Slashdot Mirror
Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties
The worst damage from many nerve injuries is secondary -- it happens in the hours after the initial trauma, as the body's reaction to the damage kills more nerve cells. Researchers are beginning to discover ways to prevent this secondary damage and reduce the eventual harm.
If we are not careful, the deadly attacks on New York and Washington will lead to far worse secondary damage, if the U.S. Congress adopts "preventive measures" that take away the freedom that America stands for.
I'm not talking about searches at airports here. Searches of people or baggage for weapons, as long as they check only for weapons and keep no records about you if you have no weapons, are just an inconvenience; they do not endanger civil liberties. What I am worried about is massive surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements.
These measures are likely to be recommended regardless of whether they would be effective for their stated purpose. An executive of a company developing face recognition software is said to be telling reporters that widespread deployment of face-recognizing computerized cameras would have prevented the attacks. The September 15 New York Times cites a congressman who is advocating this "solution." Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. But that won't stop the agencies that have always wanted to do more surveillance from pushing this plan now, and many other plans like it. To stop them will require public opposition.
Even more ominously, a proposal to require government back doors in encryption software has already appeared.
Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War.
Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, know that you don't want your civil liberties to become the terrorists' next victim. Don't wait -- the bills are already being written.
Copyright 2001 Richard StallmanVerbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.
Is RMS taking advantage of the situation in order to be heard?
That is my opinion, and out of fear of severe spamming, I post anonymously.
...and another correct one.
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
GNU/Liberty-GNU version GNU?
Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties? As we all know, a bill has been proposed that would require back doors in all encryption products, which is NOT okay in my book. I'm all in favor of heightened security carried out in an intelligent manner, and I'm willing to give up some liberties for security, but the way this whole thing has been blamed on the internet is completely ridiculous.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
but I am busy right now.
America is the land of the free, with liberty, and justice for all. If we take away this liberty to "prevent further terrorism," we will take away America, and we will be left with a shell of what we used to be. This country isn't perfect, we don't always do everything right, but our principles are some of the most pure in the world, and if we change those so that we can protect ourselves, we will kill ourselves, and there will be no America.
~ now you know
RMS, i respect your opinion when it comes to software, but please don't voice any other political opinions. the remark about our 'unelected president' makes your peice look stupid anyways...
Copyright 2001 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.
I find RMS copyrighting a stupid speech a little hypocritical (not to mention egotistical).
First Post!
sweet!
this is the first thing athat hai w nfih e anhl;hewf ahaoih efwaha aiehf anjioe a foah e aoieh pashf;a fiuha fh poaeh f
This would have gone over much better if it didn't have that last line. Now, over half of Americans that reads Stallman's message will discount the entire message because of one politically motivated, inflammatory, and false phrase.
Of course we don't want to lose any civil liberties from this attack. However, justice requires that we do everything we can to find an punish those that did this.
Secondary damage is going to occur. We Americans need to fight for what we care about, both within our borders and without.
ars
Your Technology General Contractor http://www.birddogdigital.com
My first thought when the towers went boom, was, oh dang, what kneejerk reaction are governments gonna have and turn their respective countries one step closer to being a police state...
(first post, btw... woohoo!)
If they want to pass some effective legislation they need to loosen up restrictions on the CIA.
Allow them to have assasination teams working covertly that any time they see people consorting with these groups, kill them.
If the heads of states of these countries consort with them, kill them too.
We have a lot of really good snipers all itching to do it, let them do it.
Interesting comment and I agree. To bad Stallman doesn't understand or refuses to believe how a U. S. President is elected.
What in the hell is he thinking? He's copywriting this little blurb? What a damn hypocrite!
A tooth for a tooth!! sounds like we will all be blindly gumming our food soon.
I still think Root Mean Squared when I see RMS. Obviously, I am RMS challenged because RMS stands for Really Mean Sausage. Duh!
How to Download YouTube Videos
I thought Ashcroft used to be in favour of saving some of our privacy. But now he's trying to open up regulations on surveillance, and may make it easier for authorities to get wiretaps. read this for more
do not read this line twice.
Read the rest:
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.
Extremely similar to GPL.
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
Because, we all know that check agents stay awake at night trying to memorize the faces of all know criminals and terrorists, and can name them on sight... Of all of the arguements against face recognition software this has to be the lamest one I have ever heard.
I can't calculate PI to 1000 digits in my head, I guess my computer can't either...
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
Um...yeah, see, that's not true. I'm capable of remembering, what, a few thousand faces? Tens of thousands? A facial-recognition system can (reportedly) distinguish millions.
-Waldo
There is a petition to sign. Current count already over 85000.
`In the aftermath of the ruthless attack on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon, we implore the leaders of the United States to ensure that
justice be served by protecting the innocent citizens of all nations all
over the world.
We demand that the President maintain the civil liberties of all U.S.
residents, protect the human rights of all people at home and abroad, and
guarantee that this attempted attack on the principles and freedoms of the
United States will not succeed.
We plead for a thorough investigation of the terrorist events before any
retaliation.
We call for PEACE and JUSTICE, not revenge. LET THERE BE PEACE ALL OVER
THE WORLD!`
http://www.care2.com/go/redirect/2/2400
Fewer than half voted for Bush, you know. Or did you mean something else?
(Mods: this is not a Troll or Flamebait, I'm actually asking a serious question.)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements.
The head of the CIA has already said that their ability to retrieve information has far surpassed their ability to analyse it. And that's just from "regular" information channels, spies, probes on suspected crazies, etc.
Do you really think if they tapped "all aspects of life" that they have the manpower to analyse it? Does anyone realise how much information that is?
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
One challenge in all of this is that our elected representatives don't want to be seen as being soft on terrorism.
What happened was terrible, steps must be taken to protect us, but for some authorities to take advantage of the pain and suffering of others to pass through their pet legislation is sickening.
Don't try to cripple crypto, it won't do anything except erode the rights of people who aren't terrorists. Real terrorists will use non-crippled systems, while those who use off the shelf groupware or banking software will be stuck with the crappy stuff.
Don't let the authorities conduct wiretaps (phone or computer) without warrants. If someone is really a suspect, then you should be able to get a warrant.
But sure, increase security checks at airports, designate more money to terrorism prevention, take appropriate action against those who did this. Just don't try to erode our rights while using this as a smokescreen.
I guess I'm lucky, because my representative, Lynn Rivers seems to get it...
Buy Hex-Rated Stuff, fight the DMCA!
Gosh, do you think maybe a computer can scan millions of faces a lot quicker than a $6.00/hour bored rent-a-cop?
And what better time for government to propose legislation that limits freedom than right after a national tragedy that has everybody scared. A Washington Post poll this weekend found that 60% off Americans would trade freedom for security right now. I appreciate RMS's effort, but I fear this battle has already been lost.
Yeah, that was real helpful. What a dork. And he wonders why he is marginalized so often. Restraint could get him much further in this world.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
Maybe RMS should worry about this after we exec the bastards who sent planes ripping through office buildings and killing his kith and kin.
My liberties being robbed scares me too, but not as much as the fear of getting dead because of ignorance of the situation.
"I am a warrior, and information is my weapon..."
There are safer countries in the world.
/free/.
There are cleaner countries in the world.
There are healthier countries in the world.
There are smarter countries in the world.
There is no other country more
I don't care about God, or politics, or particularly about saving spotted owls or avoiding a greenhouse apocalypse. For me, America is one thing--Freedom.
I'm willing to fight and die for America, but if its captains gamble away our real and precious right to freedom on a longshot of safety against madmen, well, then it just isn't America anymore.
#19845
Lots of folks will exploit this tragedy to advance their own agenda. But RMS isn't among them - his warning is truly linked with the events and he is being sincere in his fears.
1. "Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help."
Jeez, that's like saying that a human can't keep track of 20,000 messages at a time so computers can't either. No honestly, while I do not agree with face cams on the street or in public places, I can agree with them in airports, because it's been widely held that it isn't unconstitutional to withhold some civil liberties to protect the Public.
2. "Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War."
That's just out and out bullshit too. That's not what led the United States into Vietnam, that's what got Marines there, but the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and Congress's recent vote are not the same. The Gulf of Tonkin was a slippery slope into war, Congress basicly voted for war, just like they did in 1812, 1846, 1861, 1898, 1917 and 1941. Not the same as the Gulf of Tonkin.
3. "But that won't stop the agencies that have always wanted to do more surveillance from pushing this plan now, and many other plans like it. To stop them will require public opposition."
Stallman must have missed US Government class in high school and college. Just because Congress votes on something and the President signs it, doesn't mean it will be there forever, the Supreme Court will decide that. There are some wacky congress-critters out there, but I doubt that this long battle about crypto and people tracking will slip in under the guise of "Public Safety".
That was one big FUD piece there, and yep, I think Stallman was out there.
I've already heard comments on TV about "increased wiretapping authority" and about how "they don't want to impede anyone's civil liberties, but we aren't going to be able to have all the freedoms we used to." I mean, those aren't verbatim, but they're close. God Bless America.
If you don't like it, fight me.
I don't go for any of those back door shenanigans ;-)
about face recognition? It performs the same job as a human being, but better. I don't know very many people who can remember 100 faces of people they've only seen photos of.
No matter how many US Marshalls you hire and no matter how much you pay them a computer will be better at face recognition than a human being. Maybe that's why Las Vegas is using that technology.
When the government passes a law that they can wiretap my communications without a search warrant then I'll worry. But then the Supreme Court will probably strike it down.
But if you read the constitution the government can read all of your communications and seize anything they want if a jusdge grants a search warrant.
I'm glad RMS said this - and so tactfully! We are all afraid of these very things happening. As members (most of us) of the open source community our representetives, as it were, need to express how we feel.
Sure, RMS, ESR and Linus were never voted in, aren't always in agreement and have as much opposition as support within the OSS community however they are the people that CNN, Cnet and the like quote as being our collective voice. Even if slashdot has modded similar posts up to 5 numerous times those posts aren't going to be read by your congressman unless they are typed out on nice paper by someone like RMS.
And to RMS, thank you. When these rights are taken away atleast we can say, "told you so."
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
This article is definitely -1, troll.
"1933 - on January 4th at a meeting between German entrepreneurs and Hitler the entrepreneurs promise to pay off the Nazi election debt as long as Hitler promises to keep out of the way of the German industry. on January 30th, German President Hindenburg appoints Hitler as chancellor. Hitler calls a snap election in March, winning the Nazi party the largest number of seats. On March 23 he passes the "Enabling Act" giving him absolute dictatorial powers for four years. Also in March, the Dachau concentration camp opened. Hitler goes against the Versailles Treaty and begins to rearm Germany. In May labor unions are outlawed."
The source.
65 H4x0r 33 f04t00N
I hope a building falls on your arab-loving head, you pinko pigfucker.
... for the Stallman's to strike back. "Oh no, I don't want anyone to know that I went into Kmart today".
... I'm done ranting.
Face it Richard, no one really cares about where you or I go, or what we did today, our lives just aren't that important. That placed on the fact that there is absolutly no law that currently prevents face recognition software from being used, either in public or private sectors, makes your little diatribe about it just an excercise in scaring people about the new laws.
And I seem to recall that President George Bush did not need Congress to OK his sending thousands of troops into Saudia Arabia. The President is the Commander-in-chief and not Congress in order to provide for swift deployment of forces when needed. So the Congress blank-check bit is also little weak for an argument.
So, this gets to the phone taps. The FBI want's to be able to tap any phone a specific person can use, instead of having to get one for each phone. I do have to agree that that sounds a little over-zealous, and could provide a carte-blance to tap the entire cellphone network. But just remember that any evidence recovered that does not pertain to the specific charges cannot be used. Yes, they could listen to your phone call just because you happend to let that guy who is under suspicion use your cell once three years ago. But if you confess you stole burritos from 7-11, they cannot use your phone call in court. And having worked for a mobile phone company and occasionally have to listen to phone calls to monitor the system, I can tell you that most phone calls are boring beyound belief.
So what was your point again???
OK
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
One thing that is painfully obvious from the other countries that have to deal with the constant threat of terrorism is that some liberties do have to be surrendered. More government knowledge and control of what we do is something that we have to accept.
Really, if we continue with our current system there is no doubt that this could happen again. To all the people who say, "Give me freedom or give me death," this is the time to make your choice. Stand on the side of continued complete freedom and invite the terrorists in with open arms. Or give up a few freedoms and help stop the next attack before it starts.
We haven't dealt with this before, but other countries like UK and Israel have, and their experience is clear: the choice really is between death and loss of freedom. I'm firmly in the camp of living, and I hope that people like Richard Stallman realize their folley and join me before we get hit again!
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
"They" will trace this account and start spying on me.
Seriously though, I think we must not let any terrorists, dissuade us from expressing ourselves in this forum and others. That is our best defense against the enemies of freedom both foreign and domestic. We must refuse to be accomplices to the erosion of liberty.
Who the hell is RMS talking about? If he is somehow saying that GWB is not our rightfully elected president then why doesn't he just write his little paragraph about that. This is the sort of C### that really gets me mad.
From what I have heard, every possible Democrat group went down to Florida and did their own recount and guess what..... GWB really won. So, I suggest that RMS just get over the election and keep his comments to our liberties.
With all that said, I tend to agree with RMS's position and I for one will be contacting my representative to voice that opinion.
PS. At one time I considered RMS a bright engineer but now I think he is just a jackass!!!
Macho Engineer Donkey Wrestler
Let's you elect a president by having your brother fix the election in an important state, then have partisans on the court make sure it is final.
photosMy Photostream
Yeah, I bet there will be a huge uproar here on Slashdot in response to his radical suggestion that the suspension of our civil rights might be a bad idea. How brave of him!
-Waldo
Other's have commented on your "unelected president" remark, but I'll go further to express my view that this is an anti-patriotic, and un-American statement in this time of crisis. Even our president's (and he is our president whether you voted for him or not) bitterest political rivals have rallied around him as a central point of leadership. Introducing factious sentiment at a time when unity is critical is an un-American viewpoint.
I have been worried about these issues. However, where should we really draw the line. I'm worried that our country may be willing to give up some of our rights, for a false sense of security. How would the face recognition software help? If it's deployed widely, then they will just get around it. If you can't get through an airport without being "scanned", then they will just find other ways to enter the country. Would this really be worth it? I'm not sure the solution for this problem will be easy, but the general public is looking for a fast fix. It will be interesting to watch what happens over the next few months.
Um, this is my sig.
I, for one, am pretty much against regulation of encryption. But I do not want to fight any moral battle with peoples holding the flag of hate and self defence with guns.
I am french canadian. Viewed from here, the United-States are a very violent place indeed. Any hope to cure that by having everybody carry a gun goes so much against common sens that it is has hard to understand has terrorism (Fighting crime by terrorising the criminals with commun paoples guns has commun roots with terrorism).
I am a strong supporter of freedom, but not of freedom where everybody is affraid of it's brother. RMS showed us this week that he was not a leader to follow anywhere. Make your mind about encryption with earth and intelligence. Most of all, don't blindly follow the ideas of a guru of violence. Love of difference is hard to keep growing, but it just make the fight more important.
I am shocked to hear many of the comments written by people regarding this issue. Where in the laws of the universe is a person's privacy guarenteed? Where is a person promised freedom? Where is democracy promised? Nowhere. Freedom is not a right, it is a privalege. As such, it comes with certain responsibilities, as well as certain costs. First, as citizens of a free and democratic society, we have the responsibility to do all that we can to uphold the laws and values that our nation was founded on. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the wonderful acts of kindness and support that I have seen throughout our nation over the past week. On this front, we have succeeded. Secondly, however, the cost involves making sacrifices for the greater good. Yes, it is intrusive for the government to require a backdoor to all encryption schemes. But, if this technology is used properly by the government, the average American shouldn't have to worry. Yes, it is true that the government could misuse this power and target innocent individuals. But, we must have faith in our elected officials. How many lives could have been saved had this technology been put in place? The government has long known that terrorist organizations use encrypted communications to plan attacks. Could 5,000 innocent men, women, and children have been spared a terrible, agonizing death? If there is even the most remote chance, I feel that it is worth it. To say that the lives of our fellow Americans are less valuable than a citizen's right to send encrypted e-mail is nothing less than selfish. It is a small price to pay to help our nation keep us safe.
once in awhile I think of things to say in response, this is one of those times.
shut it. TIA.
CB
It is very likely civil liberties will be hedged for a short time. But now, the debate is on the front page of the newspaper rather than the techno-backwaters of Slashdot. People will notice the loss of their freedom. Up to now, freedom was being eroded and few noticed or cared.
I think that the short-term consequences, sadly, will include depriving U.S. citizens of civil liberties in the name of safety. But I think the long-term consequences are a heightened awareness of the balance and tension between security and liberty.
Robotiq.com is heavily tested on animals
First, he says baggage checks at the airport are simply an "inconvenience", as if he has something better to do than wait in line for a little while before waiting in the terminal for half an hour or more. Sorry if safety checks "inconvenience" you Mr. Stallman. Hell, just for your "convenience" we won't even do the periodic maintenance or pre-flight checklist on the jet before letting you board it, that may slow you down too much.
Second, who is he to have the gall to call Bush our "unelected president" at a time like this. Maybe he better drop his fragile ego down a notch, and realize that right now Bush is THE PRESIDENT of the US. Just because his favorite darling didn't win last year, doesn't mean he still has to whimper about it. I would stand behind Gore right now if he had won the election, even though I don't care for the man, personally or policy-wise.
Other than that, the article makes a good point. And I am sure that several ISP's are giving the FBI any info they request, including locking accounts and letting them read all email or anything else they can get. This would include AOL, MSN, AT&T, and any smaller ISP's that may be included. It will happen whether it's legal or not, because this is a national emergency; laws are conveniently ignored at time like this. I'm not saying it's 'right' or 'wrong', it just is.
Whether they will be able to pass a law about backdoors in encryption, or enforce one, or have one stand up to Constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court is another matter. There are many people who read this site who would start programming their own encryption scheme if such a law is passed and held to be valid. So one way or another that is the least of my worries right now.
