Slashdot Mirror
Preserve Your Rights Online - Act Now
Let's start with one simple and rather sad truth: You are going to be less free next week than you were last week.
We are already seeing what several newspapers have called "the biggest criminal investigation in history." Sure, a lot of this investigation's energy is being focused on Islamic countries, but it is also going on in Europe and, more than anywhere else, the United States itself. Landlords who have rented to young men with Arab-sounding names are being interrogated. Topless-bar patrons are being asked about conversations they allegedly heard, boasting about upcoming mass destruction.
And then there's email and the World Wide Web. Imagine a technically unhip Senator or Member of Congress who has read about Osama bin Laden allegedly using encrypted email and secret messages hidden in online porn to communicate with his followers and allies. Put the words "Osama bin Laden" in the same sentence as "pornography" and "the Internet," and you had better get out of the way of the avalanche of anti-online privacy laws coming your way -- or get crushed by them, even if people like bin Laden can switch to other means of communication at the drop of a hat.
Worse, disagreeing with the U.S. government right now may almost be viewed as treason in some quarters. "My Country, Right or Wrong" was a popular bumper sticker among the gunrack-and-confederate-flag pickup truck crowd in the late 60s, and this attitude, if not yet the bumper sticker itself, has been making a major comeback
But Dissent We Must
The problem with the "My Country, Right or Wrong" attitude is that it allows our government to go terribly wrong in many ways that may not be made right again for a long time, if ever. As Rep. Rivers pointed out Saturday, once laws are made that are supposed to help law enforcement in some way, they are almost never repealed because Members of Congress don't want to be seen as "soft on terrorism, soft on crime, soft on drugs."
Carry this a little farther. What about treason charges? At what point does it become illegal to speak out against a planned US government action that, on its face, is being taken to fight against the Terrorist Enemy, whoever he or she may be, even though that action may have very bad, long-term consequences for ordinary American citizens who want nothing more that to live their own lives quietly without being afraid of their own government?
Rep. Rivers said half the people in her district's gut reaction to the idea of legislation allowing government to read their email without getting a warrant first was along the lines of, "So what? I don't break any laws, so I have nothing to hide."
Long-time EPIC activist Kathleen Ellis told Rep. Rivers she believed questions about privacy should not be asked in the context of email. "Ask people if they should have the right to keep a secret and almost all of them will answer 'Of course,'" she said. Ellis also mentioned that cryptography is the email equivalent of an envelope on a letter sent by postal mail. "Unencrypted email is like a postcard," she said, "open for anyone to read. Ask people if they want all mail to be as open as a postcard and they're going to say no."
From that point on, the meeting focused on tactics. The question in the room wasn't, "Are privacy and freedom of speech good?" but "What can we do to protect our privacy and freedom of speech?"
Background on the Meeting Itself
The forum in which all this discussion took place was decidedly unofficial. It was an informal meeting thrown together hastily by local Linux user and ham radio afficianado Rob Carlson. Carlson sent a meeting notice to several email lists and posted it at cluebot.com. 13 people showed up at Saturday's gathering, most of whom were Baltimore and Washington D.C. area privacy advocates and/or Linux users. I was there myself for that reason. Wired News reporter Declan McCullagh is another "local" who hangs in the same circles, which explained his presence.
Rep. Rivers was there because her husband, William Simpson, is a computer consultant involved with the Internet Engineering Task Force [IETF] who spotted Carlson's notice on one of the cryptography-oriented email lists he's on. He had driven Rivers' chief of staff, who needed to get back to Washington but was marooned in Michigan by the airlines shutdown, to D.C., and was taking his Congresswoman wife back to her district for a little rest and some scheduled meetings (Congress had adjourned until Friday, Sept. 21), and they noticed that UMBC was on their way. So there they were, not dressed in "mover and shaker" clothing but looking like anyone else taking a 1000+ mile car trip.
One doesn't usually think of a Member of Congress fitting in with a group of downdressed geeks, but this one sure did. We only knew what she did for a living because Carlson asked everyone in the little circle to identify themselves by name and job, and when it was her turn Rep. Rivers gave her name as "Lynn," then added "Rivers," and softly, sort of as an aside, mentioned that she was "in Congress." Her husband had already mentioned that they were "from Michigan," which was curious enough in itself for a meeting with a decidedly local orientation. But Linux folks are friendly, and Rep. Rivers was as welcome as anyone else even though she was from out of town -- and freely admitted she used Mac OS, not Linux, both at home and in her office.
When he organized the meeting, Carlson said, "I didn't know whether no one or 100 people would show up." 13 did. And revolutions have started with as few as 13 people, so why shouldn't a strong pro-Constitution lobbying movement? The next step is to get 13 more, and another 13, and so on. This means calling and emailing friends until there are 13X13X13X13.... people talking to their elected representatives about privacy issues in terms they can understand, that will help them change their minds.
How You Can Lobby Against Anti-Privacy Laws
Start with this line Rep. Rivers laid on us, which is not new but needs to be said over and over: "Democracy is not a spectator sport."
Those Americans who don't vote, no matter how they excuse this failure, have no right to criticize their government. And those who don't bother to tell their elected representatives what they want and don't want their government to do should not act shocked when the government passes laws they don't like. It gets sickening, going to hearing after hearing about proposed laws like UCITA, DMCA, and SSSCA and always seeing a whole bunch of industry lobbyists wearing expensive suits, but hardly ever anyone who could be classified as an "ordinary citizen."
You need to make some noise instead of letting "them" talk while you sit around and let "them" get their way. Pump up the volume. Take some of the time you spend posting on Slashdot and register to vote. Write email and snail mail letters, send faxes, and make phone calls to Congresspeople and Senators and other representatives, and tell other people (13X13X13X13.... voices, remember) to do the same. This, not just complaining, is what this whole representative government thing is all about.
Rep. Rivers says phone calls "...have a sense of personal contact to them," and this makes them the most effective grassroots lobbying tool. "Stick to one issue," she advises. "Don't come up with a laundry list."
Also send email and write letters, even though they probably won't have as much impact as calls. And don't forget the fax machine; reps who are too technically unhip to read email read faxes. The ACLU and NRA have both famously used fax as a means of rapid communication with legislators for many years.
Now comes the matter of what to say. A letter, call or email that starts with something like, "I has nevir voted for you I am not registered to vote but you got to lisen to me," will go nowhere, says Rivers, pointing out that many pro-Napster messages she got were along those lines -- and got ignored. Better, she says, is something that tells your representative you are a computer professional (or manager or student or business owner or whatever) whose business, occupation or future will be hurt by whatever legislation you are working against. In this case (this week), privacy and online crypto are under attack. Next week, who knows?
So you're not a business owner? Know any? Know anyone who depends on privacy to transact their business? How about your doctor? Doesn't he or she want to keep patient records confidential? Ditto any lawyer you know. If a lawyer is serious about maintaining client trust, he or she certainly doesn't want the government snooping on email through Carnivore or a similar system with a less aggressive name. Other businesses have client information they want to private, along with trade secrets and other information they would rather not share with competitors. These are all points to bring up rationally, in an orderly debate format, when communicating with an elected rep, and they are ones you should ask others to bring up, too.
Stay calm, in other words. Assume your representative is sane and really wants to do what's right and what most people want, based on the input he or she gets. Your trick is to become part of that input, and right now the input you need to give must be strong and focused because Congress is caught up in post-attack hysteria and, like the rest of us, is saying, "We need to do something to help those poor victims and their families and make sure nothing this awful ever happens again."
The only problem here is that what Congress does is make laws, not post on Slashdot, and a law made in the same emotional heat as a flame post on Slashdot can't be moderated down to -1 after it is passed. Once that law is on the books, if you break it you can be arrested, tried, and fined or sent to jail. You've heard the saying, "If [guns/crypto/brains] are outlawed, only outlaws will have [guns/crypto/brains]." It's true, you know.
Right now, legitimate Americans are in danger of having many of their Constitutional freedoms revoked by a government that is doing its best, possibly in a misguided way, to protect its citizens. This is not about Disney's copyrights or the freedom to play DVDs on computers running Linux. The current debate is about much more basic issues than those, issues I will not repeat here because they have been written about so extensively elsewhere.
An Aside: How Congress Works
Rep. Rivers said it this way: "The House [of Representatives] is ruled by brute force."
Since she was talking to geeks who follow such things, she used the DMCA as an example. She told us that the "unanimous" vote that got DMCA through the House was not really unanimous at all; that the bill got through a committee dominated by a powerful chairman (which is how bills generally get to the floor for a vote) and that the Speaker called for a voice vote. "Most yelled 'Aye,'" Rivers said, and some yelled 'Nay.'"
The voices yelling "Aye" were the loudest, so DMCA passed by acclamation. Brute Force. People yelling at the top of their lungs. If 50 loud voices had yelled "Nay" instead of "Aye," perhaps we wouldn't have the DMCA as law today, and the EFF wouldn't be begging for money to get it overturned in the courts.
Now think about a Member of Congress who is hearing, right now, from all the "Kill-the-Arab-bastards-and-stamp-out-Internet-porn" crowd loudly and repeatedly by phone, fax, mail and email, but isn't hearing from you. Who is shouting the loudest? Which wheel is so squeaky that it is going to get the grease? So far, it's not the voices of reason and Constitutionality. They are getting drowned out. Heck, they are hardly there at all. At least Rep. Rivers isn't hearing them, and if she isn't hearing them -- with her ear attuned to Internet privacy matters and a totally Net-hip husband at her side -- you can bet the rest of Congress don't even know those voices (yours) exist.
Don't Delay! Do It Today!
Congress reconvenes Friday, September 21. The anti-privacy bills and anti-privacy amendments to various anti-terrorist bills are being written now, not someday. This means you must act immediately. If you put off those calls and emails to friends asking them to help support their right to communicate with each other in private, and to live without fear of police breaking down their doors or seizing their computer hard drives without warrants for even a few days, it is going to be too late. We are in the grip of national hysteria. A $40 billion appropriations bill to support the war on terrorism was passed a few days ago, with bipartisan support, almost without debate.
I'm going to admit that I am as ready to kick terrorist butt as anyone else, so I can't really blame Congress for being so gung-ho that it will pass all kinds of measures that will make America a less free country for decades to come in response to the current emergency. All I'm really asking Congress to do -- and asking you to join me in asking Congress to do, and to convince 13X13X13.... others to ask your Representative and your Senator to do -- is remember that the freedoms that make this country great must not be forgotten in our rush to avenge our fallen fellow Americans and our attempts to keep ourselves safe from future terrorist attacks.
Specifically (concentrate on one issue, remember), as a Net user I am concerned about watching our online privacy and freedoms evaporate if the government makes strong cryptography illegal or tries to have it controlled by agencies like the NSA, CIA, and FBI, or starts reading all of our private email without due cause and legitimate judicial warrants.
The deadline is Friday. That's when the legislative fur will start to fly. So let's get to work now!
I just hope those Mr. First Posts wrote a script to do it for them, or they are very very lowly entities...
The United States hasn't jumped the gun, and we should be careful not to either. So far all I've seen on sites like Slashdot is rambling about how the tyrannical U.S. government is trying to strip us of our rights. It's good that we're being vigilant (that's one of the requirements of a good citizenry), but we must take care not to make quick judgements based on preconceived notions.
It is absolutely logical that the United States would be looking into increased security measures. We are going to war (which should be so clear by this point that I hope I don't need to justify that statement), and it is necessary for our own well being that some kind of security measures be put in place.
I'm suprised at how well the government has been handling this, and I hope that, somewhere among all our vigilance and criticism, we can secretly give them a hand for actually taking pretty good care of our personal freedoms.
Got Rhinos?
We are already less free than we were a week ago. Not because of the anti-privacy factions, but because some bastards blew up buildings and killed 5,000 people.
Because of that, we are going to have to accept that we can't hide behind our oceans and pretend nothing can touch us. That will force us to make some changes.
But the privacy advocates are over-reacting just as much as anyone here. If anyone actually listened to Dick Cheney on Meet the Press this morning, you heard him say that we were going to have to find ways to better protect ourselves, but without turning ourselves into a police state -- because that's what the terrorists want.
Are there some yahoos using this to push their agendas? Sure. Will they succeed? I doubt it. Just because someone calls for changes doesn't mean they'll happen.
Pankc and knee-jerk reactions do the privacy advocates more harm than good. Vigilance and reasoned discussion are good (but seem outlawed here on slashdot many days.. grin). This chicken-little approach to every time everyone says something doesn't.
But let's be real -- there are going to have to be some changes. What they are, nobody knows. But there are going to have to be some tradeoffs between the right to privacy and the need to be protected from terrorists. If privacy advocates take a hard "no compromise" stand, they will lose and hurt their cause. They need to work with the government to find reasonable compromises. There are no absolutes here. If you treat it as if there are, you'll be excluded from the dialog and debate -- and should be.
Don't over-react to the reactionaries on the OTHER side, or be that kind of reactionary on your side. This will be hashed out through dialog and debate be reasonable people -- so it's important to be reasonable to be heard.
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome = When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell
Do a little research into the sacrifices that our grandparents and parents had to make during World War II to preserve your peace, freedom and liberty. Speech restrictions? How about food restrictions and travel restrictions. Note that after the war, civil liberties came back.
How many more jet liners have to smash into skyscrapers before people think that there other priorities right now? Will it take a nuke hitting a city? I thought Colin Powell made an interesting statement this morning: (paraphrase): "The terrorists don't care how many people they kill. The only thing holding them back is the technology they have available." After this week, does anyone doubt this reasoning?
To many people don't seem to be able to contemplate the fact that this is not an accident, it is not just an isolated incident, it is not just a single strike to "send a message". Unless we act, this WILL happen again, and next time it might be an even bigger scale.
WE ARE AT WAR. I think this story is to spit on the graves of everyone who died this week.
I wonder how long it would have taken Hitler to conquer the world if Slashdot editors were in charge.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
You can find contact information for your senators here, and your representatives here.
Shaun
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Democracy is about discussing and making rational decisions. At least it should be. The more people talk about consequences and take part in these discussions the more politicians cannot just implement their stricter laws in the name of "fight the terrorism". Some friends an me, too, are currently forming a group to help to spread discussion ...
america isn't the people, its the businesses.
to the founding fathers it was "we the landowners".
now its "we the businesses"
the working stiffs always get the shaft.
"We are already seeing what several newspapers have called "the biggest criminal investigation in history." Sure, a lot of this investigation's energy is being focused on Islamic countries, but it is also going on in Europe and, more than anywhere else, the United States itself. Landlords who have rented to young men with Arab-sounding names are being interrogated. Topless-bar patrons are being asked about conversations they allegedly heard, boasting about upcoming mass destruction. "
Since when has it been wrong to interview witnesses and others who've come in contact with criminals? Maybe we should get rid of law enforcement all together? Maybe if the criminals plead not guilty we should just take their word for it?
Privacy is only in your mind and in your home. When you go out into public and transmit messages on private networks you give up some privacy. You don't own the airplanes, fiber lines, servers, routers or switches. Get used to it.
Almost 5000 people are still missing, presumed dead (or buried without hope). That could have been any one of us, or our family members, friends, or co-workers. If it could happen in New York, it could happen anywhere in America. How can the ./ editors sit there and bitch about privacy and civil liberties (which pretty much don't exist in this country anyway) when five thousand people are dead? Who do they think they are, anyway? Obviously they have not felt the pain of losing a loved one to this senseless act.
We all need to face the fact that things are going to be different after this tragedy. We need to let our elected officials do what they need to do to make sure this never happens again. Because next time, it could be one of us in that jet or in that building. And you're not going to be thinking about giving criminals more rights anymore when they're about to crash the plane you're on.
-sting3r
I realize that this probably isn't going to get me lots of friends here on /., and frankly I'll probably get modded down. But here goes:
I'm disappointed. First, there was Katz' terrible journalistic FUD. Now it seems to be spreading.
You know, if I have to "lose" a couple of "rights" here and there for the next week, month, or heck even year to prevent another huge terrorist attack--that's okay. Maybe I'll care more about my rights later. Right now, though, I'd rather just let the investigators use whatever means necessary to "hunt down and punish those responsible" (thanks, W). Maybe once all this boils over I'll care whether or not the FBI wants to listen to my phone calls and read my e-mails. There's really nothing there of interest, anyways. Maybe someday I'll care about encrypting every piece of communication. Not now, though.
I think we all need to remember that our federal government is on the brink of war with possibly some other nations (Afganistan et al). In times of war, our liberties sometimes go away for a time. But they always return. I don't think there's anyone who can say "boy, America was a lot more free before Hitler". Relax, folks. America will return to the "free" society we all love and admire once we've overcome terrorism at its worst.
I have every confidence that if any legislation gets passed that unfairly restricts our rights; our Supreme Court will strike it down later. Granted, that will take time. But that's okay with me--I'm more than happy to restrict my own rights temporarily. It's just not that big a deal when we consider 5,000+ people are dead because we weren't being careful.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
That would be the most horrible thing to happen.
I have seen this several times already- we are going to lose everything we hold dear. Bullshit. We will not lose our rights provided in the Constitution. Email is a convienience. You can still snail mail someone something and not have it touched. You can still go start loudly shouting your beliefs in a park somewhere. The Constitution does not cover freedom of easy communication. This is where most people lose it (and I will be flamed forever for this)- phone calls and emails are not a basic right, they are conviences.
And the whole thing about being charged with treason, give me a break. Treason is the one crime which is defined by the Constitution- basically aiding an enemy in a time of war. Spies don't get that charge.
This is a major over-reaction, people will not stand for a modern day McCarthyism (sp?).
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Is this like the Drug War?
Wasn't WWI fought to preserve our individual liberty?
Fight Spammers!
...we HAD rights online? What were you even thinking? Hell, check the YRO section to SEE that we've had little or no "rights" online. I just love seeing how the US govt tries to regulate something that it is only a small part of.
The quotes above reminded me of:
On a more serious note, what makes people think a fundamentalist Islamic group would hide pictures in porn? Wouldn't that require them to go against most of their fundamental beliefs and actually look at nakedness and fornication?
The Wizard utters the word 'frobnoid!' and cackles gleefully
This has been true in every war the US has been in. So why not recognize this as a need, but not a want. So while the war is raging, the rules are changed, but as soon as the war is declared to be over, we are back to the freedoms we love.
The only problem with this, is determining when a war such as this is over.
At this point, I'm expecting an official declaration of war against afghanistan (and after Saddam's last speech, possibly Iraq too) any day now. Until that happens, we should rally for our rights. But as soon as we are officially at war, we have no rights whatsoever. That's the way war works. And considering the direct and immediate threat at hand, I would rather have my car searched at state borders than my car blown up at starbucks. As long as they don't outlaw encryption and free press, I'll keep my mouth shut. Feel free to argue, it's my opinion, not yours.
I am !amused.
NO... this call to vigilance in protecting the civil liberties of the citizens of the USA is totally patriotic, PERIOD. Rather, your rant is driven by raw emotion and not by thoughtfulness.
The responses I've seen to this story so far are exactly the kinds of sentiments that are keeping me up at night.
The terrorist attack was not designed to be an attack on people. Sadly, that was only a means to and end. The motivation behind the attack was to make us doubt our freedom. To force us to cower in fear.
If we allow this fear to control us, it is an insult to those people who have already been killed. It is an insult to every individual to has ever fought for the comfort and security that define life in the U.S..
It is clear that during any wartime situation we will be forced to give up some freedoms. The press is more restricted, etc. However, our grandparents (since everyone else is dragging them into this) didn't face the same threats to thier lines of communication and personal expression as we do today. And, many of the choices, like the Japanese Internment camps, were simply a BAD idea.
The knee-jerk reaction of forking over our civil liberties in return for some perceived security poses more of a threat than any other action. The more we hand over our liberties, the more power we're concentrating into the hands of very few people. To be honest, there aren't many other people I would trust with my personal freedoms.
