Slashdot Mirror

Its like the holy grail of data analysis;

And just like the holy grail, it doesn't exist. Ever heard the expression "garbage in, garbage out"? Now imagine how that applies to a huge database of information compiled from diverse sources (including unverified, anonymous tips), where nothing is ever thrown away, and where nobody's quite sure what they're looking for.

The human brain is amazingly good at finding patterns - so good that it often finds patterns that aren't really there. Even with years of experience, training, and peer review, professional scientists are pretty bad at handling problems like confirmation bias, post hoc reasoning and the file-drawer effect - how are law enforcement agents likely to fare, with no statistical training and no effective oversight?

The people constructing these databases are falling into the trap of believing that more data means better data. That's an understandable mistake for people who are usually "data-poor", such as archaeologists, historians and detectives. But anyone from the "data-rich" sciences will tell you that once you have the data you face a whole new set of problems, and I very much doubt that counterterrorism officials, working in conditions of secrecy and under pressure to justify their jobs, are going to handle those problems in a rigorous way.

Please note that I'm not trying to say "police officers are too stupid to understand statistics" - scientists make these mistakes all the time, but they operate in an atmosphere of relative transparency and competition, where it's usually in some other scientist's interest to bring errors to light. The same conditions don't apply to government officials.

What does this mean? It means that false positives will lead to innocent people being monitored, blacklisted and imprisoned without trial, while false negatives will mean genuine threats go undetected. We urgently need to make our governments understand that more data doesn't necessarily lead to better decisions.

I've posted this before, but here's a survey that shows Americans are against Warrantless Wiretaps, Blanket Warrants, And Immunity For
Telecom Companies.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/mellmansurvey_jan2008.pdf [aclu.org]

For instance, they are quick to come to muslim's defense for any perceived slight, but should a christian suffer the same thing (which happens a lot more often) they are silent.

ACLU's position is that private procession of some kinds of arms, such as bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and nuclear weapons is going to have to be regulated no matter when constitution says to prevent complete annihilation of our civilization. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine resisting a military force backed by corrupt federal government without some of these weapons. Therefore, it's unreasonable to oppose every gun control law.

Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist

With one out of three people being a terrorist, I think we should all be gratefull that they are doing whatever it takes to get their jobs done:

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/watchlistcounter.html?=main

Seriously, I said all along that they didn't care anything about catching terrorist...that it was just smoke and mirrors to monitor us. And low and behold, they will get to monitor us legally, as one out of three of us is a terrorist.

If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, I don't know what will.

Transporter_ii

All this does is move the goal post. It's crap. Insurance companies will dump millions into it only to find that surprises still happen. Hurricanes plow into cities. Cities drown. The govt is too incompetent to help, so it farms it all out to their buddies in related industries. Naomi Wolf can tell you how such Modeling surprise ideas would work for Certain People.

Probabilistic Chips

This is not revolutionary or even interesting, as we teeter on the brink of optical computing.

NanoRadio

Great. Now head lice can listen to Coldplay. I'm so happy I could just plotz.

Wireless Power

Great. Plug in the cellphone, go to bed and the thing will zap bugs all night. And your cat.

Atomic Magnetometers

Fine - piss all this money into that, but defund free clinics, let people die from treatable diseases, etc. jusst because they're uninsured. Frankly, I could do with a little more focus on basic preventive health and health maintenance work, and a little less medical techno heroics. the tech stuff is easy because you don't have to care. dealing with some pregnant 14 year old from the ghetto, now that takes some attention...

Offline Web Applications

Oh lordy bullshit. It's just Adobe trying to find ways to keep people from stealing photoshop.

Graphene Transistors

But will it make my porn look better?

Connectomics Wanna get rid of autism? Don't let a kid watch TV or use a video game until he's 10. That would clear up a good 20% of the autism AND ADHD cases would disappear. The rest of the autistics? They're tards. It's why we invented factories and WalMart. They need to work somewhere.

