Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure if you are aware, but the US already can detain non-citizens indefinitely. They also do not have to tell detainees what they're accused of.

Three laws passed in 1996 together allow this... and have led to over 3500 people indefinitely detained. The laws are: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, The Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act, and The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

The ACLU has more information on these laws.

Please do not construe my post to be an opinion on anything, just information.

Perversely, commercial pornographers would remain relatively unaffected by the Act, since we learned that most of them already use credit card or adult verification anyway. Commercial pornographers normally provide a few free pictures to entice a user into proceeding further into the Web site. To proceed beyond these teasers, users must provide a credit card number or adult verification number. The CDA will force these businesses to remove the teasers (or cover the most salacious content with cgi scripts), but the core, commercial product of these businesses will remain in place.

No; it's about adult content. People think that certain extreme political viewpoints are not suitable for children. Or the information that contraception and abortion are both legal in the US - Planned Parenthood. Or any sex-oriented words even if the context is non-sexual - i.e. the pseudo-crimes of profanity, obscenity etc. This just fucking ridiculous! There. Slashdot has (and always has had) "adult content".

There are actually cretins, morons and imbeciles who believe that the views of organisations like the ACLU and Amnesty International are "adult content" and they don't want their kids exposed to it until they've completed their brainwashing sessions. If these morons can't control their own children they certainly shouldn't be allowed to control the whole nation.

Q. Will instituting some sort of access trail or ID verification for non-mainstream political web sites restrict their free speech rights? Will this kind of legislation harm minors because they were not allowed to get information about contraception without proof of ID?
A. You bet your ass it will.

You make a good point about if false positives are too common, all positives will be skimmed over.

I have a point to add as well. I couldn't help but also think, what if you or I were a person who "fit the system's description" of a known terrorist. We would be stopped Everywhere, All The Time. The system would have to. Either that or give up on matches of you AND the terrorist. If this technology becomes widespread, imaging the Hell it would be to be one of those people. You would be harassed wherever you go, indefinatly. It's profiling via computer system. Sure, "fitting the discription" would be much narrower than driving while black, but it's the same concept and consequences.

And what's to stop a terrorist from wearing cosmetics. If cosmetics exist to make an actor look like a klingon, I'm sure they exist to sufficiently change one's appearance to defeat this stupid system.



"First they tell you you're wrong and they can prove it; Then they tell you you're right but it isn't important; Then they tell you it's important but they knew it all along." -Charles Kettering

I worked for Viisage Technology for a couple of years, and they use a system in the building where two cameras scan for faces in the hallway (as you're approaching to enter) and if a face found matches one in the employee database, it unlocks the door.

It was sophisticated enough to identify me as me even when I was wearing my eyeglasses, and later, when I grew a goatee type beard and moustache. No ID code to enter, no badge to carry. If you didn't match anyone in the database, it would summon security and leave the doors locked.

Having run their Technical Support Department for 2 years, I can tell you that the products not only work, but work very well. They use the facial recognition in Massachusetts at the Department of Transitional Assistance (Welfare) offices to identify those people obtaining multiple ID's under assumed names to weed out Welfare fraud.

The kind of access system they have in their entry could be used in an airport entry to identify a suspected terrorist trying to move about the country and alert security. It's pretty close to an Orwelian concept, except this type of monitoring would definately have oversight by a committee or White House office to prevent civil rights abuses.

I personally am against the idea on principle, but sometimes one principle takes precedence over another.

The link to the ACLU form letter (actually a fax) is here: http://www.aclu.org/action/liberty107.html

The ACLU [aclu.org] has a place where you can send a form-fax to your senator or congressman urging them to make an informed decision about the laws regarding cryptography. I sent such a message to my elected officials in Washington; you should to. I can't for the life of me find the actual link for the page again, but it is there, somewhere. I will post it as a reply here.

Also, elsewhere on Slashdot, again I can't find the link again, there is a very well-written letter that the author said he would allow for use provided it was modified a little bit.

If we don't want something to happen, we need to make sure to tell our government about it. They are there to represent US, and if we don't want something, it shouldn't happen.

Here is one thing you can do, go to
http://www.aclu.org/action/liberty107.html
and enter your zip code. You have a choice of email, fax, or letter to your state reps regarding the recent issues with our rights being trampled on.

----

As a result of what happened in NY, DC, and PA, Congress has begin passing all
sorts of crazy legislation. Most of these bills are being labeled as
"Anti-terrorism" bills, when in actuality, they are mostly anti-American.

Included in their changes are:
- Allowing for wiretaps to be without a search warrants. This includes
listening in on your phone conversations and scanning your email he use of
certain words. For example, it will be legal to begin reading your email and
monitoring your website usage if attention was brought to you because you
used suspicious words in your communication. If your thinking "Isn't that
un-Constitutional?", your right, it WAS.

- Requiring giving the encryption keys to any encryption scheme to be
given to the government. Basically, your privacy would non-existent to any
non-ethical person in the government that wanted to use them. In short,
there would be NO (legal) WAY to communicate via email or internet that the
government couldn't monitor. Law abiding Americans would the only people
they could monitor, while those breaking the law would continue to use their
own encryption schemes, meaning that we would only monitor those NOT
breaking the law. Sound like fun?

- "Hacking" a computer would now to an "Act of Terrorism." Meaning that changing a website without permission could be punished with life in a federal prison. I'm not going to defend hacking a computer, but I think that
fits under the cruel and usual punishment scenario. Once we give the
government power to punish people to this extent, how long until we begin
executing people for misdemeanors?

The list goes on and on, and it scares me. I urge everyone to visit the
site: http://www.aclu.org/action/liberty107.html. Go to the bottom, enter
your zip code, and hit go. This will bring you to a page that will allow you
to fax your congressmen while only spending about 10 seconds. It will send a
fax that is basically a generic letter the ACLU has drafted. For those not
sure how to do anything about our world, this would be a simple way to
finally do something.

Congress will likely be voting on this bill within the next week, so time is
of great importance. I sincerely hope many of you will spend the 30 seconds
needed to do something that could effect our lives for years to come.

I'd like to see Slashdot start a slashbox for each of the following organizations. The data for the slashbox can be taken directly from their home pages - they each have news headlines that a bit of PERL could pull out very easily. In addition, I'd like to see a section before the headlines labeled "top issues" that can be written by the organization themselves. It would be a space for a link to the issues they think most important.

CDT

ALCU

EFF

These organizations stand for many of the things talked about on Slashdot. Those that feel strongly about any of the issues supported by one of these organizations should join that organization!

Rudy

Ok, so you think this legislation sucks, let's do something about it. Right now!

Take yourself over to this ACLU site and enter your zip code (the long one). Or for those of you concious of the referrer bit, cut and paste this link into your browser, http://www.aclu.org/action/liberty107.html and feel good for doing your bit. Still with me, now erase the text in the message box and replace it with this:

The "Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001" is overly broad and threat to the computer industry of the United States as well as the liberties and freedoms we enjoy as Americans. The act is overly broad in it's definitions of terrorism and lacks the traditional prudence and restraint exhibited by more dilberative congressional commitees in the past. It is for all these reasons that I as a proud American urge you to reject this hasty and ill considered legislastion.

I urge you to reject this act at the commitee level as well as on the floor. If we surrender our liberties and freedoms in a time of crisis the terrorist have won. We must defeat terrorism but not at the cost of our freedoms.

Fill in the rest of your information and click the send message button. Do it and be free.

What your still hanging around this post? Ok then, please check out this other news site.

If you're looking for more information, you can just go to aclu.org and search for "national id" you'll find plenty of information about why they are a very bad idea....

Laws are effective at controlling the behavior of people who choose to obey them. The usefullness of regulating behavior drecreases as people become inreasingly willing to violate the law.

The law cannot eliminate crimes. You can hang each pickpocket on the first offence but you will not stop pickpocketing from occuring. You can take away tweasers from all passengers at the airport but the determined crminal will simply make weapons from the tray table or what he can scavage from the bathroom. You cannot stop a determined crminal willing to sacrifice his life 100% of the time.

The government is the ultimate 500 pound gorilla. It is too slow and too plodding to stop a motivatd individual. The government was warned by the French and warned by Isreal yet was unable to stop it. Turning loose the police state won't help, it will bury them in irrelevant information and errode our cival rights.

Terrorists are not effective becasuse of encryption or stenography despite propoganda to the countrary. They freakin' use AOL and Earthlink.

I realize that nearly everyone is upset & angry right now. That's one of many reasons we should think carefully, act slowly, and not have midnight votes taking away our cival rights.

BTW, fax congress and urge restraint now!

This may sound like flamebait but I don't give a damn.

Where the hell are the click and drool fax form letters? The HOWTO is great but if I forward it to everyone I know, I'd be lucky if five or six letters were written from scratch. The ACLU has a large but not very up to date collection of fast fax iasue letters. I am dissapointed they don't usually drop the ball.

Why doesn't the EFF have fax servers primed and ready to go? I agree we are in a cival liberties crisis but most people are still comsumed by grief and shock, not writing their represenatives.

Thanks I needed to vent that one...

...that www.aclu.org has been down for a while? I don't think it's hosted in NY, and it was up all day yesterday.

Not so ironic, really, if you know
Gregg's record.

Granted some of the positions the ACLU bases its ratings on can be considered questionable--are school vouchers really anti-freedom or just anti-liberal?--but the overall trend is that Senator Gregg is no friend of the Constitution.

Yeah, your right, This country was founded with the principles of freedom. To take away our Civil Liberties simply to hunt down a terrorist demeans us down to his level. And who's to say that, once lost our civil liberties will be regained? AOL has already sold out it's myriad of moron customers by handing over e-mail records, and i doubt there was a subpoena issuesd for those records.
-dcviper


ACLU

Just what everyone wants, I'm sure: Demand remains high, supply is cut dramatically, prices soar, youths mug people or hold up liquor stores to raise the cash, all the jackals move in to the black-market cash-opportunity they see gathering, and pretty soon gangs are slaughtering each other on the streets over non-Compliant hard drives. Customs officials sieze 400 gigs of Class A disk space (est. street value: $500,000).

The Government then runs Public Service announcements: "PIRACY KILLS" "MP3: JUST SAY NO" "WINNERS DON'T USE NONCOMPLIANT HARDWARE DEVICES" "FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS COPY MOVIES". They also offer tax rebates and other cash benefits to television shows and movies who include significantly pro-Digital Rights Management plotlines in their work.

In the summer movie, "Gone at 60kb/s", Nick Cage has to pirate an unprecedented number of other summer movies in one night in order to save his brother's life; in the more thoughtful "TCP/IP Traffic", Michael Douglas finds himself sucked into the seedy world of P2P after his teenage daughter is involved in a DVD-related incident, the story expertly interwoven with that of Open Source programmers working across the border, trying to stay true to their goals despite their lack of Compliance, trying to maintain their idealism in the face of a lead programmer who secretly is working for a reverse-engineering cartel.

New search-and-seizure laws are drafted to fight the War On Piracy, in order to Clean Up Our Streets And Save Our Children From Evil. All laptop computers are spot-checked at airports and potential employees are asked to undergo a hard-drive scan to ensure they are not "using".

Caffiene mints, copyleft t-shirts, and any item bearing a penguin logo are banned from COMDEX and any other gathering of software developers under Cracking House laws. These things are sure signs of illegal activity.

Far-fetched? Facetious? A little of both. But the general principles have been shown to hold true in the past, repeatedly.

Whee!

They don't "ignore" the second amendment; they state their viewpoint and philosophical justification for that viewpoint.

Check this out if you want to read it.

Even though they're (much to my dismay) not taking any initiaitive on Dmitry's case, the ACLU is still doing a number of other wonderful things and still deserves your support. See their webpage for more info.

The ACLU has a rather unseemly history of collaboration with IP content providers like the RIAA.