I'm very skeptical of anyone who has all of the answers at this point.
Travis
Voting is a good idea, but I'm not aware of any elections in the next few weeks that will have any effects on all these new legislation being proposed. To fight this, we need to be far more proactive than merely voting.
All in all, good article.
Giving up freedom is not waiting in longer lines to fly on an airplane. That's giving up convience. In this country, Flying, like driving is a privlidge, not a right.
The freedoms we risk losing are more fundamental to our democratic process. The freedom to practice religion, to speech, to have a government seperate from our church, to live without fear.
Travis
I am astounded at the number of people so far who seem perfectly willing to give up their free speech rights and to allow the government to read all their personal correspondence in the name of fighting terrorism.
A simple question: should it be ok for the government to open any letter in the US Mail without court order? My guess is that you wouldn't want that. So why should they be able to read our email? It's simple: they shouldn't.
One of the things that makes this country great is our freedom from government interference in our daily lives. One of the terrorists' primary goals is to make us less free. Giving up our free speech and privacy helps them attain that goal.
And no, this article isn't spitting on anyone's graves. How can telling folks to get involved in government and to call or write your representative and tell them what you think be a bad thing? If you're willing to give up your privacy, then contact your rep. and tell them! I'm not willing to give up any of my rights, no matter how terrible this tragedy is, and I do intend to contact my local rep.'s.
Also, someone above said that the people who died don't care about personal privacy. I strongly disagree. I'm sure if there were some way to contact them and ask, "Should we give up our rights to fight terrorism?", very few would say yes.
Look, with a court order, the government can read mail, tap phone lines and confiscate computer equipment. We don't need any more laws giving the government more power over our daily lives.
Don't let the horror of this tragedy blind you. We must maintain our freedoms. Is this article a bit paranoid and perhaps over-reacting a bit to these possibilities? Maybe, but there is nothing wrong with being vigilant against the intrusions of an over-zealous government, and there is certainly nothing wrong with getting involved, deciding what you really want from government, and telling them.
"Unencrypted email is like a postcard," she said, "open for anyone to read. Ask people if they want all mail to be as open as a postcard and they're going to say no."
Now ask people if they want there to be laws against government officials looking at the address information on a letter or postcard, or reading the postcard with a warrant. Most will say no.
Ask people if they want there to be laws making the use of envelopes illegal. Once again, you'll likely get an answer of no.
Carnivore isn't a problem. Banning all encryption is.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Cryptography rights are the Second Amendment issue of the Internet. If you're going to write your congresscritter, that's a good point to make... tho perhaps not with Democrats. National Review has come down firmly on the side of being careful to maintain civil liberties, and folks like Bob Barr and Dick Armey (majority leader) in the House are well-known privacy nuts, so I'm not overly worried; the quote (yesterday?) by the House minority leader (Gephardt) was disconcerting, hopefully he'll listen to reps like Rivers (whose district is a stone's throw from mine).
And how do you - or they - presume to restrict the rights of those who are located outside the borders of the USA?
By arresting and prosecuting them if they dare to travel to the USA... oh, wait...
Seriously, perhaps people in power need to consider that they can't control everything and instead seek to resolve issues rather than stomp on them...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
I heard that as "70% of Americans are willing to let terrorists tell us how to run our country". It's all well and good to talk about how the government is doing what's best for us, and that giving up some "minor" freedoms (clue: there is no such thing) is worth it to prevent this sort of thing; I'm sure it makes the people who say it feel better. It's also hopelessly naive.
Few, if any, of the airport restrictions put in place in the last week would have had any effect on this attack. None of them would have prevented it. There is already a movement afoot in Congress to outlaw crypto which doesn't have a back door installed for government use. Are you really so naive as to believe that backdoor won't be used improperly, or be compromised by people outside the government? And if you are that naive, you can't possibly be so naive as to believe that the people who carried out Tuesday's attacks are somehow incapable of writing (or having written) their own crypto software which contains no such back doors.
The fact is that there are people all over America who are unscrupulously using these events to further their own agendas, whether it be gas station owners hiking prices through the roof or Falwell and Robertson spouting their hatred. Some of these people are in Congress, and they will take advantage of your complacency and ignorance. It's always been true, but especially so now; be very, very careful what you ask for, because you will get it.
All the American groups who are anti-government (those who are portrayed as hiding in the mountains, stockpiling weapons, etc) - have they spoken up? I'd be interested to know what their thoughts are in all this. Are they as pissed off as the rest of us? Obviously, strangers came knocking on our back door. Are they temporarily allied with the government now?
It's been said many times that legislators don't read their email, and when they do, they largely ignore it. This isn't always the case...
A few weeks ago (probably closer to a month, I don't remember) I dashed off a note to US Rep. Sander M. Levin, 12th District, Michigan. My note concerned Dmitry Sklyarov, and his imprisonment for presenting some research which should've been protected speech. I ranted as intelligently as I could about the DMCA and how it hurt all of us. I clicked the Submit button and promptly forgot all about it.
A few days ago, I went through my snailmail inbox. I don't do this very often, so I have no idea how long Rep. Levin's letter had been sitting there. In any case, the letter indicates a clear understanding of the Sklyarov case and at least a few of the issues surrounding it. The letter ends "I will continue to follow this case closely. Thank you again for contacting me on this matter. Sincerely, [signature and closing] SML:ch"
Neat. My understanding of the SML:ch part would seem to suggest that while someone else typed it, this letter was at least personally dictated or composed in part by Rep. Levin himself. Form letter? Possibly. But the existence of such a form letter would indicate the demand for one, which means he must be hearing about this issue a lot.
WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES! They DO listen. They even understand sometimes, and it's your job to help them. My task this evening, after the daylight fades and cleaning my car becomes moot, is to fill Rep. Levin in on some of the subtler details of Sklyarov's case, and point out exactly why we all need to oppose Carnivore. Making it clear why such opposition is justified, even in times of crisis, will be the tough part. Wish me luck, then try your own hand at it. Please?
-Myself-
Voter, Concerned Citizen
12th District, Michigan.
that's a pretty apathetic view of life. So maybe our colonial ancestors shoulda settled for british dominance, after all, we had lives better than say the slaves down south!
We should always strive to improve our government, because when it isn't going forward, it's going backwards
Photos.
Nice howto. Maybe someone should wirte similar text regarding to EU, which is just accepting laws they saw in US newspapers. Our country isn't in EU yet, but in short term it will probably be, and i am scared which rights i'll have after that. It is strange: i live in postcommunistic country and i have more (IT) rights then people in countries which have democracy tens or hundreds years ..
People who like this sort of sig will find this the sort of sig they like.
Bull, my right to free speech is not regulated by whether or not I voted. Now or ever.
The right not to have to do something is just as important as the right to do it.
Having said that, I can't believe the number of people I've seen that are willing to GIVE their rights away, for the LIE that they will be safer by doing so.
Two or three days ago I sent a letter and en email to both senators and my congressman asking them to tell Americans the TRUTH. And that is that nothing short of 24th century Star Trek type technology can save us from this sort of thing.
They passed an "anti-terrorism" bill after Oklahoma City and THAT didn't stop it, what makes you think a few more draconian words written on paper will stop it now?
We live in (perhaps) the country with the most freedom in the world, and we have thousands of miles of water and land border. There simply aren't enough cops, or military to police every inch of them to keep the bad guys out.
Our war on drugs has failed miserably, and this attempt will too, BECAUSE we are free.
Perhaps all of you are willing to give your rights away, but I'm going down kicking and screaming.
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
What the United States Government, and many governments throughout the world do not realize is how easy it is to access good cryptography. There is a wealth of information about the subject online, on websites beyond the reach of American legislature, in printed books, and in the minds of foreign cryptographers.
Besides, all a terrorist would need is one fairly competant programmer who has a bone to pick with $country, and they would have access to all the crypto they want, taken from books. Unless they plan on burning them all.
I remember an old quote about, "if you ban guns, only the criminals will have them." This would seem to be the case here, you can't stop a criminal from using strong crypto.
I really hope that the American lawmakers think long and hard about this, and don't use this attack as a scapegoat for stealing fundamental freedoms, such as privacy. I also hope that Canada doesn't adopt a DMCA-like law, such as the one it is currently considering.
The point behind this it to make sure we don't let reactionist politicians make a bad situation worse by turning the US into a police state under the flag of protecting it.
(insert Benjamin Franklin quote here)
If we really want to win this war, we should cease diverting energies and debasing the justness of government with the "war on drugs." Declare a total truce and amnesty, or at least offer amnesty to anyone jailed for drugs who will volunteer for the armed forces. This would unify our society where currently we divide it, free us where we currently limit liberty and right of individuals to pursue their own mentalities (a goal the Taliban also pursues).
It would also remove the financial basis that supports certain terrorist groups backed by the illegal suppliers of drugs who flourish in the absense of legal alternatives, and gain the support of peasant populations currently in thrall to those terrorists.
More freedom, not less, is the key to uprooting fundamentalist evils both at broad and at home. In a truly free and open world, their seeds will wither. Meanwhile, by uniting in greater freedom, rather than contracting into less - which leaves many of our own people outside that constricted circle - we can be assured that we do not just advance one despotism against another as we free the Afghanis from the Nazi-like rule of the Taliban. If we will buy their hashish, they will not be driven by desparation to send their assassins, and both their and our freedoms will be recovered.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Petitions are, IMHO, is the second best way to go about influencing congress. What we really need is a concentrated mechanism to gather thousands of signatures on a single, short, and well articulated position paper. Perferably the signatures being "real" and not digitial. This way, when a congress person has a chance to read 10 letters... the petition will be at the top of their stack, beacuse it has so many hundred signatures.
... short and sweet. Then some electronic way to "sign up" and "sort" the signatures by voting district and then send this snail-mail to the congress person's staff for sorting (clearly marking on the front of the envelope the issuse and # of signaturess *in their district* )
Thus, I humbly suggest that someone with some time/skill/influence author such a letter
A well-organized and thoughtul petition is far more effective than a few single letters... certainly a few thousand letters are better; however, most people are too lazy to write their own letter -- while they will take time to fill in information for a petition.
This is, of course, all IMHO. Anyway..As americans, this is the "land of the free", that's what we're all so proud of, isn't it? But by being free, we also have already given up many of our rights as people. The constatution is a great thing, or is it?
...
:)
Privacy. Something most of us strive for, live for, and love. I like being able to have hushed conversations about politics and things that are disagreed upon widely with friends/family in emails/phone, because I don't have to fear that It's going to come back and kick me in the bum.
But what about Echelon? That's been around for years. Doesn't that affect most of us? Yes. But unless you plan on blowing up the white house and talking, in depth about it, repeatedly, chances are you're never going to be cought. I mean, how many people use the phone every day?
How about email? Jesus, with all the spam that goes through, how will anyone ever possibly filter everything out to find that one in 29483948 emails that actually has something to it that could be helpful? "hottie696969@aol.com" talking about terrorism via cumshots..that's a new one.
They scared us, we're trying to scare them. "We'll catch you, we'll do it! and we can cuz we're the US!" It's possible, but not likely. Maybe in 80 years they'll come across that fabled terrorism porn..
Yeah..I'm rambling. Sorry.
-bk
My lips may promise, but my heart is a whore.
Currently, when a wire tap is issued, it pertains to a particualr phone - all conversations (suspect or not) are recorded, on that phone. A proposal, issued by the Vice President, would be to make wire tap's issued on a per-person basis. This proposal, in theory, is a boost to pesonal liberties, and to security.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
This is not flaimbait -- I was just wondering what party she was affiliated with as I read through the article, and I thought others might want to know as well.
I can't think of any particular reason why the DMCA would have more support from any particular party, and since it was a verbal vote, I don't suppose we can find out. Hollywood may traditionally pay big bucks to Democrats, but Republicans are usually the ones associated with big businesses. Seems like the whole system is shot. Anyone care to venture a guess on whether any one group is favorable for tech issues, or if it's really just an individual issue?
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
This is a ridiculously trivial number of people, a small sacrifice indeed, compared to the number of Americans who have given up their lives to secure the civil liberties that you're saying we need to set aside.
I'd suggest you board the next plane to Afghanistan. You're already doing bin Laden's work for him.... just another fellow traveller.
If we allow the government to take away all our rights, then the terrorists have succeeded in destroying the foundations of our country, and Bush's initial speech was wrong
It's really horrible that OUR rights need to be stripped from us in order to protect the nation as a whole. I mean, how many of us are building bombs, and even if you are, do you really plan on blowing something important up? :) It's horrible.
I'm not saying that I don't understand why this is happening, but the government doesn't open up our snail mail! Our rights to private conversation need to be protected online as well as they are in the real world.
Goat out.
--Goat
CEO, Goat Software
Goatblog
Folks, liberty is an intrinsic human right. It is not something the government grants you; it is something that you already have, and the purpose of having a government, at least in the US, is supposed to be to guarantee that nobody takes it away from you. Liberty is not something you should have to register for. It is not something that you should have to go out and vote for. It is not contingent on any demonstration of civic virtue.
Now, it's true that you can't trust the government to do its duty, and that it's therefore wise to do things like voting and writing letters to your representatives and calling them on the phone and all that. I do that stuff myself.
However, if I burn down your house and you're too shocked to say anything, or too afraid of me to say anything, or even too busy dealing with something more important (and, yes, there could be something more important) to say anything, nobody is going to tell you you have no right to complain. They may tell you you were foolish for not stopping me, but they're not going to tell you you weren't wronged.
This "vote or don't complain" crap is just plain buck passing.
Maybe, just maybe, that's because the lobbyists get paid to spend their entire lives on this crap, whereas the "ordinary citizens" have other concerns? Maybe, just maybe, there's a problem with a system that requires people to spend half their lives sitting in hearings fighting back idiocy (which idiocy will be repeatedly reproposed until it passes), rather than rejecting that idiocy automatically and out of hand? Maybe, just maybe, legislators, who are elected to consider legislation, should get off their asses and do that, find out what the implications are, maybe actively find out what their constituents' informed opinion would be, maybe refuse to vote on things they haven't personally studied, rather than just favoring whatever special interest makes the most noise, or whatever position gives the best sound bites? Maybe we could stop measuring the performance of a legislature by the number of stupid laws it manages to inflict on the populace?Anyone notice that we are expected more and more to conform to popular viewpoints? Usually, disagreement is permissable, but now, if you disagree, you're called a terrorist.
Look for internment camps. Like during WW2, they'll say, "We're doing this to protect them from our society."
Think the Constitution & the Courts are going to save us? Tell that to the sons and daughters of Japanese-Americans that were interned. The 14th Amendment was blatently ignored.
Think your rights are going to come right back? Yah right! When our rights did come back, it was only through the intense efforts of the 60's, and even then they didn't all come back. The 50's parents had a stick up their ass because they had just given up their rights and bent them selves into conformity during WW2. Did you know it's illegal to be a communist in Washington state? It's considered subversion, and still forbidden by law..!
Why do we have to go to war? To save ourselves from Terrorists?!?
What, after World War 3, the world will be safe from terroritsts forever? Nobody will ever think of being a Terrorist? What a crock of Shit!
You can't stop people from being Terrorists. There's nothing you can do about it. The world is an unsafe people.
So 5,000 people died and you want to do something about it. Want to do something about it? Drive safely! 40,000 people die every year through traffic accidents.
Want to save lives? Look where you're going. 10,000 people die every year because they fell down.
This country's nuts. I'm going to be called a "terrorist sympathiser" because I think the USA is full of Shit right now. I'm not going to fight for your war against terrorists (oops, there went hundreds of thousands of innocent people's lives- well, it's a "necessary" tradeoff to keep the world "safe").
I live in the UK. I think we can safely assume that any laws which allow the US government to read US citizens email, invade their privacy online etc will also apply to citizens of other countries. Is there any realistic way I can try to do anything about this? Or do I just use crypto on anything I want kept private?
We had them for Japanese Americans in WWII. And I heard serious discussion on CNN of instituting an official racial profiling program in the FBI to watch people from "suspicious countries".
Maybe you think this is ok if it gaurentees your safety, but I'd rather run a slightly increased risk of having myself or my family &friends wind up as terrorist's victims than live in a country where it's a crime to be .
"The United States government has so far shown a great deal of restraint..."
I don't agree with this. There have been many, many calls for action. Bomb someone! I think the U.S. government would have bombed already, but no one knows who to bomb.
I think for most people in the U.S., bombing other countries is like an adult video game. They don't have any feeling for the pain that bombing causes.
Citizens of Saudi Arabia want to be able to try to change the political structure of their country. They want to do this without U.S. interference. This is not an unreasonable request. Certainly if the Saudi government tried to involve itself in a political dispute in the U.S., the U.S. would put forward whatever resistance was necessary to stop the interference.
For years there have been Arabs who have said that if the U.S. continued interfering, there would be attempts to bring the conflict to the U.S. After years of warning, that's what happened.
It seems self-destructive that there is never any serious consideration of their complaints. People in the U.S. expect to have self-determination. Should the U.S. deny that to other countries?
See http://www.hevanet.com/peace/ for more on this subject.
Bush's education improvements were
The best approach to the resulting loss of civil liberties is complete public disclosure. Nothing packs the awesome might of democracy as much as the power of the ballot (which is why I hate Bush, as he did corrupt that institution).
What needs to happen is that watchdog groups need to keep a total list of every possible violation to what could be considered 'freedom of privacy', and force law enforcement organizations to be accountable for those violations. To simply bust them on a single issue is irrelevant, groups like the ACLU must inform everyone of everything.
"U.S. officials and militant Muslim groups say terrorists began using encryption -- which scrambles data and then hides the data in existing images -- about five years ago." This is not the definition of encryption. This is called steganography. Lawmakers and other politicians do not get their information out of thin air. A lot of their information probably comes from the press. If the press can't get terminology right, is it any wonder that we're breeding a nation of clueless politicians?
If you're looking for some good points to bring up in writing your elected officials about this, Bruce Schneier of Counterpane wrote a great piece in this week's Crypto-Gram:
11 September 2001
Both sides of the calendar debate were wrong; the new century began on 11 September 2001.
All day I fielded phone calls from reporters looking for the "computer security angle" to the story. I couldn't find one, although I expect several to come out of the aftermath.
Calls for increased security began immediately. Unfortunately, the quickest and easy way to satisfy those demands is by decreasing liberties. This is always short sighted; real security solutions exist that preserve the free society that we all hold dear, but they're harder to find and require reasoned debate. Strong police forces without Constitutional limitations might appeal to those wanting immediate safety, but the reality is the opposite. Laws that limit police power can increase security, by enforcing honesty, integrity, and fairness. It is our very liberties that make our society as safe as it is.
In times of crisis it's easy to disregard these liberties or, worse, to actively attack them and stigmatize those who support them. We've already seen government proposals for increased wiretapping capabilities and renewed rhetoric about encryption limitations. I fully expect more automatic surveillance of ordinary citizens, limits on information flow and digital-security technologies, and general xenophobia. I do not expect much debate about their actual effectiveness, or their effects on freedom and liberty. It's easier just to react. In 1996, TWA Flight 800 exploded and crashed in the Atlantic. Originally people thought it was a missile attack. The FBI demanded, and Congress passed, a law giving law enforcement greater abilities to expel aliens from the country. Eventually we learned the crash was caused by a mechanical malfunction, but the law still stands.
We live in a world where nation states are not the only institutions which wield power. International bodies, corporations, non-governmental organizations, pan-national ethnicities, and disparate political groups all have the ability to affect the world in an unprecedented manner. As we adjust to this new reality, it is important that we don't become the very forces we abhor. I consider the terrorist attacks on September 11th to be an attack against America's ideals. If our freedoms erode because of those attacks, then the terrorists have won.