Reality Mining

Ummm yeah - and considering the govt is reviving the Big Brother Machine it'll be so much easier to monitor your every thought, and you can change your name to THX1138, or LUH1734 if you're a girl...

Cellulolytic Enzymes

Sure - until some tiny bacteria crittur finds it tasty and infects the vats. Biofuels = genocide.

So that about raps it up for this years techno wankfest. Thanks for tuning in! Come back next year for yet another pile of misguided wishful thinking posing as science. Til then, buh bye!

RS

retaining civil rights over corporate rights

(i can't imagine taking pictures outdoors being made illegal)

It looks like the pendulum is swinging that way...

The main difference here is, Google has a proven track record of not being evil. No one raised hell over Google maps showing how you park your cars. Or their initiative to list as many businesses as possible.

Does this have the potential for abuse? Sure, but so does the information you give to your Pizza company for delivery...

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

This is a bigger problem than the post alludes to. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put in to effect a new rule, called the "No-Match Rule" which requires an employer to terminate an employee when receiving a letter from the DHS or the Social Security Administration (SSA), that the new employee in question doesn't exist in the SSA database. There is a period of 90 days in which to contest the no-match rule but if you're not on top of things, your employer has to fire you.

Right now there is a stay on that rule ordered by a district court in California, but it goes to show you some small error can have big consequences. See AFL-CIO v. Chertoff, No. 07-4472 (N.D. Cal filed Aug. 29, 2007. Apparently the DHS is looking into revising the rule.

More here

You know that there are defense attorneys too, who defend people accused of filesharing, right?

And lawyers who sue the government to defend our civil liberties. And lawyers who make a living freeing people from death row. And lawyers who fight against injustice.

There's no such thing as "lawyers do ___." There are people who practice law on both sides of most issues. And lawyers as a group take plenty of criticism. Nobody's branding you a terrorist. Just pointing out that your facts are incomplete.

Try this link.

If it doesn't convince them, it will at least make them think...

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

The ACLU has a tidy little form to write your Congressperson here...

AT&T and Verizon, huh? They probably just want to phase out analog because it is easier to store digital phone calls to sell to the government.

Yet another indication that our government does not represent its people.

Americans tend not to want to be wiretapped without warrants or to give immunity to telecoms.

Here's a survey that shows Americans are against Warrantless Wiretaps, Blanket Warrants, And Immunity For
Telecom Companies.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/mellmansurvey_jan2008.pdf

Most people who are bright enough to see how much money is being wasted, aren't US Citizens so they don't mind at all.

Oh we see it and we mind, but you seem to think that we are actually in a position to do anything about it. Protests don't do anything when they are made from a First Amendment Zone. We voted our sorry excuse for an opposition party into power and they didn't stop the war. We have attempted to legally address the the deception that paved the way for this war in the first place (see my sig) but that hasn't even appeared in our evening news on a slow news day. None of our viable candidates for the next presidency are willing to pull the troops out. You seem to suffer from the misconception that Americans actually have any control or accountability from our government.

How many million a day is it? I cant figure out where the money is going.

It's going to interests owned by the like of The Carlyle Group and Halliburton

I'm not sure where CNET gets there data pertaining to Idaho... As it was the 2nd state to pass legislation (after Maine), Opposing the RealID act.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/28942prs20070308.html

The Governor's statement:
http://gov.idaho.gov/mediacenter/press/pr2007/prmay07/pr_039.html

I've been looking for information that says that has since changed, I have not found it. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Exactly. As per usual few bothered to check the aclu website for details before bashing them. Heres the straight dope: http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/33828prs20080128.html

They are very adamant about using current electronic balloting systems with no regard for their flaws.

Now I wonder, if they did, would that make the ACLU a card-carrying member of the bushitler conspiracy, or just a shill?

