Slashdot Mirror

i just read this http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =16224&c=207 are we really helping at all with the curent system? doesn't seem like it

Surveillance-Industrial Complex. It details how the gov't is

• "Recruiting Individuals." Documents how individuals are being recruited to serve as "eyes and ears" for the authorities even after Congress rejected the infamous TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System) program that would have recruited workers like cable repairmen to spy on their customers.
• "Recruiting Companies." Examines how companies are pressured to voluntarily provide consumer information to the government; the many ways security agencies can force companies to turn over sensitive information under federal laws such as the Patriot Act; how the government is forcing companies to participate in watchlist programs and in systems for the automatic scrutiny of individuals' financial transactions
• "Mass Data Use, Public and Private." Focuses on the government's use of private data on a mass scale, either through data mining programs like the MATRIX state information-sharing program, or the purchase of information from private-sector data aggregators.
• "Pro-Surveillance Lobbying." Looks at the flip side of the issue: how some companies are pushing the government to adopt surveillance technologies and programs based on private-sector data

• "gives the government access to private-sector databases...who hold most of the details of Americans' lives.
• "lets the government create a system of "distributed surveillance"... in which scattered, individual, independent sources of information are brought together...
• It shifts costs from the government to the private sector...
• It creates constant uncertainty whenever people are in a situation where an informant might be present, enormously amplifying the effect of government surveillance on individual behavior and psychology
• It offers what is a often a path of least resistance to working around privacy laws.
• It allows the government to carry out privacy-invading practices at "arm's length" by piggy-backing on or actually cultivating data collection in the private sector that it could not carry out itself without serious legal or political repercussions.

Surveillance-Industrial Complex. It details how the gov't is

• "Recruiting Individuals." Documents how individuals are being recruited to serve as "eyes and ears" for the authorities even after Congress rejected the infamous TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System) program that would have recruited workers like cable repairmen to spy on their customers.
• "Recruiting Companies." Examines how companies are pressured to voluntarily provide consumer information to the government; the many ways security agencies can force companies to turn over sensitive information under federal laws such as the Patriot Act; how the government is forcing companies to participate in watchlist programs and in systems for the automatic scrutiny of individuals' financial transactions
• "Mass Data Use, Public and Private." Focuses on the government's use of private data on a mass scale, either through data mining programs like the MATRIX state information-sharing program, or the purchase of information from private-sector data aggregators.
• "Pro-Surveillance Lobbying." Looks at the flip side of the issue: how some companies are pushing the government to adopt surveillance technologies and programs based on private-sector data

• "gives the government access to private-sector databases...who hold most of the details of Americans' lives.
• "lets the government create a system of "distributed surveillance"... in which scattered, individual, independent sources of information are brought together...
• It shifts costs from the government to the private sector...
• It creates constant uncertainty whenever people are in a situation where an informant might be present, enormously amplifying the effect of government surveillance on individual behavior and psychology
• It offers what is a often a path of least resistance to working around privacy laws.
• It allows the government to carry out privacy-invading practices at "arm's length" by piggy-backing on or actually cultivating data collection in the private sector that it could not carry out itself without serious legal or political repercussions.

I remeber hearing a story of an elderly women who had the same name as a male terrorist's alias. She was unable to fly for years. Even her congressman couldn't help.

Arrgh. Now I'm all riled up.

Join the ACLU. It's safer than direct action against "the Man."

Unfortunately, EFF has decided it must withdraw from the Combined Federal Campaign, which, I believe, is the program you mention.

The CFC is now requiring organizations that receive funds to check the names of their employees against terrorism "watch lists" in order to participate. It's not clear what organizations have to do if they discover they employ someone whose name appears on the list (such as anyone named "Julio Ramirez.") The privacy implications of such a policy should be apparent.

The EFF, ACLU, and several other organizations have therefore withdrawn from the program. Please note that you can still donate and deduct your donation from your taxes, you just won't be able to do it through the convenience of a federal employee paycheck deduction.

Speaking as an EFF volunteer, I'd really appreciate it if you'd continue to donate, despite the extra burden on your time.

That is only true when and if a motor vehicle enters the equation. It is not true in general public situations (i.e. you are walking on the sidewalk); the police can pull up and ask for ID, but you do not have to provide it to them. My source is the ACLU. I highly recommend everyone read (and memorize) their What to do if you're stopped by The Police page, accessible here.

If you're thrown in jail for criticizing President Bush, that's censorshp. That is not what's happening here.

Actually, you clearly have your head buried in the sand. That is exactly what is happenning here.

People *are* being put in jail for criticizing Bush.
That is censorship, and it is fascism at work. Please wake up.

ACLU came up with an good privacy presentation. Imagine trying to order pizza at a place where they already know everything about you.... http://www.aclu.org/pizza/index.html?orgid=EA07190 4&MX=1414&H=0

Also, ISPs are increasingly willing to supply data without a subpoena or warrant.

Very interesting. Can you tell me where you find proof or numbers to back this up?

