EFF Unveils Search Tool for FOIA Results 57
The EFF has released a beta version of a new search tool that lets you mine the documents the EFF has unearthed using FOIA requests and lawsuits over the years. Quoting: "In celebration of Sunshine Week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today launched a sophisticated search tool that allows the public to closely examine thousands of pages of documents the organization has pried loose from secretive government agencies. The documents relate to a wide range of cutting-edge technology issues and government policies that affect civil liberties and personal privacy." I tried a search for "border" among the documents relating to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and turned up 21 results and fascinating reading.
Re:Hah. i just donated $5 this morning (Score:5, Interesting)
but i donate to EFF frequently too.
After Obama reversed himself on FISA I wrote his campaign demanding a refund of all monies I had donated to them. When I received said refund I donated every single penny (>$500) to the EFF. They do good work and unlike the ACLU they aren't hypocrites [aclu.org], at least as far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:1)
They do good work and unlike the ACLU they aren't hypocrites [aclu.org], at least as far as I can tell.
hypocrite [reference.com]
Unless they're secretly fighting for individual gun rights, they're not hypocrites.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what he's talking about. The ACLU stands for civil liberties but then chooses to selectively uphold a very common interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right...We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
Usually I side with the ACLU but this reads like doublespeak. If they're against people having guns then they should just take the position that gun ownership is not a basic inalienable right, and disagree with the Second Amendment. I don't think they would waste their time trying to appeal it.
The individual vs collective argument is bullshit. Individuals are part of whatever "collective" they choose, no? The NRA can own guns but not its members? This makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they're secretly fighting for individual gun rights, they're not hypocrites.
They profess to fight for civil liberties yet ignore part of the Bill of Rights? They read every single part of the Constitution as broadly as possible when it fits their agenda while simultaneously claiming that the 2nd amendment is a "collective" right? They consider every single mention of "the people" in the Bill of Rights to refer to individual rights except for that one time?
Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they're secretly fighting for individual gun rights, they're not hypocrites.
They profess to fight for civil liberties yet ignore part of the Bill of Rights?
I'm not a fan of the ACLU for other reasons, but the last time I looked a their stance on the 2nd amendment, it was, essentialy, "there are other organizations, which are much better funded than we are, that are focussed exclusively on second amendment rights. Therefore, we'll direct our effort to protecting the other nine."
Doesn't seem hypocritical to me for them to devote their energy to the 90% of the bill of rights that needs defending, and not the 10% that has a large and active defense already.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a fan of the ACLU for other reasons, but the last time I looked a their stance on the 2nd amendment, it was, essentialy,
Look [aclu.org] again.
Doesn't seem hypocritical to me for them to devote their energy to the 90% of the bill of rights that needs defending, and not the 10% that has a large and active defense already.
"In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."
That doesn't seem hypocritical to you? The regulation of a right that has existed for hundreds of years and which is enshrined in the Bill of Rights isn't a civil liberties issue? I wonder if they take the same position on the so-called "free speech zones"?
Re: (Score:1)
Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
In some countries heat seeking shoulder launched SAMs are in common use, but I wouldn't want my neighbors in possession of anything like that. And what kind of weapons aren't dangerous? Nerf guns? Come to think of it, the Second Amendment states the right to bear arms, it never mentions firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
Come to think of it, the Second Amendment states the right to bear arms, it never mentions firearms.
But what does it say about monkey arms?
If I had a SAM, and my neighbor had a SAM, I'm not sure I'd be terribly afraid of my neighbor. I might be frightened enough to get a SAM if my neighbor suddenly got one. But, considering that it'd be a surface-to-air missile, I wouldn't be terribly scared of my neighbor, but of what he knows is coming.
All kidding aside, if I was competent in firearms, and my neighbor was competent in firearms, I wouldn't even blink twice about him getting firearms. If I was competent,
Re: (Score:1)
If I had a SAM, and my neighbor had a SAM, I'm not sure I'd be terribly afraid of my neighbor.
I wouldn't be afraid of my neighbor either. But I would be TERRIFIED of airplane travel.
All kidding aside, if I was competent in firearms, and my neighbor was competent in firearms, I wouldn't even blink twice about him getting firearms. If I was competent, but my neighbor wasn't, I would be pretty scared if my neighbor suddenly bought a gun and started showing it off. But I don't have a gun, and my neighbor has one, I'd be terrified.
If you're both professional snipers, I guess it comes down to who gets off the first shot now, doesn't it? I'd hate to live in your neighborhood. Who would want to go through life guessing which of their neighbors they have to kill before they get killed first?