Relevant Case Law

42 U.S.C. Section 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...
http://www.peoples-law.org/individual-rts/civil-rights/1983_exactwords.htm

Dwyer v. Oceanport School District
School officials will pay a former student $117,500 to settle a lawsuit he filed claiming his First Amendment rights were violated after administrators punished him for material posted on his Web site.
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1126

Beidler v. North Thurston Sch. Dist
A superior court judge ruled in July that the North Thurston County School District violated the constitutional rights of a student who was suspended for ridiculing a school administrator on his personal Web site. In late January 1999, the school principal placed Beidler on "emergency expulsion." According to Beidler, the principal told him some teachers said they felt uncomfortable about having Beidler in their classes due to the content of his website. The principal also testified that he found the website "personally appalling" and "real inappropriate. On July 18, 2000, a Washington trial court judge granted summary judgment to Beidler on his First Amendment claims. The judge first noted that the First Amendment rights of public school students remain constant even in the age of the Internet. "Today the first amendment protects student speech to the same extent as in 1979 or 1969, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tinker."
http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=448&edition=4

Flaherty v. Keystone Oaks Sch. District
A local school district has agreed to pay $60,000 in partial settlement of lawsuit brought by a former student who was kicked off the volleyball team because he posted an Internet message criticizing an art teacher, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania announced today.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15185prs20021118.html

O'Brien v. Westlake City Schools Board of Education
Sean O'Brien, while a sixteen-year-old junior at Westlake High School, created a website in March 1998 that lampooned his band teacher Raymond Walczuk. His web page "raymondsucks.org" contained several unflattering comments about Walczuk. School officials settled with O'Brien by agreeing to pay him $30,000, expunging the suspension from his record and writing a letter of apology
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part3.htm

Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District
Brandon Beussink, then a junior at Woodland High School, created his own homepage on his own computer at his own home. The homepage was "highly critical" of the school administration and included vulgar language in his opinions of teachers and the principal. The principal initially suspended Beussink for five days because he was offended by the content on the site, and he later extended the suspension to ten days. "Disliking or being upset by the content of a student's speech is not an acceptable justification for limiting student speech under Tinker," the judge wrote.
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part3.htm

Mahaffey v. Aldrich
An unpublished decis

Relevant Case Law

42 U.S.C. Section 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...
http://www.peoples-law.org/individual-rts/civil-rights/1983_exactwords.htm

Dwyer v. Oceanport School District
School officials will pay a former student $117,500 to settle a lawsuit he filed claiming his First Amendment rights were violated after administrators punished him for material posted on his Web site.
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1126

Beidler v. North Thurston Sch. Dist
A superior court judge ruled in July that the North Thurston County School District violated the constitutional rights of a student who was suspended for ridiculing a school administrator on his personal Web site. In late January 1999, the school principal placed Beidler on "emergency expulsion." According to Beidler, the principal told him some teachers said they felt uncomfortable about having Beidler in their classes due to the content of his website. The principal also testified that he found the website "personally appalling" and "real inappropriate. On July 18, 2000, a Washington trial court judge granted summary judgment to Beidler on his First Amendment claims. The judge first noted that the First Amendment rights of public school students remain constant even in the age of the Internet. "Today the first amendment protects student speech to the same extent as in 1979 or 1969, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tinker."
http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=448&edition=4

Flaherty v. Keystone Oaks Sch. District
A local school district has agreed to pay $60,000 in partial settlement of lawsuit brought by a former student who was kicked off the volleyball team because he posted an Internet message criticizing an art teacher, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania announced today.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15185prs20021118.html

O'Brien v. Westlake City Schools Board of Education
Sean O'Brien, while a sixteen-year-old junior at Westlake High School, created a website in March 1998 that lampooned his band teacher Raymond Walczuk. His web page "raymondsucks.org" contained several unflattering comments about Walczuk. School officials settled with O'Brien by agreeing to pay him $30,000, expunging the suspension from his record and writing a letter of apology
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part3.htm

Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District
Brandon Beussink, then a junior at Woodland High School, created his own homepage on his own computer at his own home. The homepage was "highly critical" of the school administration and included vulgar language in his opinions of teachers and the principal. The principal initially suspended Beussink for five days because he was offended by the content on the site, and he later extended the suspension to ten days. "Disliking or being upset by the content of a student's speech is not an acceptable justification for limiting student speech under Tinker," the judge wrote.
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part3.htm

Mahaffey v. Aldrich
An unpublished decis

They aren't taking a pro-electronic voting position. They are challenging a new system that they think does not comply with state law. They have taken the position of requiring a paper trail when touch-screen voting systems are used. Their concern here (if it is correctly placed; I'm not familiar enough with the law and circumstances in Ohio) seems consistent with their earlier positions.