Mr. Stallman is clearly upset, and his statement regarding our president is inflammatory and disrespectful. Don't get me wrong--I can sympathize with Mr. Stallman. But if moderators on /. could moderate stories, this one might just get the old "Troll" or "Flamebait" markings.
Regarding everything else--I agree. I really, really do. The problem that most people (at least on /.) aren't recognizing is that we're in the minority here. Joe Redneck, Aunt Minnie, and Mr. Jones don't care about our or their privacy right now. In fact, they're just mad at the people who committed the terrible acts or terrorism. More than 80% of Americans support the idea of the US going to war. That's how serious this is.
We really need to be more careful. I know we don't want our country to spiral down that toilet we all know as big brotherhood. But if we make statements like this and the public media starts to publicize it like mad; we're soon going to find ourselves on the wrong end of those big guns. Those 80% of Americans that support our country right now are just going to think we're just a bunch of terrorists ourselves; or at the very least that we "harbor and assist" them. That certainly won't help our fight.
So folks, let's turn this down a notch. Let's choose our words with a little more caution because we may not be able to win these battles right now; and frankly we can't get ourselves confused by America as the enemy. Let's just take a little time to help our government using polite tactics instead of attacking them. Our view just doesn't have the support of the people right now.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
Think air rage is bad now? Try arming those drunk businessmen and see what happens.
Many have stated the flaws in this piece by RMS. I won't repeat them.
However, since RMS is always a lightning rod for discussion, we are now all continuing to talk about the possibility of the US federal government lessening the civil liberties of the citizens it represents.
Please keep discussing it. Please contact your elected representatives (RMS's unnecessary anti-Bush statement notwithstanding) and tell them what you think. And RMS, please keep having opinions. If nothing else, it keeps us all talking, and that is A Good Thing (c).
To take this a bit further...
The new enemy is practically undefined and is broadly described as "terrorist organizations and the states that support and harbor them". America, Joe Sixpack's America, cannot wage a war against this new enemy without first putting a face on it. That face is Osama Bin Laden, whether or not he had any involvement in New York and Washington.
Our new war will have no victory. Soon, Americans will grow used to news reports of military actions in Middle Eastern countries more so then with the same from Kosovo and Iraq. This is because this war will be ongoing as will the state of war and its consequences on civil liberties and domestic tolerance. Getting to the point To win this war America, and its allies, need to prove a negative, that is that terrorism no longer exists. Does this mean that, eventually, the focus of this war could be "terrorists" in Montana? What about First Amendment protected Hate groups or far from center muckrakers. What comes after that? Double Plus Good Domestic Security? Telescreens? Thought Police? We're on a slippery slope here with Double Plus Crisco.
Okay, let's take a look at this. Congress and the President are bought and paid for by corporate interests under the guise of "campaign contributions." Corporations will do absolutely anything for a profit. If you don't believe this, check out the book "IBM and the Holocaust" (I forget the author) that documents how IBM made massive profits by helping Hitler with the "solution to the Jewish problem." One out of seven Americans can't find the US on a world map. We no longer have a free press to overlook the government, its owned by the same corporations that are looking for a profit any way they can. One out of two Americans can't tell you how long it takes the earth to circle the sun. The more information that the corporations have about you, and the more they can monitor your movements, the more effectively they can tailor their "sales campaigns" to ensnare your dollars. This looks like an opportunity for the corporations, doesn't it? So Richard, tell me again how contacting my congressman is going to help with this problem. I don't know about yours, but my congressman hasn't tried thinking with his own brain since he accepted that first bribe.
What if US intelligence failed to detect the attacks in advanced because of all the "jam Echelon" efforts?
And, why when enumerating liberities that are in danger do most people fail to mention the right to bear arms?
I encourage every American citizin to own a gun, and to learn how to operate it safely. One thing we've learned is that our borders are not safe. Be prepared to defend youself, and your family.
Bruce Schneier also wrote about this in the current issue of Crypto-Gram, his online newletter. Also, worth a read, IMO.
Kid_A
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
We've lost nothing yet? These are just proposals... and tons of poposals get shot down every year. Yes, these may require more fighting than most, but don't assume just because a few congressmen want them, that they're going to happen.
I swear, I'm half-expecting people to get uptight about a non-existant plan to make everyone wear a homing device so they can be found if abuiling collapses on them...
Despite those few individuals who through jealously need to detract from RMS, I am constantly amazed by his intelligence, and cool headedness. The man is amazing, and he does not receive enough credit for how his vision has changed the software landscape forever. Thank you, Richard. God bless you.
Freedom and liberty are what we are about.
/. for covering news and links.
But then there is that odd problem. What are we free from. Freedom has a baord meaning, but is not the normal 2001 lawyer language. It's a word. A lawyer will ask where the list of freedoms are? Does being free mean freesom from being spit on? A lawyer would tell you that just being given freedom is too vague.
We've lost that much of a concept of what it is. We have polificos and lawyers and others who do not instunctively know the meaning of that word.
Many people died suporting that dream of freedom. During the revolution, WWI, WWII, and in other conflicts around the world. Did these people die for nothing. Did the people die in the attack on the WTC so that we could lose the dream of freedom? I hope not.
I was planning on being in NY that day. Luckily I put off that trip. I don't know of anyone I know having been there when the attack happened. But I was saddened. I always watch the news in the morning over coffee, and I cought the events as they happened.
Did I see people die only so that the people in their lives, whom they left behind, would suffer more?
I love the USA. Not as a counrty, but as a location. We are not like countries around the word with a single group of people and a single church. In that way we are not a country. We are a location where people can live their dreams. We are an amazing nexus of the world.
Let's get 'em, but let's not also get us too.
PS: I'd like to thank
-- James Dornan
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
I don't think even RMS would be that extreme. Rather, what he is saying is that you should 'vote with your feet' and ensure that the next (currently unelected) president who you vote for is fully aware of the issues regarding freedom vs. terrorism.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety "
It's an actual fact that niether Gore nor Bush was elected according to the simple rules for doing the election, i.e. who gets the more votes wins. The vote counting infrastructure was too crude to handle the an election this closley tied. We just don't know who actually won! The margin of errors was just to large. I rember when this was announced on an evening news show on PBS last fall during an interview with Allen Polus and some computer scientist from MIT. What's so strange to me is that this obvious fact is so widly ignored. Maybe next election we can just get some court, state legislature or ad agency to declare the winning candidate.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
... copyright (or copyleft) is what FSF is all about - keeping software (and text) free by making sure noone else can claim it for their own and make everyone pay.
Although it seems strange to copyright a small text, it at the same time immideately gives Everyone the right to repost the whole text somewhere else, such as on slashdot. This had not been legal otherwise, or at the very best very doubtful.
So. No hypocrisy. The exact opposite, and pretty smart if you want it to be spread around...
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
So, we now require all check-in agents at all airports to memorize the faces of thousands of known terrorists? I must have missed that in the news...
Personally, I'm all for placing face regocnition systems in airports. If it will save lives, beginning with mine and my family's, then let's get it done. Absolutely.
Look, the age of technology is here, and the criminals are already using technology to the max. The use of facial scanning technology, matching against wanted or known criminals in airports is not a violation of civil liberties, IMO. The unrestricted use of facial scanning technology by government may be, but it is important that we build out our legal system to accomodate new technologies AND protect civil liberties.
For example, we could make a distinction between "scanning and matching" and "tracking" (without a court order).
What I'm totally against is reactionary diatribes about the loss of civil liberties that don't cast an eye towards reshaping law. We have to keep seeking out that unique balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting society.
I found the article good for a point to ponder on and prepare for in the future but the jab at the president and the actions he has to take were not needed to get the point across.
This rings true when you think that there are democratic senators preparing legislation that is just as offensive as those outlined in RMS's words.
I also feel the government already does alot of monitoring of what we do already, especially in the computing realm. Now they're just asking for permission.
Maybe RMS has a solution in which the normal law abiding citizens of the world can go unchecked while only the deviants and those who need to be watched to protect the basic civil liberty of life for the thousands killed at the WTC can be monitored.
If so I would love to see the code... :)
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
I mean, if you want to get picky about it there are a hell of a lot of organizations and people that are making use of this situation to their benefit. The Red Cross comes to mind as a good example, which, after all is said and done, will probably have far more money than it started with. Before you flame me for bashing on the Red Cross, believe me, I don't see that as being a bad thing. I think they should take advantage of the situation because what they do is really a good thing and having a little extra cash in the coffers and blood in the bank will be good for them.
RMS is simply reiterating the fears of many others here, and frankly I suspect it wouldn't even get airplay here if it wasn't RMS. Does he say anything new? No. Does he say it in a way that others aren't? No. Is he using this situation to some political benefit, perhaps, but in the end, what he's seeking to promote here is good, so who cares? If one more person writes their congressman because RMS said it, aren't we all better off?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
hehe, I just saw the original recently
It's good to see that RMS is looking at this with an open mind...oh wait....nah...nevermind he fucked this one up too.
m.kelley
life is like a freeway, if you don't look you could miss it.
I understand *fully*, why face recognition systems in public places is wrong. BUT, the airlines have a right and a duty to know who their customers are, and if face recognition systems help peal off the layers of anonymity they should be allowed to use them. Airlines have the right to know with whom they are doing business with. The business transition of purchasing a ticket is done on a contractual basis, and the airlines and the customer have the right know who the other party in the contract is.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Maybe Slashdot is trying to lower its readerbase with this garbage.
Sometime last week, I suggested voluntary biometrics as must one small measure to help facilitate idendification of the average joe. The thought is that as we are routed to more automated inspections, enforcement officers are freed up to perform more thorough human inspections. I've seen facial recognition and other technologies suggested as well.
Perhaps what's needed is NOT legislation as the article suggests. For as with toll bridges, once set, they are very difficult to repeal.
Instead, why not voluntary programs? For example, my enrollment in the above program would automatically expire in a year's time, unless I opt out right away. No harm is done either way, as I choose to go the long route.
Granted, we are temporarily suspending some of our civil liberties, in return for safety, but in a way where we control the duration and participation in the program.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
a simple change in the us's foreign policy may ...
be a simple solution
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
This does not make much sense. Generalising gives "Given that humans cannot do something means that computers cannot do it either" should explain. I really don't know what is meant here. We have something that is already happening poorly. Someone has suggested that using technology would improve it, and this is an infringement of civil liberties. Sorry, I just don't buy that argument.
Airlines have a right (and, de facto, an obligation, especially now) to know who is using them. Using computers can make their execution of this duty much more effective: it is counterproductive (to say the least), to demand that they forgo this because the use of this technology by some other body may infringe civil liberties.
It may be that the use of the same technology, for a different end, by a different body, will be an infringement of civil liberties: by all means fight that battle then. But to try to stop a technology that has beneficial uses because it also has bad uses is luddite.
And to fight the battle with the weapon "it's no better than what we've already got" is just dumb.
Although careful oversight would clearly be needed, if properly administered this system, allowed only to check against existing wanted criminals and terrorists and not allowed to track the movements of those not in the database or to store long-term information on non-tagged individuals, could provide a very powerful tool to intercept people who should not be allowed on an airplane.
The idea that this is a loss of liberty is grabage. You need to present identification at an airport; you have no right to travel by air anonymously, airports are public places and noone has any right to expect not to be exposed to surveillance in this context. Mr. Stallman needs to learn to pick his battles, stick to what he knows, and choose his words more carefully. This tragedy is a little too recent to be using the phrase "thousands die" as a point of rhetoric. And though I am not at all a Bush supporter or fan, I agree with comments about Mr. Stallman's parting shot. Mr. Bush was elected: he was put into power by the Electoral College like every president that has served The United States of America.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
nearly 88,000 signatures now,
9 5
let's see how fast we can double that.
Someone please mod the parent up, to make
sure everyone sees the link
link for the lazy:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/2246224
What they're talking about wouldn't have prevented what happened last Tuesday. People are clamoring for them to do something, and about why this even happened. What the populace doesn't understand is that they (the terrorists) know that we've got abilities to track and crack this stuff- so they don't use crypto to avoid being caught as easily. And, as others point out, they're not going to honor our laws (Did they honor them last Tuesday? What makes people think that they're going to start now?) and use crypto that doesn't have the backdoors, etc.
It boils down to which freedoms are you talking about- restricting many of them don't guarantee security in the slightest. Everything done up to this point has been exactly opposite to what the government has been saying- it's reacting hysterically to the problem and letting the terrorists win.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Oh, say can you see
any justice in us
we're the ones who just think
we can do what we want
the ones who just judge
over things we don't know
the ones who just choose
the world's morality
Oh, say can you see
all the missiles and bombs
that are always right
cause we are the ones
with god on their side
With force and with cash
and with blood and with death
we want to make peace.
When was the day, when they finally broke you
When was the day, when they made you one of them
When was the day, when they brain-washed your mind
When was the day, when you believed what they say
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
British citizens have "chosen" to give up their freedom for nothing.
That's only one example. In France, there is a law that forbids people to use any kind of encryption. Net result ? Algerian terrorists, the ETA, the FLNC still plant bombs in the country. French people too have given up their freedom for nothing.
I'm all for giving up things that make it possible to catch terrorists, but freedom is not one of them. Watching people is not the solution.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
STFU KATZ! uhhhh... STALLMAN!
I don't often agree with RMS, but today I do. In our country's mad panic we are enacting changes that will reduce our freedoms forever, and all in the hypocritical name of protecting our freedom.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Honestly, I have to admit that while I disagree with RMS's way of advocating this position (it would be nice for him to once try to sound calm and rational rather than ranting like a confused drug addict) I do agree with his overall point.
The reality is that there are those in government who believe that the police and other law enforcement agencies need more power to deal with technology (Carnivore, key-escrow, lower requirements for wiretaps) and that in many cases these are violation of our liberties. People may argue that only the guilty need to fear, but the reality is that our own history has countless examples of illegal government actions against law abiding citizens who's only "crime" was thinking differently than the governments position on key aspects of society and speaking about it. Basically for exercising their constitutional right of free speech, people have been harrassed and jailed (remember McCarthyism?).
We all should write our Congress-persons and Representative and let them know (in a calm and rational way) that we as a society should not let the actions of a few limit the liberties of the many. We all can post as much as we want on slashdot, but we're just preaching to the choir.
Arguments that restrictions on freedoms can be very bad make a lot of sense. It's rather presumptious to say that restrictions on freedoms will be worse than thousands of people killed.
I visited a widow last night with two young children whos husband died (they found his body) in the WTC bombing. I promise you, our entire neighborhood would give up a few freedoms for a few years to get him back.
Read your history: America has often restricted freedoms temporarily during wartime. We've always gotten them back and moreso. This is not a slippery slope towards Fascism.
I'm not saying restrictions are necessary, or good, or the right decision. But a masturbatory affection for the sound of one's own voice spouting absolute needs for personal rights is just not called for right now.
...a lot of posts here refer to Microsoft as Micro$oft, M$FT, etc...in general, a whole lot o' ranting about Microsoft. But do we negate the whole post because of this point? Nope.
Those of us telling us to read our Constitution: real original. Don't get all high n' mighty with me...I know how it works.
I fully expect to be lambasted for this, but even as one who has said "you can have my PGP when you pry it from my cold dead fingers", and as one who understands how quickly the minions of ObL can switch communication methods, I think the "fight the man" attitude is selfish, ignorant, and in the long run, a position which will fail in the marketplace of ideas.
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!
P.S. -- I wrote a letter to my Representative proposing that all DEA agents be re-assigned to keep track of those on "watch lists", such as two of the hijackers who somehow eluded the FBI.
Why is it that many netizens, chief among them
apparently RMS, are so worked into a frenzie about
civil liberties and back-door encryption? Granted
vigilence of our freedoms is always needed but
from the reports I've seen the proposals,
including a back-door encryption key, don't
provide our security agencies any more power in
the digital world than they already have in the
real world. They can, with a court warrant,
wire-tap phones, search residences, etc., so
how are my civil liberties differently affected
if these same exact capabilities (in the same
measure) are afforded to authorities in digi-space?
I certainly don't want the Fed scanning my email
willy-nilly, but I don't see that is what they've
requested. The Fed can search my home today
with a warrant but I don't live in daily fear
that some G-man will show up at my door to "have
a look around". Do you? If not, then how is
a warrant-enabled "tap" into encrypted
communication be any different?
It seems like every time I hear the media covering the terrorist attacks, I hear someone saying "Of course I'm ready to give up some freedom to improve security." These people don't seem to realize that if we give up civil liberties in response to these attacks, the terrorists have succeeded! Giving up those freedoms means the terrorists have forced us to change our way of life - that should be the LAST thing we want or allow.
On the specific subject of flight safety, I've heard two proposals that (especially combined) would eliminate the threat of this type of attack almost completely without requiring additional airport security at all:
The only other flight related measure that would impact airport/airline employess (but not the general public) would be greater security measures for them to eliminate problems like the ramp access that one terrorist team apparently had, allowing them to get a bomb on board.
Instead of these relatively unobtrusive measures, we will likely get very expensive, intrusive and draconian measures like automated chemical sniffers and millimeter wave "x-ray" machines. My prediction is that the terrorists will not attempt this type of attack again, and the public will absorb the cost and inconvenience for no gain whatever. Also we will likely be faced with fairly massive domestic surveillance, which will be useless if the enemy has half a clue, and will only serve to further erode our personal liberties (see the proposed encryption backdoors, for instance).
Don't forget the words of a great American (the only person to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution):
"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Ben Franklin--
I hope that our current leaders can step up to the plate and make the right decisions, so that America can remain free, while eliminating the international terrorist threat to the extent possible.
186,282 mi/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, know that you don't want your civil liberties to become the terrorists' next victim.
*chuckle* I'll have to remember that, it's quite amusing.
And COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE in this context.
I didn't vote for Bush, but I recognize him as my elected president, especially now.
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
I'm sure I'll get flamed or worse either for disagreeing with RMS or for suggesting that "evil" face-recognition might be an effective deterrent, but the above statement is not true. Human face recognition performed by the check-in agents didn't work, but do you think it would've worked if the check-in agents were the CIA agents who'd been looking for two of the hijackers for a couple of weeks? Do you think the computer face recognition is more likely to be like the bored, underpaid check-in agents, or more like the highly trained CIA agents especially familiar with their targets?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
You know, I didn't vote for either one but the whining about this gets old. There were TWO MILLION mis-votes nationwide. Florida was not the only place that irregularities took place. Stallman is obviously a biased opionated individual, we all are. Richard is an elitist though always believing that his right and never yielding, him and Saddam and Osama really are quite alike.