The correct course of action is to figure out how to acquire the advantage for themselves, to level the playing field.
THERE IS NO LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. This is life and death, not CounterStrike. Most people prefer not to live in war zones for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were a sniper, and your neighbors were competent snipers as well, you wouldn't snipe your neighbor for no good reason. If you started sniping your neighbors, your neighbors wouldn't just sit there. The threat of retribution is a huge factor. It keeps people civil and in line. People can't be bullied around anymore. And it makes people realize that the small, petty things are pretty inconsequential in the long run. It is the basis of the constitution, that the government fear the people, and the peopl
Re: (Score:1)
I'd rather live in a world knowing that my neighbor could shoot me a whim, than live in a world not knowing so, and eventually being shot by my neighbor on the same whim anyway. And I'd rather be able to defend myself, than leave it up to other people who might or might not, depending on their whims. Because looking at history, and speaking from personal experience, no matter how "good" or "right" I might be, I'll only reap the benefits of their protection when their goals coincide with mine.
But that's the problem. Too many people want the illusion of safety over the ability to keep themselves safe. They're lazy, and want someone else to handle it, and by the time they realize that nobody is will be as willing to defend you and your family aside from yourself it will be to late. The news scares them about public shootings, but never seems to not that if someone in the crowd had their own gun and the ability to use it properly that it likely wouldn't have been so bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they're actively campaigning against the second amendment-- and as far as I've ever heard, they're not-- it's not hypocrisy, just directing resources where they're needed.
I am, however, not terribly happy about the ACLU for other reasons
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they're actively campaigning against the second amendment-- and as far as I've ever heard, they're not-- it's not hypocrisy, just directing resources where they're needed.
I'm sorry but for an orginization that claims to be about civil liberties to come out and say that regulating a natural right "doesn't raise a civil liberties issue" is extremely hypocritical and deserves nothing but scorn.
There are other organizations, like the NRA, the CRPA, the Firearms coalition, several dozen PACs, and many more, defending second amendment rights. I'm much more worried about attacks on the other nine.
There are also other organizations actively working to infringe on our second amendment rights. I'm not aware of many organizations (other than the Government ;) actively working to undermine the other nine.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when have the NRA been interested in defending The Constitution? They are quite happy to see the whole lot go, apart from the 2nd amendment, and the government know this. The NRA are the ultimate hypocrits.
Got any evidence to back up your claim that the NRA doesn't care about the rest of the Constitution? Either way though, they've never claimed defending all civil liberties as their mission. The ACLU has and that makes them hypocrites.
The NRA will be the first in the queue for the free blackshirts when the shit finally comes.
Do all ~4.3 million members get blackshirts or just the organization?
Re: (Score:1)
They're not being secretive about their position on the issue. They're being very up-front and honest about it. If they called themselves a civil liberties organization, never took second amendment cases and didn't explain the reason for not taking those cases, you might have a case for hypocrisy.
But they do state their position on the second amendment. By pointing that out, your link actually shows that they're not hypocrites. They don't fit the definition.
Now, I won't accuse you personally of this without
Re: (Score:2)
After Obama reversed himself on FISA I wrote his campaign demanding a refund of all monies I had donated to them. When I received said refund I donated every single penny (>$500) to the EFF.
OT, but I find that pretty depressing. US politics has lost all pretence that money is unconnected to policy: we'll do what you pay for, or your money back!
Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
I was very surprised that I even got the money back to be honest with you. I wrote that letter out of principle and expected to get a form letter back at best. Few weeks later I got a check in the mail.
Funny thing was that I specifically requested that they only refund the direct donations I had made. I had also purchased a number of items of merchandise (bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc) and didn't seek a refund for those items, figuring that I had gotten tangible items for my money. They refunded that
Re: (Score:2)
The response might have been a little different had they not had more money than they could spend.
(Since I've commented in this thread, I can't use mod points to upvote one of your comments about the ACLU's position on the 2nd Amendment, a position which tends to not get much scrutiny. While I don't consider their position hypocritical as much as unfortunate and dangerously naive, I appreciate you bringing it to light.)
Re: (Score:2)
The response might have been a little different had they not had more money than they could spend.
Probably. My only wish is that I could have gotten a refund for the five days I took off work and spent campaigning for them during the primaries. Got caught up in the Obama-mania (and my own personal dislike of Hillary and wish to see her defeated) and couldn't see the forest for the trees. Live and learn I suppose.