A Connecticut law unfairly stigmatizes those who are forced to register as dangerous sex offenders without being allowed to show that they are not a threat to the community, a federal court here ruled today.

While United States District Court Judge Robert N. Chatigny upheld the right to due process for sex offenders who are at risk for sex offender registration, he failed to rule the entire registration act unconstitutional. The ACLU had challenged the Act because it imposes an additional punishment that was not in place at the time of conviction.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico today filed a legal challenge to stop the May 1st implementation of a new sex offender registry ordinance, saying the misguided law has encourage vigilantism and will not make anyone safer.

"Notification laws create an illusion of safety, and this law is no exception," said Peter Simonson, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico.

"Studies have found no evidence to suggest that community notification protects children from sex offenses or prevents recidivism. In fact, community notification may do more harm than good by encouraging vigilantism, driving former sex offenders underground and disrupting stable families," he added.

A Connecticut law unfairly stigmatizes those who are forced to register as dangerous sex offenders without being allowed to show that they are not a threat to the community, a federal court here ruled today.

While United States District Court Judge Robert N. Chatigny upheld the right to due process for sex offenders who are at risk for sex offender registration, he failed to rule the entire registration act unconstitutional. The ACLU had challenged the Act because it imposes an additional punishment that was not in place at the time of conviction.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico today filed a legal challenge to stop the May 1st implementation of a new sex offender registry ordinance, saying the misguided law has encourage vigilantism and will not make anyone safer.

"Notification laws create an illusion of safety, and this law is no exception," said Peter Simonson, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico.

"Studies have found no evidence to suggest that community notification protects children from sex offenses or prevents recidivism. In fact, community notification may do more harm than good by encouraging vigilantism, driving former sex offenders underground and disrupting stable families," he added.

The wiretaps and bush's admin outing of a spy are very minor compared to what is known about Sibel Edmund's story. While there is little doubt that W. is illegal on many fronts WRT the wiretaps and the outing, if even a bit of Edmund's story is true, then a large number of congressman and current white house will go go jail. You say it stinks and smells like shit? You think that her story MIGHT have a few holes in it. Did it ever dawn in your pee brain to google for speaking up? Did it dawn on you to check other ex-FBI, ex-NSA, ex-CIA agents? Did if ever dawn on you that not NOT one person is refuting her? Read a little bit before you make a total ass of yourself.

As to the proof of peruvian journalist, well, google is a friend for the intelligent.

On US Interrogation (sadly I cannot find the SF field manual): http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18779prs20041207.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/10/torture_as_an_interrogation_te.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/washington/16cnd-formica.html http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080305I.shtml http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1227&id=893492006 On the US School of Americas: http://www.soaw.org/ On Secret US Prisons: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1237589,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4461470.stm http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/19/afghan12319.htm http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/19/afghan12319.htm http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22567 Now why is this important? Since the US keeps these prisons in secret locations which are never disclosed, the international red cross is never permitted to inspect them. Therefore, any sort of interrogation and torture technique used is carte blanche.

>> These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply.

Please stop spreading these lies about this issue, you are undermining the human rights legislation.

US Constitution applies to all people held under US government power. It doesn't matter where they are held, as do the Treaties on Human Rights that USA has signed and ratified.

The fact that americans have tortured hundreds of people to death (US Doctors Faked Death Certificates to Cover Up Homicides by Torture ACLU Autopsy Reports), despite these, is a shame that falls on every american, especially those who spread the above false propaganda rhetoric you posted. It is largely responsible for producing these human rights violations in the first place.