Well, numbers are rather hard to come by as these unofficial requests happen quite unofficially. There is more mention of companies turning over records in the new reports (which I don't keep pasted to my door), but if you put me on the spot I'd be hard pressed to quantify it.

On the other hand, ISPs refusing the police's polite requests to turn over information without a warrant is usually an argument politicians use to want to introduce PATRIOT-ACT style no-warrant secret third-party searches..

To my knowledge there is only one ISP in the Netherlands that is unwilling to turn over information without a warrant (xs4all). Some have stated in public they will do their unquestioning best to comply with police requests (e.g. wanadoo/euronet, KPN/planet/hetnet, tiscali).

The EU is considering making it mandatory for ALL communications (of ALL citizens/companies, no due cause) to be stored for seven years, "just in case".

Same here. Haven't heard a word of this.

Just google for it.

The UK already keeps 7 years worth of actual recordings (not just traffic information) of all international voice calls, which is how the 7 year term came into the proposal - it's now being weakened down to 2 years, mostly over concerns of costs, rather than privacy.

Let's consider that filtering software you were talking about. It would have to be capable of realtime filtering.
Not really, they just store all packets headed to/from a particular customer in a giant-ass log and figure it out later, just like you would using ethereal.

There are real-time, hardware based filtering solutions, but those are mostly used by spooks, and hardly likely to be effective, given how much words like "bomb" and "terrorist" crop up in conversations these days.

The focus is on retaining data so you can later sift through it to confirm suspicions that hadn't formed at the time. From there you can reconstruct suspect's networks etc.

I think I saw some of that hardware referenced on cryptome.org years back, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Even if what you say is true, this will just be a huge waste of money
Indeed. If you're into programming network sniffers, some of that money might be headed your way.

Some interesting resources are "privacy international, echelon watch, epic, etc.

Speaking of intrusiveness, I thought this was funny: http://www.aclu.org/pizza/index.html?orgid=EA07190 4&MX=1414&H=0

``Our concern is voter confidence,'' Howard Simon, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, told the court. ``There is no way to know if a vote isn't counted by one of these machines.''

Joining the ACLU in Judge Susan B. Kirkland's courtroom were several other organizations that cited evidence in recent elections in Florida and Virginia that recorded abnormal numbers of blank votes or computer glitches that resulted in incorrect vote tallies.

speaking of the ACLU. Have you signed up yet?
Freedom can't protect itself. And Freedom is not free, thank a vet!

``Our concern is voter confidence,'' Howard Simon, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, told the court. ``There is no way to know if a vote isn't counted by one of these machines.''

Joining the ACLU in Judge Susan B. Kirkland's courtroom were several other organizations that cited evidence in recent elections in Florida and Virginia that recorded abnormal numbers of blank votes or computer glitches that resulted in incorrect vote tallies.

speaking of the ACLU. Have you signed up yet?
Freedom can't protect itself. And Freedom is not free, thank a vet!

Best of all, there's the people that work for him, like the corrupt David Hendershott, a man so fat that he once had to be cut out of a car with the jaws of life- a vehicle that had been impounded by sheriff's office, in fact.

Believe me- Sheriff Joe comes across as a hard-hitting lawman, but he's corrupt, morally bankrupt, and out to make a splash rather than fix the problems in his jails. Unfortunately, more money is spent in litigation and settlements than should be, taking officers off the street.

How he has interpreted the feelings of the show's creators/actors does not matter; their feelings and opinions count for nothing if they don't hold the copyrights to the show (which they clearly do not).

Perhaps the FBI did step over the line here, but from reading the Patriot Act (which you can find here) one can see that the FBI is simply using the tools they've been given to bust the bad guys (the ranks of which this gentleman belongs to). If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

How he has interpreted the feelings of the show's creators/actors does not matter; their feelings and opinions count for nothing if they don't hold the copyrights to the show (which they clearly do not).

Perhaps the FBI did step over the line here, but from reading the Patriot Act (which you can find here) one can see that the FBI is simply using the tools they've been given to bust the bad guys (the ranks of which this gentleman belongs to). If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

I received an e-mail from the ACLU dealing with this issue. It sent a link to this showing how the MATRIX will affect so many things in our lives.

No, actually I'm one of the "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" types.

Sweet! The problem with providing specific examples of individuals whose "rights" have been violated is the very nature of the Patriot Act. The FBI can issue an NSL (National Security Letter) and conduct searches or gather information from ISPs and libraries, and anyone who receives an NSL is bound, by law, not to discuss it. The ACLU is challenging this, but they, too, are hampered by the gag-rule. The provision in the Patriot Act has been used; however, the total number of times it's been used and upon whom is classified. The only example I could find was at the ACLU website. Take it for what it's worth.

I put "rights" in quotes earlier because, while the Constitution guarantees many rights and implies others, the Patriot Act essentially removes those rights. Thus, once an NSL has been issued for you, you no longer have the rights you previously had. In this case, no one's rights have been violated because they lost those rights when the NSL was issued. Rather scary, actually.