The ideals we uphold during a crisis define who we are. Freedom and liberty have a price, and that price is constant vigilance so it not be taken from us in the name of security. Ben Franklin said something that was often repeated during the American Revolutionary War: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It is no less true today.
These bills are being drafted now? What are the numbers? How, specifically, can we reference the piece of legislation in question when we contact our representatives? Our reps in Congress are overwhelmed with information, and need specifics in order to take action. If you chose to act, don't act blindly.
... my congresscritter is the infamous Jim "Weakest Link" Trafficant. He is only slightly more welcome in the house than Gary Condit or Osama Bin Laden.
At least I have two senators.
Seriously. I was really taken aback by this Slashdot "call to action" which was long on rhetoric and short on details.
u se_they _have_a_warrant_to_do_so, but IANAL.
Is encrypted email a "civil liberty?" I personally don't buy the comparison that encryption==envelope. I think a better comparison would be carnivore==FBI_agents_intercepting_your_mail_beca
So other than the putative civil liberty of "strong encryption", what other civil liberties are we talking about here? The FBI going over AOL and Earthlink's email accounts to look for potential communications between the terrorists doesn't impinge on my civil liberties. Even if they found something on me from my earthlink account, it would be thrown out in court in a millisecond as an illegal search and seizure.
So list the 'civil liberties' which you feel are protected under to constitution that you might lose given the current atmosphere in the US.
People love to bitch about privacy and goverment monitoring, but what are you doing that you're afraid for them to see. I'd say for most of you nothing, is just malcontent rubbish. Like the Linux groups I belong to, people bitch that its against the law to port scan, but go nuclear if someone port scans them.
Freedom is not free, we make have to give up some privacy to insure the greater Freedom. If I'm not doing or saying anything illegal the goverment monitoring me will just get bored. If goverment monitoring stops more terririst attacts, then losing some privacy was worth it.
Saying Bin Laden is a Muslim, is like saying the US Marine who raped the girl in singapore is truely a Marine. Neither of these people truely hold the beliefs and live the life dictated by "the rules."
It was also stated that Mohammed Atta [when in Hamburg, Germany] was seen at topless bars and drinking beer. Both of the above actions are against their beliefs as Muslims [nudity, alcohol/drunkiness].
These "followers" overall were not to devout to the beliefs, but much more-so to a man [or in the marine's case, an urge/feeling/need].
------------------------------
Ray Raspberry
raspberry@b3l33t.org
It just seems this is what the criminals want destroy our freedom and instill fear to make the US compromise it's core of the constitution. If someone robbed you would you sell all your property so it wouldn't happen again or buy a gun and protect yourself. Seems to me that maintaining our rights would be more of a imperative now than giving them up to the terrorist's. Buy unleashing the world against all terrorist will enshure that our freedoms will be maintained and protected and not giving in to them by having to change our way of life to feel safe. Sounds like what a nation would do to slowly gain control of every aspect of ones life, liberty, and property. Just my 2 cent's worth.
"We must give up some of our freedoms to help combat terrorism."
The predictable words -- and actions -- are beginning to spew from political, military, and law enforcement officials and their supporters. For safety, for security, for the greater good, they somberly tell us, we must comply with their agendas. To be protected from terrorism we must submit to more restrictions -- on our ability to travel, our freedom from arbitrary searches, on the privacy of our communications, on our right to bear arms, on our ability to conduct business hidden from the prying eyes of government.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) has called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.
Travel regulators have banned knives on planes. (Does this mean even the pilots can't protect themselves and passengers against hijackers?)
ISPs who were reluctant to cooperate with the FBI's invasive Carnivore program are now rushing to comply.
The Senate has, in the wake of Black Tuesday, voted to increase the FBI's authority to tap the phones of anyone suspected of terrorism. As we've seen by all these other random restrictions, we are ALL suspects in the eyes of the U.S. government.
Perhaps most ominously of all, the Washington Post quoted House Democrat Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as making the self-contradictory, but entirely predictable statement, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had." The Post then went on to describe how every war or crisis of the last 100 years has been use to increase government power -- often in the most draconian ways. Freelance supporters of the Surveillance State are rushing to urge everyone to comply. One liberal talk show host responded to callers who complained that Big Brother policies at airports were a problem, "Big Brother is the only thing holding us together!"
He offered no evidence to show how Big Brother made us safe on Tuesday, September 11.
WE MUST THINK FREE, NOT PATRIOTICALLY JERK OUR KNEES
Soon we may be at war. And as always at such times, we'll be expected to "pull together," "do what our leaders tell us is necessary," and sacrifice more freedom in the name of "safety and security" or patriotism. And, as the reality of the Day of Horror seeps in, who doesn't feel an urge to strike back, to "get behind our government," to "show those murdering bastards they can't push Americans around," and to "do whatever it takes to defend the greatest country on earth"? -- even if that means sacrificing individual liberty to "the cause."
Whatever happens from here on out, we need to remember that Big Brother is NOT holding us together -- that he never can and never will. We must remember that the kind of restrictions on the liberties of ordinary Americans that were entirely ineffective in preventing the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 will not magically prevent future attacks merely because their severity is increased.
What did all of Big Brother's efforts do to prevent Tuesday's slaughter? The violations of freedom we've already been subjected to in the name of safety -- airport x-rays, ID checks, disarmament, body searches, and the whole gamut -- became a sick a joke when the day arrived that we needed them to protect the country against the world's worst criminals. In fact, Daniel Pipes of the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out how the government's reliance on mass eavesdropping and tracking actually diverted resources from more effective anti-terrorism methods, such as actually studying and infiltrating genuine terrorist groups.
Yet now the government proposes a giant national effort to do more of the same -- to impose more ineffective, wasteful, and oppressive mass surveillance and restrictions.
New restrictions on the freedoms of non-violent people will do nothing to make America or the world safer. They'll make us less safe, as well as less free.
There are at least two reasons for this.
The first is that more restrictions, and more power placed in the hands of government, will simply, in the long run, create more rage and therefore more desire to strike violently. (As we also saw, some restrictions, like those that forbid armed citizens on planes, also make it harder for Americans to protect themselves and their country.)
The second is something we observed, tragically, though cell phone calls from four doomed, hijacked planes: the fatal passivity and dependence that seems to be becoming the norm in American behavior.
THE PASSIVE, UNTHINKING AMERICAN
It appears now that a handful of heroic passengers on one flight, having learned via telephone that two other hijacked planes had already smashed into the World Trade Center, decided not to allow themselves to be used as weapons of war. These passengers on United Flight 93 attacked the hijackers who were in control of the plane. Doomed in any case, they ended up dying in the woods and fields of rural Pennsylvania, rather than passively allowing their captors to get away with an even more horrendous mass murder.
We also know that, on at least one other flight --American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon -- passenger Barbara Olson learned from her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, of the World Trade Center catastrophe. During two separate calls, Mrs. Olson (a well- known author and conservative television commentator) asked her husband what the pilot -- standing next to her in the back of the plane -- should do.
Picture that. Passengers and crew have been herded -- and note that word well, herded -- to the back of the plane. Even the pilot, the leader, the chief decision-maker, does nothing. Can't think what do to. Can't act. Instead of attempting to save their own lives and the lives of others on the ground, what do they do? They expect a federal government official to make the decision for them. THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN FEEL EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THE ADVICE OR PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C..
And why should we have expected otherwise? Americans have been told repeatedly never to resist crime, always to submit to any demand a thug makes of them. Always go along -- for safety's sake. Go along in order to avoid angering the criminal. We've been told always to submit, as well, to any demand made by anyone who appears to be "in charge." These people on Flight 77 -- and presumably on two of the other flights -- were apparently so paralyzed by their conditioning that they couldn't assert themselves even when the alternative was certain death.
Even as pathetically disarmed as they were, they could have battered the hijackers with their briefcases, with their shoes, their purses. They could have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers of bodies. They could have gouged at their eyes with fingers or car keys. Could have knocked them unconscious with luggage from the overhead racks. Could have tripped them, stomped on them, tied them up with cords from audio headsets.
But except on United Flight 93, they apparently did nothing. And so three planes flew, sure and true, into the heart of three American landmarks, slaughtering thousands.
THE ONLY TRUE SECURITY MEASURE: A BILL OF RIGHTS CULTURE
We must take back America as a country. We must make it free and independent again -- no longer the would-be ruler of its own people, and no longer playing at being the world's supercop. Only by doing that will earn the world's peace and respect.
We must take our own individual lives and independent spirits back from would-be rulers and criminals, as well.
If we consent, passively, to give up more freedoms -- even "temporarily," or "as an emergency measure" -- we'll be doing the opposite. We'll be less safe, less free.
To restore American freedom and personal courage, we must restore the Bill of Rights -- in our country and in our hearts and minds. If we understand the Bill of Rights, we'll understand what we're fighting for -- and why. If we let it slip away what's left won't be worth fighting for.
This means not merely having an intellectual or legal understanding of the Bill of Rights. This means not merely memorizing the Bill of Rights or teaching it to our children. This means understanding the concepts of individual liberty that underlie the Bill of Rights -- then living those concepts, breathing them, eating the, dreaming them, holding them as the most central values of our lives, in the same place we hold our beliefs in the diety, or our dedication to our families, or to truth or justice.
We must behave as free people, expect and encourage others to behave as free people -- and have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses freedom or uses his authority to violate the Bill of Rights.
If there ever was a time in history to get behind the Bill of Rights and promote it, it is now. If we yield to this mushy thinking that the road to freedom and safety lies in GIVING UP freedom and the Bill of Rights, then we might as well bow down in defeat right now.
If we don't defend our rights, we'll have no rights. If we don't defend ourselves, our family members, and our fellow citizens -- AND defend their freedoms -- then our lives will be no more valuable than those of cattle and sheep. And the America we end up with won't be the America we thought we were fighting for.
If you want to be a passive herd beast -- obey whatever the authority of the moment, be that a bureaucrat or a hijacker, tells you to do. Listen to their lies about "safety and security" and obey, obey, obey.
But If you truly want to combat terrorism or terror-war, learn the Bill of Rights, teach the Bill of Rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights with every action of your life.
FIGHT BACK WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
The Liberty Crew Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
I believe Juanita
I was looking to form a small group of people to create an online petition to block the banning of strong cryptography. I am not good at drafting these things up, and I feel it's importatnt that the issue and stance not just be in the petition, but also the reasoning why (such as, importantly, that banning crypto will not stop terrorists from using it, AT ALL.)
I have permission to host it on my server at half-empty, giving us access to a connection at Exodus which would hopefully handle the load.
Additionally, I am going to start working on a Java applet which will allow people to sign the petition via mouse (along with their printed name and voting district) in order to make it more official.
I will take the responsibility of printing the petition out and sending it to the necessary parties.
You may contact me at nebby@half-empty.org if you are interested in helping draft up the wording for the petition. Thanks.
--
I think Congress should do a formal declaration of War, just like in WWII. This will make it clear that there is a different set of rules in place temporarily and that these new rules will no longer apply once the war ends.
If you don't formally declare, then you wind up eroding peacetime liberties, which won't be restored when war is over.
Man, can't you see the difference between people killing themselves with booze or cars, or several people being killed by a nut with a gun? 5,000 Americans are dead, all killed within hours by some sick bastards who hijacked American airliners. The alchohol, guns, and car accident deaths are regrettable and tragic, but this - this is an act of war.
As for there being no conclusion to this war - sure there is. The war is over when Bin Laden and his cronies are dead - a few years at most. Bush meant it when he said they would not enjoy a moment's peace man - we are going after them with everything we have.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Let me get this straight - you want to arm a bunch of druggies with automatic weapons and high explosives. Might that be unwise?
I'm the stranger...posting to
I am currently a college student in Savannah, GA, but my home is in Murfreesboro, TN. In light of the current crisis gripping our nation, I wish to make a plea to you for my rights as an American. Our system of government works better than any government has worked in the history of the world. While certainly not the oldest country, the United States of America has the oldest standing government in the world right now -- all others have been toppled and completely reworked during the span of our existence. This is why I feel it is necessary to preserve those values which made our government and way of life uniquely successful.
I realize that the gung-ho hero in every American, myself included, wants to go after the terrorists who commited those horrendous acts of war at all costs. My more reasonable side, though, realizes that is a mistake. Instead, we need to utilize a tried and true system -- that which we have in place already -- to capture and/or destroy our enemies. If we begin by allowing the government to, say, read all our emails and "wiretap" our internet connections without due cause (namely a warrant), what is to stop them from reading all of our normal mail as well? Eventually, would it have the right to bug our houses and listen to our daily "private" conversations at home as well? I'm remembering stories of the KGB right now, how the lack of privacy made everyone paranoid (rightfully so), and how the system eventually failed.
While the masses will most certainly say, "I'm not breaking the law, so I don't care if the government reads what I do on the internet," I would disagree. Historically, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Sure, it sounds like a cheesy cliche, but it is a phrase to govern by. Most certainly, the people in office right now would not take unfair advantage of the new freedoms given to the government -- or perhaps they would, it is unimportant. What matters to me is this: In 40 years, when I'm 62 years old, will the new representatives/senators/executive leaders be as moral as they are today? NO! Look at *any* government in the history of the world that had the right to completely control and observe the activity of their citizens. Without fail, they evolve into tyranical institutions -- China, USSR, Afganistan, Pre-Revolution France. What is the other common thread that is running through most, if not all of these examples? The governments eventually failed.
That, my respectable representative, is what makes America great. The masses, who are not breaking the law and are not infringing on the rights of others, are above the authority of the law. They cannot be monitored or curtailed. Instead, only those who prove themselves untrustworty and contrary to the principles of our Great Nation can have their own rights and privacies limited. This is why I make a plea for you to vote against ANY bill submitted that infringes upon my established rights IN THE SLIGHTEST. Do not allow unwarranted taps of any sort, be they internet, email, phone, or otherwise. Do not allow the law to overstep the system put in place to protect the innocent masses. It is a mistake that would cost the future more dearly than we can imagine.
This article should be modded to -1 Troll.
I'm sorry, but I think we should wait till this is over before making a big deal about our rights.
I'm just glad we're not having "meatless Mondays" at this point.
Yeah UMBC!!!! Go Dawgs!!!!!! Never did I think my old school would be featured on Slashdot. :)
A lot of the problems with things like this, online privacy, is that many people think that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldnt care, so there shouldnt be any problem.
This doesnt go merely for Privacy, but for other things, like Drug Use.
I have never used drugs, or alchohol, other than those perscribed by a doctor. I do this for several reasons, including my desire to seem more credible when voicing my opinions on such things, that Drugs should be legalized for Personal Use, and that provided you arent endangering others, Alchohol should be legal for any age.
I havent killed myself, but I believe in the right to suicide, I havent killed anyone else, but I can fathom a justified murder.
To become credible, you need to first show that privacy isnt merely an issue of protecting what you have and dont want others to have, but protecting your right to choose who to give things to.
We cannot hope to have a free election if we have to tell others who we vote for, Likewise we cannot hope to have free speech if we are required to tell everyone in our Catholic Church that we are Pro-Choice.
So just to prove credibility, to show that you are willing to admit your flaws provided you have your option to admit them or not admit them, When writing your congressman or other representative demanding your right to privacy, Include a print-out of your complete directory tree, Every Porn-Soaked bit of it.
Because you need to show them that what they're saying about "If you dont have anything to hide..." isnt the fucking point.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
It's another case of "put up or shut up". You're right, of course - our freedoms are intrinsic rights of human beings, not gifts from Uncle Sam. But can't you see how frustrating it is to hear some guy bitch about a given issue, and how much he hates a law, and then learn he's too lazy to even vote - to even do anything about it? It pisses me off royally.
I'm the stranger...posting to
I'm very surprised at slashdot, slashdot should be accused of treason right now.
.gov. Rally them up to support .gov and everything we needs to do in order to pull through this. Last night I was at a party for a marine reservist. Now people please be open minded to what we discussed.
Slashdot.. for the most part, is american programmed, and it's contents is made mostly by americans. Lets be real about that ok?
Why are you trying to rile the geeks up against the goverment right now? That's wrong.
When you were growing up, did you ever have some relative, that would say things like "They shouldn't be letting all these people into the country unchecked". For a time I thought that this was biggotry, but I have come to realize, this is the truth!
I've been victum from our own sides ability to track people down on the internet. Back in janurary some IRC kiddies tracked me down to my work, called the director of IT and I was fired, one week after closing escrow on my house.
Ok i'm not proud of that, but I disclosed that to prove a point, we the geeks of the USA have that much power to screen people at the border, build technology for our troops, spend money where its needed and rally the people together. Anyone without a positive history, we turn them away. We do not want terrorist or murderors in this country. I know my family had pre-usa history no more than 100 years ago from Sicily. Believe me it was checked!
Instead of rallying everyone up to go anti
Earlier in the day I took my anger out on some bin laden shooting targets. I told Jon (the reservist) that I was better off dialing in my aim now then waiting for a draft. He laughed and told me marines allready had saddam hussain targets. Also good idea to be ready.
I told him my mother in law was going to rally stocks tomorrow (monday) She used to trade on the floor in the late 70's. Everyone needs to buy FMC, TRW, Boeing, any and all american companies that are related to war. Put your money where your mouth is.
Finally, speak out against anyone riling up bullshit like slashdot is now. Look cmdtaco and rob and the rest of you. Are you not angry? Look at CNN and everywhere else. O'rielly factor is saying "Yes lets get those x-ray machines that can see under your clothes". You want to keep your journalistic integrety? Do the right thing.
For this reason: Who, exactly, are we at war with? Afganistan? Bin Laden? Terrorists in general? Are we going to want to just pack it in after Bin Laden and the Taliban are dead? No, I didn't think so. Our government, rightly or wrongly, wants to eradicate the terrorist threat - but that's hard to put in a declaration of war.
I'm the stranger...posting to
saying that you can't complain because you didn't vote is a lame complaint. there are actually some people that just turned 18 and wouldn't have been able to vote yet. does that mean these people don't matter? hell no. a representative shouldn't care who their constituents voted for, they are there to REPRESENT their region. seems like if someone didn't vote, and then took the time to write in to their representative, when the representative writes something intelligent back, this would instill confidence in the political system, and that person would be more likely to vote (what a long runon sentence).
i propose a national voting day, where we would have the whole day off to vote.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
"Show me the part of the Constitution that guarantees citizens the right to travel"
How about the right to freedom of assembly? Yah, that's in there, and it means I have the right to travel to assemble with like-minded colleages to protest congress for a redress of grievances.
I'm the stranger...posting to
WE'RE AT WAR!
Yeah, when we shouldn't be. We should find and "remove" all terrorists but treating terrorists as an entity that can have something so simplistic as a war combat them is ridiculous. It's much worse than trying to win Vietnam by bombing it - bombing or invading Afghanistan will accomplish even less, except that we will be hurt even more in retribution and it will again be on our land where we are most hurt. Vietnam, by comparison, was straight-forward. Stopping airplanes from being made into bombs is one thing but, for instance, do you realize how many double-bed semi's carrying gasoline or lethal chemicals (e.g. chlorine) are on the road in the U.S. at any one time? You know how easy it would be to hijack, say 30 of them in a day and coordinate a massive set of explosions across the country? Are we going to have armed guards on all semi's (and no, a truck driver high on Black Cadillacs with a gun under the seat doesn't help.)