Under USA's own 1996 War Crimes Act, as people have been tortured to death, the people ordering the treatment are subject to receive the death penalty for supreme crimes against humanity.

This includes the US president and Vice President as well as Donald Rumsfeld and other facilitators.

Their crimes include having others Uzbekistani dictator's torturers boil people alive for the CIA.

Americans seriously need to owe up to this behaviour around the world.

>> These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply.

Please stop spreading these lies about this issue, you are undermining the human rights legislation.

US Constitution applies to all people held under US government power. It doesn't matter where they are held, as do the Treaties on Human Rights that USA has signed and ratified.

The fact that americans have tortured hundreds of people to death (US Doctors Faked Death Certificates to Cover Up Homicides by Torture ACLU Autopsy Reports), despite these, is a shame that falls on every american, especially those who spread the above false propaganda rhetoric you posted. It is largely responsible for producing these human rights violations in the first place.

Under USA's own 1996 War Crimes Act, as people have been tortured to death, the people ordering the treatment are subject to receive the death penalty for supreme crimes against humanity.

This includes the US president and Vice President as well as Donald Rumsfeld and other facilitators.

Their crimes include having others Uzbekistani dictator's torturers boil people alive for the CIA.

Americans seriously need to owe up to this behaviour around the world.

... that they already do this for marijauana, through Section 438 of the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 ?

Here is a PDF legal brief on this.

If they can do it in one case they can do it in every case.

I fear that Caesar's army is approaching the Rubicon, as anonymity turns into "Privacy"...
Separation of Power turns into the "Unitary Executive"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#The_George_W._Bush_administration
Prisoners of War turn into "Unlawful Enemy Combatants"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_enemy_combatants#2001_Presidential_military_order
Torture becomes narrowly defined as pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_memo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
Justice for all succumbs to the "State Secrets Privilege"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/elmasri_order_granting_motion_dismiss_051206.pdf
As Thomas Jefferson once said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html
It was true when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, it was true in the Civil War, it was true in the Second World War, and perhaps the time is coming when it will be true again.
You might want to think about which side you're going to be on.

Here is the ACLU press release on the district court ruling from September.

So discuss away. Have sock puppets discuss away. Have your wife discuss away.

The stupid Patriot act makes it illegal for the person to tell their wife! So, that's not really a work-around. It'd be better for them to just say whatever they're going to say.

For what it's worth, I think the ISP owner has done the right thing. They've done everything they can without getting arrested. They haven't said, "Ah, it's too much trouble to fight this." Instead, they've called in the ACLU and taken the government to court. The government, so far, is losing. There's not much point in risking what the ISP owner would risk by giving up their identity. The ACLU has already drawn a lot of attention to it, and it doesn't seem like they'd get that much publicity by shedding their anonymity.

By the way, if you appreciate the fact that the ACLU provided free lawyers and made it way easier for the guy to fight the government on this (thus decreasing the chances he'd blow it off), you might consider donating a little cash to help them provide more lawyers in future situations like this.

Do a little research. Here's a few links to get you started.

http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/reporting/reports.php

http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/index.html

Oh really? Did they start a war for profit in the 80's? Did they abolish habeas corpus? Did they gut the 4th amendment? Iran-Contra? Abu-Ghraib? Rendition?

This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition."

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

Did anyone else check out this pdf of the aclu's foia on DOD nsls?
In particular the customer info for the request. All that was supplied
was the name and COSTCO #. We don't data mine retail databases my ass.
page 677
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/released/dod_100207release_672_721.pdf

It's easy. If you don't know who to contact or how to phrase your objection use this link:
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=727&page=UserAction

Note that you can modify the letter template before you hit send if you don't agree with all of the text or wish to add points of your own.

There is another informational article on Salon.

(*) Does not apply to non-US citizens. (Although nothing actually stops you from mailing them anyway.)