RMS, and Roblimo before him, correctly argue that we must not let our freedom of speech (and freedom to control our personal property!) be compromised by mandatory crypto backdoors. Putting aside the fact that such a decree would be totally unenforceable, and that users would surely revolt (I know I would), and that it would surely be found unconstitutional as prior restraint on speech, nonetheless this is a terrible idea that we need to fight.
(Note that all discussion of this in connection with this incident is 100% theoretical anyway. If the bad guys used crypto, we don't know it yet - only grandstanding politicians have suggested anything of the kind.)
But I must say that I feel very differently about face recognition - particularly in airports. Such a system could have caught some of the hijackers - several of whom who were WANTED BY THE FBI and FLEW UNDER THEIR OWN NAMES! - before they killed 5000 people. Extending it to public spaces such as Times Square is more questionable to me, but particularly in airports where the possible harm is now much greater than we ever imagined, I think this is a technology that would be welcome.
Remember that you already give up a lot of rights while you fly. It's too bad, and I don't enjoy having to check potentially hazardous luggage (e.g. knives) any more than the next guy, but flying is materially different from all other forms of transit. You can't crash an Amtrak train into much more than another train, or a station. You can't do that much with a bus. But you can kill thousands with a plane, and as such we need to exercise extreme caution there.
sulli
RTFJ.
Hello,
RMS is a very intelligent, very talented man. When he takes the time to sit down, right down his thoughts, review them and edit them, he can come up with some very persuasive, intelligent, and reasonable arguments.
But if you've ever seen RMS in action at a Live event, he can sometimes be very harsh. I was at the conference called The Bazaar, in NYC in, I believe December of, hmm, 2000 I think. Anyhow I was at a session where he was speaking in the larger keynote hall, and there was a question and answer period afterword. Someone asked a question that RMS apparently didn't like, and his answer was rather nastier than I thought was appropriate. And there are many many examples of this, just ask around among people who've had the "pleasure" of meeting RMS in person.
So, in summary, a lot of the RMS bashing that happens on Slashdot is, to a large degree, RMS' own fault, as it is in reaction to people's experiences with him. That said, I do agree that he is a very intelligent man who does have things to say which need to be said.
- Problems with international porting. Do you need to publish a different version of the software for each country, with a back door usable by only that nation's law enforcement community?
- If there's a back door for the encryption that's embedded in the software, it's necessarily
a public key scheme, and we've seen that with massive resources, these schemes can be cracked. The key embedded in software used for a large proportion of US e-mail would be a very attractive target for cracking.
- Open source encryption software can be trivially modified to remove back doors. For that matter, with a little work, binary distributions probably can be also. But that might not stop regulations that prohibit open source encryption. Or they might require expensive registration with a government agency, which practically speaking rules out underfunded open source development.
There's no need to invoke a nightmare scenario to see the potential problems.Hit back. Not some blind lashing out, but something planned, methodical, and brutal with minimal collateral damage.
Responding to this by reducing freedoms will not keep it from happening (If it did, the UK and Israel would have less problems...) because security measures end up failing in the end (Realize that Israelites and UK citizens in the affected areas still get car-bombings, etc. even with the security that they have- people aren't all that safe in Northern Ireland and around the West Bank and Gaza.).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Plenty has already been said about the political partisanship, lame criticism and FUD mixed up in this poor excuse for analysis. Worse yet, Stallman utterly fails to explain how not doing any of those things will prevent further attacks, bring the perpetrators to justice, provide aid for the survivors and relatives of the dead or find the missing. It will take some work and careful thought to produce the constructive suggestions needed at this time which balance liberty and the necessary actions to provide aid and safety. This article suggests Stallman is either not interested or not capable of making the necessary effort.
Thanks for that link. That was excellent. :)
That notice neatly ensures that no-one can quote it out of context, as they are obliged to put in all the context.
Where on earth do you get that idea? If anything, copyright makes it harder to give the proper context for a quote: you are permitted to take short excerpts, but not to copy the entire document. So copyright only lets you give your view of the context in your own words, not repeat the entire document and let your audience judge.
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
I'm all in favour of this plan as long as America allows foreign intelligence agencies to operate in America at the same time under the same rules they would bind the CIA to. I wonder who the Mossad, MI5, Cuba's DGI, China's MSS, or Jordan's GID would consider to be people consorting with these groups who happen to reside in the United States.
Privacy can be important, especially for someone acting justly who has enemies, but in public there is no privacy. You are already out in the open, anyone who wants can snap a picture of you. Everyone sees you picking that monster weggie, everyone see you wipe that hanger off your nose, everyone sees you checking out that hot chick's ass while you're walking with your wife...
The day someone puts a camera in my house(or in too close a proximity), forces dna sampling, forces me to turn over personal information, etc., then I'll be pissed.
Personally, I'm not sure what I think about gun registration laws, and other such things that exist already, but complaining about face recognition is like complaining about putting up a website with pictures of you and people coming to download them, YOU PUT IT THERE, just like being out in public.
note: I'm still open to any arguments about why it's bad, but right now I just don't see it as a threat in any way at all.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
In some ways I agree with what he says - other ways I disagree.
For instance - the image recognition software has shown to be far better at recognizing people - so he is neglegent there - the mistakes are when it finds near matches and then hands it over to people to make judegment... and they don't always do so well. Granted it isn't perfect - but they aren't saying to kill them on contact - it would just set a wanring.
I agree that this whole thing is weird to me. The economy sucks and nobody is really behind the president. so what would help - well a war sure would. how will we do that? and then this happens. BinLadin has claimed ownership to everything he has ever done, all gruesome acts - why would he deny this one since it is just what he was trying to do when he bombed the garage there?
Part of me feels very much like this whole thing is turning into small town america where the redneck cops just grab the first black man they see and say he is the culprit to whatever crime they need to be solved, they lock him up and done. of course he will say he didn't do it, he's a lyin'
but it also doesn't bother me too much b/c the people they are going to get aren't entirely innocent (if Bin didn't do this and they kill him, it won't bother me, he deserves it for other actions - although I'd rather they just let him get anally raped over and over again in our prison system rather than just kill him...)
there is a fine line between sanity and crazy talk - and Stallman is skirting either side in what he wrote there...
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
... that Mr. Stallman should STFU. He's part of the problem. If his worst fears are realized, it will be because of his own rantings.
your unelected president,
What are you talking about? When they finally tallied the votes in Florida, Bush won! Why don't we hear more about this?
I'm not sure a backdoor in all cryptography products is a solution to anything, except making the security of law-abiding citizens less secure.
If you're already a criminal, using a cryptography product without a backdoor, or simply creating such a product yourself, wouldn't be much of a hurdle.
I'm not sure we can count on the stupidity of the criminals to go out and buy PGP 2002 XP with a known government backdoor.
We don't yet know what consequences in economy, ideology, politics, war, this event will have, but one thing is sure: the US, which, till now, perceived itself as an island exempted from this kind of violence, witnessing this kind of things only from the safe distance of the TV screen, is now directly involved. So the alternative is: will Americans decide to fortify further their "sphere," or to risk stepping out of it? Either America will persist in, strengthen even, the attitude of "Why should this happen to us? Things like this don't happen HERE!", leading to more aggressivity towards the threatening Outside, in short: to a paranoiac acting out. Or America will finally risk stepping through the fantasmatic screen separating it from the Outside World, accepting its arrival into the Real world, making the long-overdued move from "A thing like this should not happen HERE!" to "A thing like this should not happen ANYWHERE!". America's "holiday from history" was a fake: America's peace was bought by the catastrophes going on elsewhere. Therein resides the true lesson of the bombings: the only way to ensure that it will not happen HERE again is to prevent it going on ANYWHERE ELSE.
You don't have your Constitutionally guaranteed rights abroad. They only apply within the borders, territories, and possessions of the US. In European countries, you have the rights they give you.
And our Constitutionally guaranteed rights apply to all people, not just US Citizens or residents. Someone from Japan who is vacationing in California has those same rights.
I have seen this same argument in other threads. Why doesn't it sink in.
I'm sorry, I completely agree that giving up any freedoms we have would be a very bad idea, but I take issue with the above statement from RMS. First, the Vietnam War was fought over an ideology, a non-direct threat of a 3rd world country, and one in which we had very little vested interest. Reporting from Vietnam that a US Navy ship was deliberately attacked (when it was a fishing vessel that got too close to the ship and that was it), which was yellow journalism at its best, is far different than watching in horror as your countrymen are dying, buildings are falling, and your capital of your country is being attacked.
Everyone needs to quit being such pantywaists and realize what happened on 9/11/01 - OUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED on its own soil! Let's quit talking about this shit and go do something already. Not fighting to keep your freedoms when they're attacked is just as bad as voting to do away with some of them! Osama, the Taliban, and plenty of islamic fundamentalists hate the US way of life - life, liberty, free speech, and the right to believe whatever you want to believe. Islamic terrorists believe its their Allah appointed duty to annhilate their enemies, and do so while lying about what they're actually doing (i.e. - no one is claiming responsibility for this attack). Talking and hoping and giving them stuff has failed. It's time to punish the evil with consequences for evil acts, no matter the casualties.
Wouldn't you do everything in your power to keep an evil doer from raping your wife after they have so completely infiltrated your everyday life that there's no stopping their evil actions?
yeah, thanks... it's been said before
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
- We had to keep lights off at night, depriving us of our right ro read.
- We had to have special stamps to buy butter and sugar, depriving us of our right to buy those items when and where we wanted.
- Soldiers had their mail read and censored before being sent home, a shocking violation of their civil liberties.
I'm sick of all this petty whining about loss of civil liberties. These people carried out brutal and extremely effective attacks against the U.S., on U.S. soil. They were able to do so in part because of liberties that they enjoyed as RESIDENTS of the U.S...not even as citizens.
If the 50 or so of these people (at LEAST) remaining in this country start releasing biological and chemical agents in our cities, and poisoning our water, and blowing up our schools, and crashing small private planes into buildings, and disrupting our markets, then where will your precious liberties be? Their goal is nothing less than the eradication of our culture from the planet. This situation goes way beyond our tradition of erring on the side of liberty, possibly to the advantage of criminals, in order to protect our precious rights. No, this situation is nothing less than a fight for our survival.
One message these enemies wanted to tell us and the world is that we are no longer insulated from the horror of war that has ravaged much of the planet outside our borders for the last 60 years. They have carried out a successful attack of military proportions against our citizens, our government, our military, and our markets. They have more in store for us. They must be laughing their heads off to hear coddled, myopic Americans crying about the government taking whatever steps are required to stop them. They must find it quite curious that some of us would rather put up with nail bombs, sarin gas, and anthrax than with cameras that would - shock of shocks- record our face on video tape. The must find it quite convenient that one of the safest places to plan their next attacks is right here on our own soil.
We have everything to lose. God help us if those responsible for our security don't have different priorities than some idiot who thinks the FBI gives a damn about his email.
Are we really sure this is from RMS? It doesn't once mention his feelings on "Open Source" and Free Software, or Linux and/or GNU/Linux.
your unelected president
Ol' dubya's all we got. God Help US!
db
Cig:
ôô
This debate has of course happened before.In addition to the Franklin quote that many have posted I believe Patrick Henry's Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death seems most apropriate.
This country was founded on the priciples of personal liberties being of the utmost importance, and to give up this 225+ year history because of one attack seems to me to be a little short sighted. Don't get me wrong, the attack was horrible beyond my comprehension, and I'm all for the tightening of our national security, but we need to remember that our liberties are what differentiate us from everywhere else on earth.
Something that we need to consider--in fact, the only thing worthy of public debate after Tuesday's attack--is our balance between Liberty and Security.
Often in the past we have traded security for liberty--for example, when we assigned blacks and women the right to vote, or when we allowed a new state to join the union. Each of these movements--and many others like them that are by far too numerous to list here--have helped create the impression that "civil liberties" are a absolute good in and of themselves. But down that road lies anarchy, if we travel it far enough.
What many liberals often forget, and their uneducated conservative oppoents are slow to mention, is that we have as often traded liberty for security. When we discarded the Articles of Confederation for the strong federal government of the Constitution, we traded liberty for security. When we joined the United Nations, we traded liberty for security. Every time we sign a new treaty, pass a new law, or apply the old law to a new thing, we are trading the liberty of Americans for the security of Americans--and not always the same Americans.
In this brave new world of the 21st century, we will have choices to make as a nation. Do we trade the freedom of disposable e-mail address and anonymous soapboxes for the security of accountability? Do we trade the security of childhoods free from terrorism for the liberty of invisible travel?
These choices, and many more, should be discussed in a rational, national conversation--one as free from empty rhetoric and petty politics as possible. Richard Stallman was eloquent, but the message above is neither free from empty rhetoric nor petty politics. To wit:
WHY are civil liberties important? Of course they're threatened in the wake of this terrorism--but so is the security of the nation. To win the argument in favor of personal liberty over national security, it is necessary to state and defend the reasons why civil liberties are more important--not simply state their moral superiority as some assumed point.
Also... unelected president? Hardly. Geroge W. Bush was just as elected as any other president we've ever had. The popular vote has NEVER mattered, only the votes of the Electoral College. This was true when George Washington was chosen more than two hundred years ago, and this was true when George W. Bush was chosen just last year.
...is immaterial and irrelevant.
His MESSAGE...
MIND YOUR FREEDOMS CLOSELY KIDDIES...
is dead on, cogent and timely.
And those of you who reply to this defense of RMS might consider the possibility that someday soon, you could loose to opportunity, nay right, to do so.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
I wrote that without noticing the copying permission included.
But there is an area between fair use sampling and full copying that allows better context than the short quote allowable by fair use, but is easier to include in another work.
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
I only wish that filthy hippie had been in the World Trade Center along with everyone else that Tuesday.
Ever heard of a strawman fallacy?
It is generally used by those that dislike the argument a person makes, and represents a personal attack when a refutation is not easily found.
True, but still as I'm sure you're aware, the winner of the popular vote does not a president make. For the same reasons you don't add up all the runs at the end of game seven of the world series. Because 1, those are not the rules. And 2, those rules are that way for reason. The reasons for this are beyond the scope of my little blurb, but it just kills a lot of people, including RMS still don't "get it".
IMO people who discuss 'Retaliation' and 'Measured responses' miss the point. The former is nothing more than a polite phrase for Revenge, and the latter is ineffective. Terrorists have moved the playing field away from the civilized world's strength, military power, and moved it into it an area of weakness, fear. As a weapon fear is currently a very one sided arsenal. We all felt a wretching in our gut as the towers went down. A small voice that says, that could easily have been me, or a loved one. We have nothing comperable to attack with, you are not going to frighten someone brain washed into commiting suicide.
Where does that leave us ? They can make us afraid, but as a civilized group we have nothing comperable to hold over their heads. However, the phrase 'civilzed group' offers a glimpse into what I believe is a potential weapon. As a civilized group we are taught to punish those directly resposible against whom we are largely impotent. I would advocate instead that we scare those who assist them. A worst case scenario, destroying an orphanage above the terrorist headquarters is repugnant, but IMHO necessary. The goal is to make the next manager of the orphanage less likely to to give sanctuary. Destroy the television stations spewing hate and propaganda. Burn the banquet hall holding a fund raiser. Make the people who support the terrorists afraid, and the terrorists will have fewer places to sleep, and less to eat.
It's not 'civilized' but it may be effective.
But no easy solution. Our people are not well educated about the machinery by which the government is run. Instead of keeping tabs on proposed legislation, up and coming violation of our fundimental, Charter rights are ignored until it's too late.
For example. There is new legislation on the way that will allow the RCMP and CSIS (our law enforcement and intelligence agencies) to evict immigrants who they label as "suspected terrorists." This eviction would happen without due process, and they were brave enough to say so on the news a bunch of times.
Try explaining to someone that their right to a fair and speedy trial with an open exposition and gathering of evidence is a more valuable right than free expression and their eyes glaze over up here. They point out that we have no freedom of speech at best, and say that you're not angry enough about Bin Laden at worst.
In spite of our widely propegandized image of being the peacemakers of the world, Canadiasn are very racist angry people, no matter where you look. There are attacks against the men, children and especially easily identified women in Arab communities. Everyone you talk to is hungry for blood and wants to see Pakistan nuked or made into a parking lot by the United States. It is no surprise that our Prime Minister decided to state on camera a number of times that our military will stand behind that of the Americans when they DO finally decide to attack.
This sentiment is starting to make me suspect a big, drawn out ground war, and possibly the reintroduction of conscription onto the Canadian people.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
In France, the people who foolishly sued Yahoo earlier this year are already jumping on the "fight terrorism" bandwagon. Guess what, they've found one (1!) pro-terrorism islamic site on the Internet, and well! it's enough to justify censorship, isn't it?
I see some complaints about RMS's speaking out. I found ESR to be much worse, especially considering the fact that ESR didn't even take 24 hours to take political advantage of the situation.
here
"Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, "
RMS probably voted for the green party. if youre bitchin about GWB vote democratic next time and make sure you puncj the right one.
what a dick.
"Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help."
Ok, just how fucking stupid are you RMS? Do you really think that these two methods can be compared? Exactly how much faith do you have in a ticket counters person ability to recognize known terrorists? Stick to software please.
Am i the only one that seems to be getting all of the different postings under 1 single thread? Its very annoying.
--- INSERT MESSAGE SENT TO RMS
Although I completely agree with your points (as you are but stating the obvious) in your slashdot piece "Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil liberties?", I found that the copyright notice was a bit of a joke.
Do you think that what you wrote, in any way, constituted something so revolutionnary or novel that it deserved such a thing as a copyright notice and/or a mini-license? You wrote 388 words about the (obvious) consequences of rash reactions to the terrorist acts of last Tuesday, not some research paper highlighting a new discovery! Even internet writers writing for the likes of CNN and ABCnews only add their name to their (much more noteworthy) articles. Nowhere will you see a mini-license appended to the article, and for good reason.