/.ers seem to be just as affected by the arrogance and immediate patriotism as the heads of gov't. If you notice, other countries such as Russia, France and Italy, and people such as the Dalai Lama and Pope John Paul II are already telling us to rethink our strategies. Many countries are already prepared for us to overstep our bounds and are starting to send signals that after a certain point (which seems imminent) we will be left alone in our cycle of violence with terrorists. Our "amazing patience considering" is really not so amazing from the perspective of people outside this nation; IMO I am somewhat impressed that Bush is waiting until he gets enough proof before he continues the cycle of retribution that started with Israel and Palestine. Is it possible, just possible, that we're not quite as level-headed, calm and rational as we think we are? We need to allow for some minor infringements of privacy, sure. If I go to an airport I'll have no problem with them opening up my luggage and checking by hand every item from my shirts to my dirty magazines for anything suspicious. Same if I'm going in to an important gov't. building. If I'm sitting at home and writing to my friend or my mom, the gov't. can back the fsck off. It's not like unencrypted email is the preferrred choice of communications for terrorists.
Yeah, tell meee about it. Oi vay!
Article XI
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article XII
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
all this talk of freedom and democracy makes me wish i lived in a democracy.
anybody know of one?
A Petition Against Government Required Cryptography Backdoors [petitiononline.com]
There are only 51 signatures as of this morning. This needs to get the slashdot treatment so we get that into the thousands.
Don't think that this is a substitute for calling/writing/faxing/e-mailing your congressman though....
-core
It says EOM why did you click :o)
"Are Washington and NY not considered targets anymore?'
Until tuesday, they weren't. All the other recent terrorist attacks from foreign nationals have been at overseas bases or embassies or other facilities - and I'm sure THEY were on a very high state of alert, ready to whip ass and chew bubblegum. Can you blame the government for forgetting that the continental US is vulnurable? Think before you answer - could you have imagined anything on this scale a month ago?
I'm the stranger...posting to
"Read the Constitution. It's the damn source code for our government."
Unfortuneatly, the forget to comment the damn thing.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Get the word out!!
-core
(I really hope I spelled their name wrong.)
I just keep wondering if you would like to ban this organization too now when you are intrested in taking away the normal rights. I mean from a European perspective it's really odd that racist groups can operate in the US.
I have lost all hope of retaining the right to free speech in the US in the coming months (I still have some hope left for EU countries), but I hope you will eliminate this group.
Sayeth t0qer:
U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. (Emphasis mine)
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
We have this thing called the Constitution. You may have heard about it. You know, the instruction manual?
Right now, we're on a cusp. We do need to find the enemies of our country that have attacked us in such a cowardly manner and make then pay the necessary price. But we need to maintain the freedoms that make the country what it is. Otherwise, when this is all said and done, we could easily end up as a police state. I have no desire to live in such a place, so I will be doing what I can within the existing process to ensure that our rights are secured.
Opinion: Scientology is a cult you should avoid. Follow the
The problem Israel is having with the use of military force isn't that military force in and of itself doesn't work. It's that they aren't using it enough. They kill enough people to feel "avenged", but not enough to destroy the threat, and the survivors become very angry at the Israelies. What they should do - and what we should do - is wait. Find the entire movement - everyplace they live, work, play, everyone involved - and kill them all at once, within a week, say. Yes, there'll be innocents killed, but no one will be left to strike back. That, and nothing else, is the proper use of violence - to gring you enemy into dust, and burn the dust.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Join Me for Java
My Next Coffee Hour:
Monday, September 17
8:30am - 10:00am
The Bomber Restaurant
306 E. Michigan Ave
Ypsilanti
I don't care if the terrorists are white, black, male, female, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or a group of nice old ladies who meet after church every sunday to drink tea and discuss their gardens - I just want them dead. Is that so wrong?
I'm the stranger...posting to
Write them today, a short letter is fine, preferably hand written. Links to their addresses can be found at the bottom of the slashdot article.
And if you're really clever, maybe you'll give your congressperson a snappy bit of speech to use on the floor...
I am an Indian, we indians are aslo being troubles by these islamic fundamentalist like the yaliban and the lashkar e taiba, so as a duty to safe gaurd my country and stop the fundamentalist propoganda I have decided to turn into a cracker and crack muslim fundamentalist propoganda sites the top most being http://markazdawa.org/ pl. help ur self and see what u can do may god bless you.
Funny, I have during the recent few days arrived at the exact opposite conclusion: terrorists most often are isolated Muslims from Afghanistan who hijack planes with knives and rely on couriers for communications, while the stereotypical fighter envisioned by politicians and journalists is most of the time thought to be some AOL-junkie who will be greatly hindered in his activities if crypto regulations and other unconstitutional 1984 style laws are enforced.
But what do I know, I'm just an ordinary citizen, not some all-knowing babykissing politician.
Swindon: What will History say?
Burgoyne: History, sir, will tell lies, as usual.
I was in NYC about 30 blocks away when the Twin Towers were bombed in 93. Yes, New York (at least) has been a big target since 1993. Bin Laden was known to want to knock down the Twin Towers specifically. And any history scholar will tell you that Washington D.C. has always been, and will always be, probably the world's most prolific target. That's the biggest fish there is.
Wow a 454 **thousand** slashdot userid. If you're only 16 or so, then i understand why you didn't think New York was a big terrorism target.
Intelligent Life on Earth
Yes, I'm reading the posts I respond to. If you have a problem with a point I make, tell me, please - I post to slashdot so I can debate intelligently with people, not get a "yes-man" club. But speak to the point I make - don't flame me.
I'm the stranger...posting to
That said, there's no need to be insulting. You corrected my error, for which I thank you.
I'm the stranger...posting to
This calls for more thorough investigation...can somebody please post some links to these sites?
Though if truth be told, our elected representatives are probably simply trying to head off the censure they will receive if they are caught surfing porn:
"I'm not not surfing porn...I'm looking for...looking for terror messages! Yeah, that's it...!
You're using her as bait, Master!
There is a cycle: 1) The U.S. government influences other governments in hidden ways, including arranging the killing of foreign leaders. 2) Some members of the countries with whom the U.S. has interfered want to retaliate violently to the violence of the U.S. 3) The U.S. government uses the violent retaliation as a justification for more hidden and public violent activity.
One problem with secretly violent agencies is that there is a conflict of interest. If there is more violence, they get more money and prestige. So they have reasons to encourage violence. I am not claiming that they do so consciously. However, there is certainly unconscious pressure to increase violence and de-stabilize governments.
I think the record shows that the secret agencies of the U.S. government don't really work for the people of the U.S. They make trouble, they don't stop it.
See What Should be the Response to Violence? for more on this subject.
Sample headings:
The CIA trained Osama bin Laden.
Once again, intelligence agencies were useless.
There was plenty of warning.
Bush's education improvements were
When you go out into public and transmit messages on private networks you give up some privacy.
Hello? Private networks are supposed to be just that: PRIVATE! There is no reason on God's green earth that I should be compelled to divulge what I communicate to any other individuals with any Government, never mind Dumbya and his minions! They are going to find another solution to this problem without trampling on my rights or liberties. A good start would be not creating the desperate situations that result in these desperate actions in the first place!
You're using her as bait, Master!
So the war is against "all" terrorists - not just the governments and individuals responsible for this tragedy. Consider that "terrorist" covers a very broad spectrum of groups. Animal rights groups, "radical" environmentalists, anti-globalization groups have all been tagged as terrorist. Will members and sympathizers of these groups also be spied upon, detained without charges, etc.? WIll members of the NRA be considered "terrorists"?
Remeber a war against "terrorism" is not just Bin Laden and his sympathizers - the term "terrorist" has been used very broadly in the past to include many groups and individuals with unconventional views. Consider that we cannot depend on "anti terrorist forces" to have a broad minded tolerance and respect for first amendment rights. Will we see a return to the FBI's Cointelpro, where peaceful dissident groups were spied on and subverted in the name of national security.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
New York (and New Jersey, D.C., etc.) congressmen are probably bogged down with an incredible amount of correspondence concerning the incidents, and to me it seems like there is a high chance that a message about preserving your rights in America will get lost within the massive bulk of other correspondences.
Contacting my members of Congress -- getting them to read or hear my thoughts -- is next to impossible to do by Friday the 21st. They're too understandably busy right now. This does not mean I will not write them: I will.
So my question is this: what else can I do? Since contacting my representatives will not do as much as if I were a registered voter in Michigan, what other organizations or people should I try and contact? Is the EFF collecting donations to lobby for exactly this cause? Is someone else?
I've got a hectic week (my office is five blocks north of the Trade Center) and tons to deal with. Who can I talk to that will be able to listen, if only for a minute?
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
Think about it-
A lot, if not most communication is still done using pre-internet mechanisms: Phone, Fax, mail.
To your average lawmaker, they may think that monitoring digital communications without search warrants is a good thing, because, after all, what are you hiding?
However, if you ask them if they should be able to tap regular phones, and open people's snail-mail without them asking, how would they react?
What we don't realize is that we're just touching the tip of the iceberg here regarding digital communications. It will be the dominant mechanism for communicating- Snail Mail may soon be relegated to just delivering packages (ie. stuff you can't send through a pipe).
So, by passing these types of laws, what may not seem to be a 'big deal' now will end up majorly impacting your civil liberties!
Put it in perspective:
what if 90 years ago, there was a similar terrorist attack.. And we learned that they used some new technology, like telephone or telegraph to talk with their agents. Would the lawmakers be tempted to bypass our civil liberties by being able to access these communications without search warrants? Perhaps, because they were new technologies that were hard to understand and not in widespread use. AND would the public resist that type of legislation? Probably not, because they too wouldn't understand it.
What I fear is that we may see a modern-day version of this happening!
Have a look at privacy in Europe, we take it (especially on an official level but with the glaring exception of the UK) far more serious than the US of A.
Like in The Netherlands where there is an independent overseer on all aspects of data gathering. Such a system is dearly needed in the US where government services/policies are too often only a slave of the government (party) of the day. The independent privacy supervisor should be controlled by strict rules tied to the constitution and a congress-wide committee.
In the eyes of the average Dutchman there IS NO privacy in the US, companies and agencies can look into your E-mail, gather data on you and even sell it without any chance of recourse except the notoriously expensive American lawyers.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Best yet, those supporting "the accepted view" are promoted.
I just wanted to say that im times of disaster, liberties should be maximized, not minimized. We should seriously consider options like requireing everyone on an airplane to carry a knife. Encouraging private gun owners to guard and visit important places. Can you imagine hijackings or terrorist attacks then?
We sould consider options like forcing crypto technology to use the GPL, and forceing the use of freenet and p2p technology. Things like this would make cyber - terrorist atacks much more difficult. Or targeting people based on beliefs much more harder.
we should decentralize economic institutions like the FED, and open the government to accept any types of liguid currencies as payment. This would make attack on centralized economic institutions much more difficult.
If we think, we will find that distributed institutions are always much more stable and harder to kill then central ones.
I'm not an encryption expert but it seems to me that if the government requires everyone to use back-doored encryption then the government's key would become a seriously juicy key for terrorists to get their hands on. If they didn't do it in a fairly low-tech way with a beowulf cluster of Sony Playstations they'd do it in an even lower-tech way by planting moles whose covert job is to get ahold of that key. It's important that we inform our legislators that, given what he's done already, Osama Bin Laden is most likely crafty enough to realize that the hysteria of a Congress motivated by a hysterical public will cause them to inadvertently create even more holes for him or those like him to exploit.
Error:
This doesn't quite do it...
1. The petition needs to be much much
better thought-out with serious
research behind it. It must *educate*
the congress person.
2. The petition needs zip+4 in order to
correctly buildle the petition to the
appropriate congress person.
3. Comments should not be necessary...
or if allowed, should be subject to
moderation since the petition *must*
be professional.
4. It must be said that only registered
voters can participate. One can then
validate against registered voter list
and eliminate any signatories which are
not registered voters.
Best,
Clark
The way it worked in the office I was in (and the office shall remain anonymous, but the member of Congress in question no longer holds that office) was that mail would be sorted by interns and legislative assistants. Single-issue letters would be forwarded to the Congressional letter-answering people who would reply with identical letters using language drawn up by aides and approved by the Congressperson. More complex letters would be written by hand using "canned" language to address individual concerns (I wrote several of these letters as an intern!) A select few would land straight on the Congressperson's desk.
The Congressperson never saw the majority of those letters, but the numbers and nature of those letters were reported. The Congressperson would not read 250 anti-DMCA letters, but would be told that 250 such letters had arrived and only 14 supporting the legislation.
I'm posting anonymously because I do have a great deal of respect for the Congressperson whom I served and don't want people thinking one way or the other. I just want to alert you as to how things worked when I was last there.
This attitude is insane.
Killing innocents can never been seen as a acceptable loss. Those guys with big beards and a turban on their heads they are humans too! They breathe the same air. They cry when they're loved one are killed. They have red blood in their veins. They have a heart that beats.
Killing "everyone involved" is insane. Who is "involved"? And even if you DO manage to kill everyone who planned this attack you will just feed the hate again the US and they will retaliate again. And so on...
And speaking of Israel. If they had the chance they would wipe the palestinians out. But they can't because they know this would make them lose their greatest ally (the US). But bit by bit they are taking palestinian land.
Sometimes violence must be met by violence. But it is very naive to believe that you will be able to wipe out the "entire movement".
This is going out to my Congressman in tomorrow's mail. The same thing with minor variations is also going to each of my State's Senators.
(Note: On paper it is formatted properly.)
* * *
Rep. ,
On Thursday, Sept. 13, 2001 the Honorable Senator Judd Gregg (R- New Hampshire) made a speed on the floor of the Senate calling for global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.
I am writing to express my vehement disagreement with this sentiment, and to urge you, as my duly elected Representative, to vote against any such bill that is presented to the House of Representatives.
The National Counterintelligence Center (http://www.nacic.gov/) coordinates the US Government's effort to identify and counter foreign intelligence threats to US national and economic security. They are staffed from counterintelligence (CI) and security professionals from the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, the Office of Secretary of Defense, the military services, and the Departments of State and Energy. In addition to annual reports presented to Congress, they also publish special reports about economic and industrial espionage and provide American businesses with materials to help them secure their valuable trade secrets.
These reports detail the billions of dollars lost to American businesses and individuals each year due to economic and industrial espionage committed by foreign and domestic competitors. Many foreign governments are active in assisting their domestic businesses in economic espionage against U.S. interests. Specifically listed are China, Japan, France, Russia, Israel, Korea and others.
Please notice that many of the countries listed are counted as U.S. allies.
Strong encryption plays a crucial role in protecting vital U.S. assets in an ever more networked world. The use of strong encryption by terrorists and other undesirables is inevitable. Outlawing it will not provide any further measure of security, as they are criminals and by definition, will not comply with the law.
In his zeal to act in the best interests of the American people, Sen. Gregg ignored the impossibility of enforcing a global ban on strong encryption. I doubt that in a clear moment he would honestly say that such a ban could be enforced in Libya, Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bulgaria, China, North Korea and the dozens of other nations I did not list.
In closing, I again urge you to intelligently consider the dangers of restricting American liberties through knee-jerk, feel-good legislation.
As Benjamin Franklin said more than 200 years ago: "Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
Sincerely,
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
"My country right or wrong" is going to get a VERY severe test here real soon. I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
I think "My country right or wrong" is going to get a VERY severe test here real soon. I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
I think the title speaks for itself.
What part of "some of our civil liberties will be put on hold for a while" don't you understand? We will get our rights back. But for now be patient. We can protest later if it comes to that but for now just take it like a man.
Go ahead and mod me down. It will only show how closed-minded you are.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Also I should add, our response should maximize liberties in who we attack. Look at Japan. We killed tens of thousands of Japans soldiers, and dropped nuclear bombs on two of their cities, but do we fear terrorist threats from Japan? no! it is specifically because when we rebuilt japan - we set up a government that was accountable to upholding individual liberties like ours is. Productivity difuses hatred, and this is exactly what happened. In many countries, leaders encourage hatred of the US to distract from their own tyrany. If we get rid of the tyrrany, we difuse the hatred.
And what about taxes, it's been showen that time and time again - individuals can distribute and provide more efficiently than governments. We should rely on this. Certainly if voters could accept 20 bil in aid to NY, they they could have done it even better if they had that money in their pockets!
And what about secrecy, America's strength is in it's ability to grow - not in its ability to keep secrets. We should take advantage of that to grow technological solutions at a faster rate than our competitors can copy. We should share knowledge and technology to encourage growth not hide it. Our enemies don't even have the ability to get close to our computer technology - even though how to make conputer chips is pretty well known, and not a national secret.
Think, that is all we half to do.
Also, cheap computers and internet arround the world will help thwart ruthless leaders who try to controll information, and distort truth.
To paraphrase the original article:
;) we're going to have a difficult time making a persuasive argument for protecting a level of encryption that requires the entire computing resources of the planet over the expected lifetime of the universe to circumvent. The other examples, such as patient record privacy or business secrets seem less compelling if the argument is that only certain government agencies would have access to the mandatory keys (and perhaps further protection along the lines of such intercepted/decrypted information could only be used if authorized by a warrant, etc.). Before I started writing this post, I took a (very) quick survey around some of the privacy rights web sites--I didn't feel like I found compelling arguments or examples as why "privacy is good". There's much more along the lines of current proposed legislation, surveys about how people feel about privacy, guidelines for e-commerce related privacy policies, etc. As I was trying to say earlier, taking "privacy as good" to be self-evident isn't as helpful in an argument that pits it against other equally "self-evident" principles (e.g. "protecting the lives of innocent people is good", "exposing criminal behavior that endangers others is good", etc.). The most "compelling" arguments I found on the various privacy related web sites were historical quotes, e.g.:
The question isn't, "Is privacy good?" but "What can we do to protect our privacy?"
The problem I found when I started to think about presenting an intelligent argument to friends, let alone to elected representatives, was that in order to make a strong argument in favor of protecting our privacy, especially wrt strong encryption, was that I couldn't simply take as given, "privacy is good" when the opposing arguments may in fact agree with that position, yet simply add the ostensibly reasonable condition that we need to balance the need for a "reasonable" assurance of privacy against the need for ______ (e.g. public safety, etc.).
The case for (and gaining public support for) protecting our privacy would be much simpler if the other side of the argument was pushing for an all-out Orwellian state with Thought Police and the like. That's not the case. The arguments in favor of limiting strong encryption and expanding government monitoring of communications are made in the context of protecting innocent people, by limiting the ability of criminal activity to escape detection. A sympathetic listener might foreseeably see the reasonableness of the argument.
I believe we need to have realistic examples that people can relate to to understand why we need to protect our privacy. For example, I don't find Ellis' analogy of encrypted email to enclosing letters in an envelope compelling. If we're settling for PEEP (Paper Envelope Equivalent Privacy)
"The right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people."
- Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. U.S. (1928)
"Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
-Benjamin Franklin
Great for 10-second spots, a little lacking otherwise.
The other tack may be to demonstrate that the proposed curtailings of our civil liberties doesn't in fact curtail the resources available to (mildly) sophisticated criminals. (Incidentally, I think such arguments need to address the objection that while limiting the general public's legal access to strong encryption may not hinder a criminal's access to such encryption, it would raise a red flag when strong encryption is detected in passing traffic).
I understand that one point of the original editorial could be taken as a call to simply be loud and try to match the other, not terribly well-reasoned side of the debate--basically, just get your viewpoint heard. But we ought to be able to back it up with rational argument if the need arises. So, maybe we could get a list/discussion here going about sound arguments for why privacy is good, even against other, "self-evident goods".
the original comment, now modded down to -1, was:
"prayer is the most effective way to lobby, although prayer without action is only wishful thinking."
it is marked as off-topic. it's entirely on topic. Perhaps it should be marked "different faith than mine?"
lobbying without prayer is like dreaming about having an effect on Congress.
information is immaterial
Only one lawmaker voted against giving the executive of this country broad, sweeping exemptions to following the rules laid out by our Constitution, and that's Barbara Lee. I may not agree with everything she does, but I am glad she is my rep in the house. And, no, she didn't vote against it because of some weird plot or whatever, she just simply refused to hand the reigns of power over to anyone without knowing who that power is being used against. That's the responsibility of Congress, and she stood up and accepted that in the face of the tyranny of the majority. Right now, because of the way the vote went, the US president basically can do whatever he wants to whoever he says is bad, and that is very not good.
