outta toner.
Re:National ID cards (Score:1)
Re:National ID cards (Score:5, Insightful)
Identity cards may prove identity. What we need to know about is behaviour. Identity tells you nothing about behaviour.
If you take the idiotically simplistic notion that people are either "good" or "evil-doers", then you make behaviour some timeless abstract "inate" feature of identity. Based on that premise then, identity is useful because it allows you to separate evil-doers from do-gooders.
In the real world however, behaviour (good or evil) depends on environment, past history and future circumstances and opportunity. It also changes. A do-gooder today can become an evil-doer tomorrow (say, if an innocent relative of theirs is killed by a "smart bomb"). It is even possible (gasp) for an evil-doer to become a do-gooder (blatantly optimistic tree-hugging belief in "rehabilitation"?).
Case in point: Richard "Explosive Sneakers" Reid, had a past history (the only element an identity can point to) that was totally clean. His identity was never doubted, his past history contained no violence or terrorism. They knew who he was, they just didn't know what he was about to do. Unless you assume that behaviour such as belonging to a mosque or being a muslim, makes you a potential "evil-doer" (we generally refer to that kind of association as "prejudice", or sometimes "racism"), then identity is useless.
In the larger context therefore, establishing identity, at a time when mind-reading and behaviour-guessing is impossible, is simply a different way of enabling "prejudice". Prejudice, meaning literally, pre-judging someone on past behaviour.
Obviously, in some very limited cases, identity provides knowledge about highly relevant past criminal activity. For those cases, identity would be useful, although it can be "fooled" as described by the ACLU. Unfortunatelly though, this whole argument is trying to push identity using the narrow case, in order to pursue or enable the broader prejudicial, racist, discriminatory policy which is characteristic of the anti-Arab backlash after the attacks. Hating "them" is just as narrow minded as "them" hating "us".
Re:National ID cards (Score:2, Insightful)
True, but societies view of "Once a criminal always a criminal" insures second hand status. After all this is the only legal form of discrimination, even 20 years after the fact of the supidity on an 18 year old.
Now that the government wants to be omnipotent, I fear this sort of thing is going to get much worse and much more common.
Re: Tracking behavior is a dangerous game.... (Score:2)
Government already attempts to database individual behavior, largely with disasterous consequences!
Case in point:
My wife and I just had our first kid (a baby girl). Before we even got out of the hospital, we got a visit from the "Dept. of Social Services". The lady acted friendly enough, but both of us were rather confused as to why she was visiting us. She started asking a number of questions, starting out with where I worked, and proceeded to psycho-analyze my wife, followed by signing us up (despite our protests) to have a nurse come check on our daughter every week for the first year or two.
Only when we got a chance to look at a copy of the notes she jotted down (she accidently left them in our room) did we realize what was going on. When my wife was 15 years old, she tried to commit suicide. After that, one psychologist she went to was convinced she was mentally unstable and made notes to that effect in her medical records. (Other psychologists refuted that claim, and said she was simply a normal but upset teenager.) Apparently, the state automatically gets social services involved when they see someone "marked" in this way is having a baby.
Considering she's almost 30 years old now (as am I), this is insanity. I, too, had a difficult time growing up and often thought about suicide. So what? Am I unfit to be a parent now because of it? I dare say I'm better equipped to handle it if my child grows up having similar thoughts and problems!
I would think.. (Score:3, Interesting)
That is quite alarming.. Microsoft are not renowned for having 'the best interest of the consumer at heart' - how long till you start getting bombarded with junk mail and trial CD's for MSN, or the latest version of Windows because of your National ID? Scary..
Re:I would think.. (Score:1)
Re:I would think.. (Score:1)
The funniest thing is that, even though I have a cable modem, relatives keep handing these AOL CD's that they get, asking me "if they are any use..."
"Sure! I need a new coaster for my coffee mug!"
Re:I would think.. (Score:1)
(it is noteworthy that Microsoft is the only one with something concrete)
Re:I would think.. (Score:2, Informative)
"The Seattle Times is reporting that Mark Forman, associate director of information technology at the White House (or 'America's CIO', as he bills himself) has said the feds are considering the use of Microsoft's Passport technology to ID every citizen and every business seeking access to government services online."
