
Cops Have Got Your Number 251
explosionhead writes "Salon has a nice article about the FBI's stretching their powers for phone taps under the 'Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act' and how this could apply to digital communication. The FCC tried to apply this 3 years ago, and it was fought off, but the article also comments that many of the Telcos were hesitant to argue this time around for fear of bad post Sept-11 publicity." We covered this when it happened, with a lot of good information if I do say so myself. Salon is now noting that no one is willing to challenge the revised FCC rules, running scared in the (dare I say it?) post-September 11 world.
This service could come in very handy. (Score:2)
As usual, a joke.
tcd004
Forefathers's Quotes - They New.... (Score:4, Informative)
-- James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788
"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Ben Franklin, Respectfully Quoted, p. 201, Suzy Platt, Barnes & Noble, 1993
These were found at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quot
People who don't care about this since 9-11 are in trouble.
Re:This service could come in very handy. (Score:2)
Thanks for the plug. I'm sorry, but to be honest, I rarely pretend to be more than a soul-less huckster of online comedy.
tcd004
I think... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I think... (Score:2)
That's not the point - RTFA. Do they know who you called and when, or who called you and when? Do they know your personal PIN that you dial for your voice mail? Do they know the bank number that you just dialed into our phone to check your balance? This isn't about a "special phonebook" that the FBI has access to.
Re:I think... (Score:2)
Come on now.. (Score:4, Insightful)
We all know that if anyone makes any attempt to challenge any Post-September 11 legislation, they are anti-American, anti-patriotic and of course support and sympathize with terrorists.
Re:Come on now.. (Score:3, Interesting)
And yes, if I was held at gunpoint, knowing that I would die if I said I believed in freedom, I would still say it.
Live free or die...
Re:Come on now.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wiretap? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wiretap? (Score:2, Informative)
Now, I don't know if the fact that it's not physically connected to the wire makes it legal, but I'd think it does not.
-Berj
Re:Wiretap? (Score:4, Informative)
No such luck. The courts have ruled that sense-enhancing techology requires a warrant. For example, using thermal imaging to see if you are using heat lamps to grow MJ is a no-no. Nice FUD though.
you can say it (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, you can say "post-Semtember 11 world" because the truth is, this event obviously had and will continue have life-changing, far-reaching effects and consequences on every American.
It is our job to make sure those effects evoke positive changes in our lifestyles, not negative ones, even in the short term.
If Katz can say it... =) (Score:1)
-Berj
Re:you can say it (Score:3, Interesting)
Well at least people stopped calling it 9/11 and confusing all of us, what the hell is important about the 9th of november.
Onto (slightly) serious matters then: When your pres says "if we have to change our lifestyles then the terrorists have won", and now the US' view of everything changes, you rip up the constitution in favour of a police state, and turn on anyone who criticizes government as a traitor...
so the terrorists won then? Was it really that easy?
(-5: Unamerican troll)
Re:you can say it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:you can say it (Score:2)
"To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil. Our efforts have been crafted carefully to avoid infringing on constitutional rights while saving American lives. "
Similar statements were made about congressional questions over the missed clues that were found prior to Sep 11, and might have resulted in preventing the tragedy.
So, one of the highest executive branch executives called all of us that question such government tactics, in essence aiders and abettors of terrorism.
That scares me - perhaps you don't think this is significant, but I do!
Cheers!
Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism will always succeed if we let them force us to change our ways, and give up some of our freedoms.
Re:Sad (Score:1, Flamebait)
And of course by People I mean we stupid lazy Americans. As for winning and losing? America defeated herself well before anyone knew who Osama even was.
Re:Sad (Score:2)
For means such as telephones that offer no inherent security, one should simply not discuss sensitive information over them (voip, though, might be able to be used with ssh or ssl, or something similar).
If I ssh into a box which has multiple users, it becomes more difficult to see what I am doing, or if I am working what other sites it is impossible to see which ones I am working with.
Of course this assumes I am using SSH v2 and am using pre-shared keys
Re:Sad (Score:1)
You hit the nail on the head. The choice is obvious. Either we give up our freedom for a sense of security (the question still remains, however, wether this security is really what the government wants us to believe it is), or we give up our sense of security to keep our freedoms.