I wonder how many folks that refuse to give money to Microsoft based on moral reasons evenly apply their morality to other purchases. Do they make sure they buy fair-trade coffee? Refuse Nike shoes? Purchase food that wasn't grown by a factory-farming corporation? Buy 'dolphin-safe' tuna?

Microsoft is fiercely competitive, but I'd hesitate to call it _evil_. Microsoft doesn't have an army of children it's exploiting, and doesn't destroy the environment to make it's millions.

Pick and choose your battles I guess. Personally, Microsoft can have my $100 or whatever for Windows, because the convenience and price is better than the competition. They're gonna use that money to make a better version of Windows and hawk it--big deal. My peronal beef is with big media companies such as Disney and Clear Channel. I could rant a long time about the injustices of big media, but it's off topic.

My point is that maybe you'd (not you, the general 'you') want to investigate if your antiestablishment energy would be more productive elsewhere. Fretting about Microsoft can be good, but maybe it's better to help out here, here, or here?

"What next, a massive government database system to track every message and contacts between people?"

Like this, or maybe this, or this
I don't know if the Chinese have a system like this yet, but we already have Echelon, so were set.

(For those of you to lazy to read all the articles, Echelon is a global communications spy network run by the NSA (with cooperation, in the form of listening posts, from the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. It gives them the capability to listen to and monitor any broadcast transmission on the planet.)

Sure, the polics can use this technology to see through your walls and see if you are doing something illegal, but it probably won't be admissable in an American court.

There was a case in which police used infrared scanners to see how hot/bright it was inside a house that they suspected having marijuana plants growing inside. When it came to trial, the attorney argued that because the police had no warrant to search the house, it was an illegal search. IIRC, the judge ruled that it was a violation of search and seizure laws. It's a good precedent, and because it sends out waves to spy (as opposed to passive scanning like the infrared did), it's even more invasive.

So, just get a good lawyer, and you should be set. That is, in theory.

I would see nothing wrong with a $.01/page fee for FOIA request. Pay up if it amounts to more than $10.

Your statement implies that FOIA requests are currently free (as in beer). They aren't.

Scott -
they don't have to do "all this for free"! Tsk tsk.

As an AC already pointed out, they can charge fees for duplication - which has almost certainly been used to discourage large requests...

<grrr>

Q: Has census data been abused in the past?

A: Yes. Information gathered by the U.S. Census bureau helped the government round up American citizens of Japanese ancestry during World War II. When the Federal government came up with the idea that these Japanese Americans were a security threat, it needed some way to hunt them down. The solution? Use the Census records. According to officials who were in charge of the internment process, Census Bureau employees opened up their files and drew up detailed maps. These maps showed where Japanese Americans were located and how many such people were living in a given area.2 In the end, nearly 112,000 people were captured and sent to internment camps, in one of the darkest episodes in United States history.3

In the years after World War II, there have been repeated attempts to expand the use of Census records beyond mere statistical analysis. Recently, there was an effort to expand the number of public entities who have ready access to these banks of data, including state and local authorities, as well as the United States Postal Service.4 These developments underline the importance of new privacy protection laws to prevent history from repeating itself.

The historical record is clear that senior Census Bureau staff proactively
cooperated with the internment, and that census tabulations were directly
implicated in the denial of civil rights to citizens of the United States who
happened also to be of Japanese ancestry.

The record is less clear whether the then in effect legal prohibitions against
revealing individual data records were violated. On this question, the judicial
principle of innocent until proven otherwise should be honored. However,
even were it to be conclusively documented that no such violation did occur,
this would not and could not excuse the abuse of human rights that resulted
from the rapid provision of tabulations designed to identify where Japanese
Americans lived and therefore to facilitate and accelerate the forced
relocation and denial of civil rights.

Yet I bet that their "120,000" number is about as good as my own analysis above- sounds very precise, but not at all accurate... But since those HTQ people are now defined- and who wants to waste data- they're going to show up in the gov't databases. And then their roommates and co-workers are going to get flagged as medium TQ people. And then their roommates get to be medium-low TQ people. And so on and so on... If you're lucky you'll only be a LLML TQ, but no one gets to be 100% free of the taint.

Even though that original 120k number doesn't pass the sniff test. Sure, ".04%" seems like a small number, but that equals one in 2500 people. Is 1/2500 people in the US a terrorist? That'd be 1 terrorist per 10 airplane flights, or several terrorists per major sporting event, or 400 terrorists in Silicon Valley (plus the 30 laid off who've moved back home). Unless they're all fantastically incompetent, the US should have several terror events per day.

[Pause to answer knock on door....]

Oh, never mind, we are crawling with terrorists, like the Peace Fresno anti-war group with their monthly streetside protest. Forgot that civil disobedience is now terrorism. Unless its lawful civil disobedience, of course. I'm just going to go back to my Orrin Hatch CD now.

The ACLU provides a list of handy tips that can be printed and stored in a wallet in the event that you're stopped by the police

Earlier, some people voiced concerns about being stopped by police imposters. You can always call the local police station to find out whether an officer has been deployed to your area.

Personally, I think this recent ruling is outrageous. I would be willing to inform an officer of my identity if and only if he first told me why he was asking.