I have no problem with finding and whacking whoever did this, but nobody needs to be crowned king in order to do so. We don't need to "go to war" over what is essentially an international law enforcement issue. We may need to go to war when we find whoever it is who was responsible, but not before.
What really pisses me off, and this is from the standpoint of a veteran that has lost friends due to assassinations and bombings, and having narrowly avoided being shot or blown up myself, is that we have all of these people waving flags and howling for blood.
FINE, IF YOU ARE UNDER 35, GO SIGN UP WITH THE ARMED FORCES AND GET SOME!!! IF YOU ARE TOO OLD OR DECREIPT, TAKE YOUR UNDER 35 KIDS DOWN TO THE RECRUITER AND SIGN THEM UP, AND GET SOME!!!!
Nothing strikes me as a greater act of cowardice than to expect OTHER people to do your killing for you, having them take all of the risks (depleted uranium, nerve agents, hell, just plain getting shot), while the person howling sits safely somewhere waving a flag while SOMEONE ELSE'S KIDS GO GET KILLED. You want blood? Fine, you back it up personally.
'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
...can be found here:
http://www.neoteric.nu
The site itself is about the War on Drugs, but all of the points on effective lobying (and other methods of influencing the direction of our government and society) are applicable to protecting privacy or any other civil issue.
On Tuesday, I was very surprised to see Slashdot actually actually caring about others and set aside it's usual diatribes against Windows ME, the crying over having the right to pilfer intellectual property ad infinitum, and moaning about hackers being sentenced for damaging other people'e work. I knew it couldn't last. Welcome back, Slashdot.
These attacks are the price of freedom. For freedom to work, you have to trust the people, inside and outside the country. I think we need to just take our licks and be happy that we are still free to live however we want, love whoever we want, say whatever we want, and think whatever we want. Our forefathers were willing to give their lives for our freedom, so why can't we repay the favor for our descendents? When did we turn into such cowards? I think some war and hardship would probably do us good, to perhaps shock us out of our childish cowardice and encourage us to grow. Contentment is psychological and spiritual stagnation, and from what I can tell, this is the most intellectually stagnant and spiritually bankrupt civilization that ever existed. We have no belief in truth, we have no principles, we have no respect for life, we worship gods on the basis of the logic of a six-year old. We just go to work, get drunk and fuck. That's it. No mental development is occurring beyond the age of eighteen or so. "But look at how many incredibily complex things I can do with my toys and gadgets!" I hear you cry. Idiots
Simple question...
1) Americans have the 'right to bear arms'.
2) Encryption is classified as munitions, arms.
3) Americans have the right to use encryption?
Now, I realize that many types of firearms have been made illegal, and it's not just as simple as this. But why not?
I'm looking for a stronger argument then just 'if we make it illegal, we won't have it, but they still will.'
Steve VanDeBogart
Voting is a good idea, but I'm not aware of any elections in the next few weeks that will have any effects on all these new legislation being proposed.
Never mind supporting, say, the Shah or Iran, or arming Saddam Hussein, or training bin Laden, or giving money and arms to the Taliban.
This wasn't an attack on our civil liberties, or the American way of life. This was a assault on government agencies throwing our weight around in foreign countries, without accountability, in the names of our "national interests."
And if we, the citizens, are going to get killed for these actions, we should have a voice in these actions. Most Americans would likely support our efforts in Israel, but I'm not sure about the sanctions in Iraq (which allow Hussein to horrendously abuse his people in our name) and I'm sure they wouldn't support sending millions to the Taliban, even for the "war on drugs"
This is interesting that Lynn Rivers is part of leading this cause because she represents my district of Michigan. For anyone else in this area, I urge you to attend her town hall meeting that will be held September 19th. It will be held at the Plymouth-Salem high school auditorium at 7:30 pm. We need people who are up to speed on these matters and that have a good perspective on these issues like so many /.ers are.
I heard that as "70% of Americans are willing to let terrorists tell us how to run our country".
That is absolutely correct, and in a sense it has already happened (at least) once. In 1980 the U.S. Embassy personnel in Tehran were hostages in the hands of Iranian revolutionaries who, at the time of the U.S. elections, were the defacto government of that country.
There have been allegations that Bush Sr. may have been involved in negotiations with the Iranians in Paris, on behalf of Reagan, to delay the release of the hostages until after the elections. Whether or not there is a shred of truth to such allegations (I would certainly hope not, but in light of some of the other actions our government, and in particular the Right, have taken I cannot dismiss it out of hand), it is a fact that by hanging on to the hostages until after the elections Iran basically "chose" our president for us.
The strategy may have been "Reagan will bring conflict between the US and USSR and that is good for Iran" or it may have been "we can fuck that bastard Carter in one additional fashion," but the reality is that, whatever the reasoning, whatever the background, and whatever the context the Iranians were in a position to directly affect the elections through their delayed release of the hostages, in effect choosing the president we would have for the next four (and, as it turned out, eight) years.
It would behoove us all to be a little smarter this time around. Intelligence (in both senses of the word) is what is going to win this war, far more than kneejerk reactions like these misguided people espouse. Whatever sacrifices we make should be very well considered and very precisely targeted, and proposals such as banning cryptography (something the French already tried and had to discard) or requiring back doors will do nothing -- anyone who would attempt to murder 50,000 people with a jumbo jet, and in so doing succeed in murdering 5,000, isn't about to stop using strong cryptography, steganography, or (more likely) verbal codewords just because the U.S. congress tells them they shouldn't.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
For the sake of your families - be prepared.
/. before:
Living in the UK, if I were terrorist, I could destroy the transport infrastructure of the country within a week.
I would wind it up with suicide vehicle bomb in channel tunnel - totally destroying it.
You are pathetic idiots if you believe the lies of Government.
As I explained on
IT IS ALL A LIE
Carnivore and Echelon will not work against terrorists.
People were complacent - because of this LIE.
They knew billions was being spent on Carnivore & Echelon for just this sort of problem.
Terrorists know they are being looked for by Carnivore and will get around it by other measures.
When not planning face to face - they would use personal couriers.
Perhaps give mobile for single message when required - just using message - go with plan a / b or abort.
I have always said - terrorism is just the excuse they use, the US to raise funds for Carnivore - the UK to justify R.I.P. bill - to spy on the people.
The "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law" argument is made to pressure people to acquiesce - else appear guilty.
It does not address the real reason, why they want this information. They want a surveillance society.
This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances available for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on Carnivore will not protect you - IT IS A LIE - TERRORISTS WILL GET AROUND IT.
You are a simple-minded dimwit if you believe different. What a big supprise it will be to you, when they use chemical or biological weapons to kill thousands.
Carnivore will not help you one bit. Government are immoral to use this excuse - especially at this time.
***
In the news today: Bin Laden British cell planned gas attack on European Parliament
Quote: "ISLAMIC terrorists based in Britain and controlled by Osama bin Laden planned a devastating attack in February on the European Parliament building in Strasbourg.
Sarin gas is an easily made chemical weapon, 26 times more deadly than cyanide. Developed during the Second World War by the Nazis, it is odourless and almost impossible to detect. Its potential for use in a large crowd was proved when Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese cult, killed 12 people and affected 5,000 more using sarin gas on the Tokyo underground in March 1995."
Telegraph Newspaper
***
The authorities hide simple solution to trademark and domain name problem to abridge your free speech rights. The US Government violate the First Amendment - WIPO.org.uk
Okay, I'm sorry to keep posting like this, but I'm having a brainstorm.
....Enviromental regulations prohibiting the use of Halon should be lifted - it is simply dozens of times better than anything else and could save lives in suvere fires like the WTC and the pentagon. Hell, if it stopped the fires the buildings might not have collapsed. I'm sorry, but this is a bigger priority than the small amout of potential ozone depletion that may be caused.
.... Authentication should be done by digital signatures on the ID card that verify our picture and citizenship, and even fingerprint, not done by centralized databases.. Terrorists are known to use ID theft - and decentralizing would make it a lot harder. This is much more accurate and privacy safe - then licenses which are all checked against a central database. Also instead of halving to constantly update a list of 250 million citizens, the government(s) would only half to keep lists of known criminals. The SS number is so easy to rob, it is a crime and should be abandoned. this would enhance privacy and reduce fraud and more ID theft.
more security should be passive, like the black boxes on airplanes that are never even looked at unless a crime happens. It appears, these are helping us alot more then the X-ray machines at airports (to prevent future disasters)
And silly restrictions like forbiding cell phone use on planes should now just look plain stupid to industry experts. They obviously have helped more than they have hurt.
And what about the NSA. What if all that power was put to use detecting things like rogue flights and responding and coordinating quickly rather than just listening to phone calls - which the terrorists know are being listened to and which didn't seem to help against these attacks anyhow.
I hope we beat the SH*T out of the people who did this to us, and hope even more that we put an information infrastructure in place that would make tyrants unable to controll information or people ever again.
*clap*
Goat sex free since 2001
writing letters, signing petitions blah blah
....
All very good at making a point. But if you want to be taken seriously, buy a gun, join a club, learn how to use it. Exercise your constitutional rights while you still have them, and learn how to defend them while it is still legal.
Why do you think the right to bear arms was put in there? Because one day it might be your last resort.
Who is more likely to be taken seriously
someone who has merely voiced a dissenting opinion, or someone who has the means to overthrow an unjust law?
I am a big liberal, but this whining is the stupidest damn thing I have ever read (without taking into account Falwell's nonsense.
You need to get your priorities straight. Personally I would rather be able to safely travel then be able to connect online and talk to my fellow idiot internet buddy.
I am sure that the Congress have better things to do right now then reply to your inane chatter.
If this were WWI, we would be Austro-Hungary ;)
WWI was, from our point of view, fought against a discreet enemy, and we had discreet military objectives. We knew what we had to do to win the war. Those sacrifices of liberty you talk about were in place only until those military objectives could be accomplished.
We are fighting an enemy we cannot see, which could be anywhere and everywhere, and no one has managed to launch a successful invasion of Afghanistan in 3000 years. If we do this, it will bne our downfall.
Our freedom has made America great and strong. It has allowed us to collectively learn from many mistakes and discuss them openly. If we lose that we will fall and the terrorists will have won.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Terrorists know they are being looked for by Carnivore and will get around it by other measures.
When not planning face to face - they would use personal couriers.
Perhaps give mobile for single message when required - just using message - go with plan a / b or abort.
I have always said - terrorism is just the excuse they use, the US to raise funds for Carnivore - the UK to justify R.I.P. bill - to spy on the people.
Illusion of Protection
As a Canadian citizen, what can I do to contact officials and get a message across to where it'll be heard? I'm still only a college student, and up until now, I've never been very interested in politics.
Reality is relative.
(I keep saying this every spot it's applicable.)
Remember ALL the uses of strong crypto. It isn't limited to PGP/GPG and email.
Think SSH/OpenSSH, think system administration. For that matter, thing certificates and eCommerce.
Think about moving ALL encryption to an algorithm with a backdoor. Then realize that simply knowing that a backdoor exists is the first step to cracking it. By that token, ALL encryption with a backdoor whose existence is know is fundamentally broken. It'll be cracked in short order. Shortly after, the only people this broken crypto will keep me safe from are the honest ones, for whom I didn't need crypto, anyway.
Imagine the only legal means for remote sysadmin has a backdoor.
Imagine that the transport layers of eCommerce have a backdoor.
Imagine that EVERYONE knows it, and the people we're supposed to be *terrified* of are actively searching for it.
May as well dismantle the Internet now, rather than let it fail us when we really need it.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Following is the email that I have sent to my Congressmen. (Sorry it's so long, but that's what I sent.)
/. Besides expressing concern over any erosion of our basic freedoms, my main point is that any limitations on or restrictions to our rights or to our privacy that are deemed necessary and that are implemented should incorporate strict time limits, so that they expire after six months or a year or whatever.
Please ignore the patriotic rhetoric, which, although heartfelt, was more appropriate for a letter to a politician than a posting on
Dear Senator Durbin/Senator Fitzgerald/Congressman Davis:
I applaud you and the other members of the 107th Congress for prompt action, unity, and prudence in our current crisis.
In the crush to protect our nation and respond to the assault, however, I fear that dangerous steps may be taken, steps that will be difficult to retrace in the future. I am writing to urge you to be vigilant in protecting our cherished rights, and perhaps more important, to ensure that any necessary encroachment on those rights is done in a temporary way. Emergency measures must end when the emergency passes.
Our nation always seems to take violent swings from one extreme to the other. Our history is full of choices like the 18th Amendment -- Prohibition did considerable damage to our society, despite the good intentions of those who sought to legislate public morality. The current situation is very different, of course, but it gives us the opportunity to make ill-considered choices in anger and fear that could cause far-reaching damage.
I am particularly concerned about current measures under consideration, and already being taken, that attack personal privacy, free speech, and academic freedom in the name of security.
A good example is the issue of encryption technology. Placing restrictions on the availability and use of this technology will only affect and inconvenience law-abiding citizens; evildoers will always be able to circumvent such restrictions, since this technology is based on pure science -- and we can't legislate the laws of nature. As with the DMCA, the highly technical nature of this issue makes it easy for decisions to be made on an emotional basis, swayed by impassioned but one-sided arguments. It's hard to 'leave scientific questions to the scientists,' but providing a feel-good result that does no real good for national security could have major negative technical and economic consequences on the legitimate users of this technology.
Moreover, these resourceful villains will always be able to move from one technical approach to another. As we close the door to one type of threat, they will simply move on to more fertile ground -- in the same way that our efforts to safeguard air travel will not truly make the public any safer, but will just change the nature of the next attack.
So after implementing draconian measures in an attempt to protect us, the law-abiding populace will be stuck with intrusions and abridgements of freedom; yet in exchange, we will get no true reduction in national risk.
This is not to say that we can't make many good and appropriate security improvements. But we must remember that we're shutting the barn door after the horse has left. So let's be sure that such changes are really sensible on their own merits -- that they would have been a good idea last July, without the recent memory of our loss shaping our actions.
We have seen grim examples of police excesses within my own city, Chicago. We know that we take a grave risk when we remove safeguards and oversight that protect the public from the risk of misguided law enforcement.
The vast majority of our law enforcement personnel are, of course, honorable and patriotic, and they do not seek to interfere in the legitimate private behavior of citizens. But as a friend told me last night, "every house has a toilet," and every large population has a few rogues. It may seem remote and unlikely that our nation could become a police state -- but it's not truly such a remote possibility. It could happen. It has happened. We must be cautious.
I urge you and your colleagues to consider this issue, as you weigh alternatives.
One very strong protection would be to place explicit time limits on any major changes in due process or privacy. If we must restrict a particular technology, or permit a particular kind of unfettered eavesdropping, then let us do this for six months, or a year, or five years -- but not forever.
Remember that our Income Tax was intended as a short-term solution to a temporary problem. Once we pass laws, they develop their own tenacious lives. So let's be sure that any dangerous laws will pass away on their own, without requiring special Congressional action, or else they may dog our lives forever.
In fact, perhaps at the other end of this crisis, when we try to restore our basic way of life and our core freedoms, perhaps we can finally tackle the problem of how our rights have eroded in recent years. Let's codify the public's right to privacy, and put an end to all the debate about where two hundred years of precedent puts that right. Let's decide what it should be, and put it into explicit law. Let's tackle the conflict between free speech and intellectual property, and do it with sensible legislation rather than leaving it to the lawyers to sort out, based on the accidents of history. Let's renew our commitment to individual rights, and restore some of the dignity that has been lost.
But for now, let's get the crisis resolved. You're on the right track. Just be sure that we don't take dangerous permanent steps.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens of Illinois and of the nation. I'm sure you'll do the right thing.
Trevor Hanson
Chicago, Illinois
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
If you want to work on these issues and are in the vicinity of Boston, drop me a line at cananian@mit.edu. I'm the organizer of the Boston "Free Sklyarov" actions (seven weeks running until disrupted by the WTC bombings) and I'll be pulling together other activist groups now as well. Drop me a line, tell me your interests, and I'll do my best to put you together with other folk who want to work on the same sorts of things.
[
Americans have the legal right to criticize the government. Morally, doing so without at least trying to effect the political system is just whining and although legally protected does not accomplish anything.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
There are a lot of hotheaded people going around right now spouting off what they'd like to see done to the people who committed these acts. That's going to be natural in a situation like this. Remember though that the people in the Pentagon are going to be a bit more level-headed. They know the impoverished innocent civilians living in tents in Kabul are NOT our enemies. Our enemies are the Taliban government of Afghanistan, Osama bin Ladin and his Al-Qaeda terrorist network, and the other governments throughout the middle east and Africa that harbor terrorist networks.
I have very good friends who are Muslim (though they're Indian) and I know for a fact that they, nor their religion, would EVER condone these atrocities anymore than Christianity would condone them. None of these religions teach hatred of anyone, only the radical fanatics who have taken their scriptures and perverted them to fit their political goals are the ones who see it like this. We have some pretty fucked up radical Christians in this country bombing abortion clinics and killing homosexuals and the Muslims have some pretty fucked up Muslims bombing non-Muslims and their supporters.
Anyway, like I was saying, don't judge what is going to occur by the actions of what emotional people are saying right now on CNN. Our military is the best in the entire world and they will plan an offensive that will kill as many of our enemy (the Taliban, not the civilians) as possible with as few civilian casualties as possible. We are not monsters, unlike the terrorists who kill innocent people in buildings.
Name one fundemental civil liberty or right - either explicitely or implicitely expressed in the Constitution - that has been infringed upon or even been advocated to be suspended by a senior government official since Tuesday. Someone please just name one instance with an appropriate citation. One might as well read the Weekly World News as read a slashdot message board when it comes to getting concrete, factual, or informed opinion on political issues. Let the WTC get destroyed and everyone is upset but let the government work together with AOL to read a dead hijacker's email and the netgeeks of the world are up in arms and posting lengthy diatribes against those bastards in the government who are stealing our freedoms or, even more humorously, assessing the reasons why anything the government is going to do will result in failure. I don't know if you guys are the prime example of the need to legalize marijuana in this country - because most of you need to chill out very badly - or whether your the prime example of how drugs destroy your mind and make you paranoid. Not that anyone has asked for my advice or wants to take it but I think these alarmist and hysterical pronouncements on the impending loss of our freedom, especially in the absence of any concrete actions to such end, is just scare-mongering. There is a lot of quotation citing going on in this thread and I think I'll join in - "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself"
Mod this up dammit!
Reality has a liberal bias
Well, often crypto users are not hiding anything. so, they dont really need crypto, do they? ok.
What about the people who do have something to hide? will they start sending messages in plaintext, like me? I somehow doubt that. They will come up with some truely nasty methods of hideing their info, and in the meantime, creditcard fraud will go thru the roof, because we wont have https://
Ok, we can keep secure credicard transactions? I can just set up a little fake store here, bounce all my info over HTTPS:// and nobody's the wiser
How do you stop that? you put a goverment backdoor in it. Now' we're back to square one. It's all insecure. When in known history has a back door, however secure survived for more then a few months?
My point here is that takeing rights away wont fix anything. Criminals are not afraid to break the law, that's why they are criminals, see? and in the mean time, it just hurts the honst man
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
How can we vote for a paty that is dedicated to keep the constitutional rights of citizens and does not sell itself to business when there is NO SUCH PARTY?
The whole idea of lobbying and buying laws is just sick and should be outlawed.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
"First, your entire post appears to be a cut and paste from the linked article."
Yes, but I wrote the article. The article just pulls together separate sources.
"Which Arabs? Which citizens of Saudi Arabia?