Those who fought the revolutionary war knew that there were certian sacrifices that they, as well as thier decendents (us) would have to make. Will we choose to sacrifice to keep our freedoms and way of life, or will we choose this new security?
Re:Sad (Score:1)
Re:Sad (Score:3, Interesting)
Make no mistake, we're not really a benevolent, peace-loving people who know only sweetness and light.
At some point it may just be too expensive to keep the ethnic groups the terrorists hide in alive. We all know what was done to the Native Americans just because our forefathers liked the idea of a country that spread from sea to shining sea. Our national anthem is about how we got our asses kicked by the british and told them to fuck-off. Even in World War II people were jailed even though they were thought to provide a nearly non-existant threat. Our ideals, are just that ideals. We frequently fail to meet them, but we never give them up, we even occasionally succeed, and exceed them. That is our might. That is the truth behind the myth we love.
Would it be right if we used our resources to annihilate whole populations to exact a small measure of justice from a much greater injustice? No. Would I loose sleep over it? Not likely. I care for them ever bit as much as they care for me. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is fine for Buddists and 50's TV, but I find doing unto others as they would do unto you is much more pragmatic.
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:3, Interesting)
But when you get right down to it they want us dead.
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Most countries have pretty much the same record throughout history, if you recall.
It is expediant for political leaders to claim that terrorists don't like 'freedom', 'way of life', etc., because politicians (and Fox News) have always attempted to co-opt these values. It also allows a greater 'freedom' from scrutiny in their own statements and policies. I'd bet al Qaeda terrorists are quite indifferent towards the level of freedom in the West--It couldn't be much of a motivator. "Down with Equality-Under-The-Law" doesn't have much of a ring to it, does it? Indeed, if the Middle East had the same level of freedom as we do, most would probably be more interested in their next vehicle, than their current cause celeb.
Basques want their own country. The IRA wanted the English out of Northern Ireland, Shining Path wanted a Maoist state. The al Qaeda is not much different from the rest, (albeit more exotic than a bunch of Irishmen.)
Nothing changes the fact that they all are extremely cruel, but they can join the queue along with the rest of the nasties.
Cheers,
-b
Re:Sad (Score:2)
I found this statement in the Salon article most frightening, re wiretaps etc:
"A judge cannot reject the request; the court merely certifies and files it."
IOW, once the FBI decides they wants a gander at your phone activities, there is no legal way to deny them access, even if they don't have probable cause. This is wide open for every sort of abuse.
Agreed (Score:4, Insightful)
March 11, 2002
I think the vast differences in compensation between the victims of the September 11th casualty, and those who die serving the
country in uniform, are profound. No one is really talking about it either because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11th. Well, I just can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country.
If you lost a family member in the September 11th attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million. If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of
which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry.
And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt. Keep in mind that some of the people that are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. We also learned over the weekend that some of the
victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11th families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.
You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over fifty years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. "Patriotism is not a short and renzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." --Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.
Every time when a pay raise comes up for the military they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low rent housing. However our own U.S. Congress just voted themselves a raise, and many of you don't
know that they only have to be in Congress one-time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month and most are now equal
to be millionaires plus. They also do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system.
If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7 you may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed you in harms way receive a pension of
$15,000 per month. I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits
and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.
Re:Agreed (Score:2)
It's because military folks have no single constituency. They come from everywhere, so every representative and senator can pass the buck on taking care of them.
I vividly remember being at the Infantry School at Ft. Benning in the early '90s, watching some of the "low impact" trainees run through their morning drill. It was really pathetic. We mollycoddled them because their parents figured we're not fighting the Cold War any more, why be so hard on the recruits?
When there's no war to be fought, the military is just like the firefighters - nifty uniforms and an interesting way of life, but not something to pay much attention to. When the war comes, all attention focuses on the military. That's just the way it is in a republic such as ours.
Remember also that an astoundingly low percentage of representatives and senators have ever served, even in the Guard or Reserves. I honestly think that until you've sat in the freezing mud for 12 hours, waiting to set off an ambush, or deployed to a combat zone while your loved ones worry every day for your safety, you can't know what it's like to be in the military.
It's amazing to me that we continue to get such capable young men and women to serve, given the crap they have to put up with (and I'm not referring to their military duties).
Not Sad, Just realistic.... (Score:2)
In a democracy, we are all responsible for our government's actions. Some may say that the last presidential elections were rigged in Florida, but that only makes a difference if they were rigged in a lot of other states too. Sorry, there was only one brother. George W. Bush was more or less democratically elected, and much more so than the Taleban Mullah Omar or Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
So here we are in a democratic state. What does that mean? Well, not just armed forces are valid targets for the terrorist mindset. If the average US voter disagreed with current middle-eastern policy, then maybe Osama wouldn't be so resentful or attract so much support for his attacks on civillians.
Until now, many people were not aware of the ramifications of international policy decisions. Some people who travelled were already aware, but they were a minority.
Should people back down, well no. However think about what effects that foreign policy has and try to work out whether that policy is worth your support and tell your elected representatives. Foreign policy should be more than just who gets what juicy contract.
Oh and a final point is that if your country has a military force made up largely from reservists like Israel, it becomes very difficult to decide who, apart from children doesn't represent a target to a terrorist. Most males between 18 and 50 or so are serving one month a year in the army, same for women up to the birth of their children. Can you see a terrorist understanding "Sorry don't shoot or bomb me, I'm not wearing my uniform"?
who cares? (Score:1)
Re:who cares? (Score:1)
Re:who cares? (Score:2)
Trust us. We're from the government, and we're here to help.
Ah, kids are so cute (Score:2)
You are aware that a large part of the reason that FBI was, until recently, so well handcuffed was *because* they abused their powers by spying on and entrapping people who had nothing to do with terrorism?
While the agents out in the field are hard-working, good people, the bureaucracy that directs the FBI has proven itself, time and time again, to be not just untrustworthy but incompetent as well!
I dont get it at times (Score:5, Insightful)
it seems anything can be dismissed as post september 11 and be justifiable on the grounds of the war against terrorism...
meanwhile in palestine the IDF moves tanks back into refuge settlements to 'supress undesirable elements' and no one blinks ?
Tragedy that sept 11 was its no excuse to allow your rights and freedoms to be taken away from you and no excuse to not stand up for yourselves or others - America is supposed to be the land of the free and home of the brave - it seems worryinh that these days its increasingly not so free and only brave when backed by superior firepower.....
And am i the only one who thinks that the post septmeber 11 comment has been a great way for the FBI and CIA et al to get around all those niggling civil rights and civil liberties issues? just how long have they been able to do this anyway...
Re:I dont get it at times (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I dont get it at times (Score:2)
You're the kinda guy who'd call fuel rationing during WWII unconstitutional. All's fair in love war and hyperbole, no?
Re:I dont get it at times (Score:2)
"Never" was a little strong; I'd have said "rarely" and added "without a fight".
Cheers,
Tim
Re:I dont get it at times (Score:2)
Ultimately, I think you're trying to stongly state that sometimes our government makes decisions that are bad, and make people unhappy, or less happy with no or painfully little justification. But what I thought was ammusing was you also added that the government never makes decisions to make people happy for the sake of nothing more than a job well done. Well that of course was silly. Don't worry, you're allowed. Who doesn't love hyperbole?
But it all reduces down to "Our government is powerful and doesn't work perfectly." Hardly a doomsday scenario
And FWIW, nothing, the Miranda case decided that people did have that right all along, it was provided by the constitution itself, and the Miranda warnings were a remedy. Of course in cases like that one wonders what the point of having police is. Since if they're too busy intimidating and confusing innocent people into confessing to crimes to go out and find the guilty parties how protected is a community?
Re:I dont get it at times (Score:2)
Vietname and korea were both police actions in matter of fact - they didnt require a declaration of war - The Korean war was run by a joint force of commanders from around the world.. Vietnam was a mess
but they were both real 'hey look the enemy is over there' conflicts.... this is not
And you could draw some parallels in other ways - during both conflicts there were NEVER wholesale changes to law and civil rights made for the worse like no.
Re:I dont get it at times (Score:3, Informative)
you have a good point, but I think you're taking it just a bit too far. Wartime enroachments on civil liberties are generally repealed (or ruled unconstitutional) after the hostilities cease. A good example would be the Sedition Act during WWI or any number of the police-state/ command-economy acts of FDR during WWII.
The fundamental problem is that since these 'hostilities' are extra-national, it's going to be very hard to have a cessation in hostilities, much less one as simple and discrete as a German surrender eg. Furthermore, in supporting particular national governments against 'terrorists' the US has a very poor record. Ask Peru or Nicaragua or Afghanistan or Indonesia. I am more and more thinking that this problem will only really be solved by (get your tinfoil hats ready here) a fundamental upheaval in the way the world is governed and how wealth is distributed.
Re:I dont get it at times (Score:5, Insightful)
Check out this article. [chicagotribune.com]
American citizen and suspected terrorist confederate, is arrested May 8 at O'Hare International Airport. He is held for a month in the criminal justice system, then transferred by presidential order to military custody for an indefinite period, not charged with any crime and cut off from contact with a lawyer.
--snip--
"Saying you can take an American citizen, arrested in the United States in a non-combat situation, far removed from a war zone, and lock him up indefinitely with no access to a trial and no access to a lawyer raises fairly chilling questions under the Bill of Rights," said Doug Cassel, director of the Center for International Human Rights at the Northwestern University School of Law.
How does this happen in a "free" country?
Re:I dont get it at times (Score:2, Insightful)
How does this happen in a "free" country?
It doesn't, America isn't one.
Re:I dont get it at times - it's FEAR (Score:3, Interesting)
It has been many generations that the US has fought a war on its mainland. The idea that anyone could hurt the nation so much was horrific - that's why the media keep saying that "We'll never be the same."
While the fear has a basis, the trick is to balance the reactions to the fear so that the cure is not worse than the malady. We also have to be watchful that not every single pork barrel projects or favorite political initiatives get shoved through on the tide of such fears.
Fortunately, there are still some principled and rational journalists and organizations who are brave enough to speak out for such balances. So BE SURE TO SUPPORT THEM. Send in that donation to ACLU and others fighting for your rights!
Re:I dont get it at times (Score:1)
Weenie raises hand, asks: I wonder, then: Are you in favor of Nuclear Power? Hard to turn any other kind of power plant into a nuclear bomb.
The threat has always been there, you have just recently become aware of it.
Also: Why the f don't you move?
AC Trolls are lazy trolls. Viva CLIT! (BTW what's the HTML for an upside down bang?)
Good and Bad (Score:2)
I DO have a problem with easier wire taps, the listening kind. For better or worse, at least when they record a call, it has to be important enough for an officer/agent etc to spend time listening to it. Manpower alone seems to me to be a significant level of check and ballance. They are not going to devote a "person" to listen to calls, unless they think it is important enough.
-Pete
They don't need to listen (Score:1)
No, they don't (Score:2)
Parent is meant for the other reply (Score:2)
Re:They don't need to listen (Score:1)
Re:Good and Bad (Score:1)
How did it start out? Traffic analysis. And it was a slippery slope thaqt lead to watch listing all sorts of people. Especally those that dissagreed with the goverment.
They were forced to stop by congress, but as they have alreay abused this kind of power once do we really want them to have it again?
I think we need.... (Score:1)
Personal Freedoms post 9/11 (Score:2, Insightful)
In the end, I think
That's the great thing about our system. It's supposed to have the same rules for everybody.
Neat, huh?
-FC
Re:Personal Freedoms post 9/11 (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually our system doesn't have the same rules for everybody. For one if you have been convicted of a felony in the past, then you give up some of your rights. This is in the constitution. Also the constitution grantees no specific rights to non-citizens of the United States.
I am by no means a fan of the ACLU (I think they're rotton to the core), however, the system is the way it is to prevent inocent people from being convicted of crimes. This does, however let guilty people free. One man (a judge I think, but I can't remember) said that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. If an innocent man is convicted then there are two wrongs done: the innocent man is punished for a crime he committed, and a guilty man goes free.
Now of course the system isn't perfect; innocent men are convicted sometimes. But, is it really good to keep track of everything so that if someone says the wrong word (just think of how many uses b**b has that don't refer to any kind of terrorist activities) they are investigated and harrased by the FBI/CIA?.
You're safe if you have a cable modem. (Score:1)
gigowiz
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Pushing the zamboni envelope one mile an hour at a time
Is this really a problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, yes, it is a problem. I'm all for going after the bad guys, but remember, if this crisis ever ends, these powers will *not* be retracted.
Government usually only gets bigger, not smaller. And they don't easily give up powers once they've been granted. Perhaps the way Congress should be drafting these laws is that they need to come up on periodic review (kind of like the statute for Independent Counsels). At least if we have to tolerate this potential invasion now, then it could be repealed after a few years when things calm down.
I think it's important not to bind the hands of the FBI too much, but at the same time, someone needs to be looking ahead to when this crisis ends.
Another potential glimmer of hope is that the next administration might be influenced to cause a review to be done as part of his getting elected.
I guess we'll see...
phone tap my narrow band please. :-) (Score:1)
Who said narrow band doesn't pay off
Wheeeeeeeeeeee!
Re:phone tap my narrow band please. :-) (Score:1)
Come on (Score:1, Insightful)
Out of context & giving the police another cro (Score:3, Insightful)
Police would use that threat to illegally force innocents into gathering information about someone. They will do that....after all, these are the same people I've seen threaten to take a woman's children away if the woman would not gather information about an in-laws drug use and connections.
All of that because of calling the wrong person at the wrong time.
History repeats itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets see, it's the early 1930's, Hitler has not yet come completely into power. There is a major fire that destroys the Reichstag (the equiv. of the capitol building), immediately, Hitler gets the German parliment to pass a law that allows total unrestricted tapping of all forms of communication. Telephone, Mail, etc...
Once that was done, all he had to do was have his people watch for red flags (non-nazi actions) that he could then send the Brown-Shirts (what would eventually become the Gestapo) in to "Maintain the peace".
I saw a tagline a few months back:
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it,
Those who study history are doomed to know it's repeating
Hopefully the American people will come to their sense before we have made too many more steps down the Facist path....
We all know what this means. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:History repeats itself (Score:3, Insightful)
First, we aren't paying foreign countries massive reparations for a war we lost. Our trade imbalance and national debt don't count. We aren't running massive inflation. We don't have limits on military force. In short we don't have massive limits forced upon us by foreging governments.
Second, we still have a tripartite constitional government. Until Congress is abolished and the judicial system completly under the sway of the President there's little need to fear the President.
Third, until the media agrees totally with the government's positions every time, there will be some voice of dissent. While I would agree the media generally agrees with government policy, its main job is to distract attention, not drum up support (although Fox news seems to be an exception).
Finally, I don't think we'll see the nationalization of industry anytime soon.
You're more likely to see a corporate-friendly system with a smily face than anything remotely close to Hitler and the Nazi regime.
Re:History repeats itself (Score:3, Interesting)
We've already seen the freedom of expression and acceptable use abolished by corporate interests (Skylarov & E-books, 2600 & DeCss), whats next?
An interesting note is that the right to bear arms was put into place with the intention not only of protecting our country from external invaders, but also to allow the people to fight against an oppressive government. Is that the next right they'll take away?
Only time will tell...
Re:History repeats itself (Score:2)
Is corporate rule better? Probably not. It's more insidious to be sure, but at least I can (theoretically) ignore or minimize its authority by a variety of means. I can't simply ignore or deny the authority of the government though.
Phones are passe, terrorists use the net (Score:2)
Tapping a phone might be a good way to catch the average dumb criminal such as a drug dealer at the low end of the crime pyramid, but terrorists know better. Most if not all the tools they use are freely available to the public, and the really smart terrorists might even use their own custom code or open-source software to prevent any backdoors.
I got it covered. (Score:4, Funny)
Post September 11th (Score:1)
Modern Braveheart (Score:1)
Er, wait.
The Big Deal.... (Score:2, Insightful)
But then you say something...Something controversial. It may be personal, politcal, sexual, or mildly criminal; it doesn't really matter because all it takes is a quick phone call to the local constabulary to have you hauled in front of the inquisition and black-listed for life. You'll find that certain opportunities are no longer available to you at this point.
God forbid that you're somebody important (somebody with enough money/power to matter), because it's a simple matter to convict someone in the media these days--just say the word "pedophile" and your career will evaporate.
I realize that some of this reaks of "Pinko-Liberalism" as my history professor once put it, but just remember that this has already happened before (Martin Luther King being the most prominent example with McCarthyism a close second).
Just remember that power is an end unto itself, and individuality is not a virtue in government.
I lost my
why do i need a subject? you know the subject! (Score:1)
"The industry-advocate coalition won a key victory in August 2000. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington blocked four of the six changes the FBI sought and the FCC had ordered, sending them back to the FCC with instructions to better explain why the changes were necessary and how they would balance the needs of law enforcement, the public's right to privacy, and industry's right to a cost-effective way to enforce the law. The FBI took no further action for over a year, and it seemed possible the agency would admit defeat and let the issue die."
then they go to quote much later on:
" We're essentially under siege," Berman said, ticking off issues that had recently come up: the new Homeland Defense Department, new FBI data-mining rules, the Patriot Act. "Would we be challenging this if it were September 10th? Absolutely. The problem is priorities and resources, but don't count us out yet."
I see that Americans are now making everything they do in the excuse of "the September 11th incident"....okay that may have been a huge wake up call to us telling us how slack we have become thinking we are secure in our defense system, to only realize we cant handle the issues within America itself.
"Would we be challenging this if it were September 10th? Absolutely. The problem is priorities and resources, but don't count us out yet."
To Berman, no i dont believe if you've shut your mouth after being asked "what do you exactly plan to do", that you are actually going to do it before something like September 11th (dare to say, hope it doesnt) ever happens again. Precautions are a bit late dont you think...but its an awefully nice gesture...even though he is right in that priorities are the main issue here..unfortunately it is too often that American priorities are on other countries instead of on their own affairs...after all they should be trying to answer the question on how they are to make this a "cost effective way to enforce the law" arent they?
just one persons opinion i guess....pretty much same ol' shit just a different day...
-Alicia
This is a joke, right? (Score:2)
That list certainly couldn't include Qwest, as they've never yet shied away from any acts that got them bad publicity.
No problem... (Score:2)
My Personal Philosophy (Score:2)
Shame that's not the choice you're making (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially, they're selling you a false dilemma.
There is no such thing as the "Post Sept-11 World" (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's not entirely true. Now any government around the world can follow the US's lead and exterminate any group that opposes them with impunity and call it "War on Terrorism" and say they are doing their part. Also you now have no right to be assumed innocent. You can be assumed terrorist without any real proof. Aint it grand?
I've been thinking about this. (Score:2, Interesting)
We all know the problems that American intelligence agencies had before 9-11. They had information pointing towards the attacks, but compartmentalization meant the pieces were never put together.
As strange as it may sound, wouldn't an Open Source approach to intelligence have worked better? Think of we had used the peer review method on the intelligence reports? Millions of eyes looking at the data would have certainly connected the dots.
We don't need a secret "proprietary" approach to National Security, we need to Open Source what we know and let the tried and true methods of the Open Source community do its work.
What Civil Rights have you lost? Really? (Score:2)
The only people I can think of that have had their "Civil Rights violated" are illegal aliens with existing deportation orders from Al Qaeda based countries and a guy that looks like John Doe #2 who was planning to set off a radiological bomb after returning from the Middle East. People that do not deserve protection that an American Citizen is afforded in America. They are illegal combatants, they want you dead. They couldn't give a damn if you had Civil Rights in the first place. You are an American. Your country supports Israel. You live a decadent lifestyle. You are a legitimate target in their eyes and they don't follow the Geneva Convention.
As long as you are not a member of Al Qaeda or hanging out with Al Qaeda members at strip clubs and pilot training, you have nothing to worry about. The FBI, CIA and Homeland Security have more important things to do than tap your phone so they get the time and place of your next LAN party. Besides, you probably aren't important enough in the first place to warrant their attention.
Remember folks, we are in a war and the war zone is the United States. A war not against a nation state but a terrorist group that knows no borders. We are not going to win by making our law enforcement agencies toothless and blind.
Re:What Civil Rights have you lost? Really? (Score:2)
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
--Samuel Johnson
Re:What Civil Rights have you lost? Really? (Score:2)
So don't behave like a terrorist. Is that too much to ask from a fellow citizen? Please don't travel to terrorist supporting nations to gain information on radiological bombs so can explode one in a major population center in the US.
Like I asked, name one Civil Right you have lost. Not some theoretical situation. Give me some concrete loss of freedom beyond getting through an airport unmolested.
Re:What Civil Rights have you lost? Really? (Score:2)
This could be used against me, you anybody they wanted to. It has nothing to do with bombs.
I did name one, all they have to do is consider me a "terrorist" of any sort, and they do not need any warrants, etc. That my friend, is a HUGE one. And every politican who voted for it should be on the ned of a rope.
Do you want me to name more? I could go on and on about privacy, or about the fedreal government becoming to strong and over stepping the limits that was set in place to preserve our natural rights.
Re:What Civil Rights have you lost? Really? (Score:2)
The Government is not going to get away with calling you a terrorist unless you are involved in terrorist activity. We have an activist press corps in this country that is salivating for the opportunity to pounce on President Bush. If you were nabbed by the Government on false charges of terrorism, you would instantly become a millionaire and a media darling. As long as the right to free speech and the Press, it is virtually impossible for the Government to detain you without merit. The Government is not just saying these people are terrorists, they are giving proof.
Do you want me to name more? I could go on and on about privacy, or about the fedreal government becoming to strong and over stepping the limits that was set in place to preserve our natural rights.
Actually I would. Tell what you can't do today that was legal before 9-11-01. What right that you had, that you don't today. Not couldas, wouldas, shouldas, but something that has actually happened to you as a US Citizen.
Re:What Civil Rights have you lost? Really? (Score:2)
Are you in the habit of flying to terror sponsoring nations to discuss plans to build and detonate radiological bombs with members of the Al Qaeda leadership? If so, I hope you are stripped of your American citizenship like Padilla and treated as an unlawful combatant. But I doubt you would do something like that, so you have nothing to worry about.
Re:What Civil Rights have you lost? Really? (Score:2)
That's why an attorney can petition the Courts with a writ of habeas corpus which is being done in the Padilla case by his court appointed attorney. He has been moved to a military base from prison because he has been called an illegal combatant. Judgeing by the small numbers of American that have had this happen to them, one, I think the Government has been very responsible with its powers.
Remember, you're in the habit of flying to terror sponsoring nations etc. How do we know? The government said so.
Simple evidence can prove you are not. Passport, airline records and even eyewitnesses. Like I mentioned earlier, Padilla does have a lawyer. Don't be so paranoid. If you truly believe that United States is going to snatch you off the streets for your beliefs, its time to leave America. There is not point in living in a country that makes you fear the Government.
Re:What Civil Rights have you lost? Really? (Score:2)
Judgeing by the small numbers of American that have had this happen to them, one, I think the Government has been very responsible with its powers
One is too many! Even one person not getting full rights until convicted in a court of law (fair and speedy public trial and so on) is too many!
I've seen people in power abuse that power. Psycologists have studyed it and concluded at most people automaticly abuse any power given to them. (prison gaurds)
Re:What Civil Rights have you lost? Really? (Score:2)
One is too few. We are now learning that there are more "Americans" that are/were plotting with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to kill YOU . The only crime mentioned in the Constitution of the United States is treason. That's how serious of a crime it is. It is a crime that strips you of your citizenship and labels you as a combatant of a foreign power. Since Al Qaeda is not a nation state, you are, under the Geneva Convention, an illegal combatant thus not afforded the rights even under that treaty much less the US Constitution. Do some reading on the subject in our nation's founding documents -- not right wing or left wing. It might help you sort out what is really going on and drown out the screams of chicken little leftist propagandists.
So, if you are truly worried about losing your rights, please stay away from Al Qaeda members. You will be fine.
Re:What Civil Rights have you lost? Really? (Score:2)
Are you scared of the US Government? I'm not. It pisses me off, it puzzles me and drives me nuts at times but I do not fear it.
Re:What Civil Rights have you lost? Really? (Score:2)
Maybe you should tell that to my neighbor. Oh wait, you can't. He's dead from a Boeing 767 slamming into his office. Fortitude? I have a ton of it. I live so close to what was the WTC that FBI spent a week sweeping my street for evidence and dealt with daily National Guard checkpoints to make it into my home.
If you had a functioning pair, you wouldn't be scared that the Government was actively searching out terrorism because you are worried that RIAA is going to bust you for ripping CDs into MP3s. Glad you have your priorites straight. Your ability covert music from one format to another appears to be more important than lives of American citizens.
Re:Cops got numbers? I've got (Score:1)
"Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Good"
Yes, they hear you loud and clear!!
---
There is no time like the present for postponing what you ought to be doing.
Re:Since when has this site turned from... (Score:2, Interesting)
Did it occur to you these laws will be in place the next time a Democrat is elected?
Re:Since when has this site turned from... (Score:1)
Re:Since when has this site turned from... (Score:1)
On the other hand, I hope this post isn't red-flagged for containing the above keywords.
Re:Since when has this site turned from... (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't "commie red china" because it can't be. The laws are not (yet) in place to let it be.
Re:Since when has this site turned from... (Score:1)
And on someone elses comment: I've had my share of run-ins with bad cops. Cops assume everyone is a criminal because they deal with criminals all day. I assume cops are bad because I've dealt with more bad cops than friendly ones. Although the friendliest cop I've met was in Chicago. He talked about how he killed a gangsta because he was sick of replying to calls to his house because the guy beat up his girlfriend. The cops said "don't make us come back or we'll kill you" and they did. But he was a really nice guy (which is scarey).
Once you go there, where does it stop? (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing I can possibly think of to respond to this is the words of Benjamin Franklin. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither libery nor safety."
If we get rid of the Bill of Rights in order to prevent terrorists (or anyone else) from damaging us, haven't they accomplished what they set out to do?
I know this is probably picking a nit, but isn't the Republican (you know the supposedly conservative party) platform based around less government in the lives of Americans? Doesn't that mean you've now redefined that platform as liberal?
Re:Once you go there, where does it stop? (Score:1)
'sides, the GOP has generally been more of a friend to the intelligence and defense community than the Democrats, who tend to prefer focusing on the social services and diplomacy.
Re:Since when has this site turned from... (Score:1, Interesting)
There are no black and white issues. Repeat that a few times. For some reason, you can't stop ranting about your 'one right way'. How you're "god-damned sick" of things. Of people. Of the "bad guys". Of "them". In addition to everything else you think you know, you seem to know exactly what "they" deserve.
News flash. People have free will, and are generally a disparate, unorganized, and completely fucked-up bunch. There is no "they", and there is no "us". There's just a lot of morons like you trying to force your pathetic little world-view on others. The world doesn't need fewer commie-pinkos, the world doesn't need fewer bible-beaters - the world needs fewer people who think like you.
You could probably earn some respect by discussing your views objectively. Maybe by not being an alarmist and a whiner. By laying out a logical argument and leaving your emotions out of it. Maybe then you'd have something to show for all those letters up there.
Maybe you'll listen. But then again, maybe not. Go ahead - go home tonight, turn on your television, watch your prepackaged party-line news. Or maybe reply to me. Use 'fuck' a lot. That'll teach me.
Like most people, you like to belong to something. Too bad you couldn't go narrower than 40% of the country.
Re:Since when has this site turned from... (Score:2)
Re:...and so what if they have your contact info.? (Score:2)
The probability of the first is so much higher for any of us, second possibility is negligible, and if government really wants to save lives, it should fight unsafe cars, drunk drivers and stupid speed limits that no sane person would ever obey, and therefore no one knows what the real safe limits are.
Re:Who cares... (Score:2)
In addition, with more information being available to more people there is a greater risk of your info being used for illegitmate purposes such as fraud and identity theft. IIRC there was a recent case of an FBI agent using information in the FBI database to gain leverage over financial dealers for his financial gain.
I wish people wouldn't be so darn naive and trusting of those in power.