Actually, the ACLU has nothing to do with any War on Christmas.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/22324res20051207.html

I know it was a joke, but spreading that kind of FUD is never right.

The US is very different, in theory every book is free, just that libraries that stock the wrong ones get no funding.

• habeas corpus
• torture
• Fourth amendment
• free speech in peaceable assemblies
• freedom of the press
• widespread corruption

The US is very different, in theory every book is free, just that libraries that stock the wrong ones get no funding.

• habeas corpus
• torture
• Fourth amendment
• free speech in peaceable assemblies
• freedom of the press
• widespread corruption

he reality is that the ACLU doesn't come down on the right side all the time. A side effect of erring on the side of limiting discrimination and siding with the minority is that you sometimes end up being unpopular and sometimes end up being straight up wrong. The more important question is, are we talking about an organization that's more of a liability than a force for good? As I see it, on the good side you have times when the ACLU protects somebody who is being abused by the government, stands up for free speech, and gets due process for somebody who might otherwise been denied it. On the other hand, people are occasionally offended because they have to take down a religious trinket they've put up on the public dime. Frankly, while I'm usually annoyed and mildly offended at the use of my money being spent to rub my nose in other peoples' religion, I'm easygoing enough that I think a lawsuit is a bit over the top. On the other hand, if the symbolism of a particular group's idol being displayed by the government should be no big deal, why do they wet themselves with rage when they're asked to take it down?

I will agree that the ACLU is not an evil organization, but way too often, they stick their nose where it doesn't belong. Even more often, they gladly offend the majority in order to keep the minority from getting offended.

Here is an example. The ACLU fought to allow Wiccan symbols allowed on soldier's graves. That's a good thing. I don't care if a soldier wants a spaghetti monster on his grave! Whatever they want, that is what they shall have! However, the ACLU fought to have a war memorial covered with a tarp because it was in the shape of a cross. Was anyone really offended by this cross on a hill in the middle of the Mojave desert? Not that I can find. But, because it was in the shape of a cross, and it was on public land, the ACLU demanded that it be covered. Why? Who was offended? Did anyone care?

The ACLU has not given up its fight to also have the cross removed at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California. The organization claims the display of the cross on federally-owned land violates the constitution.

Of course, the ACLU did the same thing in San Diego

How about a Katrina memorial along side the Mississippi River on private land and paid for by private funds?

The American Civil Liberties Union is objecting to plans for a memorial to the 129 residents of Louisiana's St. Bernard Parish who died in Hurricane Katrina, because it will include a cross bearing a likeness of the face of Jesus.

In a letter to parish officials, Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Joe Cook said the plan violates separation of church and state because the memorial would be alongside a public waterway.

But the parish president says he sees nothing wrong with the memorial, which will be erected on private land near the Mississippi River's Gulf outlet and is being financed with donations.

What if I want to display a manger scene in my front yard that faces a public roadway? (whose front yard doesn't face a public roadway?) How about if I want to build a church next to a federal highway? What if I want to use a federal highway to get to church on Sunday morning? Isn't that using federal funds to support a religion?

Same story, another link.
This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. The ACLU is sticking their noses where it does not belong. No one in this Parish complained. Hell! No one complained at all with the exception of the ACLU.

Then there is the case where the ACLU

AT&T sucks

The ACLU won the first round of this legal challenge in August 2006, when U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the NSA program violates the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in her ACLU v. NSA decision. "It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control," Taylor wrote in the decision, "particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html

"AT&T has been named a defendant in a class action lawsuit that claims the telecommunications company illegally cooperated with the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping program.

A Los Angeles Times article dated Dec. 26 quoted an unnamed source as saying the NSA has a "direct hookup" into an AT&T database that stores information about all domestic phone calls, including how long they lasted.

http://news.com.com/AT38T+sued+over+NSA+spy+program/2100-1028_3-6033501.html

"Have you turned over information or opened up your networks to the NSA without being compelled by law?"