Arab friends of mine have told me that the government of Saudi Arabia is opposed by people who want representation. I've also seen this on television documentaries. Please realize that there are many sources I haven't included. The article I wrote could use more supporting information. The article is only a Slashdot post. I didn't want to take up a lot of space, so I uploaded the article to a personal web page, and provided a link.
"The US military has only been there in force since Desert Storm. The Saudis may not much care for their presence or their government but they also have no desire to be ruled by another Taliban."
Yes, but some Arabs don't like a continued military presence. You are mistaken about the U.S. government being there only for the Gulf War. The U.S. has a long history of involvement with the house of al Saud. Some of those who are not part of the ruling family say the government of al Saud is corrupt. I am not trying to give a personal opinion. This is an opinion of some Arabs.
"If anything, the original author is simply re-iterating the words of bin Laden himself."
That's the point! I am referencing bin Laden and others. It doesn't matter whether you or I consider that bin Laden has acceptable political aspirations! He says he will bring the war to the U.S. if the U.S. government continues interfering. Do you doubt that?
Osama bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, says he has a right to representation in the government of his country. The point: Does the U.S. have a right to say he doesn't? Second point: Are you willing to die for this cause? Are you willing to be unsafe for the rest of your life over this cause?
Why does the U.S. have to be involved in this dispute? Many bad things happen in the world. If the U.S. wants to help the world, why does it have to be with fighting?
Twenty percent of the people in the world don't have enough to eat. Why doesn't the U.S. help them? My opinion is that there are people in the U.S. who want to engage in battle. They just want to fight. They want to get involved in any battle available. And there's lots of money in secretly embezzling U.S. government funds.
My article: What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
The biggest threat we face right now is the civil rights of Americans of Arab descent in the United States.
One of the goals of the terrorist activities is to make the Western Democracies strike out against Arabs and make it a clear us vs. them scenario by which they can gain more support in the Middle East.
By using deep cover agents, they have made a real step towards that goal. Now every Arab in the United States can be considered a potential suspect. Anti-Arab sentiment and violence is already on a serious rise as it is.
And either through violence, or harassment, or over-scrutinization by the count-ordered emergency measures, it is going to be a very hard time for this portion of the US population. The footage from Chicago, for example, was just chilling.
We all need to remember that we are Americans, and as Americans, we are all the targets of this terrorism. The suicide bombers did not check to see if there were any Muslims in the WTC before they attacked it. We are all in this together, and the worst--and most likely--thing we can do to help them win is turn on ourselves.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
im from modesto, ca. my senators are barbara boxer and dianne fienstein. my rep is gary condit (please dont laugh, i know...) anyways here is what is ent each of them:
Hello, I am a college student from Modesto, CA and I am very concerned
about the threat to our freedoms and civil liberties posed by knee-jerk legislation drafted in the wake of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks. Many in Congress believe that one of the ways to stop terrorism is to restrict the freedoms of law abiding Americans in order to conduct greater survelience. I am a Computer Science student at CSU Chico, and I take special note of bills in Congress that threaten online privacy. When Congress resumes this month, many bills will be on the floor and committee that will seek to have government mandated "backdoors" in encryption products or to outlaw them all together. This is not the answer. If terrists want strong encryption, they already have it and restricting the publics access to such products will not have any positive effect. Today, unencrpted email is like a postcard, anyone can read it. I use PGP (Pretty Good Privacy -> http://www.pgp.com) encrytion to send my personal email. It allows me to encrypt messages to a recipient and send them across the Internet, knowing that only the intended reader will see them. Such software is vital to a free society, nation, and world. If encryption is controlled in ANY way by the Federal government, it will be one step closer to all American citizens loosing their constitutional rights. Please, please, please use all your influence to stop the upcomming wave of anti-privacy and anti-encryption legislation. I have a 6 month old son, and I don't want him to grow up with a government that can be invasive into our provate lives as it wants to be. Please help save the Constitution and all it has provided to the citizens of America.
"The chief enemy of creativity is 'good taste'" -Pablo Picasso
"You seem to think that "U.S. interference" somehow justifies mass murder and mass destruction."
Wow!!! I certainly DO NOT think that! Nothing justifies violence. My opinion: If you look closely, there is always a better way of having power than violence.
Consider how the U.S. got to be an independent country. Some people who lived in the U.S., then a British colony, wanted independence. They fought a war.
I don't think fighting a war is a good idea. However, the U.S. is not going to stop war by being violent!
I can see the story now: The U.S. has decided that it is not okay to fight for representation in your own government. To be logical, the U.S. is re-joining the British Empire. (I'm sure the British would think this was humorous. I'm not sure they would take us back.)
It does not matter what you or I think. Some Arabs think they have a reasonable view, and they are willing to be violent to further this view. Remember, they are not saying they want representation in the government of the United States. They are saying they want representation in the government of Saudi Arabia. That's what this fight is about.
You can be sure that if a terrorist ever calls me up and ask me for my opinion, I will tell him violence is STUPID. But I have no contact with any violent people.
"Perhaps the U. S. has meddled in other countries' affairs, perhaps arrogantly, but never to my knowledge without invitation."
The U.S. government pays billions of taxpayer dollars to get that invitation, and there are dictatorships that are willing to take the money.
Bush's education improvements were
Point three -- Jets at Andrews were not on ready status even though the Mossad and NSA both had strong indications of a major attack coming. Are Washington and NY not considered targets anymore?
Once, as an excersize, I asked myself where a Terrorist would strike if they wanted to hurt America. Not one like McVeigh, but a real, professional terrorist. I concluded that there were only three cities that would make sense for major attacks-- Washington, DC; NY, NY; and LA, CA. Washington DC because it is the political head of America. New york is the economic head of America, and the case can be made that therefore it is really the identity center as well (the business of America is business). LA is a secondary business hub for America and the entertainment center. All other targets would be secondarty. Of course at the time, I was concerned about nuclear terrorism, but as this event showed us, airplanes become effective FAE's which can be pretty devestating (note that the use of FAE's, or Fuel-Air Explosives is actually prohibited by international law but that has not prevented their use, f. ex. during the Gulf War).
Moral of the story-- you would have to be insane to exclude Washington and NY fron ANY target list. I think that it was done so because people made a lot of assumptions about terrorists that were false.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Can't tell for sure, but from the description it seems like they're talking about image steganography -- hiding encrypted data in the nooks and crannies of, say, a GIF image. Technically quite possible -- anyone seen any evidence of this, or is this just USAtoday pulling stuff out of their hat?
Not arguing with that.
From the sound of it, he already has -- probably years ago. It's hard to get SIGINT from a group that doesn't use radios or cellphones.
So now we're going to be asked to give up our email privacy for no benefit at all, just to make the panicked uneducated masses feel better? Sounds to me this industry of technophobia is turning into an expensive luxury.
OK, here's the deal: When the Federal marshals show up at my door to demand I uninstall PGP, I'll think seriously about it. Until then:
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQCPAzacFJsAAAEEAOEuJGZBdIOlQowWPelEx66CfEpoqaS
j53ksItvRIqYPzr4NWjYzp0b36Q4Dy8e63ACZ971kjDbVPX
6wkE6N4Iuwy4DA3LsdzZ5Eg5n1iQ5nYMabiapAYLuWM4lbf
AAG0KUJydWNlIEJvc3R3aWNrIDxsaWhhbkBjY3dmLmNjLnV
=pwWB
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
(This is an older RSA key, but it should still work -- email me your public key and I'll send you my current DH/DSS public key. Or you can grab it from pgp.mit.edu while the server is still up
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
just a little reminder, congress people consider email to be a waste of time, any old idiot can spam 300 emails, but most of the idiots don't write on a PIECE of PAPER and MAIL it. We still have a few days before congress reconvenes, a piece of mail will get there in time.
for example, i once tried to email a senator, it took 1 month for me to get a generic reply (thank you in writing to me and showing you care....) and never did i get a human writtin responce.
Only dead fish swim with the stream...
Actually regular email is really nothing like a postcard. Posting to a web-board is more like a postcard: anybody who happens by can choose to read it without any other barriers to overcome. Regular email is insecure, true, but in order to "intercept" an email message a person would need to be between mail servers and use some kind of ethernet packet scanner. While this is fairly easy to do for someone who's computer and network literate, it still requires some work. This would be comparable to the real-world example of taking the time to intercept an envelope and open it in order to read it.
Encryption, on the other hand, doesn't really have a feasible real-world parallel, but if I had to create one I would say it's akin to sending your postcard inside of a gigantic steel safe and shipping by courier. Anybody who would want to read your message could, but it would require considerable time and effort to crack the safe.
Now I'm not proposing that all safes, er, encryption, should have government back doors, but an envelope is the wrong metaphore to use. Arguing by metaphore is a bad idea in most cases, as a metaphore will never exactly describe the situation for which it is applied, leaving holes in the argument. Still, I believe that this particular comparison to envelopes is intentionally deceptive, and it brings questions to the rest of the arguments posted above. If we're to argue about the legalities of encryption, let's try to stick to the honest facts.
- j
"Trading one dictator for another doesn't seem very productive."
I agree with that. But some Arabs want to decide this question for themselves. My guess is that I would probably strongly disagree with their politics. A lot of the statements I've seen Arabs say on television seem to me to be foolish at best.
However, the first question is whether the U.S. government has the right decide everyone else's politics. The second question is whether you personally are willing to risk your own life and spend your own money for the principle that they don't have the right to decide their own politics.
"The fundamental problem is that the Saudis do not have a non-violent mechanism for settling their political differences."
Very true!!!! They don't. That is absolutely right. Excellent insight. But, will killing some of them help them find a non-violent mechanism?
Bush's education improvements were
What a bunch of spoiled children! Where do you think these so called rights come from? Most of you dont believe in a Diety, just natural selection. Well if your beliefs are true no rights exist other than what the strong will allow. Dont hide behind this stupid selfishness of thinking that your personal comfort matters at all. If you are not willing to fight prepare to be enslaved by those who have non of your whimpering cries for peace at all cost. I am ashamed any American would go around demeaning our system that gives him the Freedom to do so. I hope all you fuzzy Peace-Niks get just what you deserve!
Matt's addition to Occam's Razor:"The most simple answer is preferred by those that are simple."
Hitler would be snookered. Everyone would have guns! Most of the countries he invaded had stiff gun control in place and so were initially unable to offer serious civil resistance - in fact, the gun control info was used to arm the nasties and murder potential resistance.
And being Slash-minded, everyone would argue. After a while, there would be no real battles because everyone would be too busy disagreeing over how they should be fought. Yes, I am joking, but not 100%...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
A +6 Axiomatic rating, that post!
Why do you think Switzerland gets invaded so seldom? Why do you think that of the many, many attacks launched on and within Israel, almost all fail? Why do you think Israeli airliners never get hijacked? Theory is all very well, but Ben's idea works.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
And so...? What do you propose doing about it? Another case of ``I used to be apathetic, but it no longer matters to me?''
How about some effective snactions against big businesses which unduly interfere with the political process? And after you're done proposing, will you actually carry out your proposals? Fat chance, if you can't even be bothered posting under a name...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Privacy Background
Privacy has many facets:
1) Time Control: Don't waste my time.
2) Proximity Control: Leave me alone / Don't get near me.
3) Information Control: None of your business / I'm not going to tell you.
Main question: Why do people seek to uphold privacy?
Answer: To maintain control/influence.
Loss of privacy results in:
Time, Resources (money/assets/land), Phys and Psych Health, and Influence (via loss of reputation, etc.)
1) Loss of Time Control: wasted time, money, emotional dam.
2) Loss of Prox. Control: wasted time, potential loss of money,
potential loss of physical safety, emotional damage
3) Loss of Information Control: lose money, reputation, influence.
My Rant
Geeks want privacy because they are nonconformists, i.e. they do things that other people don't do: think, explore their limits and the their world's limit, are skeptical, etc.
Because they do "different" things, they might be looked at unfavorably by the general public, and may be disliked! Thus, they lose influence in the world, which is conterproductive to what they truly seek: control/influence.
Question: So why do most people not seek to uphold privacy?
Answer: Perfect Conformists in theory have nothing to lose by bearing all. They do nothing out of the ordinary to warrant disliking by other conformists. The common reply by a Conformist is "I have nothing to hide."
But what about: taboos? or to another extent:
stuff that everyone does but does not want to show? (sex, shitting, etc.) Depending on the culture, certain acts must be kept discreet or you will be disliked by others, even though others know everyone does such natural acts, like sex and shitting. HOWEVER, if your influence is great enough, you can get away with doing anything:
Consider: Politicians who think they can do anything:
Bill Clinton,
Jesse Ventura (nutty, but has some restraint)
etc.
Consider: Michael Jackson being accused of molesting young boys (hasn't not publicly proved his innocense), yet he is still welcomed back into the entertainment industry
So Conformists need some privacy, UNLESS they are taught that such privacy is not socially needed. If they are taught that Big Brother can watch them shitting, then it must be ok. This is only a matter of time.
Governments do not like nonconformists generally, unless they directly increase the influence of governments: goverment benefited research by scientists (Einstein/nukes) OTHERWISE they are considered a danger to society.
As Geeks, what can we do to convince Conformists that they need to fight for privacy? I'm not 100% sure. But read on...
I'm scared by Reality TV that glorifies loss of privacy in exchange for cultural stardom. This is a privy/smart way to convince Conformists that privacy is not needed at any point in life.
The most powerful people in society have the best control other their privacy while balancing interactions/influence with/on rest of society. In this line of reasoning, that what's makes a rich man better than a island recluse.
Back to educating Conformists of their error: There is no such thing as a Perfect Conformist. Every person has faults/errors/problems in life. Here is a list of potential specific areas for loss of privacy:
1) Health records (if you have cancer, you could lose your job)
2) Buying Habits (supermarkets, video stores, book stores!!)
3) Location (GPS/tracking)
Overall, see the book "Database Nation".
So maybe you can show Conformists where others have been abused. Show them they are not Perfect, and that they do have things they may not want others to access/take advantage of: (time, proximity, information) / OR have influence over. Conformists seem not to mind having their lives controlled. Why? Because that's the current state of the system. They Conform not only with each other, the "average", but they also Consent to being controlled.
Still Conformists will say "I have nothing to hide". Perhaps the only way to break this point is to violate their privacy and make them see directly. This is immoral, and counterproductive since your argument is prevent such occurences. *** Someone can keep denying a weakness all they want with valid argument until their weakness is exploited (taken advantage of). *** The same argument goes for security. Somone can deny they are not secure, but the only way to prove it is to exploit their weakness directly and show them firsthand.
Thus, perhaps its that Conformists lack the ability to:
1) "What if..." possibilities - ponder the future, not just live in the past and present. Considering the future requires tackling one's fears. Hard to do! But their HOPE in feature possible good things happening. So HOPE vs FEAR. Consider: The person who jumps off a bridge if everyone else did (or "Jonestown" for a more actual story) Consider: The person who goes for short-term instead of long-term benefits. (Note: Politicians will not think long-term because they will gain no present-time influence by such actions!!!!!!)
2) "Could it happen to me?" considerations - Not distance themselves from reality / separation from others. Must realize that what happens to someone else MAY also happen to you.
3) "That could never happen to me" - Consider alternatives that are unpleasant, or rare!! (its amazing how rare possibilities are automatically deemed absolutely "impossible" by people in society. Consider how the legal system/ jury system will not believe truthful rare situations. A more likely falsehood is more paletable. Rare situations show people that they are not in control, which people don't want to believe!!!
4) "I have nothing to hide." - Must stop Self-righteousness, or belief that oneself is supremely perfect. Beware the man who (thinks he) makes no mistakes!!!!
So ironically, the "non-conformist" is more in touch with all fellow humanity, conform and non-conform alike.
CONCLUSIONS:
Conformists thus do not fear loss of privacy because:
1) Such a loss will occur in the future, something they don't ponder about (the "future" that is).
2) People in general don't live in reality, but a filter of reality. Many people do not consider how privacy plays in their lives. Since they live in their la-la-lands, they don't consider that their lives might end up being affected live other people's lives have been, since they filter those out.
3) Such a loss would be unpleasant/rare, not possible in their line of thought (if any "thought" really exists).
4) They believe they are perfect, thus losing Privacy only affects unperfect people.
My last worry is that if Privacy is taken away slowly, people will not react. But if it taken away quickly, people will fight furiously to get it back immediately. For example: If someone is stripped naked by force in public, that person will fight to regain their privacy of their body's appearance. But if society is taught that being naked in public is alright, that person may feel alright to be naked in public. A better analogy might say that if someone's clothes disappeared magically, they would try to regain their privacy. But if the clothes disappeared slowly, perhaps they wouldn't mind.
I don't agree with this. There have been many, many calls for action. Bomb someone! I think the U.S. government would have bombed already, but no one knows who to bomb.
We have free speech here, that means people are speaking out, and saying what they want. Some people are calling for nuking afganistan, some people are calling for the slaughter of all arabs, and some people are saying we need to cool down before we do something drastic and stupid.
Its not important what peope are calling for, there's a million voiced calling for all kinds of things. What's important is what we actually end up doing.
For example, has anyne ever seen a tax law evapourate, unless there was a worse replacement?
Australia's income tax was emplaced during World War II as a temporary measure to fund the war effort. It took a long time for the gummint to get around to do as much about rescinding them as even beginning to index the rates against average income, inflation or or anything. I read about tax revolts at the 6% level and turn to gaze in awe at our 50% top rate... a temporary measure...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
You could try here but unfortunately the original article at Buzzflash.com can no longer be found, nor can the two articles in Yahoo and the Guardian. Both, rather conveniently, have expired, but when I found this I can verify that the link to the Guardian worked and it is quite genuine. You can also find it in an archive here.
You won't be hearing much of this on CNN, I can imagine. It's all but disappeared from the internet, and from the public memory...
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
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...
~~ What's stopping you?
In the afterhaze of the tragic terrorist attacks, it would take an almost unimaginable lobbying effort on the part of privacy advocates to prevent online privacy being seriously eroded.
/. post. But one reason I can think of is OIL GREED, and the average voter's refusal to accept any accountability for any deeper consequences of their lifestyle choices.
But I feel suppressing privacy is a most blatantly superficial solution, that does nothing to address the underlying causes of the attack.
From these attacks has come knowledge of two new weapons - (1) Aircraft, and (2) Anonymity.
Yes - anonymity as a weapon!
Americans would be reluctant to give up cheap convenient air travel/freight, as these are part of America's superlative economic infrastructure, but more and more, privacy/anonymity is being seen as a dangerous luxury.
Terrorists are showing alarming ingenuity at using the most commonplace entities as weapons, and no doubt will adapt to being able to function effectively under any set of rules, and find ways to use any new rule as an actual weapon.
Sadly, no law can suppress anyone's will to attack the USA - in fact, such rules can only increase anti-US sentiment, both within and without.
It refreshes me, though, to see the media giving some airing to opinions critical of US foreign policy and calling for the USA to see Sep 11 as a reality check. Sadly though, the bombings seem very unlikely to trigger any substantial revision of such policy, or any real investigation of the underlying causes of the Sep 11 tragedy.
Ban encryption/anonymity? Terrorists will simply resort to steganography. Any white noise such as image/audio data, even plain text, can be used as a carrier for hidden content. (Imagine lots of high-powered NSA mathematicians looking for hidden messages embedded in people's family photos - just like the religious fundamentals looking for 'secret brainwashing messages' in heavy metal rock albums!)
The only thing that can possibly prevent any future attacks on America is serious and deep reflection on WHY the USA has made itself unpopular in certain parts of the world.