I questioned early on whether the ACLU would risk their hollywood gravy train by coming out in support of Sklyarov. Several Slashdot posters indicated they would use the feedback page to see why the ACLU was totally silent (try searching for "Sklyarov" -- absolutely nothing). Still nothing, though.

Those of you who are ACLU supporters should take careful note of this.

If a private company can justify snooping on internet traffic in the name of "being a responsible Netizen on the Internet", imagine what the FBI might try to get away with using Carnivore.

This reminds me of the old specious law-enforcement argument: "hey, if you've got nothing to hide, what do you have to worry about?"

This has gotta be an illegal policy in the U.S. Perhaps the law's different Down Under.

Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution was written under a government that did not allow the right to demonstrate.

Good thing we have nothing like that these days.
...

Actually, that's not correct either. The job of The Supreme Court is to determine the validity of laws. Your average Circuit court just decides whether you've broken a law, without regard to the validity of that law. That's why only the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, and circuit courts aren't blasting acts of Congress left and right.

• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules NEA Decency Requirement Unconstitutional
• Court strikes down statute blocking gun industry lawsuits
• Appellate court rejects COPA

John Marshall seized the power of Judicial Review in the case of Marbury v. Madison.

I feel I ought to point out that this person is not representative of Democrats in general, who generally tend to stand for the beliefs of the ACLU and individual rights. He will not have his party's support. He may, however, garnish some support from the other side. -= rei =-

I notice that the ACLU's web site still doesn't have any mention of the case since I posted about this last time.

At the time, several people posted that they were going to submit requests to the ACLU's submission page. Did anyone get any response?

I still cynically believe that the ACLU will never pay attention to this case because they don't want to piss off their gravy train, but I would interested to hear if anyone got a response.

--

If I had to make anything of it, it's that the ACLU, like most of the rest of the political world, is horribly and depressingly ignorant of what's going on. We need to make them aware.

Hey, I live in Europe too, and I used their feedback form to submit them a comment. Given the US' position in the Western World, I don't consider it innapropriate to participate in US politics that way. Indeed, those US laws often find their ways into Europena legislation via international treaties. We better voice our opinion before these laws become binding for us too.

In case anybody's interested here's what I sent them:

Recently Dmitri Sklyarov, a Russian programmer was arrested while visiting the US for a conference. He is still being held without bail in Las Vegas. His crime: he did a presentation which Adobe ( http://www.adobe.com) felt was against their corporate interests. You can read more about it on http://www.freesklyarov.org. Although Adobe has withdrawn their complaint that triggered Mr Sklyarov's arrest (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressre leases/200107/20010723dcma.html), probably due to the PR backlash, he is still in prison!

What is your stand on this affair?

Drop 'em a line asking about their silence on this issue.

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

This link is a little bit more interesting. It allows you to send them feedback. Maybe if enough people attract the ACLU's attention to this free-speech issue, they may take it up. Who knows, maybe it isn't a conspiracy, but just ignorance. Indeed, the issue may not be that obvious for someone not in the field.

In fact, I just used the ACLU's search page, and remarkably there is zero mention of Sklyarov, not even on their Cyber-Liberties page.

The silence is remarkable -- and deafening.

All you ACLU fans should take note of this.

--

In fact, I just used the ACLU's search page, and remarkably there is zero mention of Sklyarov, not even on their Cyber-Liberties page.

The silence is remarkable -- and deafening.

All you ACLU fans should take note of this.

--

Since the other reply to this wasn't particularly well formed.

Look at http://www.aclu.org for plenty of examples of lack of freedom.

and with regard to Free Speech in particular, http://www.aclu.org/issues/freespeech/hmfs.html

From the point of view of an outsider, it has always seemed a bit odd having USA claim that it is the land of the free when it seems that they are at best slightly above average.

Since the other reply to this wasn't particularly well formed.

Look at http://www.aclu.org for plenty of examples of lack of freedom.

and with regard to Free Speech in particular, http://www.aclu.org/issues/freespeech/hmfs.html

From the point of view of an outsider, it has always seemed a bit odd having USA claim that it is the land of the free when it seems that they are at best slightly above average.

OK. The ACLU argued that the Ohio state motto ("With God, All Things Are Possible") is unconstitutional. Read it in their own words here. Who cares about that Drug War stuff, about property seizure or gun banning or police brutality, when there's important stuff like state mottoes! to fight over, huh? Now do you understand why people think they're a joke? There are a lot of real causes they could be fighting for, and they waste their time and money on crap like that.

2. "You don't have to answer a police officer's questions, but you must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In other situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer"

So now I'm carrying ID without even knowing it. They can't come up and ask everyone for a fingerprint sample to check your ID - but now they will. That's what is scary.

No one has mentioned this at all. You don't have to tell them who you are if they just come up to you and ask you. But finally:

"We all recognize the need for effective law enforcement, but we should also understand our own rights and responsibilities -- especially in our relationships with the police. Everyone, including minors, has the right to courteous and respectful police treatment. "
--ACLU

2. "You don't have to answer a police officer's questions, but you must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In other situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer"

So now I'm carrying ID without even knowing it. They can't come up and ask everyone for a fingerprint sample to check your ID - but now they will. That's what is scary.

No one has mentioned this at all. You don't have to tell them who you are if they just come up to you and ask you. But finally:

"We all recognize the need for effective law enforcement, but we should also understand our own rights and responsibilities -- especially in our relationships with the police. Everyone, including minors, has the right to courteous and respectful police treatment. "
--ACLU

2. "You don't have to answer a police officer's questions, but you must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In other situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer"

So now I'm carrying ID without even knowing it. They can't come up and ask everyone for a fingerprint sample to check your ID - but now they will. That's what is scary.

No one has mentioned this at all. You don't have to tell them who you are if they just come up to you and ask you. But finally:

"We all recognize the need for effective law enforcement, but we should also understand our own rights and responsibilities -- especially in our relationships with the police. Everyone, including minors, has the right to courteous and respectful police treatment. "
--ACLU

2. "You don't have to answer a police officer's questions, but you must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In other situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer"

So now I'm carrying ID without even knowing it. They can't come up and ask everyone for a fingerprint sample to check your ID - but now they will. That's what is scary.

No one has mentioned this at all. You don't have to tell them who you are if they just come up to you and ask you. But finally:

"We all recognize the need for effective law enforcement, but we should also understand our own rights and responsibilities -- especially in our relationships with the police. Everyone, including minors, has the right to courteous and respectful police treatment. "
--ACLU

ACLU has nativity scene labeled unconstitutional

http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp10.html

ACLU defends Neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan parades

http://www.aclu.org/news/n113098c.html

Naturally, if you think they're right in both these cases, then go right ahead and become a card-carrying member (they do have nifty little cards).

ACLU has nativity scene labeled unconstitutional

http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp10.html

ACLU defends Neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan parades

http://www.aclu.org/news/n113098c.html

Naturally, if you think they're right in both these cases, then go right ahead and become a card-carrying member (they do have nifty little cards).

It's a shame that the government would use Child pornography as a scapegoat to promote taking away someone's right to view pornography. Let me make some facts clear, first off my wife is the Euro Director of EHAP (Ethical Hackers Against Pedophilia) so I have no problems seeing pedophiles go to jail or being killed (sorry I have no tolerance for those who hurt kids.) But using the kids is an excuse by the government to minimize the rights of people one step at a time.

There's a site that ha(s/d) an online database of pedophiles recently, their names, pictures, etc., and it was quickly dragged into the legal muck to halt its operations. Why doesn't governments all over allow these kinds of sites to run if they were so concerned with the children?

The failure of the (Clinton) administration to enforce those laws has led to a proliferation of obscenity, both online and off," Goodlatte said. "And I am particularly concerned about the safety of our children on the Internet, where they're subjected to child pornography and solicitation in a massive way."

Asked Goodlatte: "I'd like to know to what extent the Justice Department will use its resources to assist state and local enforcement in combating this cyberattack on our nation's children."

Getting back to privacy, the government has no right whatsoever to dictate what should or should not be seen on the Internet or other due to the impartiality of it all. For instance I find Rotten, Defacation Vacation, offensive as all hell, yet why shouldn't they have the same liberty to post their expressions? I also find the Catholic religion offensive so why shouldn't I have the same right to have those leaders arrested since it's not my cup of tea.

You cannot have fair laws which state The cow can't jump over the moon but the pigs can, because its not fair. Government was put in place by the people, all of the people, and to bend over to try and appease a select amount of people is hypocritical as all hell.

Aside from this all, how is this going to affect the future outcomes of privacy? First they say they're doing this for the people, then they'll say implanting your brain with whatever product they choose is in your best interest as well. Its extremely disturbing, and I hope groups like the EFF, ACLU, and others get involved to halt the government from overstepping their bounds.

First, a lot is going to depend on the circumstances that you face. I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV, but I did run an "underground newspaper" in my college days.

On the plus side, you are at a state school. State schools, as a state institution, are more restricted in the actions that they can take. Basically, you have more consitutional protections than you would have at a private school.

In terms of the ownership of the site, you may or may not have a case. Given that the school purchased and maintained the server, the site may be their property. You created the site using their resources and you may have explicity or implicity agreed to their ownership in whole or part of IP created using their resources.

The key here - and this will be where an attorney will be critical - is how do they treat the ownership of IP created by others that are supported by the University. For example, do they own and control the use of articles written for the school newspaper? Or if someone wrote and produced a play while as student at the University and with the Universities' support would they claim ownership?

You are also going to have to separate the issues that you are facing, but you need to ask yourself if the formal charges which they are pursuing, including the expulsion, are retribution for your "free speech" activities. If you can make this case, it does undermine the other issues.

I don't know how much of this situation is related to content on the bulletin board that you maintained. If they are punishing you for content that you did not create, then you have as a defense the same one that AOL would have. They might be able to take things down, you can't force someone to support speech - even the government - but they can't punish you obscence or libelous content you did not create.

You need a top notch civil right's attorney. I suggest you contact your local ACLU chapter or the Electronic Freedom Foundation . At the ACLU, I would suggest that you contact Carol Gnade (Utah point person), and the EFF, I would suggest that you contact Cindy Cohn. See if they will take on this case. In fact, based on the facts reported, you might want to see if the want to cooperate on it, given that the issues cross in and out of the online and real worlds.

Apparently i forgot my sarcasm tags. His story is plausible; haed over to the ACLU DWB page and read about a guy in New York who got pulled over because his car had been reported stolen (by himself, several months earlier).

I'm sorry, Lover's Arrival, but I must disagree.

Echelon is an infomration-gathering system. The theory behind its operation is that it picks up key words in open communications. It cannot pick out encrypted words. By "encrypted" in this sense, I mean messages within messages, such as one phrase meaning something completely different than what it sounds. (For example: "Climb Mount Niitaki," I think, was the phrase used to initiate the Imperial Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This phrase would ot have been picked up, if Echelon was operating during WWII, which it was not, since there are no "key" words for Echelon to latch onto, such as "bomb," "attack," "aircraft carrier," and the like.) Some people have claimed that Echelon has been expanded to enable it to monitor Internet traffic.

Furthermore, military traffic of a sensitive nature is sent encrypted over non-civilian channels. Echelon's entire purpose is the monitoring of civilian channels. This is of importance when combatting an insurrection or rebellion, when the participants will most likely need to rely on the existing civilian information infrastructure. However, when facing a full-fledged military force (or an insurrection force equipped by a foreign power with military-grade equipment) Echelon will fail because the targets of surveillance will no longer be using civilian channels.

This lends credence to the assertations of a report to the European Parliament in 1988 that Echelon "ECHELON is designed for primarily non-military targets: governments, organisations and businesses in virtually every country." (Reference) (In fact, go here to learn about the ACLU's take on Echelon.)

Echelon is intended for domestic monitoring. The only possible use such a thing could have is to monitor a nation's citizens for insurrection and seditious activities. The legal and moral grounds for a government to monitor it's citizens and persecute them for these crimes depends upon whom you ask.

Just as a point of fact:

It provided much defense against the nazi threat in WWII.

It did not. Echelon's groundwork was laid in 1947 as part of the UKUSA agreement, in which the United States and the United Kingdom (and by extension the British Commonwealth) would coordinate intelligence activities and share information. The actuall Echelon system itself was allegedly set up in 1971.

---
Chief Technician, Helpdesk at the End of the World

I'm sorry, Lover's Arrival, but I must disagree.

Echelon is an infomration-gathering system. The theory behind its operation is that it picks up key words in open communications. It cannot pick out encrypted words. By "encrypted" in this sense, I mean messages within messages, such as one phrase meaning something completely different than what it sounds. (For example: "Climb Mount Niitaki," I think, was the phrase used to initiate the Imperial Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This phrase would ot have been picked up, if Echelon was operating during WWII, which it was not, since there are no "key" words for Echelon to latch onto, such as "bomb," "attack," "aircraft carrier," and the like.) Some people have claimed that Echelon has been expanded to enable it to monitor Internet traffic.

Furthermore, military traffic of a sensitive nature is sent encrypted over non-civilian channels. Echelon's entire purpose is the monitoring of civilian channels. This is of importance when combatting an insurrection or rebellion, when the participants will most likely need to rely on the existing civilian information infrastructure. However, when facing a full-fledged military force (or an insurrection force equipped by a foreign power with military-grade equipment) Echelon will fail because the targets of surveillance will no longer be using civilian channels.

This lends credence to the assertations of a report to the European Parliament in 1988 that Echelon "ECHELON is designed for primarily non-military targets: governments, organisations and businesses in virtually every country." (Reference) (In fact, go here to learn about the ACLU's take on Echelon.)

Echelon is intended for domestic monitoring. The only possible use such a thing could have is to monitor a nation's citizens for insurrection and seditious activities. The legal and moral grounds for a government to monitor it's citizens and persecute them for these crimes depends upon whom you ask.

Just as a point of fact:

It provided much defense against the nazi threat in WWII.

It did not. Echelon's groundwork was laid in 1947 as part of the UKUSA agreement, in which the United States and the United Kingdom (and by extension the British Commonwealth) would coordinate intelligence activities and share information. The actuall Echelon system itself was allegedly set up in 1971.

---
Chief Technician, Helpdesk at the End of the World

you have a point, but your usage of the term "anglo saxon" is pretty offensive. this country is made up of a variety of ethinc lineages, and anglo saxon by no means has even a plurality, let alone a majority.

also, echelon doesn't have anything to do with WWII, the Nazis, or preventing the plunging of Europe into a pit of darkness. the UKUSA alliance dates back to 1947; echelon to 1971. check it out:

The Echelon FAQ from Echelonwatch

www.aclu.org -- True defenders of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I think you mean "True defenders of part of our Constitution and some of the Bill of Rights."

If I were to join the ACLU, I'd have to join the NRA, too, just to avoid being seen as an anti-Second Amendment advocate. (And I'm not about to do that, because the NRA's leadership is preoccupied with the notion that the industry I work in is devoted to corrupting America's youth.)

Here's some homework for those of you who belong to the ACLU: ask your leaders why they don't have the balls to post a link to http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html on the otherwise-exhaustive "Issues" list on their front page.

www.aclu.org -- True defenders of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I think you mean "True defenders of part of our Constitution and some of the Bill of Rights."

If I were to join the ACLU, I'd have to join the NRA, too, just to avoid being seen as an anti-Second Amendment advocate. (And I'm not about to do that, because the NRA's leadership is preoccupied with the notion that the industry I work in is devoted to corrupting America's youth.)

Here's some homework for those of you who belong to the ACLU: ask your leaders why they don't have the balls to post a link to http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html on the otherwise-exhaustive "Issues" list on their front page.

>Standing behind a product is the seminal moral responsibility of any manufacturer, both in terms of what's smart and what's right.

You mean "the fundamental moral responsibility", right?
Standing behind a product seminally is illegal in 5 US states. :-)