Incidentally, a lot of people have brought up the fact that the officer who stopped Hiibel didn't pay attention to his daughter, the supposed victim. This is the only circumstance where I believe the officer acted completely correctly. If it were really an abusive situation, it's best to get the suspect under control before checking on the victim. Similarly, if you happen to witness a crime, force yourself to watch the offender, not the victim. The offender is not likely to remain in the area long, and the split-second you devote to him alone may help you see a scar or tattoo that would positively identify him in the future. Once he is gone, help the victim.

Appears to be from this ACLU page. *shrug* Either way, how did his identity ever come into play in the police abuse?

Oh, give me a break. The Dems in the house voted for the Patriot Act at 72.6%, while the Republicans were near universal (that took *real* guts to vote against it just after 9/11). You want to talk about the eight worst internet laws? 18 of the 93 worst offenders were Democrats, and only two were in the top 25. Echelon? Kerry is currently being bashed by Bush for trying to cut intelligence programs like that. Furthermore....

http://scorecard.aclu.org/archival.html

For 2001, the ACLU's overall rankings were 74% for Democrats and 14% for Republicans. *Of Course* you can pick out cases from the 26%. But it is horribly misleading.

Don't trust the ACLU? Look at EFF archives. Same sort of thing.

BTW, if you're one of the "both parties are the same" people, give it a rest and visit >A HREF="http://vote-smart.com">Project Vote Smart, a voting record site. Notice in the summaries that of the 107 different ratings, 93 of them had the parties almost completely stratified on the issue. Now, you can claim that you have a *mix* of alignment with the parties, but to claim that they're the same is just not correct.

Look, I know what it's like. I was raised a Republican. My uncle was even in the House of Representatives. I really, truly believed that they stood for civil liberties. But the voting records don't lie: when it comes to civil liberties, on everything but guns, they're just awful.

Oh, give me a break. The Dems in the house voted for the Patriot Act at 72.6%, while the Republicans were near universal (that took *real* guts to vote against it just after 9/11). You want to talk about the eight worst internet laws? 18 of the 93 worst offenders were Democrats, and only two were in the top 25. Echelon? Kerry is currently being bashed by Bush for trying to cut intelligence programs like that. Furthermore....

http://scorecard.aclu.org/archival.html

For 2001, the ACLU's overall rankings were 74% for Democrats and 14% for Republicans. *Of Course* you can pick out cases from the 26%. But it is horribly misleading.

Don't trust the ACLU? Look at EFF archives. Same sort of thing.

BTW, if you're one of the "both parties are the same" people, give it a rest and visit >A HREF="http://vote-smart.com">Project Vote Smart, a voting record site. Notice in the summaries that of the 107 different ratings, 93 of them had the parties almost completely stratified on the issue. Now, you can claim that you have a *mix* of alignment with the parties, but to claim that they're the same is just not correct.

Look, I know what it's like. I was raised a Republican. My uncle was even in the House of Representatives. I really, truly believed that they stood for civil liberties. But the voting records don't lie: when it comes to civil liberties, on everything but guns, they're just awful.

If /. Readers had an impact how was it done? Was there a petition link on the previous story that I missed? Was there a letter writing campaign that I missed? Or the the LWV leadership (and the hundreds of their members who oppose paperless ballots) simply derive all their impetus from the firestorm going on in the comments? Did thjey for example read them and think, "wow we have to move now or these people may moderate each other more heavily!"

I am not minimizing the role of discussion here nor am I saying that posting a comment on /. is a waste of time.

What I am saying is that comments on /. stay on /. If you want to pressure other groups don't expect that they will read your comments and change their minds. What you do is take action at the EFF, join the ACLU, get organization info from Blackboxvoting.org, or send letters to the appropriate people (Congress, Whitehouse) . You can even create your own online petition at PeitionOnline.com. The key is to branch out to others and raise their conciousness level not preach to the choir.

Everyone should go get a copy of the ACLU's Pocket Card on Police Encounters. Print it out, laminate it, keep in on you at all times. Memorize it, love it, live it.

CAE Defense Fund

ACLU

Only by sending me money now to my Nigerian Bank Account will you move from the Ruby to Emerald Level of the "Earn Money From Home By Sowing Patriot Act FUD (EMFHBSPFUD)" ... learn what these individuals have not yet learned.

You must act now!!!!

You must act now!!!!

You must act now!!!!

[HUMOR OFF :-(:-(:-(]

... link for those who have never bothered to read the PATRIOT Act source documentation

The solution to the Catch-22 problem is don't play the game. Don't obey any laws passed by these people, disobey any order or any ruling of authority as a matter of principle. As Americans, you're supposed to be free. Prove it by revolting against unjust laws.

Yossarian tried that solution in the book, and it didn't work: Done properly, civil disobedience is a powerful way to protest unjust laws -- and by done properly I mean that you announce your intent to break the law, break it, and then publicly and willingly suffer the consequences -- but the solution to Catch-22 laws is to repeal or strike them down and replace the legislators who wrote them.

Laws like the "PATRIOT ACT" are attacks on America from within. They seek to turn America from a nation ruled by laws -- by checks and balances and limited government -- into a nation ruled by fear. They grant more power to the powerful, and seek to prevent a well-informed populace by denying us information.

If we respond by abandoning the playing field, and we fail to defend the rule of law from these aggressors, then we've given up one of our most powerful weapons without a fight. The law is, and should be, on our side -- the PATRIOT ACT didn't overturn the First Amendment, and the ACLU (as always) is out in front aggressively defending our freedoms.

Want to help? Donate to the ACLU. Get involved with Democracy For America. Find a candidate who shares your views, and vote in November. That's the solution to the Catch-22 problem, Yossarian. You have to jump.

Like your other respondant implied, I'm sure the ACLU would love to get cases where they're defending painters of apples and kittens and sad-faced clowns. The EFF would love to get "Ashcroft vs. Widows and Orphans Programming, Inc.". The government isn't that stupid- it'll send the worst looking cases first, to try to remove any public sympathy.

The mention of the ACLU had me worried. The "F" word made me sure that this was nonsense. Activist trial lawyers. Ah, the future of your supreme courts.
The blurb also advertises "Fascinating details". The linked article has little details, and they are not really that fascinating.

The ACLU's page on the matter, with legal briefs and everything, is here: http://www.aclu.org/nsl That was more informative.

Unchecked search and seizure is a problem, but I can't see the problem with a gag order. If this one-man ISP was identified, the suspect could just cut and run.

I'll read the judge's decission and the EFF amicus brief and forget that slur against the U.S. government.

A few key points:

• Patriot Act demands are supposed to be handled at the FBI Director level. But the FBI has delegated authority to issue them all the way down to the Special Agent in Charge at each FBI office.
• The FBI has turned over a "list" of National Security Letters to the court. All the information is blacked out.
• The FBI wants the name of the ISP involved kept secret. But from this deposition it's very tiny. "I am the President and sole employee of (blacked out)". He's currently subject to a gag order, and the ACLU is trying to get that lifted.
• The ACLU recently moved for summary judgement in this case, because there are no factual issues in dispute. This will need to be resolved on appeal, as a constitutional issue.

A few key points:

• Patriot Act demands are supposed to be handled at the FBI Director level. But the FBI has delegated authority to issue them all the way down to the Special Agent in Charge at each FBI office.
• The FBI has turned over a "list" of National Security Letters to the court. All the information is blacked out.
• The FBI wants the name of the ISP involved kept secret. But from this deposition it's very tiny. "I am the President and sole employee of (blacked out)". He's currently subject to a gag order, and the ACLU is trying to get that lifted.
• The ACLU recently moved for summary judgement in this case, because there are no factual issues in dispute. This will need to be resolved on appeal, as a constitutional issue.

A few key points:

• Patriot Act demands are supposed to be handled at the FBI Director level. But the FBI has delegated authority to issue them all the way down to the Special Agent in Charge at each FBI office.
• The FBI has turned over a "list" of National Security Letters to the court. All the information is blacked out.
• The FBI wants the name of the ISP involved kept secret. But from this deposition it's very tiny. "I am the President and sole employee of (blacked out)". He's currently subject to a gag order, and the ACLU is trying to get that lifted.
• The ACLU recently moved for summary judgement in this case, because there are no factual issues in dispute. This will need to be resolved on appeal, as a constitutional issue.

A few key points:

• Patriot Act demands are supposed to be handled at the FBI Director level. But the FBI has delegated authority to issue them all the way down to the Special Agent in Charge at each FBI office.
• The FBI has turned over a "list" of National Security Letters to the court. All the information is blacked out.
• The FBI wants the name of the ISP involved kept secret. But from this deposition it's very tiny. "I am the President and sole employee of (blacked out)". He's currently subject to a gag order, and the ACLU is trying to get that lifted.
• The ACLU recently moved for summary judgement in this case, because there are no factual issues in dispute. This will need to be resolved on appeal, as a constitutional issue.

Terrorists blow things up and kill about 1/10th the number of Americans who die in highway deaths each year, but in doing do they stiffen our resolve and so never get anywhere near to changing our fundamental America values.

But dissidents and domestic trouble-makers can cause real problems for a regime that calls questioning its mistakes tantamount to aiding America's enemies.

Today is Memorial Day. I hope that all Americans will take time today to reflect on the costs of freedom and the American men and women in our armed forces who have paid for our freedoms with their service, their wounds, and their lives.

On this Memorial Day, let's really support our troops by following the advice of so many retired officers and men by insisting that "Robert S." Rumsfeld and his band of incompetent chicken-hawks resign -- or be fired.

That's what I get for trying to grab a quick article to summarize a complex point. :-)

First, the person in question was an American citizen. He has unalienable rights including all the protections of the Bill of Rights. The enemy combatant label was invented by Lincoln and has no basis (or at best, a weak basis) in American law as pass by an elected Congress. While Lincoln's actions may have been understandable, in my view they were -- like his closing of newspapers -- blatantly unconstitutional. We are supposed to be a society based on the rule of law. We have a law against treason. The person in question should be told what he is accused of and entitled to a lawyer and the protections we give American citizens. After a trial, if found guilty, he should be punished.

The one incident mentioned in the Boston Globe editorial is but one incident. There have been thousands of other people (admittedly, mostly non-US citizens) snatched off from American streets and put in prison without charges and without access to a lawyer or families. How many? We don't know -- the gov't refuses to say.

Another example is an Intel engineer, Maher Mofied 'Mike' Hawash. Maher was snatched off the street in Oregon and held without charges.

At the time, Intel VP Stephen McGeady wrote, "I think many of your readers would be surprised to learn that our government can detain indefinitely a U.S. citizen, especially one with a wife, three children, a job and deep roots in our community....Americans are taught that the Constitution protects us against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, and that our freedom and these constitutional liberties are what we are fighting for in Iraq and elsewhere, yet one of our neighbors can be taken from his home or office and held without charge for weeks or months."

After months of imprisonment, Maher plead guilty in a plea bargain.

Guilt or innocence isn't the top priority -- the process is. Hitler executed a lot of guilty people in his concentration camps; what's the difference between his methods and the Texas death penalty today -- it's the legal process. It's following the rules of law and our laws give citizens certain rights, including a presumption of innocence, the right to a lawyer, to face your accuser, etc. Violation of these rights is LITERALLY un-American.

And this is what the Bush administration is currently doing. In the most literal sense, the people doing these violations are undermining our Constitution. Are these so-called "patriots" committing acts of treason?

Besides the previously mentioned Common Dreams site, another useful source on this issue is the ACLU's Patriot Act site and in particular, its Summary of the USA PATRIOT Act and Other Government Acts. A close examination of those sites will show the rights to a lawyer, fair trial, search & seizure, assembly and other essential rights in our Bill of Rights have been severely curtailed in the name of the failing war on terrorism. What's worse, this violation of civil liberties by Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush has resulted in 0 (zero!) terrorists being convicted!

Whether one agrees with all the ACLU's points or not, one should remember that there is a small difference between fascism and liberal democracy. While it may be melodramatic, one should remember that pre-WWII Germany lead the world in many ways. It only took a failed war and some economic chaos to pave the way for the election of Hitler and the rise of fascism.

And one should also remember Ben Franklin's words of wisdom, "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

(And with that said, climbing off from this soapbox is going to be a helluva job...:-)

That's what I get for trying to grab a quick article to summarize a complex point. :-)

First, the person in question was an American citizen. He has unalienable rights including all the protections of the Bill of Rights. The enemy combatant label was invented by Lincoln and has no basis (or at best, a weak basis) in American law as pass by an elected Congress. While Lincoln's actions may have been understandable, in my view they were -- like his closing of newspapers -- blatantly unconstitutional. We are supposed to be a society based on the rule of law. We have a law against treason. The person in question should be told what he is accused of and entitled to a lawyer and the protections we give American citizens. After a trial, if found guilty, he should be punished.

The one incident mentioned in the Boston Globe editorial is but one incident. There have been thousands of other people (admittedly, mostly non-US citizens) snatched off from American streets and put in prison without charges and without access to a lawyer or families. How many? We don't know -- the gov't refuses to say.

Another example is an Intel engineer, Maher Mofied 'Mike' Hawash. Maher was snatched off the street in Oregon and held without charges.

At the time, Intel VP Stephen McGeady wrote, "I think many of your readers would be surprised to learn that our government can detain indefinitely a U.S. citizen, especially one with a wife, three children, a job and deep roots in our community....Americans are taught that the Constitution protects us against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, and that our freedom and these constitutional liberties are what we are fighting for in Iraq and elsewhere, yet one of our neighbors can be taken from his home or office and held without charge for weeks or months."

After months of imprisonment, Maher plead guilty in a plea bargain.

Guilt or innocence isn't the top priority -- the process is. Hitler executed a lot of guilty people in his concentration camps; what's the difference between his methods and the Texas death penalty today -- it's the legal process. It's following the rules of law and our laws give citizens certain rights, including a presumption of innocence, the right to a lawyer, to face your accuser, etc. Violation of these rights is LITERALLY un-American.

And this is what the Bush administration is currently doing. In the most literal sense, the people doing these violations are undermining our Constitution. Are these so-called "patriots" committing acts of treason?

Besides the previously mentioned Common Dreams site, another useful source on this issue is the ACLU's Patriot Act site and in particular, its Summary of the USA PATRIOT Act and Other Government Acts. A close examination of those sites will show the rights to a lawyer, fair trial, search & seizure, assembly and other essential rights in our Bill of Rights have been severely curtailed in the name of the failing war on terrorism. What's worse, this violation of civil liberties by Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush has resulted in 0 (zero!) terrorists being convicted!

Whether one agrees with all the ACLU's points or not, one should remember that there is a small difference between fascism and liberal democracy. While it may be melodramatic, one should remember that pre-WWII Germany lead the world in many ways. It only took a failed war and some economic chaos to pave the way for the election of Hitler and the rise of fascism.

And one should also remember Ben Franklin's words of wisdom, "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

(And with that said, climbing off from this soapbox is going to be a helluva job...:-)

can be found on there site: Matrix

I am not being trite when I say read the US Bill of Rights.

Why? It's not like it's being respected by lawmakers.

the USA has substantial advantages in the Ownership of Property

Except that the police can just confiscate your property and you have to sue (if you still have enough money left to do so) to get it back. In the majority of seizures, the people whose property gets taken do not even get charged with a crime. Here is a good essay on this issue. Some cases where money was taken without good grounds. And no, they can't do this where I live.

rights to political dissent

A US kid got suspended for wearing a T-shirt with "Anarchy." The government actively tries to prevent people from advertising messages that go against government policy. An anti-war community organization was infiltrated by the police.

These involve a vast improvement in the rights to relief from problems with the government via a court system that despite all its flaws is orders of magnitude more likely to answer to the interests of ordinary people when they dispute with the strong and powerful than in EU or elsewhere.

The US legal system has incarcerated an extremely large part of its population. Many of those are victim of the war on drugs. However, while drug use is no lower among caucasians, three quarter of the people convicted for these crimes are black or latino. The same goes for the death penalty. Black & latino see the needle far more than caucasians. In short, your legal system certainly seems to take it out on the lower class.

As for Europe trodding on the ordinary man, do you have any evidence to back that up? Because I don't see too much of that happening here.

In the USA most people take for granted that the Police and Courts actually will deal with problems and redress without bribery.

I never had to bribe the police or the courts. What parts of the EU are you talking about? Nigeria?

EU types have been raised under a system where they delt with a thousand years of entrenched bureaucracy with its systematic and embedded corruption at a level beyond any American Imagination.

In my country (The Netherlands), 10% of the workers are government employees. In the US, it is 14%. 'Nough said.

As for corruption and bribery: according to the 2003 Corruption Perceptions Index, my EU country is ranked 7th (with a 8.9/10). The US is ranked 18 (with a 7.5/10). The Bribe Payers Index 2002 ranked The Netherlands 6th (with a 7.8/10), while the US was ranked 13th (with a 5.3/10).

Much of the current Economic troubles in the USA and Social Discord are the result of this trend towards EU solutions and methods.

An important reason for social discord in the US seems to be that a small part of the population is screwing the rest. The only reason why many people have to work two jobs, while others have more money than they can spend in two lives, is because they believe the bullshit of "what is good for business is good for you."

In synopsis, the EU is a Bureacratic Super State where Citizens have no particular rights except those granted by PERMIT.

Do you know that the Union has a really low number of bureaucrats (~30.000) and that the nations have very strong control over what the Union does? NO, of COURSE you DIDN'T know, did you? Shouting hard is much easier than providing proof, isn't it?

The Brussels system will further dominate the area by an Oligarchy and the delivery of individual freedom in

I am not being trite when I say read the US Bill of Rights.

Why? It's not like it's being respected by lawmakers.

the USA has substantial advantages in the Ownership of Property

Except that the police can just confiscate your property and you have to sue (if you still have enough money left to do so) to get it back. In the majority of seizures, the people whose property gets taken do not even get charged with a crime. Here is a good essay on this issue. Some cases where money was taken without good grounds. And no, they can't do this where I live.

rights to political dissent

A US kid got suspended for wearing a T-shirt with "Anarchy." The government actively tries to prevent people from advertising messages that go against government policy. An anti-war community organization was infiltrated by the police.

These involve a vast improvement in the rights to relief from problems with the government via a court system that despite all its flaws is orders of magnitude more likely to answer to the interests of ordinary people when they dispute with the strong and powerful than in EU or elsewhere.

The US legal system has incarcerated an extremely large part of its population. Many of those are victim of the war on drugs. However, while drug use is no lower among caucasians, three quarter of the people convicted for these crimes are black or latino. The same goes for the death penalty. Black & latino see the needle far more than caucasians. In short, your legal system certainly seems to take it out on the lower class.

As for Europe trodding on the ordinary man, do you have any evidence to back that up? Because I don't see too much of that happening here.

In the USA most people take for granted that the Police and Courts actually will deal with problems and redress without bribery.

I never had to bribe the police or the courts. What parts of the EU are you talking about? Nigeria?

EU types have been raised under a system where they delt with a thousand years of entrenched bureaucracy with its systematic and embedded corruption at a level beyond any American Imagination.

In my country (The Netherlands), 10% of the workers are government employees. In the US, it is 14%. 'Nough said.

As for corruption and bribery: according to the 2003 Corruption Perceptions Index, my EU country is ranked 7th (with a 8.9/10). The US is ranked 18 (with a 7.5/10). The Bribe Payers Index 2002 ranked The Netherlands 6th (with a 7.8/10), while the US was ranked 13th (with a 5.3/10).

Much of the current Economic troubles in the USA and Social Discord are the result of this trend towards EU solutions and methods.

An important reason for social discord in the US seems to be that a small part of the population is screwing the rest. The only reason why many people have to work two jobs, while others have more money than they can spend in two lives, is because they believe the bullshit of "what is good for business is good for you."

In synopsis, the EU is a Bureacratic Super State where Citizens have no particular rights except those granted by PERMIT.

Do you know that the Union has a really low number of bureaucrats (~30.000) and that the nations have very strong control over what the Union does? NO, of COURSE you DIDN'T know, did you? Shouting hard is much easier than providing proof, isn't it?

The Brussels system will further dominate the area by an Oligarchy and the delivery of individual freedom in

This is, of course, a completely bogus statement. The NRA is a staunch defender of both the 1st and 2nd amendments. They're currently waging a campaign against CFR, which is a direct, unadulterated attack on the single most important kind of free speech : political speech.

The NRA is frightened of CFR because it essentially forces them to create their own media network in order to be heard. (Editorial opinions are exempt from the prohibitions against campaign-related advertising; freedom of the press, as usual, belongs to the man who owns one.)

However, according to Charlton Heston, I, as a developer of computer and video games, am responsible for corrupting America's youth. In order to halt the decline of Western civilization, my right to free expression needs to be muzzled with the force of Judeo-Christian law.

The NRA is just like the Free Speechers at Berkeley: free speech for me, but not for thee.

On the other hand, the ACLU is clearly not in the same boat. They do absolutely ZERO to protect 2nd amendment rights.

Worse than that: their stance is actively counterproductive. Basically, in the ACLU's book, you have no right to act in your own defense.

I hope they are not on the brink of learning the hard way just how senseless that position is.

Just fill out the form below and make a contribution of $20 or more with your Mastercard, Visa or American Express card to become a card-carrying member of the ACLU today!

I let my membership in the ACLU lapse some years ago. (I thought that they picked or were baited into silly and counter-productive fights that merely discredited them.) But now I will renew my membership.

Here's Google's cache of the offending press release. Judging from the story link, this looks like the censored text:

"The ACLU has led opposition to controversial portions of the Patriot Act, filing a challenge to Section 215, another provision that allows the FBI to gain access to sensitive records, and filing briefs before the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to oppose expanded wiretaps. With support from a broad right-left coalition, the ACLU has also encouraged passage of approximately 300 local resolutions against anti-civil liberties portions of the law, and has urged Congress to leave in place the "sunsets" for Patriot Act provisions set to expire in 2005."

"The parties have agreed to a briefing schedule in the case. The ACLU will file a summary judgment motion on May 17, 2004; the government will respond on June 7, 2004; all briefing will be completed in July 2004. The court is likely to schedule arguments in the case in late summer 2004. The case is assigned to Judge Victor Marrero."

But wait! I went to the ACLU's actual page and found the same text. Cruising through the most recent press releases turned up a new release that tells the story. Long story short, this story's already out of date (the info has been reinstated)! That doesn't mean that the government didn't fuck up, just that at least one judge hasn't lost his/her mind.

From

CNN:
"A draft of the new domestic security bill Ashcroft is seeking, published by a nonprofit government watchdog group in February, indicates that among other things, it would prohibit disclosure of information regarding people detained as terrorist suspects and prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from distributing "worst-case scenario" information to the public about a nearby private company's use of chemicals.
In addition, the measure would create a DNA database of "suspected terrorists;" force suspects to prove why they should be released on bail, rather than have the prosecution prove why they should be held; and allow the deportation of U.S. citizens who become members of or help terrorist groups."

The Patriot act, linked with the Homeland Security Act, has gutted the Freedom of Information Act.

From

Wired News Dec. 02, 2002
"One of the most egregious and potentially dangerous of these travesties is the Homeland Security Act's creation of new and very broad exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act. Businesses now have a new way to evade liability for safety violations, hazards to consumers and other abuses. They need merely report the information about their behavior -- even totally unclassified activities -- to the federal government, and claim it's related to homeland security. In the parlance of the Homeland Security Act, they declare the data to be "CII," or Critical Infrastructure Information."

In other News from the press: everything is classified now, and won't be released anytime soon. (See "Amendment To Executive Order No. 12958")
How much is this being used now?

Local News
"Federal agents sought 1,727 warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for electronic eavesdropping and physical searches last year, according to a Justice Department filing with Congress. Just four applications were rejected, and two of those were later revised and approved. The number of so-called FISA warrants jumped by 500 from 2002 and has almost doubled since 2001, when 934 applications were approved."
"By comparison, there were 1,442 wiretap petitions in federal and state courts for crimes like drugs and racketeering, according to a separate report from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts."

How much abuse has been identified?

Inspector general's report on Patriot act abuses:
( They *only* found 34 *credible* cases in the 272 complaints. But please remember, it's all secret and there is no public oversight.)
The ACLU issued a report on how the Patriot Act is actually being used. Link Here.
The Migration Policy Institute says:
'Moreover, among those detained (and of the 1,200, the MPI could only identify a third) were "persistent violations of due p