Too many inter-related complex reasons to fathom in one mere
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Here's a hypothetical question: You're walking down the street one day, minding your own business, when a complete stranger approaches you and punches you in the face. He doesn't try to mug you or take your money, he doesn't insult you, he doesn't accuse you of sleeping with his girlfriend. Just socks you squarely on the jaw and goes about his business, offering no explanation. Many people's first reaction would be to call the police maybe, or to chase him down so you could return the favor. Maybe you don't do anything. Whatever. The first reaction isn't important, it would vary from person to person. At some point, though, most normal people would have to get over their first reaction and wonder why they were singled out, out of all the people in the city that day, for a bloody nose. This isn't the best example obviously, because there are enough loonies wandering around in large cities today to make this story not so strange. You'd probably chalk it up to being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong crazy person and resume your life as usual. Let's put another spin on it, though: you're one country out of many in the world, instead of one person out of many on the street, and instead of socking you in the face, this stranger decides to hijack a plane and topple two of the largest buildings in your largest city, along with a government building in another city. At what point do you stop and wonder why America was singled out? Why not Canada? Why not Mexico, or France, or Estonia? Or don't you care? If your only thought on the matter is to Get The Bastards, then no, you probably don't care. I do. And I'm gonna tell you why we were singled out. We have been waltzing around the world, dictating to other countries how they should run their government and day to day lives. If someone disagrees with us, we simply impose trade sanctions against them, and leave them to starve until they see the light. Worse, we have taken sides in the Holy War in the middle east. We supply weapons and intelligence to Israel. We, the holiest of nations, have decided who gets to live in the "holy land" and who doesn't. You don't know what that whole holy war thing is all about? Don't care? Well you better start paying attention, because your government has taken part, and this is what we, as citizens, get. We have been instigating this. Inviting it. We live in such a bubble that that outside world is like a TV show, and we're surprised when it turns out to be real. I could list foreign policy all day, but that doesn't really matter if all you want is to Get The Bastards. It doesn't matter what we have been doing, because we are The Country That Was Never Wrong. So open up the emails. Outlaw the encryption. Install Carnivore wherever we can. As long as we get the bastards, right?
I've got three letters going out tomorrow morning:
l do n1.html
h am 1.html
l so n1.html
http://www.k2net.cc/users/jcmay/politics/DaveWe
http://www.k2net.cc/users/jcmay/politics/BobGra
http://www.k2net.cc/users/jcmay/politics/BillNe
There's more talk on my home page, towards the bottom.
Actually, you can look it up at the CIA Factbook (cia.gov). As recently as 1997 The US Taxpayer ponied up $70 million.
I don't think Arabs would give the U.S. much attention, except that there has been U.S. interference in the region.
Walk into any bar and start throwing your weight around. Someone will pick a fight with you. Stay out of the bar, no fight.
If you really understand what bin Laden is saying, and you understand the culture of the region, and you understand the long history of U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia, it is not as crazy as it sounds at first. But, I agree with you, there is a LOT of craziness.
In earlier posts, some people have mis-understood my comments. So, I repeat, I'm against terrorism. I'm not agreeing with Arab politics. Osama bin Laden wants to unite all the Arab nations. His method is force. I don't like that method.
There are at least 50 destructive governments in the world. The world is an imperfect place. We cannot intervene in every bad situation. If we do intervene, is our violence really better than their violence?
I tried to gather together what I think is relevant information: What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Maybe music is a minor issue compared to everything else, but it's happening none theless, Clear Channel, one of the largest radio networks in the world, has issued a list of 150 songs that would be "inappropriate" for airing. I looked at this list, expecting to see a bunch of marilyn manson(suprisingly none were listed) and other death/metal the like. While there was some, there were also inexplicably a lot of songs that were simply put on the list solely based on their song titles. It seemed they just listed the songs simply because they had the words "War", "blood", or "destroys" in the titles. It listed songs that were anti-war("war pigs", "sunday bloody sunday"). Some of these songs actually helped me get through that horrible tuesday(particularly songs like "under the bridge" and "black hole sun"), and now Clear Channel thinks the songs are "inappropriate"? Maybe I am overreacting. I hope I am.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Here is a letter that I sent via snail mail and email to our representatives
that I thought you guys might find interesting.
I write to you during a grave time for our country to express both my support
for efforts to strengthen our nation against her external enemies and my
opposition to legislation that tramples on the freedoms that make our country
great.
First, I commend you and the Congress on your swift and powerful support of
the President in combating terrorism worldwide. It is sad that so many
people had to die before the political will to act coalesced, but now that it
has I commend our leaders for seizing this opportunity to act forcefully to
make the world a better and safer place.
At the same time, I wish to express my trepidation at some of the rhetoric I
hear issuing from Washington concerning the civil liberties and freedom of
individual Americans. The internet has become one of the most important
means of communication and discourse in our society, and its importance
promises only to continue to grow exponentially as time and technology
progress. I see two disturbing legislative trends that threaten the
continued existence of the internet as the free and open arena of discourse
that we so cherish in the US and that police states such as China strive to
control.
First, I am concerned that in the wake of the tragedies in New York and
Washington that momentum will again build in an attempt to regulate or ban
encryption on the internet. Strong cryptography should be compared to the
Second Amendment in the internet world. It is the protection of individuals
against the potential corruption or tyranny of the state. Like the right to
bear arms, it does have its negative consequences. Strong cryptography, like
weapons, can be and is used for evil as well as good. However, our founding
fathers had the wisdom to see that (at least at the time of the framing) an
armed populace was an insurance policy against future tyranny. Since that
time, our world has changed in many ways, and today strong encryption on the
internet is a similar insurance policy for the modern world. Because of
this, many of the world's police states (e.g. China) have outlawed it
outright. The ability of the populace to have private and truly secure
conversations in the new public commons of the internet goes farther to
protect us from a potentially Orwellian future than any other conceivable
measure. I implore you to resist the urge to restrict these rights for the
immediate gain of combating terrorism when the potential long-term
consequences to society as a whole are so grave. There is no guaranty that
our government will always be benign and good other than the eternal
vigilance of the populace and our elected officials.
Second, I am concerned about the continued co-opting of our fair-use rights
in the digital arena for the benefit of large media corporations. The DMCA
has already been enacted into law to the near universal dismay of all
informed citizens who are not its direct beneficiaries. This is a law that,
if enacted 200 years ago, would have outlawed the printing press as a
potential method for copyright circumvention. Similarly, the Xerox machine
would be made illegal if it were digital in nature. Any law that outlaws the
use of "circumvention technology" essentially creates out of thin air a broad
range of new rights for copyright holders that are by no means in the public
interest. As you know, copyright was originally created by the framers as a
necessary evil, granting limited monopoly privileges to individuals as a way
of encouraging innovation. Existing copyright law already forbids illegal
copying on the internet and on computers as surely as it does in other media.
The DMCA and now the SSSCA, however, go far beyond any original ideas of
copyright as a social contract between content creators and society and
instead create a broad range of new and unheard of rights for copyright
holders that trample on the traditions of fair use and the intentions of the
framers. Outlawing "circumvention technology" essentially allows copyright
holders to arbitrarily legislate (with the full support of our criminal
justice system) how their material can be used to the most minute level of
detail in a way that flies in the face of traditional ideas of copyright and
personal freedom. For example, a Russian foreign national is currently being
held on criminal charges in the US (under the DMCA) for creating a program
that allows users to read legally purchased electronic books on computers for
which a sanctioned reading program did not exist. The rational is that this
program also creates the ability to copy the book (as is already possible via
photocopying in the non-digital world) and is thus a "circumvention device."
This is travesty of justice, and a shameful example of government pandering
to corporate interests at the expense of the people and societal good.
I am confident that much of the DMCA will be overturned in court, but it is
unfortunate that such a long and expensive process must be pursued for our
rights to eventually be protected. I urge you to vote against the SSSCA that
is currently under consideration. Please allow our existing (and wholly
adequate) copyright law to continue to do the job it has done for the last
200 years.
Thank you very much for your time and your service to our nation. God bless
America.
Sincerely,
blah blah
By forcing weak encryption, wont these laws make it easier for terrorists to read our "private" e-mail's as well?
That right was never postulated; at least by me. To a large extent we don't "decide" now. It is fanciful to think that the CIA, State Dept., etc. are these omnipotent entities which meld the world at will.
Blame all the problems of the world on "the Man". Reality is a little more complicated. The many of the critical factors as to which way internal politics go are due to mechanisms already present.
Yes, the U.S. should be involved in influencing other peoples politics where they differ from the fundamental freedoms that this country struggles to implement. They don't have to always listen, but U.S. should exhibit first-admendment-like rights to use reasonable means of influence to get the message across. The world is too small a place to hide with our head in the sand and hope bad things don't happen to us.
If Cuba doesn't like Radio Free America broadcasts being directed at their country that doesn't mean they should feel entitled to fly to Miami and blow up a building.
Don't bring up the old Cold War coups that the CIA cooked up. Unless you can point to some current activity, I don't see any evidence that the U.S. Government currently asserts any such right.
U.S. Government does assert the right to go in and solve extremely serious problems in human rights (genocide ). To sit idlely by while that happens would be cowardly and totally aborant to most religions I'm familar with.
No rights are irrevocable under all circumstances.
There is always a line that should not be crossed
at which forfieture of rights is implicit.
At best, the US is indirectly helping to maintain the status quo in Saudi. But show me a substantial human institutional that doesn't try to maintain
the status quo. For the most part human societies don't like change, unless there is a very clear and high probability of a good outcome by shifting.
The second question is whether you personally are willing to risk your own life and spend your own money for the principle that they don't have the right to decide their own politics.
The question is specious. No one said they had no rights. However, where the "internal" decisions have extensive "external" ramifications it really isn't an "internal" decision is it? If some "we must destroy one of neighbors at
all cost" leadership is installed should we just use gentlemanly diplomatic channels and jump in on the tail end on inevitable larger conflict after it is
started. How much of our lives and money will be spent on cleaning up that mess? How much have similar decisions cost us in the past?
It is a slippery slope. We have to be ever vigilant not to slide too far down that slippery slope. It is and always will be a struggle. Simplistically saying we'll just always stay at one end of the spectrum or the other is
a nice armchair argument. It just doesn't work to well in the big bad world out there.
But, will killing some of them help them find a non-violent mechanism?
Will letting them drop death and destruction upon us with impunity help them?
I strongly believe in non-violent protest; where possible. However, it is only effective if there is somebody up the power structure change that has some inkling of morals. MLK et.al. knew Bull Connor we're going to set the attack dogs and fire hoses on them. However, if the whole american government felt the same way as Bull Connor it would have been a futile exercise.
I've seen no evidence that the folks suspected of being responsible are in anything other than a blood lust and in exporting the violent imposition of their will to wherever someone disagrees with them. They beat the Russians and searching for their next war. That's one reason their home countries don't want them to come back home.
The people may not have ample avenues for non-violent discussion of their
viewpoints in their own countries but the certainly have them here.
They are particularly interested in exporting their persuasive arguments to this country. Just because nobody is listening to you doesn't mean you should bomb them.
This country learned a some expensive lessons during the Cold War. It is
important to learn from history. Not be paralyzed by it. This whole situation has very little to do with a "Vietnam" like engagement.
Where are my points when I need them.
War is necrophilia.
"Yes, the U.S. should be involved in influencing other peoples politics where they differ from the fundamental freedoms..."
I completely agree with this. However, the way to have influence is through understanding 10 years before problems might occur, and then doing something to help. Violence is not a cure for violence. War is not a cure for war.
"Don't bring up the old Cold War coups that the CIA cooked up."
The CIA acted AGAINST the best interests of the the country it was supposed to serve. We tend to hear about things the CIA did about 30 years after they were done. We don't know what they are doing now, but that doesn't mean they've stopped the corrupt activity. Don't forget, the CIA and other even more secret U.S. government agencies are secret. It is difficult to know what they are doing; that means that we don't have a voice. It means that, in that area, we don't have a democracy.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
However, the first question is whether the U.S. government has the right decide everyone else's politics. The second question is whether you personally are willing to risk your own life and spend your own money for the principle that they don't have the right to decide their own politics.
Absolutely. The word for it is statecraft. You are misusing the word decide wrongly, the correct word is influence. That is part of the business of running a government.
"What should the US do if the foreign government engages in bad public policy that results in food shortages. Should the U.S. charge in and change the policy?"
You brought up some interesting thoughts.
I think the U.S. cannot try to solve all the world's problems. We have extremely severe problems at home. We have the highest divorce rate in the world. We have the highest percentage of our citizens in prison of any country, ever, in the history of the world. We have the highest percentage of obese people. We need to help ourselves.
Where the U.S. feels able to help, the help should come before there are severe social problems, not after. The problems with bin Laden have existed for years; the U.S. government helped him by its meddling and backward policies in the region.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
465 comments in the 12 hours since this article was posted.
Alot of people seem to be missing the point: arguing on Slashdot isn't going to have any effect whatsoever on the government passing laws that curtail our rights. If everyone here had spent half as much time writing to, faxing, or calling their local representative as they spent writing posts about civil liberties on Slashdot, the DMCA would have never passed.
Last time I checked flying commercial airliners into buildings wasn't very legal. That didn't seem to worry the terrorists too much really...
Jedidiah
--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I knew Slashdot couldn't go more than a week without something like this. This is the site where:
People hate Microsoft and never use "their products", but yet manage to have played all the games that can only be ran on a MS OS. (I know its coming--don't mention Loki, virtually no one bought their games,which is why they are bankrupt)
The DMCA is bad, but buying your favorite anime or sci-fi DVD is OK.
All big business is bad, but IBM is great because they contributed a billion dollars to the Linux movement.
Intel sucks, but virtually everyone that posts on this site uses either an Intel or Intel compatible cpu.
And of course this week: Using a commercial airliner to kill 5000+ of your fellow citizens is a bad thing, but god forbid I have to give up one iota of my precious "freedoms" (AKA convienient plush lifestyle) to combat the threat to my country.
I guess I am looking for someone with backbone or character, who *really* believes in a something and sticks to it. I see a lot of "hate something for popularities sake" on this site and in the near future am probably going to start going elsewere for real "news for nerds".I am actually an EFF member, but how many people complaining ala slashdot posts are? I could on with even more examples, but it will be ignored. I would sure like to have the robots, PDAs, various boxes and game machines that Roblimo has, but I would gladly give up my meagre material possessions temporarily so someone else could live without being us being attacked again. These are people that died not abstract phospor pictures and soundbites. How many people here would have made the sacrifices our grandparents made during WW II?
In closing I personally believe being born poor has helped me realize just how lucky I am, what temporary sacrifice really means, and how many people around me dont.
Dear All;
Take minutes if not hours or even years to think of what happened in
the USA two days before. Do not go beyond the reality, facts and
imagination. Do not over react, yes many felt well when they saw the
monster who keeps the world under threat is being shaking if not
collapsing. The plan was very well plotted yet many gaps were left
unthought off. I will first list down some of the facts that
everybody knows then we will analyze and evaluate the situation;
1- it is known that security measures within airports in the USA are
up to the standard and advanced enough to prevent the hijack of 4
civil airplanes in one day and within one hour!
2- We may know that if an airplane is hijacked the cockpit will have
plenty of time to report the incident to ground control towers, if
not, there is a secret bottom at the pilot seat which once touched
>will remit signals indicating the aircraft is hijacked.
>
>3- We may know as well that flying over USA territory is pinpoint
>limited to certain routs and in case one of the airplanes are
>deviated from the path the air force will fly to intercept it to put
>it back to its route or will be shot down! This procedures are even
>more strict specially when flying near potential governmental,
>military and nuclear facilities.
>
>4- The accuracy in which the "Hijackers" of the "hijacked" aircrafts
>maneuvered such huge and passangered commercial airplanes to hit
>there mid city targets both in Washington and New York reflects that
>the operation was executed by the pilots themselves. Therefore it
>wasn't hijack at all.
>
>The operation needed highly professional and trained pilots who fly
>same type of aircrafts that used in hitting the targets, and who are
>very well familiar with all operating and communication equipments
>of those particular type of aircrafts and the internal commercial
>routs within the USA. Those pilots must have in this case spent
>years and years of training and flying in the USA. Why the air force
>did not at that day performed their duty, why they did not intercept
>those deviated flights, remains an ambiguity unless they had clear
>orders from the White House not to take action. The claim came from
>United Airlines and American Airlines was very much too late that 2
>of their aircrafts were hijacked. The targets were already burning
>and falling apart. It came after 6 hours, and we all know that once
>an aircraft is hijacked the entire world knows after 10 minutes or
>so. Was the security measurement at the Federal Aviation so easily
>vulnerable!
>
>We all realize that America is not that vulnerable to such attacks
>specially if comes from outside sources and none of the powers or
>supper powers in this world, whether governmental intelligence or
>organizational, enjoys such capabilities. Yes the KGB might be the
>only one who can plan such attacks which they did not even think
>about during the cold war era as fearing a nuclear retaliation from
>the west. It is widely known that there is no victorious in a
>nuclear war. Any attack on the American soil is a clear declaration
>of war against the west. If we do not include or suspect in our
>analysis countries and organizations then who remains?!
>
>All fingers must now be pointed to the CIA as the prime suspect in
>the first grade. It may not sound reasonable, yet we will make a
>quick comparison between what America has lost and what it will gain
>politically and militarily from such an attack, then the decision is
>yours;
>
>A- LOSES
>
>America has lost few thousands of lives and few buildings. Is there
>any time throughout history of the USA there was a real concern to
>people's lives! How many times the US government has pushed
>thousands of their people into needless wars? What was the purpose
>of those wars after all but to help the USA to gain control over the
>world. As for the buildings were collapsed, the Americans are able
>to re construct within a year or so and will be funded by our
>fellows in the Gulf and other EU Countries. Going through "Uncle
>Sam" history after World War II and up to this minute, you will find
>many shameful and similar incidents of the CIA under the claim of
>"Protecting the national security and defending world democracy".
>Those incidents were topped by the assassination of former
>president, Kennedy in late 60's just because his thoughts were
>"Moderate". By reviewing this black history, we do not see it
>strange anymore especially if we realize the benefits of such acts.
>
>B- GAINS and PROFITS
>
>During the last few years, America started to lose control over most
>of the world including its allies in Europe because of the US policy
>and what's known as "Globalization" and the US policy against the
>Palestinians, Iraq, Sudan, Iran and lately Syria joined the queue.
>We all have seen how most Europeans expressed their angers through
>harsh demonstrations when president Bush visited their countries few
>months back. If this was the case in Europe, how about Muslim
>countries. Russia, France and China, as being super powers, were fed
>up with the US uncertain policies and signs of rejections were
>clearly evidenced to the post and roll the US has offered itself.
>Without the European allies, America would have lost the
>international cover for its policies. Topping those facts, comes the
>American alleged or so called "Star Wars" program which enables the
>US to direct the first nuclear strike to any nation in our globe
>without taking the risk of being exposed to a retaliation or strike
>back as called. This program which was planned for since the
>eighties is expected to cost US$ 300 billion was to weaken the US
>budgetary. Therefore, the US politicians where doing their utmost
>efforts to convince many Asian, Middle Eastern and European nations
>to join in and sharing the cost under the lie of mutual defense
>system. Most of those nations have objected the offer. Russia fought
>very hard to deactivate the US efforts in this respect realizing
>that they would be the first to be striked. The US excuse of "to
>protect the US and allied countries against terrorist and missile
>attacks" from uncertain regimes like Iran, Iraq, Syria and China or
>Pakistan, was denied by all parties. The words like "who would
>threaten America and how" were widely heard.
>
>Now America is proved vulnerable after this attack. Europe and NATO
>is back to their blind support to the US. Investigation will prove
>from one time to another that Osama Bin Ladin, the Palestinians,
>Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Iran, etc are involved and therefore the
>international ground and cover is there to strike back. Ask yourself
>a question, was America able to launch a strike on Iraq for an
>example without a wide range of anger to face from the world?. The
>plan for a strike against Iraq was present since the UN disarmament
>committee left Iraq 2 years ago, but postponed as it lacked the
>international support and cover.