Company Response
Adelphia Communications Declined comment
AOL Time Warner No [1]
AT&T Declined comment
BellSouth Communications No
Cable & Wireless* No response
Cablevision Systems No
CenturyTel No
Charter Communications No [1]
Cingular Wireless No [2]
Citizens Communications No response
Cogent Communications* No [1]
Comcast No
Cox Communications No
EarthLink No
Global Crossing* Inconclusive
Google Declined comment
Level 3* No response
Microsoft No [3]
NTT Communications* Inconclusive [4]
Qwest Communications No [2]
SAVVIS Communications* No response
Sprint Nextel No [2]
T-Mobile USA No [2]
United Online No response
Verizon Communications Inconclusive [5]
XO Communications* No [1]
Yahoo Declined comment

* = Not a company contacted by Rep. John Conyers.
[1] The answer did not explicitly address NSA but said that compliance happens only if required by law.
[2] Provided by a source with knowledge of what this company is telling Conyers. In the case of Sprint Nextel, the source was familiar with Nextel's operations.
[3] As part of an answer to a closely related question for a different survey.
[4] The response was "NTT Communications respects the privacy rights of our customers and complies fully with law enforcement requests as permitted and required by law."
[5] The response was "Verizon complies with applicable laws and does not comment on law enforcement or national security matters."

http://news.com.com/Some+companies+helped+the+NSA%2C+but+which/2100-1028_3-6035305.html

Additional info from the EFF

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/faq.php

Check it out, from the ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

Can you believe that's what Bush is letting happen, and he claims he gives a damn.

You echo my point. The ACLU is an organization that mostly sticks to liberal issues!

If defending liberty is "liberal", why do conservatives hate liberty so much? And no, I did not echo your point, you incompetent boob. The NRA is far larger and far richer than the ACLU, is devoted purely to gun rights, yet does jack to provide legal assistance to gun owners like Maye or Randy Weaver. WTF?

And then you really echo my point.

Sorry, my bad. Your comment was so dumb that I mentally added a few words so it would make sense. When groups sue to block development projects, they do so based on laws like the Endangered Species Act, which is based on the commerce clause. And what environmental suits has the ACLU been involved in, exactly? Google for "environmental suit ACLU" turns up stuff like the group looking into possible law enforcement abuse or a SLAPP suit.

Instead, you've conjured up this lie that "commerce" is everything to get a practical end.

Straw man.

Wow, only 1/3rd the way through & we've been Godwinned.

'course, I agree with ya. I don't go anywhere without my ACLU Bustcard [PDF warning].

I don't know how this guy was moderated so promptly. Perhaps ending a comment with "Fuck the ACLU" is harmful a post's moderation status. But the sad fact is that he is correct, the ACLU doesn't agree that a common citizen/person deserves the right to own or carry arms for the defense of his person or nation. They basically agree with the supreme courts stance of taking a no stance and prefer to not face this issue. They agree with earlier decisions limiting the personal ownership of arms and with continually limiting what arms are allowed. So in closing, Fuck the ACLU.

The majority of what the ACLU does is trying to undermine the religious liberty of the people

Head on over to their website and take a look at what they're doing. It's inaccurate to characterize the majority of the causes they take up as pertaining to religion.

They specifically attack the right to religious expression in schools and in public places.

It's not illegal for an individual to pray in school. It is illegal for a publicly funded school to hold a prayer session, and I fail to see the problem with that. Your religion has no right to use my tax dollars to provide a facility for your prayer group.

2. While the ACLU does do a good job protecting certain rights, the ACLU does a shitty job protecting other rights. When was the last time the ACLU defended people's 2nd Amendment Rights? Or do you want the NRA to be government funded as well?

But it seems at every turn the ACLU is cherry-picking the little ones, and not taking on the meaningful ones.

So you're saying that issues like extraordinary rendition, torture and domestic spying are unimportant?

But it seems at every turn the ACLU is cherry-picking the little ones, and not taking on the meaningful ones.

So you're saying that issues like extraordinary rendition, torture and domestic spying are unimportant?