Besides those doing taxes online, this pertains to a remarkably few individuals.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with some fabled Microsoft National ID Card. You really should read things more carefully before launching paranoid rants based on a limited understanding of the topic at hand.
Re:I would think.. (Score:1)
Re:I would think.. (Score:2)
Just because the only current use of government services online is people taking advantage of the IRS offering online tax submition does, in no way, mean that this will continue to be the only thing the government offers online.
Re:I would think.. (Score:1)
Or the best security, either.
Oh, right, they took a class and fixed that...
Dept. correction (Score:1)
WHAT PRIVACY??? (Score:5, Insightful)
And this was before 9/11! What privacy do you have to save? These people are just engaging in mental masturbation, there is no privacy, the point is moot.
Re:WHAT PRIVACY??? (Score:1)
Re:WHAT PRIVACY??? (Score:3, Interesting)
So what is your point - I need to move into a cave and hunt for my dinner to get my privacy back? I'm talking about living in the real world, which is pretty much next to intolerable if you don't have a credit card or use your SSN as ID where people would like you to.
I'll stick to my original point - in real society you already have no privacy.
Re:WHAT PRIVACY??? (Score:2)
Now think about applying this scenario to your "rights" and your "privacy." Why not protect them? Why, for the same reason you lock your house!
Re:WHAT PRIVACY??? (Score:1)
But the point here is this - locking your house does not restrict your own freedoms, and does not invite discrimination based on your identity or profiling.
Re:WHAT PRIVACY??? (Score:2)
My point was that one needs to protect one's own privacy, even though Robert S. Mueller and his boys at the FBI could roll over you darn quick, it is the punks [wired.com] and opportunists [msnbc.com] that we need to keep at bay...and there are so many of 'em.
Re:WHAT PRIVACY??? (Score:2)
Only ONE credit card? (Score:2)
Some pay cash sometimes, credit card other times.
There is enough variability to make invasive data mining difficult at best.
A lot of myprivacy comes from my neighbors' unpredictability.
Re:Only ONE credit card? (Score:2)
Re:WHAT PRIVACY??? I think I'll enjoy a FALAFEL WR (Score:1)
Monitoring won't help... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Monitoring won't help... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't bet on them ALL being adaptable enough to switch communications systems that rapidly, or being shrewd enough to even try.
Re:Monitoring won't help... (Score:1)
Re:Monitoring won't help... (Score:1)
Remeber Kids - Political Problems, Political Solut (Score:3)
Privacy needs to be made a right, and we need to push back against being stripped of our rights at political levels: no amount of encryption in the world can stop you going to jail for using it.
Support GeekPAC - the beginnings of our voice in Washington [google.com].
I know where my privacy is.... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Actually, I probably don't want to let anyone know that while I'm in San Fransisco. They might ask to see it.
Mmmmm Pork (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank God.
Throw some of that pork my way. I'm tired of the current job market.
.
What's a 'privacy'? (Score:2)
I know where my privacy is... (Score:5, Funny)
Do I Know? Yes! (Score:2)
My privacy is right here, close at hand, safely put away in
~/.mozilla/default/3i7x8mr8.slt/cookies.txt
Preaching to the choir ... (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said, the problem with even the naming of the "Patriot Act" is that I consider myself a patriot to the United States, however I do NOT like the implications of this legislation. However, to speak out against it, the sheeple (those who don't know/care about the issues being raised) are feed the line that if you don't agree with this act, then you must be a terrorist.
Ok ... so if I'm forced to go along with it, at what point do we have to say NO MORE? By the time that we get some prominent voices logically explaining the situation to the masses, it will be too late. In Micro$oft we're forced to trust. We opted you in for your own good.
One problem is that if I attempt to start encrypting my email (to preserve my freedoms), two things would happen. One, I would have a really tough time convincing my Non-Technical friends to do the same, so we could carry on conversations. And two, I would be branded a terrorist, since I'm not following the herd.
This isn't the only thing to do, however it's a fairly easy concept to get across.
IF, and that is a big if, there was a large enough group together (in philosophy), we maybe able to stop this runaway train before it's too late.
Another problem with this whole area of legislation, is ... Who monitors the monitors? (to quote Enemy of the State).
Obviously, carnivore and it's brethern IS being used for survallance, but who is making sure that it's being used for good? Likewise, who would make sure that our MS Passports aren't hacked into? The CIA/NSA/FBI should be able to be trusted, but are they trustworthy? Microsoft ... well we all know where Microsoft stands in this matter.
I know that this is preaching to the choir ... just some points that I believe ...
Re:Preaching to the choir ... (Score:2)
You need a strong, independent (in the sense that the rest of the government does not pressure them) judiciary willing and capable of imposing severe penalties for corruption and abuse of power. Any government power can be abused, just about -- everything from a spiteful postman stealing your time-critical mail to an IRS insider facilitating the bogus "slavery reparations deduction" on people's tax returns to police shooting unarmed suspects and planting guns.
It's impossible to prevent governmental abuses unless it has NO power, in which case it might as well not exist. Even if you do in-depth psychological profiles and intrusively monitor their (the gov't workers) every action, somebody will try to abuse it.
When it comes to intelligence gathering, you'd likely need to have a strong internal auditing section dedicated to rooting out abuses or corruption, plus protection for whistleblowers. In addition, you'd need judges who pay attention to anything that's entered in as evidence, at least as to whether or not it was legally gathered...
Re:Preaching to the choir ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah ... you appear to be proving my point ... to a degree ...
In the case of police, it is very public. Even the local news ususally has information about it. Whatever else can be obtained by the Freedom of Information Act.
Now, we get into the hidden and very closed side of "homeland security". If there is an abuse of power with carnivore or another of its ilk, then who notices? If there is an internal "investigation", who notices? What if it encouraged to find traitors to the US (by any means possible)? What is not said may be loud and clear.
The biggest problem is that they are not publicly accessible, since it's for our good. And due to the "Patriot Act", if you question us and our motives, you must be a terrorist. The sheeple will roll over and accept this.
Now obviously, I'm questioning the policies that we currently have. I am still 100% behind the US, and I still think that it's a great place to live.
Re:Preaching to the choir ... (Score:2)
Much like how the intelligence establishment has abused its powers before and to this day, of course. For instance, the whole "sell arms to Iran for cash to redirect to the Contras" bit was quite illegal...
But for obvious reasons, opening up the whole list of intelligence activities to, say, public scrutiny, is not the brightest thing to do. A wiretap is most likely pointless if you alert the victim that when and where you're going to start tapping; even tipping a subject off that he IS a subject can bollix up an investigation. Hence, either such methods are not used at all, or they are used in secret.
If they are forgone, then logically existing wiretapping powers should be discarded as well, since they have the same issues. However, if you don't trust an intelligence establishment at all, you might as well completely emasculate it; no SIGINT capabilities of any kind, leaving largely HUMINT, parsing of public newsfeeds, and aerial recon. HUMINT may not work that well when dealing with homogeneous, fanatical organizations, in contrast to more mercenary types...
Re:Preaching to the choir ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't the whole point of the USA the fact that I shouldn't HAVE to worry about stuff like that?
I know where my privacy is! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I know where my privacy is! (Score:1)
Our Founding Fathers were Gun Nuts! (Score:2)
(Preamble)A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, (Law) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The part of "law" in the 2nd Amendment is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". If this was not true, the 2nd would have been worded to "A well regulated milities is necessary to the security of a free state thus citizens have the right to keep and bear arms if they are a part of that militia". Our founders did not state the 2nd in that manner. The militia section was the reasoning why *all* citizens have the right to bear arms.
Also, the United States of America was funded by pot growing, gun nuts. If they didn't have the guns, they would have never been able to get the English off their collective backs.
dumb typo (Score:1)
Re:Our Founding Fathers were Gun Nuts! (Score:1)
however, just as the 1st is limited, i think the 2nd should be as well.
my 2c, and sorry for calling you a gun nut.
Re:Our Founding Fathers were Gun Nuts! (Score:2)
With your mentality about "the people", then only "the state" would have freedom of the press, the right against being search and the right against self incrimination. Your definition of "the people" is straight out of Marxism and not a Representative Republic. A Representative Republic deals with the population as individuals and Marxism deals with people as a group.
Also, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
Re:Our Founding Fathers were Gun Nuts! (Score:2)
If you were right, that would certainly be very convenient for the government. Want to search someone's house? Fine, he's an individual, not "the people", so no warrant is needed.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the phrase "the people" as written in the various Amendments DOES refer to individuals.
Re:I know where my privacy is! (Score:2)
What, do you want rich states to leave annex themselves out of the country if they choose to? No. I don't think many would want states to have unlimited power.
Stupid example:
If the US made Microsoft breakup, Washington state would potentially loose tons of workers and their economy could go to hell awfully quick. To block the breakup, Washington breaks the union and becomes a seperate nation. Then Washington implements the I-LOVE-MICROSOFT law making it illegal to dis microsoft and especially bill gate. Prison terms for repeat offenders.. I am serving a life sentence.
Re:I know where my privacy is! (Score:1)
I see. They're just here to be tools of the Federal Government. While you're at it, why not just ship whats left of the Berlin wall over here. We need to stop the rich from taking themselves and their money out-of-the-country. They might get away!
Re:I know where my privacy is! (Score:2)
If they wish and their population agrees to it through their state legislature. There is nothing illegal about that. Freedom means being able to break away from a governmental system that violates a population's desire. As for unlimited power, each state has its own Constitution that limits their power over the citizens. The Federal Constitution was not adopted to protect the Government from the People but the People from the Government.
I personally would like to see California leave the Union. :P
Re:I know where my privacy is! (Score:1)
so much for the ol' civil war...
Re:I know where my privacy is! (Score:2)
"difinitive solutions" (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I doubt any "difinitive solutions" will come from this conference. I have never known any solutions to come from any conference of this type. Ideas perhaps, new discussions started, new alliances and enmities forged. But not solutions.
Privacy has always been and will always be shaped by three opposing forces: freedom, convenience, and safety. It's the job of the citizenry to ensure that these forces remain in relative balance and that none is given undue weight.
Too much emphasis on freedom, perhaps you are inconvenienced and perhaps your safety is compromised (wild west). Too much emphasis on convenience, and perhaps your safety and freedom are compromised to provide that convenience. Too much emphasis on safety, and certainly your freedom and comfort will be sacrificed somewhat to keep you absolutely safe.
So, are monitoring technologies in the hands of law enforcement going to abolish our freedoms and privacy? Not if we temper their use, as we have done with everything from personal search to wiretapping.
I'm not particularly worried, but I am certainly glad that there are people who are, for they are the ones maintaining that delicate balance that keeps those forces in opposition.
Way back in the day... (Score:2)
Hmmm (Score:2)
Well, I had it a minute ago...maybe I dropped it on the bus?
Yes I Know... (Score:1, Funny)
Serious question to Slashdotters (Score:2, Interesting)
Would it be possible to trade privacy for guaranteed freedoms? Such a thing might require a constitutional amendment, but hypothetically, suppose in exchange for your privacy you were given certain guarantees.
What limits would you place on the use of the information?
Of course, for many, privacy maybe a way to limit embarassment over certain things. Suppose EVERTHING were out-in-the-open. Would certain socially embarassing things become more acceptable? Would this give everyone a truer picture of human behavior?
Re:Serious question to Slashdotters (Score:2)
An interesting thought. I've often thought that if everything were public, there would simply be so much noise that signal would be indistinguishable from the noise, even if you knew what you were looking for and where to look for it.
Is privacy a right? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it is. Every other legitimate right that I am aware of hinges upon the ownership of property, including the ownership of the self. Do I own the information that pertains to me? Do I own Spamcentral's database entry that lists my email address? Do I own Megamart's correlations into my shopping habits? I don't think so.
Privacy is one of those things, like reputation, that one has to protect through other mechanisms than legal rights. Rule one: if you don't want people to know your email address, don't send email. Rule two: if you don't want Safeway to know your shopping habits, don't use your Safeway card. Rule three: if you don't want the government to know your travel destinations, don't take an airplane. It's damn inconvenient, but the fact remains that once you place your personal information into the public's domain, it becomes public domain.
Privacy is what you make of it.
The government should have no right to search your luggage at airports, because that luggage is your property. But the only thing stopping them from tracking your movements is propriety and decency, two traits which have been lacking in every government since Hammurabi's.
p.s. I find it somewhat ironic that the same community that argues that information should be free is the same community that screams the loudest when their personal information gets traded on the open market.
Re:Is privacy a right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Second- there's a difference between putting information into the public domain and being forced to put it in to the public domain. It's the same difference between GPLing software and having the justice department force microsoft to open source its products.
Third- There is a legal precident for some privacy. Take anti-stalking laws. Take the fact that you own your home and can let people in, but aren't required to let anyone in who knocks. People can trade my e-mail all they want till they're blue in the face. I just want laws about who can use it, the same way there are laws about who I let into my house. If it's illegal to knock down a server with a DoS attack, there can be spam laws. Likewise, the supreme court recognized ( was it in Roe v. Wade? I don't remember) that a right to privacy was implied in the constitution because privacy was nessecary in order for the other components to be upheld.
If a person's personal information is used to harrass them with things like spam, then that should be illegal in the same way that I can't choose to harrass someone I don't like by calling them repeatedly.
Re:Is privacy a right? (Score:2)
I don't think it is.
I'll give you that on ONE condition... that is it bilateral. If the government can know everything about me, then I want to be able to know everything about the government. Not just all the "secret" information about UFO's or whatever. I mean ALL the information, like, for eaxmple, which guy in line is going to be searched next, and why. I want to know what police do on thier days off, I want to hear the conversations Powell is having with Isreal, and I want to be able to read the credit card habits of the congressmen online. If they want me to give up my privacy, they had better be willing to give me all of thiers in return.
Re:Is privacy a right? (Score:2)
The government should have no power to invade your property to aquire your secrets. Nor should they engage in any sort of fraud. If a government form says they will keep your information secret, then they had better do so.
As for government secrets, I don't believe they should have any. Simply because you as a citizen are a member of government.
Re:Is privacy a right? (Score:2)
No, information WANTS to be free. "Wants" not "should". The difference is very big. Water "wants" to go down hill. This is physics at work, it is unchangeable. Whether or not it "should" is a matter of opinion.
Related News (Score:2)
A major step forward in online privacy, P3P, was recently made a recommendation by the W3C.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Fact is bills like this have always been going around, but now, as a result of the attacks, some of these bills are getting past. The actual propositions were not a result of the attacks.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah boycott the boycott of the boycott of the Great Slashdot Blackout.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is that we have identified our vulnerabilities (a huge one of which is illegal immigrants) but refuse to confront them out of fear of the PC crowd. Toss out everyone who is here illegally, and we wouldn't have need of this crackpot National ID card.
I know I'll probably be modded down for this, even though fundamentally I wholeheartedly disagree with a National ID card, but it has to be said by someone.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Ashcroft decided to clean house at some major airports, including SLC, before the Winter Games. Quite a few illegal immigrants were detained, arrested, and (of course) fired for having false info about their citizenship.
Fine, you say. They broke the law. They should be punished.
In theory, that's fine. However, I believe this was Ashcroft grand-standing, rather than for anyone's safety. It was selective. Did they clean out any illegal immigrants from the many downtown hotels? Hell no -- the hotel industry in SLC would shut down if they did that. (I'm sure this is the case in many cities.) Even the airport allegedly turned a blind eye (some allege they even helped with the paperwork) when the illegals were filling out the forms, so they could get cheap labor.
So Ashcroft ruined many lives here in SLC (those of the airport workers and the families they supported), because it looked good to the press. They didn't go after all the illegal immigrants because it would hurt big business during an especially profitable time.
If all laws were enforced 100% and without bias, then I'm all for 'em. However, as long as pricks like Ashcroft run the show, our laws should be left alone and not made even more broad in the name of "security".
I'm happily willing to live life knowing that I might be the victim of a random terrorist attack if it means that I can retain what's left of my remaining privacy and freedom. If I had to choose between a life of 100% certainty of safety in which I had to give up my right to own/carry a gun and have my purchases/travel/etc/opinions tracked or a life with a n% certainty of safety (where n < 100 -- even below 50%) but with my freedoms, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2)
Plus you say throw out all those who are here illegally, well duh! How do you do that? You make an infoulable way to tell the legitimacy of the carrier's identity.
I am not disagreeing with your conclusions, just the logic you used to get their.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2)
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
America needs to start setting an example by cleaning up and solving its own problems, instead of the grandstanding and righteousness.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, there was a time when there was no illegal immigration - everybody was welcome. Personally, I find that the right to travel wherever my feet take me is indeed an essential liberty, and I'm sure the Framers thought likewise. But it would seem that those who prefer a false sense of security to God-given freedoms followed the patriots to America and set up shop.
People have used that phrase to justify alot, and frankly, I'm not buying it this time either.
Justify what? The granting of freedoms? Actually, the only time that phrase gets mentioned is when people attempt to take away liberties we already have. What are you talking about, exactly?
Toss out everyone who is here illegally, and we wouldn't have need of this crackpot National ID card.
Riiight...it's those damn furriners who are causing all the trouble. Except, of course, for Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, the KKK, etc. PC has nothing to do with it, pal - the problem is we live in a free society, and that scares people who can't deal with the responsibilities of freedom. Illegal immigrants aren't the problem - criminals exploiting the vulnerabilities inherent in a free society are the problem. And you solve the problem by going after the criminals, not by locking down the free society, be it through immigration or national ID cards. Your 'solution' is not only too simple-minded, but further imposes restrictions of freedom in an increasingly oppressive society.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2, Informative)
In the Toronto Star today there was a large story in the A section about a Canadian citizen living illegally in the States being held for months by the FBI, with out being told why, in solitary confinement 23.5 hours a day, with out being allowed to talk to a lawyer, a doctor, the embassy or any family members. He was beaten by the FBI in questioning sessions. He was mislead in to signing a wavier that rejected help from the Canadian Embassy, being told that they would deport him as soon as he signed it. That was a lie. He was sent to Canada on an airplane in the past few days, with only his prison issue clothes. All of his money and ID was kept by the FBI. He is now broke and has no place to live.
This sounds more like Nazi Germany or Maoist China than the US.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2)
I would agree, and I'll have to go look up the article. For God's sake, I hope it's a mistake, but the way the DOJ is run now, I'm afraid it might not be. Whatever the case, that guy's civil rights were violated, and there's no excuse for that. This is where the "we'll do anything to stop the terrorists" argument comes all-the-way apart.
God I hope you're lying.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2)
And as far as I'm concerned, we have a couple hundred thousand criminals here who have no business being here. If you don't like our laws and find them oppressive, I suggest you either find a way to change them or leave.
Remember, they're only criminals because we make 'em out that way now. A hundred years ago, they weren't 'criminals' - they were 'New Americans'. And I wonder if all the shit that goes down isn't a result of our inability (or rather, your inability) to cope with new people, and the ideas they bring with them. Just a thought.
And as for finding a way to change laws - well, they'd have to become legalized citizens to vote and do that. But have you looked at how tough it is to get naturalized nowadays? It's not just memorize the Pledge of Allegiance and sign a few forms - it's a difficult, nasty, brutish process that favors wealthy people with the means to process all the paperwork and support themselves in the meantime. "Illegal" immigrants are those who can't support their family for a year-and-a-half (which is about what it takes) while waiting for the clodhoppers at INS to pull their thumbs out and do their job. And because they prefer working for shit wages (usually less than minimum wage, because hey, they're illegal - who will they complain to?) to whatever hellhole country they just left, they do it, and become 'criminals' in the mind of half-witted retards such as yourself.
Think about that - these people think that America is so great that they're willing to come over, earn half of nothing and get treated like less-than-human slime from some uppity asshole. Not because they're dumb, but because in spite of all the shit these immigrants have to put up with, it's still better than wherever they came from. That should make you proud that the U.S. is doing something right - torturing Canadians notwithstanding.
On the positive side, I got enough +1 mods to put me at the karma cap for dusting your sorry arguments off, so thanks! And next time, you'll get more respect (and less flamage) if you'll find your balls and post under your real name, ok?
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:1)
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
On behalf of all those who have been reading Slashdot for more than 2 hours - shut the fsck up. It's been said time after time after time, and it's *still* used incorrectly.
As the poster said, I'd be perfectly willing to give up some privacy if it would increase security. The amount of privacy I'd be willing to give up wouldn't even border on an "essential" liberty, but I'd be willing to give up some. The safety I'd have to receive would have to be a permanent reduction in terrorists attacks that could hurt me. The proof that the reduction in attacks was linked to the giving up of said privacy would have to be backed by well-conducted research. Therefore I am neither giving up an essential liberty, nor accepting temporary safety.
Hell, according to Mr Franklin, I could give up an essential liberty like freedom of speech if it were to give me some *permanent* safety, or I could give up hundreds of "non-essential" liberties for a permanent increase in safety from accidentally falling out of a window. While the adage works well in many situations, please don't use your post-bot to toss it into any YRO discussion.
</rant>
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So you are willing to give up your privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
If somebody has attacked the basis of your community, and now it must be changed for defense - It's sad, but this is some strange kind of victory.
I am sorry for the trauma Americans are living with. It makes them do strange, cruel and even some stupid things from my point of view. Giving up privacy is such a thing.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
With each week passing the powers that be seem to be pushing for small, yet significant, reductions in privacy in the name of preventing future terrorist attacks.
While obviously the Sept. 11 attacks were horrific, and I truly feel for the families who were involved, the long term consequences of a continued, gradual loss of our basic rights is something far, far worse.
It seems to me Bush, Blair and co. are jumping on the bandwagon and using Sept 11 as leverage to push through new laws and changes to already exisiting privacy acts.
Fair enough, it may mean a reduction in another (as grand a scale) attack succeeding - but at what cost?
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
The second question, although I think I know the answer is how do these laws continue to get passed. It's almost as if we (in the US) don't really have the power to influence our government. Things get passed and there's nothing we can do. You can blame apathy, but does that really work? The voice of the irritated minority gets louder when most people are apathetic. Mob mentality? What?
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
While your naïvete is touching, it worries me that you could think it to be true.
Look at a half-century of wiretaps. They were supposed to prevent terrorism too. They were never used against terrorists. In fact, they were only used against serious criminals around 2% of the time.
Wiretaps were used in the phoney "war on drugs", they were used to spy on opposition politicians, they were used to spy on civil rights campaigners.
Yes, these new powers will weasel their way in by convincing an ignorant public that (a) they stand a chance of working, (b) that they were even designed to stop terrorism, (c) that they won't be abused, and (d) that they'll be used to target terrorists.
Right. I've invented a new form of clue-stick, and it consists of a slashdot-connected webcam in the bedroom of everyone who thinks ubiquitous surveillance is a good idea. "It's the price of preventing terrorist attacks" you can tell the wife.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2, Interesting)
At any rate, I strongly disagree with the notion that a national ID will stop terrorist attacks. The attackers already had false state and other IDs of various natures.
What I think a nation ID could do.. is make life a whole lot easier and more convenient for people. A national driver's license.. That would be nice, no more out of state bars/officers/people taking your checks gawking at your state DL, attempting to decipher whether or not it's real.
A passport. No more fumbling around for yet another document while travelling.
An easy way to prove identity when attempting to get hired. It beats carrying around unneccesary extranneous documents.
At any rate, would we be giving up our privacy with a national ID? I think not. We must, of course, realize the fact that it can't be mandatory. Right now, there are people over the age of (insert your state's legal driving age) who don't have driver's licenses. People without social security cards (and/or numbers).
If it wasn't mandatory, I'd go for it. It'd be quite convenient. And, frankly, I wouldn't be giving up any more privacy than I already am. Do you shop online? If you use a credit card, they're seeing where you shop. You can bet your arse that they look at that for direct advertising as well. Use a discount card at Wegman's/Food Lion/What have you? You can bet they're seeing what's most popular and adjusting sales accordingly.
Fill out information for an account with a public forum on the internet? Surf with cookies enabled?
The fact is, the current hype about privacy is FUD. Nothing but. We already give up so much of our supposed privacy, that it isn't funny.
..And I'd trust the government more with information about me than I would a corporation.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy? (Score:1)
I think [slashdot.org] you will have to spell that with a capital "P" [passport.com] soon.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2)
Also - when we (well, I) talk about privacy from the government, it's not that I don't want the data existing - I simply don't want anyone (except me) to have trivial access to it, and I want to be able to see it and know who knows what about me. Currently, your own personal information is protected as IP by the companies who "own" it - essentially, YOU don't get privacy, but they do. Thats wrong, and the UK laws on this make alot more sense.
Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
mean is "I am willing to force everyone
else to give up their privacy too",
isn't it?
Re:You have no privacy (Score:1)
I thought it was a joke and kept reading.
People are wiping their asses with spatulas!
Not a pretty picture.
.
Re:First post (Score:1, Flamebait)
You take away the second, who is going to be able to defend against the "political correctness" of the Nazi's and Communists and all other forms of totalitarian governments. Maybe you like the current "political correctness" movement, but in time that will disappear, and be replace by a political correctness like Nazi Germany or Communist China. Then again, maybe that is the type of government you would enjoy.
THE ONLY reason this country is one, (a country) is because of the second ammendment. You see, when they can take away your right to defend yourself, you will not be able to defend yourself against ANY brute whether it be state sponsored or just the mugger grabbing your purse.
It is ignorant people like yourself that endanger everyone in this country. If you hate Guns so bad, why don't you move to a country that doesn't have any, like China, or England?
I am sure though that fact really don't matter in an idealogical debate, they rarely do, but in every case were guns were outright banned, totalitarians were right there to take over. Not that it matters to you, you don't want to be confused with facts, you have already made up your mind.
Re:First post (Score:1)
How many members of NRA will be able to withstand a well-trained special ops team with helicopters and tanks and all the wonders of the cutting edge technology? Please...
Re:First post (Score:2)
Own a tank? Sure
Own an Uzi? Sure
Own an F16? Sure
Atom Bomb ? Sure
Besides if people aren't willing to die (and kill)for freedom, then they have already won!
People complain all the time about their rights being taken away, one at a time. Sure they are, but what are you willing to do to stop them? Nothing? Vote for corrupt politicians (they ALL have been bought)? Or just sit at home playing RPGs, wacking off to Pr0n, and watching Friends?
I am an advocate of Revolution against everyone standing in the way of True Liberty and Freedom, which by the way is only to be had by resposible people. What I find interesting is that nobody is willing to be responsible anymore, which makes a higher authority responsible for everything.
Which is the core problem as being described by people like you. You just don't like the consequences (ie take responsibility) for the actions you have taken.
Economic freedom? (Score:1)
Of course, the first thing they would do is take away all the arms. Who would want to rise up against a socialist "utopia?"
Re:First post (Score:2)
So, why not move to the UK then? You can get a licence for damn near anything. You just need to deal with assloads of paperwork before you can get a simple shotgun, never mind the hoops you have to jump through to get automatic weapons. But, if you persevere, and you're not a criminal, or a loony, and *really* like filling in forms, you can get a gun licence for pretty much whatever you like.
Re:First post (Score:2)
I condone violent revolution because our country was founded by it. If you don't condone violent revolution, then move to a country that wasn't, otherwise you yourself are condoning it, whether or not you realize it.