>
>What happened as the Americans explained was an act of declaring the
>war against the USA. Therefore America will have the legal rights to
>track down the responsible and punish. The process will take years
>and years and America has given itself the right to punish the
>nations that will approve harbored, trained or financed those
>terrorist by military and economic actions. How many nations will be
>subject to US military punishments and how many countries will face
>international embargoes and economic sanctions in the coming years,
>God knows.
>
>We conclude that America will be able to achieve all of its goals
>with no objections and will have more controls over the world. Then
>the question is "was it worth the risk". The answer is definitely
>YES.
Freedom isnt free.
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
www.geektivism.com
"My country I love it too,
I think I love it more than you
I care enough to fight
The stars and stripes
Of corruption"
--Jello Biafra
A truthful insightful analysis. But you forgot something:
Many Americans support terrorists. They paid for weapons and bullets for Irish terrorists to try kill our British soldiers.
These are same soldiers who will fight and die with American soldiers in any forthcoming war with you.
These Americans paid for bombs to kill our men, women and children.
Americans are guilty of aiding and abetting murder - but I suppose it is not terrorism when your country pays for it.
Wake up - your great Country was knocked to its knees by small band of terrorists.
You believed the billions spent on Carnivore and Echelon would protect you from them.
It is a Government LIE - these systems will not protect you. They only spy on you.
For goodness sake - cannot you see? - It is just an Illusion of Protection.
FAE's prohibited by int'l law? Umm... I don't think they are. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are "prohibited" by the Geneva Convention, but everyone has them, no?
None other than John Adams pushed the Alien & Sedition Acts in 1798:
ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS
Four laws passed in 1798 by the Federalist-controlled Congress to curb domestic dissent. The legislation was prompted by vitriolic criticism from Thomas Jefferson's followers and the propaganda activities of pro-French and anti-British aliens (foreign-born residents who have not been naturalized). (1) The Naturalization Act extended the period of residence required for aliens to obtain citizenship from five to fourteen years. (2) The Alien Enemies Act empowered the president to expel foreigners judged dangerous. (3 and 4) The Alien and Sedition Acts forbade treasonable conspiracies and any criticism of federal officeholders that was intended to defame them or to bring them into public contempt or disrepute. Ten Jeffersonian Republicans (Democratic-Republicans) were convicted under these laws and suffered heavy fines and imprisonment. The Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed resolutions declaring the acts null and void. The resulting public uproar to the Alien and Sedition Acts was a key factor in the collapse of the Federalist Party, the election of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency in 1800, and the control of Congress by the Democratic-Republicans
(Source: www.AmericanPresident.org)
Scary thing is, there are suggestions bandied about not to far removed.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
A few months ago we had a discussion here about this quote, and I spent about an hour researching it. Turns out there are dozens of variations on it, and it's variously attributed to any number of proto-American leaders. Every time that I thought I'd found a winner, I discovered some fatal flaw that made that author/version impossible.
No doubt there is an expert greater than I in this topic, but from my limited research, I'm afraid that I can only conclude that greater context is impossible.
-Waldo
Here's the situation I'm not sure how to handle: what if the Senator and his staff simply plain-out disagree? I frankly don't expect that right-wing Senator George Allen is going to care much about civil-rights (after all, civil rights are a liberal thing) and John Warner, while a little more sane, was still willing enough to vote for the anti-flag-desecration amendment.
I suspect the staffer I talk to will pay lip service to maintaining our freedoms, but what can be done to convince a right-winger that our freedom is our strength?
Miko O'Sullivan
I go to UMBC, and I never even heard about it. How does that happen?
I condemn those who would outlaw strong encryption products. These people (including elected officials) are ignorant and they would throw out the baby with the bath water, as many have pointed out.
I also condemn the comments made by those who say "aw shucks, 5000 deaths isn't so bad... X people die from Y each year." Those who make such comments are both insensitive and ignorant. They are insensitive to the pain felt by tens of thousands directly affected as well as those who, like me, take these attacks very personally in spite of not knowing a soul who perished. If for no other reason, the fact that I lived in Manhattan for 9 years makes my blood boil at comments like these.
Those who dismiss the importance of this event have failed to grasp one essential fact about the various individuals and groups who have allied themselves against the U.S. That is, they will stop at nothing. If you think 5000 is acceptable, then next time it will be 5000000, if these SOBs get their hands on a nuke. Would that be OK with you? These people will only stop when we kill them. I refer you to the Washington Post, which has plenty of interesting and compelling information and commentary by people who are in a position to know. For starters, I suggest the transcript of a chat with Vernon Loeb: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/0
Another in-depth viewpoint is offered by Robert D. Kaplan, who has spent considerable time visiting the trouble spots of the world, including the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/kaplan.
Now, to my main point. There is a wealth of technical and creative talent here at Slashdot. In my naivete, I somehow thought that even the radical uber-Libertarian chic here would be blunted by the enormity of last week's events. I figured that maybe, just maybe, these events would unleash a fury which would turn towards fighting the bastards who did this, rather than childishly clinging to yesterday's anti-government paranoia. I somehow hoped that people here would be as outraged as I am, and that they would sign up to use their skills (in their own idiom) to find these SOBs and to protect the U.S. from future attacks, just as countless citizens did after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hah! What an idiot I was to believe that.
Look, I'm not real comfortable with the govt reading my electronic transmissions either. I strongly believe in the 4th amendment. I am well aware that the FBI (aka "Famous But Incompetent") has been a poor custodian of its already considerable powers, and has been quite spotty in its investigatory competence, as the Wen Ho Lee investigation showed.
But, my belief is that if you want to preserve *any* of your rights to electronic privacy, you should moderate your viewpoint. Only children maintain the fantasy that no negotiation and no compromise is necessary. I challenge the
Thank you!
If you want to write your representitive or any government orginization check out www.congress.org
Which part of "some of our civil liberties will be put on hold for a while" has any SPECIFIC meaning?
Translate to "some repressive measures of some sort will happen for some time beyond."
Does that seem like something of a recipe for disaster.
- We're "fighting a war" against persons unknown in a unknown area for an unknown duration. Sound like someone has well-thought-out, doesn't it.
In this country, there is no absolute distinction between individuals and bussinesses. Bussinesses obviously need privacy to protect themselves against rivals.
The need of individuals to protect themselves against criminals who steal identity is different but not absolutely. Both rest on privacy as the source of an entity's economic power.
Large entities are now pretty well protected and likely remain so, even if they voluntarily allow law enforcement access.
"Back doors" simply can't work. There is no method to secure a "back door" against hacking. A backdoor would become a single point of entry for many things. Then backdoor is more dangerous than nothing - not only is your communication open but by encrypting, you are signally "yes, here is something of interest."
Suppose there was a universal key to decrypt ANY SSL conversation. Even if the CIA started out as having this key, how long would they remain the only ones?
Great point
Strong encryption has become so integrated into our economy that would cataclysmic to ban them.
There is little evidence that strong encryption played a big role in WTC caper. What the terrorists had wasn't secrecy but an absolute ability to trust each other.
- Even Russia, no friend of civil liberaties, has been able to stop Islamic terror bombings with repression. Repression is much better at stopping people from getting a message to the general than in stopping people from getting a message to each other.
(and I know there are non-explosive forms of fertilizer but I still like analogy).
There is no evidence a ban on crypto would have stopped the WTC scenario. But there are a number of specific security procedures that would have.
Obviously, there are other scenarios - planes, trains, and automobiles. All of these scenarios are amenable to specific measures to prevent
Songs with Questionable Lyrics
Clear Channels List of
Songs with Questionable Lyrics
Artist
Title
Drowning Pool
"Bodies"
Mudvayne
"Death Blooms"
Megadeth
"Dread and the Fugitive"
Megadeth
"Sweating Bullets"
Saliva
"Click Click Boom"
P.O.D.
"Boom"
Metallica
"Seek and Destroy"
Metallica
"Harvester or Sorrow"
Metallica
"Enter Sandman"
Metallica
"Fade to Black"
All Rage Against The Machine songs
Nine Inch Nails
"Head Like a Hole"
Godsmack
"Bad Religion"
Tool
"Intolerance"
Soundgarden
"Blow Up the Outside World"
AC/DC
"Shot Down in Flames"
AC/DC
"Shoot to Thrill"
AC/DC
"Dirty Deeds"
AC/DC
"Highway to Hell"
AC/DC
"Safe in New York City"
AC/DC
"TNT"
AC/DC
"Hell's Bells"
Black Sabbath
"War Pigs"
Black Sabbath
"Sabbath Bloody Sabbath"
Black Sabbath
"Suicide Solution"
Dio
"Holy Diver"
Steve Miller
"Jet Airliner"
Van Halen
"Jump"
Queen
"Another One Bites the Dust"
Queen
"Killer Queen"
Pat Benatar
"Hit Me with Your Best Shot"
Pat Benatar
"Love is a Battlefield"
Oingo Boingo
"Dead Man's Party"
REM
"It's the End of the World as We Know It"
Talking Heads
"Burning Down the House"
Judas Priest
"Some Heads Are Gonna Roll"
Pink Floyd
"Run Like Hell"
Pink Floyd
"Mother"
Savage Garden
"Crash and Burn"
Dave Matthews Band
"Crash Into Me"
Bangles
"Walk Like an Egyptian"
Pretenders
"My City Was Gone"
Alanis Morissette
"Ironic"
Barenaked Ladies
"Falling for the First Time"
Fuel
"Bad Day"
John Parr
"St. Elmo's Fire"
Peter Gabriel
"When You're Falling"
Kansas
"Dust in the Wind"
Led Zeppelin
"Stairway to Heaven"
The Beatles
"A Day in the Life"
The Beatles
"Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"
The Beatles
"Ticket To Ride"
The Beatles
"Obla Di, Obla Da"
Bob Dylan/Guns N Roses
"Knockin' on Heaven's Door"
Arthur Brown
"Fire"
Blue Oyster Cult
"Burnin' For You"
Paul McCartney and Wings
"Live and Let Die"
Jimmy Hendrix
"Hey Joe"
Jackson Brown
"Doctor My Eyes"
John Mellencamp
"Crumbling Down"
John Mellencamp
"I'm On Fire"
U2
"Sunday Bloody Sunday"
Boston
"Smokin"
Billy Joel
"Only the Good Die Young"
Barry McGuire
"Eve of Destruction"
Steam
"Na Na Na Na Hey Hey"
Drifters
"On Broadway"
Shelly Fabares
"Johnny Angel"
Los Bravos
"Black is Black"
Peter and Gordon
"I Go To Pieces"
Peter and Gordon
"A World Without Love"
Elvis
"(You're the) Devil in Disguise"
Zombies
"She's Not There"
Elton John
"Benny & The Jets"
Elton John
"Daniel"
Elton John
"Rocket Man"
Jerry Lee Lewis
"Great Balls of Fire"
Santana
"Evil Ways"
Louis Armstrong
"What A Wonderful World"
Youngbloods
"Get Together"
Ad Libs
"The Boy from New York City"
Peter Paul and Mary
"Blowin' in the Wind"
Peter Paul and Mary
"Leavin' on a Jet Plane"
Rolling Stones
"Ruby Tuesday"
Simon And Garfunkel
"Bridge Over Troubled Water"
Happenings
"See You in Septemeber"
Carole King
"I Feel the Earth Move"
Yager and Evans
"In the Year 2525"
Norman Greenbaum
"Spirit in the Sky"
Brooklyn Bridge
"Worst That Could Happen"
Three Degrees
"When Will I See You Again"
Cat Stevens
"Peace Train"
Cat Stevens
"Morning Has Broken"
Jan and Dean
"Dead Man's Curve"
Martha & the Vandellas
"Nowhere to Run"
Martha and the Vandellas/Van Halen
"Dancing in the Streets"
Hollies
"He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother"
San Cooke
Herman Hermits, "Wonder World"
Petula Clark
"A Sign of the Times"
Don McLean
"American Pie"
J. Frank Wilson
"Last Kiss"
Buddy Holly and the Crickets
"That'll Be the Day"
John Lennon
"Imagine"
Bobby Darin
"Mack the Knife"
The Clash
"Rock the Casbah"
Surfaris
"Wipeout"
Blood Sweat and Tears
"And When I Die"
Dave Clark Five
"Bits and Pieces"
Tramps
"Disco Inferno"
Paper Lace
"The Night Chicago Died"
Frank Sinatra
"New York, New York"
Creedence Clearwater Revival
"Travelin' Band"
The Gap Band
"You Dropped a Bomb On Me"
Alien Ant Farm
"Smooth Criminal"
3 Doors Down
"Duck and Run"
The Doors
"The End"
Third Eye Blind
"Jumper"
Neil Diamond
"America"
Lenny Kravitz
"Fly Away"
Tom Petty
"Free Fallin'"
Bruce Springsteen
"I'm On Fire"
Bruce Springsteen
"Goin' Down"
Phil Collins
"In the Air Tonight"
Alice in Chains
"Rooster"
Alice in Chains
"Sea of Sorrow"
Alice in Chains
"Down in a Hole"
Alice in Chains
"Them Bone"
Beastie Boys
"Sure Shot"
Beastie Boys
"Sabotage"
The Cult
"Fire Woman"
Everclear
"Santa Monica"
Filter
"Hey Man, Nice Shot"
Foo Fighters
"Learn to Fly"
Korn
"Falling Away From Me"
Red Hot Chili Peppers
"Aeroplane"
Red Hot Chili Peppers
"Under the Bridge"
Smashing Pumpkins
"Bullet With Butterfly Wings"
System of a Down
"Chop Suey!"
Skeeter Davis
"End of the World"
Rickey Nelson
"Travelin' Man"
Chi-Lites
"Have You Seen Her"
Animals
"We Gotta Get Out of This Place"
Fontella Bass
"Rescue Me"
Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels
"Devil with the Blue Dress"
James Taylor
"Fire and Rain"
Edwin Starr/Bruce Springstein
"War"
Lynyrd Skynyrd
"Tuesday's Gone"
Limp Bizkit
"Break Stuff"
Green Day
"Brain Stew"
Temple of the Dog
"Say Hello to Heaven"
Sugar Ray
"Fly"
Local H
"Bound for the Floor"
Slipknot
"Left Behind, Wait and Bleed"
Bush
"Speed Kills"
311
"Down"
Stone Temple Pilots
"Big Bang Baby," Dead and Bloated"
Soundgarden
"Fell on Black Days," Black Hole Sun"
Nina
"99 Luft Balloons/99 Red Balloons"
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
>In truth...
You seem to have inability to fully accept the truth.
>We are supporting Isreal's right to maintain occupation. Historically, countries have been doing this type of thing since the creation of a country. France backed the Americans when we fought for our freedom from the British. True, it wasn't any of Frances business who won the Revolutionary War, but we wouldn't have won that war without them and I'd be speaking with a different accent at this point.
So - with your support of this occupation - you know why those people died on the 11th. With your continued support of their enemies, you know why a lot more people may die.
Both sides over there believe they have right on their side - of course you believe your Government picked the correct one. Did they pick the righteous side or was there another reason?
>It is also true that we, as a nation, have done some less than admirable things. However, we have also done tremendously good things.
Nobody denies - America is a great Country.
>I think that your interpretation is shallow and one-sided.
A_bar_in_Peru interpretation was not shallow - it showed perfectly the arrogance behind American actions.
>I wonder if it occured to you that the U.S. could makes a large, visible staging ground for the first in a series of world wide attacks, designed to put the entire world into terror because we have differing religious beliefs from them.
They did not attack America because you have differing religious beliefs from them - but because you help their enemy.
>He is driven by hate and greed and power.
From analysis I have seen - hate is true - greed is false - power is false.
He gave up his family wealth to fight for his religious beliefs - which is why he is greatly respected over there and has many followers.
>He is backed by religious fanatics, the most dangerous type of soldiers I can imagine.
The most dangerous type of soldiers that US Government can imagine.
>I think attacking the U.S. is simply an effective way of getting world wide media coverage.
I think he did this for three reasons - religion, revenge and response.
Ask yourself why he has so many supporters among the people.
Hey Robin, if you really think this is a good idea, why don't you foster the composition of the letter here? We'll all pitch in and then when the letter is done, we'll all add our names (or handles) to the end. Wouldn't one letter with thousands of names attached do more good than several cacophonous and disparate opinions with one name each? I know this article is 3 days old and I am an AC so the chances of you reading this are nil, but oh well.
This week, you and all other Congressmen are very busy preparing new laws and modifying existing ones to help the United States combat terrorism. Unfortunately, I fear that some of these laws will do more to restrict loyal Americans than actually stop terrorists. I hope you can take a few minutes out of your schedule to read this letter.
To put it bluntly, restrictions on encryption technology are pointless. There have been reports that the terrorist networks responsible for the World Trade Center attack used encryption technology in their communication. Many people, none of whom truly understands technology, believe that if there had been limits on encryption, it would have hampered the terrorists. This assertion is absurd.
Encryption is nothing more than a field of mathematics, where the data to be encrypted is treated as a bunch of numbers. Placing legal limits on encryption is the same as outlawing certain kinds of math. One of the worst ideas being proposed is to force individuals and companies to use encryption technologies for which the government has "back door" access. That is, the government is in possession of secret keys that can decrypt any data which is encrypted using these particular algorithms. Other encryption algorithms which don't allow for back doors would be outlawed.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it is impossible to force terrorists to use "approved" technology. We don't even know who or where they are, so how can we force them to do anything?!? The terrorists will simply use "non-approved" encryption technologies while honest American citizens and businesses are forced to sacrifice their privacy. The worst part is that if other countries were to ever obtain these secret keys, they would have access to every piece of encrypted data from the United States.
The truth is, strong encryption protects Americans. With strong encryption, terrorists won't be able to decrypt sensitive corporate data. They won't be able to spy on American citizens. They won't be able to intercept top secret transmissions.
These terrorists were able to strike not because they used encryption, but because our intelligence organizations are incompetent. The FBI is better known for its blunders (e.g. the Atlanta Olympics bombing, the siege at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and the 3000 documents in the McVeigh case) than for its successes. In fact, it's been over a week since the attack, and the best our government can say is, "We're pretty sure that Osama bin Ladin is the prime suspect."
Therefore, I am asking you to reject any bills that place limitations on the use of encryption. Instead, I think you should focus on how to improve our intelligence-gathering organizations. Perhaps in exchange for bailing out the airline industry, federal officials from the intelligence organizations should get free flights for the next ten years. The money saved can be used to fund more operations.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Boy, has your frog been well-cooked! The US once faced revolution over a 6% tax! That's right - SIX percent. What is a high tax? 99%?
Beg to differ.
Oz hospitals are in bad shape because they're being crushed under a growing pile of (often useless) regulation. If people won't do a good job by themselves, adding ISO-9002 and other paperwork will make their morale (and the situation) much worse.
Schools are in a similar corner, but have the added disadvantage of being founded to do pretty much the exact opposite of what most parents like to think of them as doing. The focus of education moved away from reality more than a century ago, and it's moved again even from the faux reality found in a schoolbook. Nowadays, every student can have their own unreality, as long as they fit into the System, and the System runs smoothly. Of course, we're dealing with people here so they really are pushing shit uphill. And of course, the response every time to the problems caused by an excess of control is to increase management interference in the situation.
Pumping more money into either is just adding more gasoline to the flames. They both need a revolution, education most of all.
They do. And making the tax laws tougher, piling on more evasion rules, will have the effect of further stratifying things. The rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer.
Individuals on the dole in Oz, not doing a lick of work, with no special benefits, pay income tax. How stupid is that?
We pay more for diesel than for ULP in Oz, but diesel costs half as much to make, and produces less destructive pollutants. How stupid is that?
If we can stop or cut back on supporting the self-defeating beauracracies which you advocate paying taxes for, perhaps we can afford to have non-stupid income tax brackets, non-stupid fuel taxes, and lots of other useful and sensible things.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing