ACLU & EPIC Challenge Wiretapping 1
MacRonin writes "ACLU Press Release: 11-18-99 -- Groups Initiate Court Challenge to FBI Wiretap Standards; Say FCC Decision Threatens Communications Privacy." The FCC was granted powers to decide just how CALEA was to be implemented; unfortunately, they granted law enforcement powers which go well beyond the scope of the law. The ACLU and EPIC are now challenging that decision.
Looking out for the Jones' (Score:1)
--- Gratuitous ECHELON-Baiting Mode = 1 ---
Since it's the FBI that's asking this, I'll have to guess that they just heard about all the neat toys the NSA has and wanted to get some of their own.
--- Gratuitous ECHELON-Baiting Mode = 0 ---
This kind of news breaks more frequently every day. Something is seriously wrong with our government, and I don't mean taxes, the interstate commerce clause, anti-trust laws, welfare, the socialization of healthcare, state dictators and their minions, UN involvement, etc. I think there are some aspects of political theory that our forefathers never worked out. See for example my recent post about the failures of the patent system.
Also consider the recent actions - or the mere existence of - the House Republican Conference. This group is not a part of the government, though it's members are in situ. It's membership is those elected representative who are affiliated with a particular political party (which genus the founders did not want). In violation of the rules for naming of Internet domains the HRC acquired the Internet domain HRC.GOV (it should have been HRC.ORG[Check it out and laugh]). Perhaps it can be argued that this is criminal fraud, but who are the victims? How have they been injured? Is there intent to deceive and if so regarding what? And who is liable, the grantor of the domain or the grantee? It is clear that this action is deceitful, and it threatens liberty because it grant the appearance of governmental power to the grantee.
Grant me a couple of premises for a moment. A good government's only purpose is to protect individual rights. Suppose also that it is clear what those rights are and what is a violation of them. Well you've still got a 200 year old problem: How do you set up a government that does just that and continues to do just that? The biggest loophole in the US Constitution is the Interstate Commerce Clause. Now look at the constitution of the (ungh!) Confederate States of America; they added a little bit to that clause that limited the powers it granted. As I understand it, the southern states viewed the actions of the northern states as an economic attack on two fronts: (1) through the excessive regulation of commerce particular to the south, and (2) through the immediate abolishment of the principal means of production in the south (slavery). Now, I'm not a Confederate apologist, but I've read their constitution. They include the aforementioned change to the ICC, and they even seemed intent on 'phasing out' slavery in favor of agricultural machinery. Why do I mention this if I'm not an apologist? Because it may be an example of the kind of problem I'm talking about.
There are parts of our government that may be 'optional', like the particular implementation of electoral representation, or of regulatory powers, or of law enforcement. The goal should always be the protection of individual rights, but the different paths to that goal sometimes have unforeseen forks that lead straight to tyranny or chaos. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." (IIRC)
I've wandered off-topic a bit. Just a brief addendum now. Yes, I know Slashdot is read around the world; I refer to the US as the only existing country for convenience, not of ignorance or arrogance. I live in the a former confederate state, and I don't like what that means to most people around here; I'm granting the statesmen of the CSA the benefit of the doubt, their progeny don't inherit it. I think that and the late hour of this post are all the asbestos I need, so...
That's all.