Re: (Score:1)
That would be great if anything like that ever actually happened.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. Are you accusing me of lying about receiving the refund or claiming that Obama never reversed himself on FISA? In the former you are an asshole and in the latter you are hopelessly naive -- he went from "I will filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity" to voting yey for said bill.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed.
The latter.
You are right. I am hopelessly naive and clueless. I didn't even know that the POTUS votes for bills! ROTFLMAO
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. I am hopelessly naive and clueless. I didn't even know that the POTUS votes for bills! ROTFLMAO
I take it back. You aren't naive and clueless. You are a fucking moron. He voted [senate.gov] for it while he was a member of the Senate. See where it says "Obama (D-IL), Yea" on that page? Since your memory apparently only goes back to Jan 20th 2009, here [talkingpointsmemo.com] is one of the news stories that covered when he promised to filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity.
Re: (Score:1)
Give me any person on the planet and I will show you someone who made a statement in good faith that they did not hold true to when more evidence became available and/or the situation changed.
Also, you cited the promise but have yet to show me where he reversed. I'm not saying he didn't, but I never argued he didn't make the statement. Pr
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond that, you are the moron for thinking that absolutes exist in the real world.
Where did I say that absolutes exist in the real world? All I said was that he failed to honor his promise not to support a bill containing telecom immunity.
Give me any person on the planet and I will show you someone who made a statement in good faith that they did not hold true to when more evidence became available and/or the situation changed.
The situation didn't change. He made a political calculation. In that respect he's no worse than most other politicians. It does go to show how empty his promises of a "new kind" of politics were though, doesn't it?
Also, you cited the promise but have yet to show me where he reversed.
I linked to his 'yea' vote for the FISA bill which contained telecom immunity. What more do you want?
You will get all of the benefits of his presidency
What benefits would those be?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently so is an in depth examination of politics to you, since you apparently weren't aware of Obama's prior service as a United States Senator.
Re: (Score:1)
I have a life. I know how to delegate. I trust Obama most , which isn't the same as having blind faith. Anyone who says there is little difference between Bush and Obama would surprise me if they could tie their own shoes, so my expectations haven't exactly been shattered. Go through life believing you have a clue. Believe that a guy who openly ignores his oath saying that he will do whatever he wants as long as his dog and his wife back hi
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who says there is little difference between Bush and Obama would surprise me if they could tie their own shoes
Of course I never claimed that, so I fail to see why you would make that statement. Unless you are one of those partisan hacks that thinks anyone who disagrees with Obama has to be right-wing neo-con who longs for the days when the Texan was in charge.
Go through life believing you have a clue. Believe that a guy who openly ignores his oath saying that he will do whatever he wants as long as his dog and his wife back him isn't fundamentally different from Obama.
Yep, you are one of those hacks. I do find it amusing that Bush has been gone for almost two months and the Democratic partisans still can't let him go. You guys have more in common with the Republicans than you think -- you remind me an awful lot of the G
Brilliant! (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm missing something... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps I'm missing something... (Score:5, Informative)
Google does not search the whole internet.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=1161 [chillingeffects.org]
Etc.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Google censors worldwide based on what a UK organisation says.
Nice; that isn't dangerous at all.
Next up, everyone gets the same search results as China in order to harmonize the entire internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Google has somebody to verify that those sites are indeed appropriately placed on the list? Isn't that against the law?
Or are they just taking the list for granted?
In any case, shouldn't all of our search results show that certain results have been filtered out?
Re: (Score:2)
wow (Score:4, Funny)
Let me guess before looking, hundreds of PDF files with those annoying black lines through
that parts people are really interested in.
Re:wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me guess before looking, hundreds of PDF files with those annoying black lines through
that parts people are really interested in.
I remember reading somewhere about a method of removing the black lines by calculating what the word could be based on the font used (letter spacing). I am not sure how far it got, and weather you could input a context.
And some information is always better than no information.
Re: (Score:1)
I guess if you had to work out one word in a sentence you could tell how many letters it is and, given the context, come up with some possibilities but in these cases I'm guessing (of course I haven't RTFA) that lots of words/sentences/paragraphs would be blanked out.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading somewhere about a method of removing the black lines by calculating what the word could be based on the font used (letter spacing). I am not sure how far it got, and weather you could input a context.
(emphasis mine)
Eye wood guess that homophones mite mess things up though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No little green men... (Score:2, Funny)
bah that site is censored couldn't find any UFO
Free information should be free (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Depends on the department, some places it goes smooth as clockwork. That's your clue you didn't ask for anything unpatriotic or counterrevolutionary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
government's job (Score:1)