There, I hope you understand my position, although I am sure it matters very little to you. This in no way constitutes a flame, merely a call to reason: if we start adding copyright notices and mini-license agreements to less than 400 word essays, when will it end?
--- END INSERT.
Tarik,
tarik(at)altern(dot)org
Back on the eleventh I said that the WTC was not the real target.
But who am I? Not a set of initials, so...
during the election, i didn't like either choice, viewing both as products of nepotism.
the bush and gore families are powerful political engines...not as powerful as the kennedy machine, but still powerful.
to claim that President Bush is an "unelected president" takes away from what i view as a sacred document--the US Constitution.
the man is legally the president of the united states, so show some respect, and do not use that wording.
otherwise, i agree fully with the paper. the dotGOV will use this incident, and the emotional aftermath, to erode our freedoms.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
So let's say there were a group of us that began "speaking" in a "new language".. are we required by law to provide documentation that translates the "new language" into English? It's a violation of The Right to Free Speech imho.. They can't do squat.
See: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/22462249 5
There are a lot of petitions like this floating around now. And everyone needs to pick they believe in and sign it.
And spend some time looking up your Senators at http://www.senate.gov and tell them what you think. And do it THIS WEEK!
Some say you have to do it snail mail. My Wisconsin Senators/Representatives HAVE sent me back (postal) replies to specific views I have shared with them in the past - it depends on your State, I guess.
I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
Stand on the side of continued complete freedom and invite the terrorists in with open arms. Or give up a few freedoms and help stop the next attack before it starts.
There are better ways to protect the safety of American citizens than forcing them to give up their freedoms. With no other reference, I will use the recent tragedy as an example. Facial recognition technology, which could certainly impose on privacy, may not have done much to prevent the attacks. It is only effective when the terrorists attempting to take over a plane already have their image on file. In such a well-planned attack as this, all the terrorist organization would have to do is send a relatively new recruit who Western authorities have not connected to terrorism yet. On the other hand, increasing security both at airports and in the air can be done without sacrificing freedoms. Add air marshals to flights to act as on-board security. Expand weapons searched beyond guns, bombs, and knives to include other potential weapons. Also, expand weapons searches beyond passengers to include airport support staff. Institute background checks before hiring airport staff. Install thicker, stronger security doors between the cockpit and the cabin.
While all these things are specific to the airline industry, I believe they make my point. There are ways to increase security without hampering civil liberties.
Another point: the best way to track the movements and intentions of a terrorist organization is not to scan the communications (phone, e-mail) of ordinary American (or European, etc) citizens. Nay, my good sir, the best way to gather this information is to infiltrate the organization (for the intelligence impaired, plant a spy). Human intelligence (used in this context to mean information gathered by spies) has been ditched in recent years in favor of electronic surveillance (which has civil liberties issues, obviously). Better information can be gathered, with little to no expense to American civil liberties, by taking better advantage of the CIA's human intelligence capabilities. Also, it might be a good idea to allow the CIA to assassinate terrorist leaders (which requires Congressional action, I believe).
The founders of this nation were willing to die for their ideals, for their liberties. Have we become so comfortable, so lazy and complacent, that we would sacrifice these freedoms for percieved safety?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
So, I say to you, cowardly one, either realize your folly, or move to Afghanistan and lead a miserable (but "safe"), controlled (but "safe") life dictated entirely by the government (but "safe").
Not willing to give up my freedom, even if others are,
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
Sure.. thats wonderful in theory, just put a magical backdoor in all encryption "products" and we can suddenly spy on all the bad guys of the world. So.. I guess these new laws are suddenly going to make everyone incapable of writing algorithms? All the bad guys are going to continue to use freely available non-backdoored encryption or what they use now.. what are you gonna do? March into their camps and demand they install the newest version of PGP8.0 for windows? Yeah great idea. This is simply going to open the door for allowing more control and monitoring of normal citizens, it wont even put a dent in terrorist communications. And what about when they start embedding encrypyed messeges into jpegs, mp3s, anything? Its impossible to scan for those kinds of things. The point is, you cant stop it, dont try, find other ways of dealing with the problem.
... the more I'm beginning to think the BSD license is the better way to go ....
Then we also have RMS and ESR, self appointed (GNU/)Linux advocates who are so out of touch with reality that one scares people with how big a gun nut he is and the other lives in his office at a university and is affriad of water, both of which can't stop arguing for 2 seconds in the name of furthering some of the shared goals they have.
note: I still respect them both, but I think they could do more good if they'd just learn to friggin calm down
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Yes! That's it! Facial hair! Bastards!
You insult people in C. What a lamer. You're as bad as people who curse in UNIX commands (like fsck).
There is no completely free society. The closest one can get is anarchy. In every society with a form of goverment, certain freedoms are given up in exchange for certain benefits. Citizens in America are not "free" to speed, there have been laws made against it. But rarely do people complain about this law. Why? They have agreed to trade this freedom for a measure of safety. Many Americans wish to give up their right to own a firearm. They do this with the belief that it will increase the safety of society overall. Now, I realize these two examples are not the same as giving up certain rights of privacy, but they are examples of giving up certain freedoms none-the-less. I give these to examples to make the point that it is quite common to exchange rights, or "freedoms", for increased safety or order in a society. The issues before us in light of the recents attacks are not easy ones to answer. Do we sacrifice certain freedoms, such as privacy over e-mail and phone conversations, in an effort to stop further attacks such as this? Or do we take the belief that such measures will only hurt what America stands for without really damaging terrorists ability to wage further attacks? It is an issue I can see both sides to.
If many of our "American" rights are taken away, are we still "free?" Will some people still believe this is America if they cannot believe in their fundamental right of privacy?
If we as Americans live in fear of another attack, are we still "free?" Will some people still believe this is America if they cannot believe that their government is doing all they can to protect them?
How do we reconcile these two different, yet vital parts of the United States of America? With great difficulty. I urge people, on either side of the debate, to let your representatives know how you feel. And pray that our elected leaders will make the right choice.
God be with America and her people.
While I agree with his comments about the encryption and monitoring of citizens, I couldn't disagree more with his (obviously biased "unelected president".. what is that crap? a liberal that is still bitter that BUSH carried the electorate BY FAR?) opinion about the congress deciding to permit the President to make decisions regarding our nation. Afterall, that is the job of the Congress.. to support the President, and voice the desires of the people. If they felt he was not able to handle the responsibility or if they felt he would misuse the position that he is in, then they could have voted "nay". Instead, they voted UNANIMOUSLY "yea". I own "The Cathedral and The Bazaar", I generally love Stallmans writings.. but in this case, his left-wing biases are truly "bazaar" and HE needs to realize that the unity our govt. is showing exactly what makes this country great. Not some opportunistic left-wing bologna.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The worst damage from many nerve injuries is secondary -- it happens in the hours after the initial trauma, as the body's reaction to the damage kills more nerve cells. Researchers are beginning to discover ways to prevent this secondary damage and reduce the eventual harm.
If we are not careful, the deadly attacks on New York and Washington will lead to far worse secondary damage, if the U.S. Congress adopts "preventive measures" that take away the freedom that America stands for.
I'm not talking about searches at airports here. Searches of people or baggage for weapons, as long as they check only for weapons and keep no records about you if you have no weapons, are just an inconvenience; they do not endanger civil liberties. What I am worried about is massive surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements.
These measures are likely to be recommended regardless of whether they would be effective for their stated purpose. An executive of a company developing face recognition software is said to be telling reporters that widespread deployment of face-recognizing computerized cameras would have prevented the attacks. The September 15 New York Times cites a congressman who is advocating this "solution." Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. But that won't stop the agencies that have always wanted to do more surveillance from pushing this plan now, and many other plans like it. To stop them will require public opposition.
Even more ominously, a proposal to require government back doors in encryption software has already appeared.
Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War.
Please let your elected representatives, and your elected president, know that you don't want your civil liberties to become the terrorists' next victim. Don't wait -- the bills are already being written. Copyright 2001 Bearded "I hate copyrights" Weirdo
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved, and any product mentioning this is prefixed with "GNU/".
I have always resepected RMS for what he has done with software. His comments about "your unelected president" show RMS to be an extremist who's opinion in this matter is no more relevent than Britney Spears'.
Quack
First we screen for terrorists. Who probably won't be in the databank anyway. Then we screen out all the felons. Including pot smokers, petty lacrinists, all parolee's regardless of crime committed, and other serious threats to national security. Then it's anyone with an arrest record, regardless of whether they have been convicted or not. Next, it's time to screen for anyone who filed for bankrupcy, because they might not be able to pay for their ticket. Finally, they'd better screen out laid off employees, and anyone who's ever complained about the airline, because God knows we don't want to risk allowing any disgruntled people on board.
Have I covered all of the risky people yet? No? Well, better institute racial profiling then, 'cause we don't wan't no shifty-eyed a-rabs that ain't like us goodly, God-fearin' Christians, right?
In short, the path to Big Brother is a slippery slope.
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help
I may not agree with coputerized facial recognition but this quote uses some piss poor logic. One would think that a quick proof reading would weed out such flagrantly poorly reasoned arguments. First, the people who are checking in passengers are not equipped with a database of known terrorists or "wanted" criminals. they probably haven't even studied a single poster tacked up in their local post office.
Second, anyone who has ever been to an airport like Newark or JFK know that the people working there are only motivated to do about $5.50 worth of work per hour. A computer would not have a motivation problem.
There are reasons not to support it, (fostering a false sence of security and laziness since it is not %100 accurate, or civil rights reasons) but I seriously doubt that it will lower the rate of identified criminals. RMS should stick to his core reasons not to implement this system and stop grasping at straws.
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
-Frank Lloyd Wright
... is already happenning. Have you been through security at Hethrow (London) recently?
(Be also ready to hand over your crypto keys as you go...)
He's 48 years old and will retire soon enough.
Another 1970s unix blow-hard pontificating.
Truely free open source software will have no licensing restrictions (public domain license).
An oak in a pine forest kinda sticks out. Anyone who reads that is going to come way with a image of RMS as someone who is petty, partisan, and childish. And that is going to taint his whole message, regardless if you think its fair or not. It's like the pope making a plea for world peace and then saying "Poland Rules" at the end (The pope is Polish for those who don't know). Thats the part that sticks out.
The concept of my activities being tracked to me is very frightening. We are moving rapidly to a cashless society (the ease of use of debit cards and credit cards) and our purchases are getting easier and easier to track. So with the government endorsing the tracking our daily activities what to prevent say insurance agencies gaining access to these records to evaluate each of us by some algorythm do determine wether or not we are insurable. "Well Jon Doe makes regular purchases at the the liquor store. That makes hime a prime candidate for cirrosis of the liver, therefore we must deny him medical insurance" In my opinion the only logical next step to collecting data is acting on it. CP
More info on Peter Jennings throwing a tantrum? I missed that, watching CNN. What'd he do?
Richard,
I agree with you wholeheartedly on protecting our civil liberties.
You are wrong about Vietnam. You realize why America was over there? To prevent the Communist North Vietnamese from taking over the "Free" South Vietnamese, and initiating the usual "reign of terror" that accompanies communist dictatorships. The problem was that congress couldn't stand to support the President in doing his job. And that is the same problem that Bush is facing now!
You have a Senate Majority Leader and a bunch of liberals in the media who cannot stand to give support to the President in this time of crisis. Take a look at this and this and also this
I would rather my future children live a full life in the enjoyment of freedom rather than a long life deprived of freedom.
Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
You must be blind to not notice it.
Walk in the mall, your being recorded.
Shop at a store, your being recorded.
Withdraw money from an ATM/Bank, guess what, your being recorded.
Park your car in a parking lot, your being recorded.
Your being recorded everywhere but in the privacy of your own home. The government won't install cameras there. You won't loose any rights by being recorded in public since you don't own or HAVE the right to NOT be recorded. Your image isn't being sold for revenue, your not being persecuted and your not loosing anything.
Really, i'd be suprised if you thought you weren't being watched. I don't speak to my neighboors yet they know about everything i do.
I find that my non working neighboors probably know more about me then my wife. The US is full of snooty/nosey people who won't stay out of my/your business and that offends me more then camera giving me protection. Its the neighboors that won't get the facts right, but camera's don't lie. If the neighboor sees an indian breaking into my house, by the time the police come its a story of an arrab or a hispanic or if a white person is caught steeling an item its now a punk kid or white trash when in reality, its just a normal white person doing something wrong. Cameras again, don't like. People are opinionated, even on "Facts".
It was a camera that caught the person mugging one of my girlfriends. It was a camera that caught someone breaking into my car in a garage and it was a camera that put a face to the names of the hijackers that got on the plance.
Had the camera been able to recognize these faces against a database of known criminals, then this possibly could have been prevented. All at none or little cost to the loss of your "assumed privacy".
I'm sorry, but when you step out that door to go to work or do anything, your being watched by alot more then a government camera. My neighboors knew my name, my dogs name, my cats name, my fishes name, what time i went to work, what time i got home, what coffee i drank, what stores i shopped at and where i was flying to consult each week before *I* even introduced myself. And your worried about loosing your privacy in public places?
You don't own the phone lines, you know that wireless communications of any sorts is highly insecure at this point in time and certainly any rogue administrator can read/view your internet traffic *MUCH* easier then any government agency.
I vote for protection, and i vote for human rights. The backdoor security issue will never fly since banks, financial systems and many countries rely on that encryption for transactions. You may loose your PGP encrypted email, but what is there to hide if your sending it on an open network anyhow?
There will be civil rights and liberties to fight for, but right now, the simple war for humanity should be on our minds.
Remember, if your not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to be ashamed of. I speak on the phone assuming it is secure, but i don't fret if the FBI is indeed listener. I shop at the mall and assume i'm being recorded, but that doesn't make me act any different, i still hold my wifes hand and go to the stores i wish and speak as i normally would.
I'm not speaking of a coup, i'm not threating anyone or anything, i'm not running an illicit ring or illegal business, i'm not commiting fraud, i'm not someone the fbi is targeting for anything. If they stumble apon me on the quests for someone else, then so be it.
There is no sense of fear when your not feeling threatened. So may i ask, why someone would feel feer, threatened or a loss of liberty because of this?
Last i heard they're not barcoding people, branding you, putting cameras in your brown, listen to what you think and tracing your every movement... then again, i wouldn't care. Doesn't change the way i live my life.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
America is supposed to be a symbol of freedom. When a symbol becomes more important than what it represents then that symbol is worthless!
I submitted a story Friday from Wired online (can't find the link now, dammit) about the Senate proposing to give increased power to the FBI for using e-tapping/Carnivore type systems. Basically stated how they are easing the restrictions on getting a specific warrant and other legalities.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, from Vermont, maybe, was one of the only dissenters to this proposed bill. He seemed to understand the need (duh) for civil liberties - I suggest the Slashdot crowd writes/emails him, to show their support for his type of thinking.
"No matter where you go, there you are..." - Buckaroo Bonzai
I agree that we must not let our civil liberties be taken away, I dont think Mr. Stallman's piece should be considered 'well said'
I have heard many slashdotters say the same things in a better manner over the past week.
If we want to keep out liberties, then we need to put together a good letter that is less emotional and more factual than continuously saying that this sort of thing is what lead to the vietnam war.
-the Hun
Myself, I cant write it; But someone should.
I'm a Tasty-vore. If it's Tasty, I'll eat it.
"Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help."
Did I miss something here? Do check in agents store the faces of all suspected terrorists in their brains? Wow...
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed today eh Dick?
I'm sure to take you seriously after that comment! Shea! Right!
Neurotic
Please, tell me where it has? Last time I checked, most informed (not speculative) news analysis in mainstream papers (not Wired News) has discussed $6/hr rent-a-cop airport security, unpreparedness of the Pentagon, the years of flight training taken by the bad guys, and Osama bin Laden's ability to finance all of this and create terrorist cells around the world. Where's this clamor against the net that I haven't seen on the 10+ websites I read daily on the subject?
sulli
RTFJ.
I don't get that either-- if the terrorists used their REAL NAMES (or at least the names/aliases that were wanted by the FBI or close spellings thereof) you would think at least THAT would have been cross-indexed and they wouldve been stopped...
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Go read cringely, he says much the same thing without being such an ass.
This is what I hear:
piss moan whine Don't take away my freedom
bitch piss moan You better not use this to take advantage of me
gripe bitch whine Oh no, the guy I didn't want for President gets war time powers during war time
What I do not hear:
Members of congress here is a way to realize Civil Liberties AND the protection of world citizens
Mr President I wish to help, here are some possible solutions to the problem
I'm sorry people but if we are only going to bitch about what our government officials do and never give them workable ideas and solutions then shame on us.
And remember as Abraham Lincoln told us, we have a "government OF the people, BY the people FOR the people"
that statement requires your active partitcipation not just you criticisms.
Please be patient, I'm a work in progress! --Alan Jackson
...the US government does.
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
I've ranted on this very same topic. Flame on!
"Land of the free? -- On Terrorism, Cryptography and Freedom in the aftermath of WTC"
Belief is the currency of delusion.
But we do not have to blindly unite behind anything some politician proposes just because he or she assumes the mantle of supposedly honoring the dead. This goes far beyond renewded calls for restrictions on cryptography: carefully choreographed mass religious ceremonies, swarms of grief counsellors and child psychologists, and huge numbers of non-profits are milking this event for all they can. The shame is on Bush, many of our elected representatives, many of our supposed "spiritual leaders", nonprofit organizations, and the media, who are trying to use these horrific events and footage to increase their own power. And where taking advantage of the compassion and vulnerability of others fails, they spread irrational fear about future attacks, trying to use human fear where appealing to human compassion failed.
Don't fall for it. Recognize most of the aftermath of the attack for what is is: a shameless and reprehensible attempt to gain power from human tragedy, executed by people who know instinctively and explicitly how to manipulate human emotions for their own benefit.
What kind of civil liberties are we going to lose Mr Stallman?
I will gladly allow a computer to scan my face if it will deter terrorism and save lives. I will accept a change in wiretap laws which will give the government the rights to tap the phones of a person rather than a single device. That is all Ashcroft is asking. Currently once law enforcement is given the permission to tap a phone such as a cell phone that order is for that phone only. Criminals know this and as long as they get new phones or a new number daily they are always one step ahead of the law.
Once we have a full fledged war on our hands each and every one of us is going to have to get used to a change in lifestyle. That is something I as an American am prepared to live with. We have the chance here to eliminate terrorism forever, but in order to do so we have to make a sacrifice. If that means searching my bags when I fly, or checking my ID 3 or 4 times while I am in line I can live with that. If that means my email has the potential to be scanned then so be it. I have nothing to hide, why should I let it bother me?
I'd much rather give up a little "privacy" than to watch my wife and child fall ill and die to a biological attack which was planned and executed without knowledge because people are afraid of what big brother might do with the knowledge of who's on their instant messenger friends list.
It is sad that our freedoms and way of life have been attacked. Maybe someday they can be restored, but until then we must accept change or accept the status quo and continue to live in fear.
'Same speed C but faster'
Actually, its true. Sorry Bush Boys, and don't get me wrong-Al Gore is a stooge-but throwing away thousands of demo votes for being late and allowing the Repubs that were late( yes that really happened) does not an ELECTED president make. The Court de facto SELECTED him by disallowing Als court arguements....Doesn't really matter though. We are all in deep shit, you might as well forget how your life used to be, cause its not ever going to be the same and if we don't all end up dying from the fallout this attack has caused, I'll be surprised..........
you don't have the freedom to carry an uzi onto a commercial airline flight.
We don't have theat freedom because people like you gave it away for a sense of "security." Had any of the passengers been armed, the terrorists would have failed. What comeback do you have for that, Mr. reactionary Knee Jerk Nanny State Advocate?
Like most everyone else around here I too am worried about the lose of our civil liberties. However; I fail to see that the use of some systems (read facial recognition) in airports and at customs check points is an out and out lose.
.01% I do not see a problem with their limited use.
Incorrect usage of this technology is definatley a scary thing. I would not want to be pulled a sided and charged with a crime because a computer thought I was someone else. However; the use of such technology in places like airports and sports stadiums is a very directed use. We can make a choice of wheteher or not we want to pay for a ticket and subject ourselves to the software at the airport or at the superbowl. I really find this less disturbing then being used in public squares.
Measured uses of some technologies could prove helpful. The important thing is to prevent this from becoming a police state. If these cameras can provided an error rate of less the
As to wire tapping laws being proposed. It seems like common sense to me that a wire tapping warrant should follow an individual and not a phone. The person is the one suspected of commiting a crime not the phone. Yet we handcuff the police agencies to only being able to tap a single phone. That does not make much sense.
"It is much easier to apologize than to get permission." -- Grace Hooper
The Enduring Power of Stupidity
During the past five days I have read many essays. To me, all of them have missed a fundamental underlying point.
There are two basic forces in the world: Intelligence and stupidity. Human intelligence generally is creative, and has the potential to enhance our lives. Stupidity almost always is destructive.
A month ago, the power of stupidity was demonstrated on a routine basis when our president made an "ethical decision" that scientists should destroy small clumps of human cells by throwing them away, instead of using them in research to eradicate terrible diseases. This stupidity was justified by misinterpreting an archaic book of primitive myths.
During the half-century that I have been alive, I've seen many similar examples of stupidity depriving us of the fruits of intelligence. Random examples include the misapplication of Marxism, the Vietnam war, the cold war, dismantling the US manned space program, eco-alarmism, and the war on drugs.
No doubt every person has some favorite examples to add to this list.
At the dawn of the 21st century, when Y2K was averted by a lot of smart people doing intelligent things to prevent the paralysis of modern society, I started to hope that intelligence was finally gaining an edge over stupidity. Here I am now, using a digital computer that not only facilitates my creativity as a writer, but also revolutionizes my ability to create music, videos, or graphics. Its connectivity has changed my entire working and social life. Its power has been almost totally beneficial, and it promises still greater benefits in the future.
Computational molecular biology has the potential to eradicate all hunger and disease. Ultimately computational power should enable us to manipulate matter itself, enabling a new era of unlimited wealth while eliminating side effects such as pollution and global warming. We may also defeat death: I may die, but I believe my daughter has a chance to achieve biological immortality.
At least, I used to believe this, until last Tuesday. On Tuesday I saw that stupidity still trumps intelligence. Those hijacked airplanes were an amazing feat of intelligent engineering, making the miracle of flight not only safe but universally accessible. The World Trade Center was a brilliantly innovative piece of architecture. Yet a handful of thugs armed with box cutters destroyed those fruits of intelligence within a few hours. The thugs, of course, were acting in accordance with their stupid misinterpretation of yet another archaic book of primitive myths.
Regulatory stupidity facilitated the terrorist acts. According to the Washington Post, FAA regulations have always permitted knives up to 4 inches long on domestic flights, and all cockpit doors on all airplanes can be opened with the same master key. In any case, the doors are flimsy enough to be kicked open. At least 14 times since 1998, drunk or disturbed passengers have tried to force their way into airplane cockpits. They succeeded on 6 occasions. In 1999, a passenger on All Nippon Airways fatally stabbed a pilot.
Thus, this country has pursued an aggressive, punitive foreign policy that was guaranteed to create enemies, yet took only cosmetic steps to protect its own citizens in a situation of notorious vulnerability. Worse, in the future, passengers will remain vulnerable (instead of being allowed access to tools of nonlethal self-defense such as tasers), while the foreign policy will become more aggressive, thus creating still more enemies.
I'm old enough to remember how the unfettered, turbulent creativity of the 1960s dissipated in the ugly stupidities of a war in southeast Asia. I fear now that the incredible technological creativity of the past decade may be derailed by some equally stupid, unwinnable war in another remote, hostile country, causing socioeconomic chaos at home.
I feel a great, overwhelming melancholy. The wonderful smart innovations in the past decade have empowered us in so many ways, yet we are still impotent compared with the techno- illiterates who claim a mandate to act stupidly on our behalf.
The terrorists with box cutters, and the militants in the U.S. government, share two traits. They exercise power indiscriminately, and show no great love for technology. In fact, I believe they are hostile to it because they see how its intelligence threatens them.
Their fear is justified. In the long term, I still believe that technology will eclipse dumb political power and render it obsolete.
Alas, I no longer believe that I will see this happen within my lifetime.
--Charles Platt
Sun, 16 Sep 2001
_ _ _ _
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
I mailed this letter to my representative and senators today:
As a registered voter in your district, I am writing to you regarding
the disaster that so suddenly focused our nation's attention this past
Sept. 11. The most important work in the aftermath of this terrible
attack is to care for the survivors and mourn for the departed, and
furthermore to track down and punish those responsible for the
attack. I encourage any efforts along these lines. However, I am
also concerned about other issues.
In particular, I wish to draw to your attention to the potential for
unnecessary legislative assault on personal freedom in the United
States in the coming weeks and months. There is the worrisome
possibility that new laws will be passed and signed in the name of
national security, applying less than a prudent or usual amount of
scrutiny to negative effects. Historically, such laws have proven
difficult to repeal, making their passage even less desirable.
An example lies in the misguided call for a ban on the use of
encryption for electronic mail, because terrorist Osama bin Laden is
known to make use of encryption. Proponents of such a ban obviously
mean well, intending to make it more difficult for terrorists to
communicate. They do not understand that such software is freely
available from many sources throughout the world, not just within the
United States, so a ban would have no practical effect on availability
of encryption, and even if bin Laden were prevented from using
encryption, his organization would many other options for secure
communication.
In addition, encryption has many legitimate uses. Electronic mail
sent unencrypted is easily read and intercepted by a third party
without the knowledge of sender or recipient, in the same way that
information written on a postcard can be read as it passes through the
postal system. Encryption is the only practical way for ordinary
citizens to provide basic security against tampering that a simple
paper envelope provides for paper mail. This in itself is enough
reason to allow and even promote the use of encryption, but there are
many other positive uses, as illustrated in books such as Schneier's
Applied Cryptography.
In summary, I encourage you now in this time of crisis to consider
bills on their merits and pay close scrutiny to negative effects on
individual liberty, in the careful same way that you would do so at
any other time. Do not be allow yourself to be swayed by hysterical
(but understandable) reactions to the magnitude of the present
disaster. As Benjamin Franklin once said, ``They that can give up
essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety.'' When the safety in question is in fact
illusory, this adage is even more applicable.
Sincerely,
Ben Pfaff.
If various government agencies DON'T have the ability to track people, see what they are doing, who they talk to, how they spend their money, then they are not going to be able to track terrorists or would-be ones. What does it matter if they track you??
First off, there are millions of people in the US, and at best, government agencies only have a couple of hundred thousand employees (eg. FBI, law enforcement etc), so the fear of them tracking everyone is just plain stupid. Secondly, some of the stuff they've requested makes sense, like wire taps on people rather than equipment, just helps them speed up the investigations in real time. A judge is going to have to provide them with permission for starters, so they'll have to have a reason to suspect you, so if you've got relatives that are up to no good, go turn them in, or you might get followed
Third, so what, if the FBI suspect you and use your use of GnuPG as a reason to follow you, whats the harm in that? They can sit there and listen to you talk on the phone, follow you to the grocery store, record what you bought and follow you home. Sure it might be annoying if you notice them, just wave, and say hello.
Have you actually ever dealt with law enforcement people? They are usually pretty helpful, provided you co-operate, and well people who don't cooperate are either (a) criminals or (b) stupid, just like the same folks who run from police. Just chill out and worry about slightly more important things than your political agenda, go play with your goats or something..
There are plenty of people in government who won't let things over step their mark, i would be more worried about laws on technologies that prevent open source being implemented for profit^H^H^ security purposes.. such as that DMCA sequel mentioned a few weeks ago.
slashdot.. you really need to stop posting the ravings of lunatics and madman!!
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
Likewise, since human face recognition has not eliminated civil liberties in America, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would do so. So what's the big deal?
Perhaps a better argument is that current face recognition technology sucks, and almost certainly would NOT have helped in this situation.
Although the premise of RMS's comments are a good(probably unpopular) position and one that I somewhat agree with, I am highly pissed at his comments that refer to the previous election. I quote:
"Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, know that you don't want your civil liberties to become the terrorists' next victim."
No matter what happened and what you believe President Bush is president. It doesn't matter if you supported him or not. He is the president and by that simple fact he deserves unswerving support. If you dont like him, simply wait for the next election and vote accordingly. Do not behave like a 3 year old and make snide remarks at his legitimacy. I hope RMS is ashamed of himself. I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around, so I hope he gets what he deserves.
As for the encryption issue, I do believe that in the end the Congress will do the right thing, and If for some reason they do not, I will use my power of a vote accordingly.
Stipulating that all encryption technologies should include backdoors can be counter-productive.
For one thing, foriegn governments and agencies will be far less keen on making use of encryption technology developed in the US. They will develop their own technology bypassing these restrictions.
And for another - there is already a lot of free encryption tools in the market without these backdoors and these are available world wide - The usage of these will increase.
I presume you're talking about American in some
sense other than the literal, as by the normal value
of the term, sentiments/viewpoints are not capable
of being citizens/people. What exactly do you
mean when you use the term in this way then? Is
this sense of "American" synonymous with
patriotism? Is it synonymous with freedom-loving?
Is it synonymous with hypocriticality? Define your
terms.. Anyhow, in case you mean patriotism, you're
naming an incredibly evil force throughout history,
with very few, if any, good aspects. If that's
what the term means to you, then in that sense,
I oppose Americanism, just as I oppose any other
kind of nationalism.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
with the main points of the article but am saddened to see the quip at the end.
Stuff like that only baits flames and takes away from the more serious issues which are then easily ignored.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
Like a lot of people, I feel that RMS has in the past acted irrationally and stupid, but this is a wellwritten (meaning short) article about a very real problem. Go girl!
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
This is getting old fast. At least put something other than that tired phrase and your signature in the friggin post.
Tolerance of differing opinions is what made the USA a great nation. I'll admit to being a bit ashamed of those who don't recognize the "minority" views on this as legitimate. I disagree with a national "day of prayer" (because I'm an athiest), and I'm "unamerican." I disagree with the piling on of unnecessary and ill-conceived laws to rob me of my liberty and enrich some bogus software maker, and I'm supposed to be "ashamed." I was called a communist yesterday for disagreeing with the assertion that war is our only option. I prefer the term "fundamentalist pacifist."
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War.
Congress worked very hard to pass a resolution that wasn't the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Indeed, the thing that most impressed me about Congress during this whole thing was that vote. They said, in effect, "We support our President and the leadership he is giving, but we will not abandon our duty to the American people or to the Constitution by handing off our responsibilities to him."
I haven't been following the actions of the supposed control conspiracy too closely in the last week, but if Stallman can't even get it right on a major, out in the open, published and discussed on every major news outlet in the world Congressional resolution, I dare say I feel rather safe assuming for the time being that he's got no clue about anything else that's happened in the last week either.
Somebody mod this guy up.
It says "Human rights" not "Constitutionally guaranteed rights". Human rights are supposedly not in any way restricted to the US.
BTW the constitutionally guaranteed rights are not the same for a visitor in the US as for US Citizens.
... for possible terrorist activities.
Detecting when they're going in a plane is a big deal, don't you think ?
- sigs are for wimps.
I have been waiting to hear public outcry about the restrictions of freedoms that the media says are coming. I've been waiting to find a voice that I can point to who would say, "Hey, restricting freedoms, temporarily in order to catch a criminal might be ok, but permanantly restricting freedoms is a problem." I've been waiting to read someone who points out that permanantly removing the freedoms afforded to US citizens puts those citizens in physical danger. A danger created by the risk of a government with too much power attempting to suppress or remove its detractors. I've been waiting to hear the voice of a sensible public figure stand up and say that destroying the freedoms that define america, by definition destroys america. And in doing so is a bigger threat to the safety of US citizens than any terrorist network. I've been waiting for someone to quote, much more loudly than I can, Benjamin Franklin who said that those of us who insist on security over freedom, will have, nor deserve neither.
I had hoped that RMS would provide the public voice I'd been waiting for.
It's too bad that he had to discredit all of his legitimate arguments with one tiny little phrase: "and your unelected president". I have little doubt that RMS sincerely believes the cheap shot, but it has nothing to do with what he's talking about. All he did was make his strong arguments no more valuable than his cheap shot.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
obviously, you seem to know all about the surveillance in the United States. You seem very well informed.
Your arguments are not really the point of the discussion here, because what Mr Stallman says, is that there will be some kinds of institutional, legally approved, centralized systems for watching people.
This is a lot different of your small local cameras in the store on the next block. Currently, no institution should be able to handle mass observation, because the resources and technical means for this are not in the responsability of ONE institution.
that's the point.
and not you being recorded while holding your wife's hand in the foodstore.
If you like the currently discussed stuff at US institutions, then take a backpack with all the stuff you need and move out to sth like china.
if liberty is no concern for you, buzz off.
regards,
paul
I am of Asian Indian descent. I was born in the United States and, thus, am a citizen.
I was driving and ran a yellow light in metro Washington, DC. Unluckily, a police pulled me over and proceeded to interrogate me with questions:
50: "Which are you from?"
me: "America."
50: "I mean where were you born?"
me: "America."
50: "I mean where are your parents from?"
me: "....."
I agree with RMS in that the Incident somehow gives law enforcement officials to question everyone based on racial stereotypes and profiles. It is as if we have rolled back all progress.
-ac
I am sorry that I am left with no other term to describe Richards letter the BULLSHIT. How many times can he trapse out his personal opinions and try to pass them out as FACTS?!?!
"Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help"
Whats does he hope to accomplish with a lie like this. Is he telling me that he can keep a database of 50,000 known terrorists and felons in his head? Let's come to terms with the honest truth. Richard no one gives a damn about what is in your email. I am a network manager and many a time I have been forced to go through peoples emails and I can tell you it is the singel most boring thing a person can be made to do.
The only people who should be afraid of this are people who need to be afraid. And people like you are handing them their safety on a silver platter.
Benjiman Franklin said that anyone who choses security over liberty deserves neither. And many people would hold this as their flag for their cause. I would ask you what have YOU lost becase someone has taken a picture of you? Did they interupt your way of life? Did they stop you from doing anything?
One last note. I must admit that when I was 18 years old I was arrested for the murder of three men. I was stopped on the street by 6 police officers, patted down, hancuffed at gunpoint and arrested and finger printed. This all happened becase they thought I LOOKED like their suspect. I was released after being held for two hours. Had they been using the Face it software that would never would have happend. This is protecting your security!!!
If you would like to discuss this further please email me at sfnet@hotmail.com
If you've ever jaywalked, sped 1 mph over the limit, had less than 10ft per 10mph spacign between traffic, had mudflaps off your car, driven with a broken tail light, misrepresented your level of professional skill (or incompetence) you've broken one law or another - sometimes conflicting - and are thus a criminal.
Monitoring terrorists and monitoring people who MIGHT be terrorists are very very different things. The first is a few thousand, the latter is everyone.
Where are all the Slashdot Libertarians? The majority of posters during last year's political fracas claimed to be Libertarians, but all the posts I'm reading are reactionary.
f ic ials_aware_in_1998_of_trainingP.shtml
2 .h tml
America hasn't felt this vulnerable since WWII, but the current politicians' answers are no different than they were in the paranoia of the 50s. There is no need for more massive intelligence, just better organization and focus of the current system.
The Boston Globe has an article showing that the US government knew terrorists were training in US flight schools from as early as 1990. The government just didn't guess what the terrorists might end up doing with their training. That's just plain dumb.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/258/nation/Of
(take out the space)
The NYTimes has an editorial that explains how the Bush administration's requests for more unfettered intelligence is not necessary & won't help. Before all you reactionary types start complaining about the NYTimes being liberal, the editorial page editor is a conservative liked by Bush & William Safire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/17/opinion/17MON
And yes, his economic policy is BS. Ask an economist. Ask the Japanese.
This is not the time or the place to debate this, and I really don't want to get into it, but let me just say this: Consider that tax cuts CAN and HAVE stimulated economies. Reasonable people can disagree on policies, but don't dismiss tax cuts out of hand as a very powerful stimulus.
P.S. Never trust an economist on macroeconomic policy. :)
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I read these threads and what I see is fear.
Isnt that what terrorists want? Terror?
Fear of death, murder and fear of loosing civil liberties.
Everybody has views, that is why we are a diverse people.
That is why we invented Democracy, to let people VOTE. Why dont they take an opionion poll of the people on what measures should be taken?
Isnt that what democracy is about?
My greatest fear is loosing someone that I love and my own life. All that needs to be taken is a balanced approach that is appropriate for the level of threat.
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
the law says the electoral votes make the decesion. i don't see a problem here.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Are already in those databases. Why do you think they want kids fingerprinted? It sure as hell isnt in case they're kidnapped - there's no way the kidnapper is going to bring the kid by the station for a fingerprint check after all.
NYC took DNa samples from everyone arrested for any charge, convicted or not for a period of about 8 months last year before a lawsuit temporarily stopped it. Those records are certainly in the federal bureacracy now - accessabel by the FBI.
What isn't usually stated well is why FR systems tend to be a poor choice. Such systems are brought out, touted as the "solution to the problem". They are anything but...
These systems do not match a face to a person, but rather they match a face to information about a person.
Information stored in a database.
Information that can be altered.
Information that can be wrong.
This is the problem with all of these systems that match biometric data to information in a database (whether it be a signature or a face). Because these systems match certain characteristics (biometrics) of a person, with possibly erroneous information in the database, such systems can ultimately be used to persecute innocent people.
This persecution may be innocent due to bad data (a case of "garbage in, garbage out"), or malicious, due to purposefully changed data. Those using the system may or may not be aware of such changes, and because of the attitude of "it is in the computer, and the computer can't be wrong, right?", they don't tend to question the issue.
Such "mis-identifications" occur regularly with credit reports and credit bureau databases, and these don't even utilize biometrics! What will happen when they do?
Want to know more? Check out the book Database Nation...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I believe you're thinking about Eric Raymond's comments, not Richard Stallman's.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
From Neal Boort'z site
I have been saying for years that Americans are, by and large, increasingly willing to trade freedom for security. Now - with the arrival of terrorism on our shores - that willingness may increase.I've lost count of the national leaders, Gephardt, Daschle, Lott, Brokaw, Jennings and others who have talked of our need to give up some of our freedoms for a little increased security. Ronald Reagan had an answer for that. He said that there was no "s" on "freedom." It is indivisible. You're either free, or you're not.
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
The full on totalitarian society is actually the height of insecurity and the height of chaos. Yes, giving up a little bit of freedom can give you a little bit more security, but we're already way past that. From here on out, it only gets worse.
...Are the ones who are complaining about RMS.
... "Excuse me, sir, but your YOUTH is showing"
I thought that there would be good discussion here...that's what I get for *thinking*, I suppose...(!!!)
Hey kiddies, learn to take things for what they are...and to not let your own inflated sense of worth and "itellectualisticism" get in the way. You're so busy trying to show how *smart* you are, that you fail to see what you are really doing -- don't you know that deconstructionism was *disproved* last CENTURY? It isn't anaysis, it is simply an excuse for not having an education. And being able to write in "C" is not a degree in PolySci.
KUDOS to those who posted in support of Richard, after all the children and the flakes got through kissing each other's butts. Let's see how far they'd get with Micro$oft, without Stallman's GNU software, and his GPL license.
--
[[Is that tagline sexist? Are there any women involved in this free-for-all? Women generally have more CLASS than to be involved in this sort of thing, or so it seems generally...]]
Many in the enforcement community are using the war as an excuse to ask for things they wanted.
And they wish to remove our constitutional rights, for our citizens.
Wiretaps for immigrants or people here on visas - ok, maybe I'll buy that.
But for American citizens - get thee behind me, Hitler!
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Do you think now that we have utterly failed in the drug war we could perhaps stop the insanity? This way we can at least get some of our freedom back and we can reassigned the focus of the DEA to terrorism instead of racism, I mean drug arrests.
Cat Jesus
So, because we knew these people's real names from the flight manifest, we don't need facial recognition for this case. What are they going to do, restrict someone from boarding thier plane because thier face triggered an alarm, I don't think so. So, facial recognition doesn't really matter, the hijackers all died, we aren't going to file suit against a dead person are we?
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
What is ridiculous is this whole "war on terrorism". Yeah like you can actually use cruise missiles against a bunch of people scatered around the world. Bombing Afghanistan will not kill Bin Laden, just a bunch of poor people. Beside, after the war with the Soviets and the civil war, there's hardly anything left to bomb in there anyway. They'll just make the rumble bounce.
The war on terrorism is the ideal blanket for another dictatorship to happen. Everyone can be a terrorist, especially everyone who does not conform to the norm. 1984, here we go !
The only way to have true peace is to
defend true liberty. The terrorists don't
care about our buildings and victims. They
care about destroying a way of life.
Just as the buildings collapsed within the
hour, the terrorists intend for our open
society to collapse inward into a police
state after this shock. Don't let it happen.
I thought the article was quite well written and thought out until...
The snide comment on "your unelected president."
Let's get a few things straight:
- Presidents are *NOT* elected by popular vote, regardless of what Mr. Gore, et. al. would have you believe.
- Presidents *ARE* elected by the Electoral College. President Bush won the Electoral College.
Whether you think Mr. Bush stole the election or not is immaterial now. I for one, believe Mr. Gore tried to steal it with various shenanigans. That belief is also immaterial.
Mr. Bush *IS* the President Of The United States! Deal with it, move on, and quit whining about the election. It is over!!!! We have much more important things to deal with now.
... is that some people actually think we should do something like this. I see nothing in here that convinces me that anything said here is even remotely realistic or true...
That I give a flying shit about what Stallman has to say.
There is a big difference between acceptable government policy during wartime and peacetime. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary methods.
During Roman times, the Senate would elect a dictator in times or war or natural disaster. This system worked for centuries.
During the American Civil War, the writ of habeaus corpus was recinded and bills of attainder were permitted.
We should be pushing the government to make WARTIME changes to civil rights laws and policy. When our enemies are vanquished, we return to the status quo.
Try reading Benjamin Franklin's writing besides that single quote. He would agree with me.
(c) Copyright 2001 duffbeer703
Copying, Moderating and other use of this Post is strictly prohibited without purchase of a posting licensing agreement.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I immediatly thought of all the communications freedoms that would disappear.
We now see carnivore chomping down, proposed crypto backdoors, universal evasedrop warrents and other direct freedoms disappear. We are also seeing that the CIA propose re-entering the "dirty game". This attack has done more than physical damage on the USA.
RMS' article lost credibility when he wrote: Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. That is an extremely ignorant and misinformed statement for multiple reasons. I'll only mention the computer database knows more faces and that not all humans are adept in this area.
RMS' article is also internally inconsistent: Searches of people or baggage for weapons, as long as they check only for weapons and keep no records about you if you have no weapons, are just an inconvenience; they do not endanger civil liberties. The facial recognition data can also not be recorded unless there is a match with a known threat.
RMS means well, but others do a far better job than he.
How is facial recognition at an airport (or any place where security is of the utmost importance) any sort of an infringement on anyones civil liberties? Show me where it says that airline passengers have the "civil liberty" to remain anonymous when boarding an aircraft. It is a federal regulation to show proper ID when boarding a plane. Unfortunately this is easilly circumvented (fake ID, airport drone simply goes through the motions) Using a computer system to facilitate an identity check is no different as far as civil liberties are concerned.
The statement "...there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help." is just plain ignorant. If the USPS can use OCR to identify the addresses scribbled all over the letters we send much more effectively and efficiently than a handful of workers ever could, why the hell would you think this COULDN'T work in an airport?
I have to admit I don't know much about the accuracy of a facial regognition system. But if that is the issue, why not go all out and require ALL passengers to go through a retina or fingerprint scan. Require passports on domestic flights. "You wanna fly, get a passport complete with ret scan" No one is forcing you to get on a plane.
Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
I think the point is that the electoral votes were never properly counted. The federal gov't is not (constitutionally) supposed to control the granting of electoral votes. There are clear constitutional procedures for handling uncertain elections, and they do not involve the Supreme Court.
Putting liberty above all else is the reason the United States exist; indeed it's the only difference between government and mafia. If you have citizenship, you are unworthy of it.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offenses:
FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to Levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Signed by ORDER and in BEHALF of the CONGRESS,
JOHN HANCOCK, PRESIDENT.
ATTEST.
CHARLES THOMSON, SECRETARY.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
One nitpick:
Bush *did* ask for unlimited powers to fight terrorism, now and in the future. Congress laughed at him. The bill that was passed gave him permission to deal with this tragedy only. He doesn't have a blank check with regard to use of force.
More people voted for Gore than for Bush. It's only because of the state representation system that Bush won. And it's quite likely that he wouldn't have even won that way were it not for some awfully shady mucking around. So, as he said, we have an unelected president.
It's true that nothing is to be gained in Stallman's letter by pointing it out. But I don't see why anything is lost by it. I thought it was funny.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Those who would give up civil liberties for tempory safety deserve niether. ~Benjamin Franklin
We should not give up our liberties so quickly. We would be cheating all the men and women who have fought so fiercely to protect and expand our liberties as we would also be cheating our future generations out of theirs. Where would we be now if our past citizens had not stood up for their liberties so that we can enjoy ours, think about the future. If I were to die in a terrorist attack I would not want others to cherish my memory and loss by stripping themselevs of their freedoms. After all then the terrorists would have won, wouldn't they?
Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
Maybe he's not commenting on Bush at all.
Maybe he is referring to the as yet "unelected president," who will come from the ranks of the (currently) "elected representatives" whom we should contact. And that we should be sure to contact him or her too, you know, while we're contacting the other elected...
Owwwwwwwww!
I think I pulled something.
"Because I love Pat Benatar." -- Britney Spears, when asked why she covered Joan Jett's "I Love Rock 'n' Roll"
I didn't vote for Bush, but I recognize him as my elected president, especially now.
... creative, to say the least.
I do not recongnize him as my elected president because, in fact, he was not elected, he was appointed by the supreme court in a series of legal contortions that were
However, as much as I may disagree with that decision, and have been opposed to Bush in the past (and, for that matter, remain opposed on numerous issues), I do recognize him as our lawful president.
*chuckle* I'll have to remember that, it's quite amusing.
And COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE in this context.
I agree. This is a time for unity and clear purpose. Though we can, and should, fight the government when it tries to take advantage of such situations to peel away our civil liberties, we should also remain steadfast in supporting our government in the war effort against the human filth that aided, abbetted, supported, planned, ordered, and carried out the atrocities in New York last week.
Until such a time as another person is elected president Bush Jr. is and remains our legitimate and lawful president and commander-in-chief, and in a time like this most especially deserves the respect that office entitles him to.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
That damn Electric Company! If those bastards didn't sell the terrorists juice to run their computers, which they brought home from the store over our public highway system, plugged into the telephone company's lines, used some ISP to connect to the internet to send email (encrypted or not). Hey, the guys even flushed shit down our public sewage system, so it contributed in some way to assisting them in planning their deeds.
Don't be so silly, if you are going to blame the internet, blame the DOT, the phone company, the sewage company and the grocery store that sold them food while they were studying at whatever flight school. Reactions will ping-pong back and forth for a while, but you don't have to be one of the over-reactionists if you don't want to.
Dark Days A Plenty
...
(shamelessly reprinted without permission)
by Mark Driver
Rotten. Fucking rotten. That's all I'm feeling in the wake. My stomach's the size of a walnut, and my mind is gray and gooey, like a big dumb oyster. Unresponsive. I haven't felt like doing much of anything since Tuesday. Even smiling makes me feel guilty. Tuesday was the most horrible day I've ever lived, and days later I'm still not shaking this feeling of sick. I'm bummed to the core.
I had been up drinking until 4 in the morning before, so when my mom called five times in a row around 7am P.S.T. on Tuesday, I was not polite or pleasant as my face hit the receiver. "It's fucking seven o'clock in the morning!" I screamed into the phone, assuming she was the East Coast salesperson from CRW that liked to call at six or seven in the morning and tell me about exciting deals from the company that I bought an infrared mouse from like three years ago and had been getting hounded by ever since.
"Well, sorry," my mom said, snippy and pissed, "I just thought you'd want to witness history." She hung up on me. I rubbed my pulsing head and squinted through dry eyes, trying not to get too awake. I turned on the television just in time to see the second tower of the World Trade Center collapse. I tried to shake the muck from my skull, tried to comprehend what was happening. Click. Click. Click. Bang!
"Yo, girl!" I shouted into the bedroom. "Get up! Get yer skinny ass outta bed!"
I've had a really good run of not caring about "Big News Events", because they always seem staged, wrapped in manipulation, every camera shot teeming with vampires just out of the picture, using whatever tragedy it was to further whatever cause they were always schlepping around town.
On Tuesday, the initial reporting was black and white, fact-based, straight-up reporting on the awful situation. The eyes of anchorpeople were grim and frantic. Their guests were speechless. The anti-septic news fa\xe7ade was broken and everyone looked and sounded just like regular human beings. But as the initial shock wore off, the networks got their graphics together and the politicians got their agendas in line.
There were some very bizarre things said. The CIA got to go first.
"We need more human resources in our worldwide surveillance networks. We need informants. It's dirty work. This is a dirty business and in gathering information we are forced to deal with some not so nice people. Congress must understand and accept this." All fine and well, but do I need thirteen different officials reading the SAME EXACT WORDS from the memo pulled off their fax machine five minutes before the interview?
Other phrases I heard:
"America is a different country now." Oh, and I suppose we need a new Constitution too.
"America has lost her innocence." Um, I'm not sure if you can call a global superpower, the only country to have ever dropped nuclear bombs 'innocent', but I'll go along with it for now.
"How many civil liberties are Americans now willing to give up in the wake of these attacks?" Um, well, I'll be willing to wait in long lines at the airport. That's about it. Thanks for asking.
Then there was the Congressional dipshit who said with a straight face, "this just underscores the need for a national missile defense system."
"But could a missile defense system have stopped this attack?" asked the interviewer.
"I think it's too early to tell," the Congressman said, keeping that straight face.
A man in a blue suit said, "we must be patriotic. And selling all your stocks when the markets re-open is certainly not patriotic. All real patriots will know not to dump their holdings out of fear." Um, OK. I thought that patriotism was something else. Apparently it's a financial term. I stand corrected.
In a brilliant display of foreign policy analysis, Taliban-esque Jerry "Jerk Me Off" Falwell and Pat "I'm a Koala" Roberson blamed the terrorist attacks on God's displeasure with the ACLU, pro-lifers, feminists, and homosexuals. No shit. Now I certainly don't have the life experience of a man who has slept with prostitutes, nor do I have the bedrock ethics of a man who stole a religious broadcasting business from his trusting partner, but I'd imagine these guys would be hard pressed to find a problem in the U.S. that wasn't directly tied to the homosexual agenda. Budget crisis? Homosexual agenda. Fall in wheat prices? Homosexual agenda. Scrapped NASA launches? Homosexual agenda. That's quite a sexy worldview, huh?
And then there was our President who scampered around like a scared chimp all day Tuesday and then tried to explain his skittishness away on Wednesday. Like yer one friend who hides in the corner during a bar brawl and stands up after the fighting's over saying something like "I was looking out for the police." Apparently, uh, Air Force One was in threat of being, er, hit midair by amateur pilots in 757s, so while the entire country wracked itself with spasms of fear and uncertainty, the leader of the free world was hiding underground, watching Home Alone II, eating imported spumoni, and getting back massages from his handlers. And when he did finally emerge from the safety of his bunker, he was not reassuring. I wasn't relieved or impressed. I was nervous he was gonna say something stupid. Luckily he kept to his platitudes and pronounced his simple words correctly. I suppose that's all we can ask of the guy. (Conspiracy note: Has anyone actually seen Dick Cheney since it all began?)
Back to the tragedy. Not like you need to hear it from me, but IT'S SO FUCKING AWFUL! Total bullshit. And the stupidest thing that these terrorists could have done. What a bunch of rednecks.
Yes, rednecks. Think about it. Rural kids, all pumped up about God and Country, easily manipulated by Men With Big Plans. OK, maybe they're against blue jeans and booze, but they're also against women with jobs and the toleration of those with outsider beliefs. They site the crumbling of religious values as the basis for the downfall of their society. They live in isolated, economically poor communities. They are so filled with God's love, they want to kill for him. Provincials that smell like piss, fed this warped world view that every American is a die-hard supporter of Israel and a ardent hater of Arabs. You swap some enemies around, and what you've got is a good ol' fashioned redneck.
I'd say that most Americans didn't really think about Arab issues at all until Tuesday. Your average factory worker probably hated Jews and Arabs equally and would have had a hard time forming an opinion as to which one he would cheer for. Well, those who didn't have an opinion certainly do now. And those who were supporters of the Palestinians and Arab-rights are suddenly feeling what the Israelis have been feeling forthe past twenty years. Fair or not, guess how much public support Palestine's getting right about now
This is a truth. One we must face. America is an imperialist nation with economic interests all over the globe, willing to protect them by any means necessary. American Democracy, arrogantly enough, is only available to Americans. To protect our "interests" we have a long and depressing history of propping up unpopular dictator creeps all over this globe to exert control within the region and keep business scooting along as usual. Sound far fetched? Any idiot capable of locating the public library can look to our policy in Latin America, specifically in the countries of Nicaragua and El Salvador, and see why more than half the countries south of Florida would shoot an American on sight.
We even pulled this off in Iran with that stooge of a Shah in the1950's. CIA trained officers and British MI6 agents didn't like the fact that current Iranian president Mosaddeq was going to nationalize the oil industry and pull it from British and American control. So, they took him out of office and put in the Shah, a tyrannical ruler who clamped down in democratic Iran with a secret police force equally as repressive as the drooling moose of the Taliban. And then, in 1979, after nearly 25 years of bullshit, religious revolution kicked the Shah in the butt and the U.S. was uncordially shown to the door with more than a few hurt feelings. So then we gave arms to Iraq to fight Iran. And then Iraq became a formidable regional power. And then we had to fight Iraq. And now we have huge bases in Saudi Arabia. It all works out quite well. No wonder we have such high opinions of ourselves.
The main reason we're even involved in any of this Middle East business in the first place is the oil, the only reason we've cared about Israel from the beginning was because we needed a reliable oil foothold. In gaining that foothold we've made enemies, half of whom we spent the better part of many years arming with tanks and planes.
Combine this with our insane fear of Soviet Communism, the crazy loathing of the Russians evident even as their empire groaned and fumbled. Like in the war with Afghanistan that became their own Vietnam. Many of the Afghani solders who sent the Ruskies a' packin' are now leaders of the ruling Taliban. And where did you think the Taliban learned guerrilla fighting techniques? Where do you think International Supercrook Osama bin Laden learned to shoot his first AK-47? Not at the Learning Annex. Like the Contras, the CIA trained many Islamic fundamentalists in the fine art of warfare and improvised munitions, and then gave them plenty of military equipment to terrorize the Russians with. Well, guess who the Holy Warriors came after once Russians left? That's right, the U.S., the other world giant taking big, meaty dumps in their backyard.
We still exert economic influence over the region. This is why we are resented. They are not jealous of our lifestyle. They do not hate our freedom. They hate us.
What we are feeling now is the cost of doing business worldwide.
And I'm not saying this to kick America while it's down. I'm saying this because before we roll out the tanks, we need to take an honest look at ourselves, our place in the world, the reality that we are not this insulated happyland of freedom and success that official press releases say we are. We are a nation that has always struggled to balance commerce with ideals, a balance that has been completely out of whack of late. The insane quest for insane profit has outspent our decency, our ethics, our basic humanity. We've become a nation of businesspeople first, and living things second.
But not this week. This week is different. Look around you. People are actually being nice. Quiet. Thoughtful. Helping each other. Volunteering. Nothing like a war to give you some prospective.
Yes, war. Network hyperbole aside, America was attacked. But the America attacked was not the Government and it was not the President. As much as the news harped on about how safe the President was, I don't think many viewers cared that much about him. It was the people on the planes, the victims buried in the wreckage that they cared about. America is the people who are in New York City and Washington right now, above and below ground, doing whatever they can. It's the heroes who rushed the cabin of Flight 93 and crashed themselves in Pennsylvania. It's the shopkeepers who gave survivors and rescuers water and wine and sandwiches free of charge. It's the lines of blood givers, of tent donors, volunteers from neighboring states working unpaid 12 hour shifts. It is normal people who are pasted to their television sets, sickened to their stomachs, sad beyond anything they've felt. My best friend missed his own mom's funeral because of closed airports. Another friend, with two family members on the NYPD, spent all of Tuesday trying the phone, throwing up and crying. A woman I know living on the Lower East Side had to explain to her six year old kid about terrorism while trying to shield him from people jumping from 95th floor windows and disappearing
into clouds of dust. This is the America that was attacked. And this is the America that will retaliate.
When the military goes marching off, it will be with nearly the full screaming support of the American public. This has not been the case for many decades. The Gulf War was nothing more than a business venture and everyone knew it. It was fought with very limited public support. This war, however, will have across the board support, world wide support. Americans have been attacked on their soil, and now they want a fight.
Jesus, Afghanistan, do you really want a full-blown war with America? Are you that nuts? Do you know the most widely held virtue here is winning at all costs? Have you seen the lines of scary people waiting to sign up at the army recruiter? Do you really want to mess with these folks? Have you ever been to the South? Seen professional football? Do you know what our murder rate is like? We kill each other for fun in America, and you just gave a whole lot of bored maniacs something to do with the next four years of their lives. Our regular Armed Forces are scary enough, but it's the volunteers you're gonna have to look out for. These people play the lottery, eat seventeen pounds of ground beef daily, crush beer cans on their heads, and don't know there's a difference between Chinese and Japanese people. You really want them wandering around your country with bazookas?
Oh, man, Afghanistan. Just turn on the TV and see how doomed you are. They're cueing the reels of little kids saying
the pledge of allegiance. A seven year old is holding up a picture of his missing fireman father. A WWII vet is sitting in a
wheelchair with a flag in his hand. The camera is pulling in close on the President singing the Battle Hymn of the
Republic. The Battle Hymn of the Republic! YOU ARE SO FUCKED!
Think about it, it couldn't be more perfect. Here we sit, tottering on a horrible recession. Unemployment is way up. We have a military who has been begging for a real fight since the Gulf. We have an America who hasn't had a mission in a long time, an America floundering with the possibility that the last great frontier was to be completely colonized by multinational corporations. Not anymore. We've got marching orders now. All aboard!
Yes, 20 scrawny guys with patchy beards have just brought a world-sized posse led by Marshall Death into their remote country campgrounds. People from Moscow to Rome are tired of living in fear, of watching planes go down, of digging out from body bombs. They are spoiling for a fight too. It seems that Islamic terrorists haven't made too many friends in international circles over the years. The world is ready to bid them farewell.
And soon, when everything is in place, a warbling call from George W. will be made. "Strategical whooping will commensurate at once!" he will say, and the machines will proceed to begin killing with surgical accuracy, although I have a feeling there will be a few unintended targets hit every now and then like, oh, I don't know, every single standing building in Afghanistan. Yes, for the first time in sixty years, we have right on our side. We will be the good guys. And with righteousness on our side, there is no limit to the carnage we can create. There will be no restraint. You just wait and see.
And honestly, I'm all for it. I want blood. I want to see terrorists running through the desert with napalm in their beards. I want to see them pulling their brothers from the rubble. I want to see them frantically calling everyone they know in Kabul after a bombing run to see who's still alive. This is not kneejerk, this is not reptile brain, this is not armchair quarterback. This is revenge pure and simple. Politics and causes and motivations aside, these yahoos brought war to my doorstep. They are willing to spill my blood and the blood of others not involved in their little fights. These raccoon-eyed rednecks with a world-view the size of a third prize shoe-box diorama took their tiny ideas of how the world should be and used them to kill thousands of civilians. Caused real pain. To people I know. To people I don't know. They stabbed stewardesses to death with razor blades to draw pilots out of the cockpit. They crashed planes full of innocents into buildings full of more. They were funded and supported by nations who are now looking forward to Holy War with the U.S. We cannot hide behind 'violence is wrong' or 'give peace a chance' This goes beyond T-shirt ideology. This is for real. This is war. And like it or not, part of the battle field
will be your own village.
And soon, we will be walking their villages. With machine guns. Looking for people to burn. There will be brothers of firemen, of cops, of janitors, of pilots, roaring into their villages in desert vehicles smelling of diesel fuel and spent oil. These men will not be worrying about stooping to anyone's level. They will not give peace a chance. They, like me, will want to see ten thousand times the destruction in New York. And who can blame them?
Hell, I was so drunk and pissed Thursday night that if the Army Reserve Recruitment Office was open 24 hours I'd be carrying a machine gun right now. And this is coming from someone who opposes nearly every war the U.S. has ever fought, who thinks the American Way of Life has been co-opted into a shallow shell of embarrassing consumer selfishness, who would love to see a full Israeli pullout from the occupied territories, and is one hundred percent sickened by nearly every aspect of U.S. foreign policy for the past 200 years.
But I will not tolerate this shit in my neighborhood. They have brought it to me. I will cheer it back upon them a million fold.
And yet I hesitate. One thing that keeps me, and a lot of other cynics, from allowing myself to completely be lost in this mass mind of warfare is the track record of our warrior past. U.S. administrations have called upon our patriotism many times they shouldn't have, many times that they did not deserve it. They have exploited honest patriotism of American citizens to further their own political agendas, agendas that did not benefit human freedom or American idealism in any way. I was too young for Vietnam, but that was not a good war. The invasion of Panama was criminal. I have four buddies who fought in the Gulf and even they will tell you that they were 'just doing their job'. Yes, they love America and were proud to be soldiers and would certainly lay their lives down for the Army brother or sister fighting next to them, but that mission was one that did not hold their hearts.
And now, it finally seems like some patriotism is warranted. But I am so conditioned to the manipulation of good people towards bad ideas - people who trust too much and just want to do the right thing. And now it appears that right thing finally has come along, but the same old wolves are at the controls.
In this situation I must remember the ideals that this country were founded on. Freedom of speech. Freedom of action. Freedom from religion. I do believe in them. I would die for them. These ideals that form the basis of American Democracy are based in common sense, yet are inspirational beyond words. And even if we have been routinely led away from the sort of America that these ideals attempt to establish, they are there for us to come back to in times of tragedy. So I'm in. Let's go get the bastards.
Much of the opinion around the Middle East is that America is a cowardly nation who uses others to fight its wars, that it has grown soft and passive in its sinful Western decadence. I have a feeling that opinion is going to see a bit of a revision in the weeks to come.
If you were horrified to see them dancing in the streets, rest assured. Soon, they will have no legs.
PS - Seeing the world give their respects to the victims of this nightmare puts a fist sized lump in my throat. The rest of the world has been dealing with terrorism for decades that saw America mostly apathetic and untouched. These countries have compassion. They understand. I hope my fellow Americans will remember these scenes forever, and recall them whenever they start to say anything stupid about anyone who lives outside of these borders.
PPS - My friend Saiid (or the 'Lebanese Stallion' as we like to call him) has asked that people stop throwing bottles at him from moving cars. Saiid's not a terrorist, he's a Sagittarius. He has also requested at least a slowdown in the amount of telephoned death threats being called in to the Mosque his parents attend. His dad is an insane fanatic, but for the Seattle Mariners baseball team. His mom bakes a mean apple kataifi and serves it with a refreshing Lemon Yogurt-ade. If you see him, his folks, or any of his brothers, smile and say hi to them, OK? For me?
for you by the gun lobby.
The ineffectiveness of the laws, the stripping of constitutionally gauranteed freedoms. It is all the same.
If you are(were) for gun control- now you are feeling what it is like to be on the other side.
Want to write a good article on why losing civil rights wont help fight terrorists? Pick up just about any issue of an NRA publication.
I'll be written off as a gun nut-- but I tell you everything I read here, I have read before. They have squashed our constitutional right to carry when and where we want. Most of you stood idley by. Now they are moving on to another arena. Don't be surprised when most of America turns a deaf ear to your arguments- or brands you as radical nuts.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Specifics please. So far, the only thing that has been taken away is CONVIENCE at the airport. I have yet to see anything pass or proposed that will restrict free speech, free press, free assembly, freedom of movement, etc. Rise up and start showing some ACTUAL FREEDOMS BEING SQUASHED!
"A man is born gentle and weak.
At his death he is hard and stiff" Tao
In my eyes being so sure of oneself is, in itself, death.
It will not be a happy world when you walk into a store & the counter person smiles at you knowing the unknowing. Then going into the next store with the same results.
We are abandoning are senses. Giving it to those who seek convenience.
"Give me convenience or give me Death" The Dead Kennedies.
Trust a computer that is centralized, and you give the password to the country to those you fear. That is what they 'whoever they are' want.
By hastily going forward, in my experience means going backward.
By dependending on technology, we are at the mercy of it. (be it airplanes, computers)
The people who 1) Let knives on board the planeS.
2) Let foregieners learn just to fly & not land; Did they rely on technology to make decisions, themselves, or some other entity?
Any potential weapons should 1) not be shown
2) always be guarded.
Will we rejoice & more bombing of innocents? Will we become the monster of terror?
How many people let this happen with technology in place?
The easy way, in my experience is usually not the right way, but works until eventually broken.
I am not saying abandon the hunt. Increase it. Be like water.
Take away the technology & resources from people, who, in themselves, are weapons.
"War is conducted like a funeral" Tao
"When the country is ruled with severity, the people are cunning" Tao
"& strange things happen" Tao
Please let me know if you differ in these statements/questions.
I do not know about anybody else, but I am still in shock..
Leave it to slashdot to worry about silly things like this. Not to downplay the importance of our "liberties", but limited use of such technologies can certainly help. The specifics of how and where are up to debate.
About 5000 people are dead..but what about civil liberties? 5000 are dead. Perhaps more to come. Don't you want to live long enough to enjoy your liberty? Wouldn't you feel safer riding an airplane if you knew security at the airports is airtight?
People are going to use these new technologies whether you want them to or not- that is the bottom line. The best thing to do is educate yourself and have an idea of what to expect.
Interestingly enough, Congress unanimously supports the President. This is not the time for dissent.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
Is he serious? A person can probably only recognize a relatively low number of faces (in relation to world population). Does he really think that if you showed a check-in agent 1000 pictures of suspected hijackers, they would be able to recognize any of them given that they check in several thousand people per day (if not more).
A computer face recognition system could plow through many many more than that. I'm not saying such a system should be implemented blindy--there are obvious drawbacks to this type of system (wrongful accusation). I'm not even going to continue to type...this argument is pointless.
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
When I first read this, I thought the headline was "Stallman Dead, Thousands Survived."
But, seriously folks, I do think RMS ego is only slightly smaller than the Goodyear blimp.
As someone else pointed out earlier, no one really gives a flip what 99.99% of us email back and forth (including RMS.) If phone lines can legally tapped, why not emails (aside from the obvious technical reasons?)
opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, and most of them stink...
Seems to me that if US citizens were not stripped of their second ammendment rights when they step into an airport that this couldn't have happened.
Can you imagin if just 1/10th the passengers had handguns on them at the time of a hijacking? How many slugs would the hijacker have in him by the time he got one round off? Would hijackers even dare target aircraft?
Citizens arm yourselves - for the good of your country.
--- "1.21 Jigawatts!" -Doc
In areas of computation, where computers are provably faster and more reliable that human beings, its makes sense to use computers for tasks like payroll processing, weather forecasting, drug dosage administration, etc. When computers and image recognition software running on computers are empirically much worse than humans for facial recognition (not that humans are very good either, but they beat the pants off of a computer any day), why would you want to use such technology?
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
Mr. Stallman, and other commentators here, have fine points w/r/t civil liberties being compromised.
...)
One argument, however, is especially hard to swallow, esp. coming from a "software guy:"
RMS wrote:
"Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help."
Does this mean Mr. Stallman believes a baggage clerk can do as good a job as software can with matching a face to an entry on a list of offenders?
(I'll keep it on that level, and not get into why it seems in his view to be OK for the human agent to do run this check, but not a software one
S
... obviously a face recognition system is not the only solution, but a good improvement over the current system.
A solution doesn't have to be absolute for it to be implemented, and I just don't see what's wrong with doing a face scan before getting on the airplane.
Hey, rest assured, next time they might not use their own names. And once the system is in place, they'll need disguses. But whatever makes it more difficult, the better it is for the public.
- sigs are for wimps.
Why does USA always take the dumbest possible path they can find. It's never about thinking, doing something rational. It's always about brute force when something isn't right; it's either bombs or heavy restrictions.
Have you guys heard about guys like gandhi? no? I recommend you to read about people like him and spare a few cycles of brain power to try to grasp what he have to say, don't wast it on the FUD USA consist of.
Thank you and good night.
Here's my problem with face-recognition in public places: The basic premise of these systems is that there are bad guys out there who need to be caught. That premise is undoubtedly true. However, the task of facial-recognition systems is to point the camera indiscriminately at everybody all the time and ask the question "Is this the guy?"
The effect of this is that we are thus subject to suspicion hour-after-hour, day-after-day. We will be forced to prove we are innocent by submitting to inspection on a routine basis. There is findamentally no difference between this and having legions of police on every corner asking to see everyone's "papers" each and every day. The only difference is that now we have cold technology to carry out this dirty work instead of live people. Were real people tasked in this effort, eventually many would realize that such tactics were unnecessary and question both their effectiveness and necessity. Computer systems and software will have no qualms, and those behind these systems can surely NOT be trusted to do the right thing.
This is wrong. This is tyrrany. This is EXACTLY what our country has fought AGAINST in the past. It goes against EVERYTHING that we stand for. Such a scenario would be an insult to members of my family from past generations that have given their lives to prevent this sort of thing.
Fuck That and Anybody Who Dares Try to Pull it Off.
I don't have a problem with these systems being used in airports. The only reservation I have about this is that it becomes soooo much easier to deploy these tyrranical systems against the public at large once they have been given a trial run at airports around the world. Especially if they are effective. I am very, very afraid - and it's not fear of terrorists.
It's exactly this sort of crack that makes people dislike RMS. What does the election have to do with this?
This week the papers are getting down to business. Check out these two articles from today's New York Times:
This one recomends ISP censorship. with the lame excuse for corporate control of the public network as, "But the community standards that most Internet service providers apply can be more restrictive." Today it's hate speach, tomorow it will be embarasing or unpopular speach.
This one detailing the FBI making it easier for an ISP to turn over email. Try this thrilling quote that got their attention, "The online posting on Aug. 30 sounded like the rantings of a crank: The subject was "911," and it warned "Something is going to happen tomorrow . . . REPENT!" On Sept. 4, the author of the first message, "Xinoehpoel," was back: "Wait 7 days," he wrote." At least the article goes on to worry about improper collection making such priceless quotes inadmissable. So what's the solution, hint hint? Monitoring? Geee, to bad that it won't work as the above quote really could contain a message and is indiscerable from pure garbage.
There you go. Reputable, non speculative reporting for you advocating government and corporate controls on the internet. Why would big publishers like that? Other news sources have not even bothered to mention privacy.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
While I, too, am concerned that there will be attempts to ride roughshod over some of our civil rights, I think this piece is a rather inflammatory.
If you read the Constitution, you will notice that above all, the framers worked at balance. Balance of powers (executive/legislative/judiciary) and balance of rights. In the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment says, in part
Note the word "unreasonable." This is a rather vague word; intentionally so. It is up to society to determine unreasonable search and seizures. There is no guarantee of absolute privacy. While I feel we should set the bar as high as possible, the example RMS uses of video recognition technology, especially in a public place, is certainly not unreasonable, given of course, that such technology does not result in hundreds of innocent people being held or detained inappropriately.
People are concerned about knee-jerk right wing reactions, lets not make the same mistake in defense of civil liberties and oppose everything that is suggested. Save energy for the battles that really matter.
Same Gore crap - different day. Yesterday some butthole claims that Gore lost, due to Nader votes. Today, some butthole claims Gore won, but had it "stolen". Which is it, people? And as to the claim that Face Recognition software can't work better than airport "security" - someone needs to go visit the dumbfucks at the X-Ray machine and see what a $5/hour brain really functions like.
I can grieve any DAMN way I please, and oh yeah, our president said to GO ON with our lives. If congress can go on with theirs, then so will I. Twit
... that we not bother the poor little terrorist network, the radical fundamentalist islamic one that is attacking, and leave things as is.
Yup, what a great idea. Let's just wait for them to get a hold of nuclear material and do nothing then either.
- sigs are for wimps.
I think RMS (like other folks with an agenda) will often lose favor among moderates by throwing in jabs like this.
But this remark was fair: It's tongue-in-cheek, of course, but it is reasonable to recall that Bush "won" by the most tiny possible margin imaginible. To give him complete say over the situation (with people urging us to "support him") is, well, a little scary.
Yeah, RMS makes some broad statements that aren't all that great, and yes, it is a statement that has been said many times, but the issue itself is still solid in my opinion.
If we ignore RMS and just focus on the idea of civil liberties being trashed by the uneducated masses and the representatives they elect, then I think the idea becomes clear. There is big business, government, and military contracts behind face recognition and other forms of what we may term "draconian" new security measures. That means that unless the educated minority acts soon (and maybe even that won't help), then we are going to see big business and contractors treading on our civil liberties through the puppet government under the guise of protecting civil liberties and democracy. I mean, democracy, as it is theorized to be during election times and times of civil distress, is dead. However, if we want to hang on to whatever shread of freedom we have and not fall into a complete military state over this incident, then the cool-headed, educated members of society need to prevail. If we don't want our society to fall into the hands of military contractors and government greed, then we have to stay together. RMS may not make the clearest of points, but if we demonize him, then we only weaken our own struggle to maintain freedom.
"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller
How many innocent have to die to protect your privacy? Obviously somewhere more than 5,000. I value my privacy but if giving the government the right to eavesdrop on my phone saves one innocent life guess what, it's worth it. I'm not advocating a system that gives the government free reign to listen to and act on conversations freely but obviously there are cases where action is warranted. Sept 11 was one of them. If you want unrestricted freedom at the cost of others' lives, I'd suggest a one way ticket to Kabul.
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
There are plenty of reasons to think that a computer face recognition system would help. Suppose there are 10,000 individuals who are on the FBI's list of suspected terrorists. Who's going to have a better chance of remembering and successfully comparing all those faces - a security guard or a face recognition system? I know who I've got my money on.
Of course, we shouldn't be locking people up based exclusively on a positive match, just like we would double-check when a human guard claimed to have found a match. However, a face recognition system can act in concert with human security details, helping to bring attention to likely problems.
Is there potential for such systems to be abused? Yes. Can they be circumvented with some effort? Yes. Are they a good additional line of defense even if they're not a panacea? Yes. We've already seen how poor security can be abused. I'll take my chances with seeing good security abused.
The heart has reasons that reason does not understand. - Jacques Bènigne Bossuet
What if this wasn't by an outside party? What if it was done to get rid of all of these problems facing industry and government officials? The Internet allows way too many people to see what goes on in the government. And it allows for the immediate disemination of that information. Try to do something underhanded and everyone knows about it almost immediately.
So the question is - how hard would it be to set things up to look like it was someone else who was doing this?
Not saying this is what happened. But it is a bit too convenient that in the midst of a recession, when there are major battles going on over civil rights, and one of the biggest anti-trust cases to ever be brought before the courts; that this should happen.
Wouldn't be the first time some higher-up person has simply said "Something needs to be done about X" and an overly avid follower has gone off the deep end to do something about X. Without the originator even being aware of what was happening.
It's the same argument that we fight against that is used to rob us of our rights when dealing with copyright on digital media.
Just because technology CAN be used for something bad doesn't mean it will be or should be banned because of the possibility, again, it is the same argument that most of us are so much against.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
If you REALLY want your liberties BACK Figure out why you are both a United States Citizen and a citizen of the state you wore born in..... Then you will understand WHAT the ferderal government is HIDING. IT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY to TAKE away ANY liberties of state citizens. ONLY the fake citizen they created back in 1939 in the SOCIAL SECURITY SCAME.
During WWII, liberties were curtailed in many countries including the USA. The US read mail freely, censored news, restricted when and where one could travel, rationed what you could buy and how often among other restrictions. In that war, things did not simply continue at home as if the war wasn't going on, people at home made those sacrifices because they were needed to win WWII, and after the war the liberties were returned.
Some liberties maybe lost for awhile to win this very different war. Its a legitimate concern that the liberties we may lose this time maybe permantly lost.
There will be changes in laws and policies that infringe on our rights. It seems inevitable. It's going to happen despite the good arguments of libertarians. But if we place time limits on those changes, such that they expire after six months or a year or whatever, there's a chance that they won't represent permanent intrusions. I've been encouraging my representatives to consider this approach. I'd rather accept temporary surveillance and fact-gathering as a security expedient, than fight a losing battle to prevent any legal changes -- and as a result, wind up with a permanent change to a police state.
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
This is the only real argument that Stallman puts forth save, "I don't want big brother is watching me!!!"
Does anyone else see this as ridiculous. The whole purpose of putting computerized facial recognition in place is because humans aren't perfect. Neither are computers for that matter, but humans are much more flawed. What are you going to do, make all of the Security Guards memorize faces of all suspected terrorists? I wouldn't trust myself to pick out one, why should I trust a $6 rent-a-cop?
You could use this to identify "possible" suspects, and then rather than just gang probe them, place an armed air marshall on board, like they have in Israel. The air marshall can supervise the flight, and has one leg up on the competition, should anything happen, because he/she is prepared.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want everyone tracking all of my personal travel, but if you're travelling, that information is already in a database, the airline you're flying with, who I'm sure has no beef sharing this information with the goverment. What possible civil liberty encroachment is there?
Seriously folks. You guys need to calm down.
Captain_Frisk
Indeed as his being someone deeply involved in issues of liberty and freedom I care more to hear his opinions (congruent with my own or not) then I do those of numerous other folks who offer theirs. If you don't agree with them fair enough but asking him to be silent is profoundly offensive.
Perhaps later you'd like to list those who should be allowed to express political opinions? I'm sure there's a job for you in many countries in this world, in the meantime I'll prefer to respect other's rights and encourage those with interesting and knowledgeable material to contribute to the conversation.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
I think RMS hit the nail right on the head for this one. What we need is not a 1984-style police state. What we do need, besides moderate (but effective) security measures, is for the government to actually do its job. How many times in the past week have I read and heard about the FBI, CIA, FAA and INS not doing their jobs, leading to the disaster in NYC and DC?
Furthermore, I think the United States' ridiculous foreign policy is largely responsible for pissing off the middle east in the first place. It's because they jump in there like a bull in a china shop and meddle in the affairs of others, without even trying to understand their culture. As Americans, many of us demand that if you want to live and do business in our country, you should speak our language and know our customs. I believe the opposite should be true as well: that when we try to do business with others, we should at least make an effort at understanding their culture.
It's not the people of the United States that anger most angry middle-easterns. It's our government. Therefore, we should get our government to shape up their act. It's our responsibility.
Topic: If A 707 Hit The World Trade Center?...
but this caught my attention, because it's true.
:-)
oh ya - and DK rule.
... 2 of the terrorist were on the "Watch List".
They had pictures of both, I think one of them was on video meeting with a previous terrorist in the Cole attack if I remember correctly.
So 2 things could have stopped them;
1) CHECKING HIS NAME (Duh !)
2) Facial recognition scan before boarding.
We should definetely do (1), but (2) wouldn't hurt either.
- sigs are for wimps.
Just curious how many people (our of our 260 Million or so) would have to go before you people would consider giving up some of our "Liberties", (I think Rights, as in "Right to Privacy, Anonymity, etc." is a better word choice).
5K obviously wasn't enough. My guess is that even the die-hard Liberterians would start to waver around the 10 Mill or so...
I hope we don't get a chance to measure it.
I agree with RMS, even though is "unelected President" bit was over the top. We can *not* afford to give up our basic liberties, at least not before we try other means of stopping terrorism.
The path we are currently going down, this "war against terrorism" is the wrong path. If the goal of our war is to rid the earth of "evildoers" then we've established our failure before we begin. This is an impossible task. There is no easy answer, but a war - a direct attack - will only create more "America" haters and give more meaning to their cause.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
Where any of these bastards in the massacre of WTC/Pentagon on the FBI's list?
e ct_had_outstanding_warrant_in_broward_1.html
Yes they were, 2 of them. One even had a warrant (but it wasn't terrorist related).
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/sun/20010917/lo/susp
- sigs are for wimps.
I was actually agreeing with RMS until I saw that little political quip (our 'unelected president' comment) thrown in at the end of his freedom ranting.
The last thing we need now is political grandstanding by Mr. Stallman. There is absolutely no excuse for this obvious political grenade.
An argument could certainly be made about the Clinon administrations cut in intelligence gathering having a direct effect on what happened. But that too would be WAY OUT OF LINE!!!!!!!
I have said this before, and I hate to repeat myself but LEAVE POLITICS OUT.
Does RMS simply hate anything conservative? Is he so blinded by his own dogma that he cannot see the human side to what GW is going through right now?
Anyone can be an 'arm-chair leader' or 'arm-chair hero'. Let's see RMS do a better job handling this disaster than our 'unelected president'. That prick couldn't even lead a high school prep rally, never mind a country in crisis.
That bastard is no better than the people calling for anti-encryption laws. He is intentionally aggrevatelty
BTW, if he thinks we don't need copyrights, why does he copyright everything he composes?
Sorry for the rant, but slagging off GW during this time is simply unacceptable. We are all in this thing together REGARDLESS of political affiliation. Can't RMS deal with the civil liberty issues without in a more non-confrontational manner?
"Using violence to advance one's political goals."
I believe those aiming to restrict our freedoms fit that definition pretty well
There are way too many posts by people saying roughly the same thing. Forget about if you agree with the elected/ appointed debate for a minute. Do you all realize that you are saying that what he says in that line somehow invalidates the other things he said?
I used to have a red motorcycle, but now that one of the legs on my table is broken it never was red, it was yellow.
If you look closely at that sentence you will see how it is a direct analogue to the line of reasoning, or I suppose more accurately lack of reasoning, you are using when you say such things. You read a statement and agreed, then you read another statement you disagreed with, so now you undo your analysis of the first thing and act like you never agreed with it in the first place. Amazing.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
What do you expect will happen when we've given up all our rights, and yet these incidents will still happen? Do you have any illusion that, once lost, we will ever regain these rights?
But is everybody going along with the party line because they feel it is the rational solution, or because they are afraid of the consequences if they don't?How do you think all of the 'good germans' felt about 'the time for dissent' when the brownshirts started checking papers and their neighbors began to dissappear?
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
In 2004!
What amazes me is the fact that some of these bills were produced so fast. If you read through one, you quickly realize the amount of time that went into them. This leaves me with the conclusion that they have been prepared for quite a while, just waiting for the right opportunity to be submitted. I am not saying there is a conspiracy, just politicians, policy wonks, and agencies with an agenda, patience, and a predictable understanding that bad things do and will happen.
You first reaction as a country to this tragedy is to kill as many people you can get your hands on. You second reaction is to attempt to lockdown the whole country and thus remove and civil liberties and privacy anyone has.
For a country with a supposed history as a bright and shining beacon of democracry and freedom it doesnt sound that free or democratic does it?
How about taking out you copy of the constituion and reading the bit about free and equal again ?
I am beggining to wonder if the US govt didnt do this themselves, think about it - the economy is flattening and recession is on the horizon, what better way to forestall it than a war ? and at the same time the govt can get rid of a lot of pesky objections to things like echelon and carnivore and lock down the population even tighter ? no im only specualting but it scares me almost as much as your presidents 'im the biggest damn bully in the playground' attitude does - the solution to all the problems in the world is kill people until everyone agrees with you.
Are we truly seeing the end of the land of the free ?
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
The face recognition was one example, the other was increased leeway in wiretapping and other types of surveilance. The 4th Amendment is a key element to our liberty. If you've watched any of the interview with intelligence agency representatives they usually say something like, "Now the death toll is high enough that we'll be able to do what we've always wanted to do." That's paraphrasing of course, but the message is consistant.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
is complaining about someone else's attitude.
Actually a one-way ticket to Kabul would be the opposite of unrestricted freedom.....I think, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Afghanistan is the bastion of freedom in the Middle East, am I wrong in assuming this?
Second, how exactly do you advocate this system where the government can tap phone lines without having "free reign to listen and act on conversations freely"? Yes, September 11 is being used as a warrant to go about with increased surveillance, but what I want to know is how exactly can you give the government more leeway without impinging on the rights on general citizens? Mohommed Ataa was in the country getting flying lessons without the FBI even knowing, so what are they gonna do, tap only his phone? Its kinda hard to tap the phone of an individual who isn't even known to exist in the country.
The bottom line is this, and is overly cliche'd: You can't protect freedom and "democracy" by destroying it.
"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller
What would your solution to prevent future attacks be, Mr. Stallman? Or do you feel the status quo is sufficient?
I don't.
--- igiveup ---
Taco is letting his usual colors show. This is a poorly written piece that merely echoes nearly every other piece posted to SlashDot since the WTC incident.
"Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War"
That has got to be one of the grossest oversimplifications I've ever read on SlashDot, and that's saying something
People, our system of government works: civil liberites can be suspended during war and then be regained afterwards. A few examples: Habeus Corpus was rescinded during the Civil War, and Federal Income Taxes were implemented. Both measures were reversed after the conflict ended. The draft has come and gone several times. It's up to us to make the sacrifice neccesary to eliminate this evil, and then afterwards see to it that our political leadership return our freedom to us. It's been done before, it can be done again: our system works. I suspect that some of you have been OD'ing on X-Files re-runs.
This paranoia is baseless: we've fought wars before, and seen many harsh restrictions during the conflict, but not a single post I've read has specified a freedom lost in past wars that we've been unable to regain as citizens. In American history there is no historical basis for this mania: the historical record actually shows the opposite to be true!
Give the Federal Govenrment the tools, and the support, it needs to fight this war, then see to it that, when the job is done, our freedoms are returned. Past generations have done the same, and we've reaped the benefits of their sacrifice while suffering no reduction in our civil liberties.
Your representatives are directly elected. However, the president is not. The state government votes for the president (not you), and thus the president is not elected directly.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
I wish I had a TLA instead of a name...
Well, the people who perpertrated the attacks were motivated by religion and they are doubtlessly now being celebrated as martyrs in religious memorials in their own communities. Much of the political passion among Palestinians is motivated by religious memorials. The whole of the Christian church is built around a religious memorial. The history of most of the Christian churches can hardly be particularly reassuring, since they have turned memorials into rallies for their own power from the crusades to support for Nazis. Religious power is at the root of this tragedy, on both sides.
When religion involves mass gatherings, when it is associated with government, or when it involves a large, wealthy hierarchy, it becomes sullied and stops being just about spirituality. Pray, honor, and remember the dead, but do so in private in dialog with God, not in some gaudy public ceremony.
"He who trades his freedom for security deserves neither." - Ben Franklin
Br>
Move to Russia or China, you'll feel better.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
I would really like to see time limits in placed on any new "war" bills that are passed. We dont need to give up our rights forever.
The problem is that our country is getting way behind everybody else with crypto technologies.
With laws like DMCA that forbids investigation of current algoritms and decrypt of content processed thru them and the proposed backdoors, the whole investigation of cryptography is just becomming a not very attractive area of investigation...
Wake up... if there is anything needed is more skilled crypto cientists/engeneers and that doesn't fall from the sky...
Just my 2 cents...
And think construtivly...
Why isn't the status quo sufficient? We have had what, 3 acts of terrorism in how many years of existance? I mean, planes get hijacked all over the world, and bombed all over the world, but we have had 3 acts of external terrorism (excluding Ok. City, cuz that was domestic terrorism, which I feel is a whole different beast). Why don't we just maintain status quo? Yeah, its pretty disgraceful security, but the point being, maybe if we pursued some other angle we could become less of a target of attack and not have to implement security policies like those being discussed? *cough* not pissing off the whole world with arrogance and ignorance *cough*
Just something to stir up the stagnant pot of the discussion lately
"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller
If you pick your nose in public, people might see it. The only thing is that this will ensure that someone sees it. Thing is, no one will care. No one will care that you jay-walk, no one will care that you look girls up and down, and no one will care that you spit your gum into the bushes. It will be accepted, and as long as you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. I'm all for it.
You are without a doubt the dumbest, most ignorant person alive today. What does racism have to due with civil liberties?
Please, do all of us a favor and kill yourself. You are wasting other peoples oxygen.
And by the way, I am not at all afraid to reveal who I am and where I live. If you think you are man enough.
Fucker.
If you tell a Mathematician and an Engineer that they can only move half of the distance to a certain goal at any given time, the Mathematician will start crying that he'll never ever make it there - it's impossible! The Engineer will smile and say, "I can get close enough."
The Mathematician's View:
A "victory" means eliminating every terrorist threat now facing the free world. Even if the US and its Allies could somehow manage to destroy every known terrorist organization (quite an undertaking), there is always the possibility that one more exists. As the parent said, "To win this war America, and its allies, need to prove a negative." Impossible!!
The Engineer's View:
A "victory" means making the world a very bad place to be a terrorist. If the US and its Allies can put enough heat on the bad guys, kill a whole buch of Osamas, and reestablish security and intelligence throughout the world, then things might become extremely difficult for terrorist activities to occur. Close enough to declare war... I guess.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The article sounds good to me, except for this bit:
> I'm not talking about searches at airports here.
> Searches of people or baggage for weapons, as
> long as they check only for weapons and keep no
> records about you if you have no weapons, are
> just an inconvenience; they do not endanger
> civil liberties.
Has Stallman not heard of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, government officials are only supposed to be able to search you if
1) they have probable cause, i.e., there are *specific* reasons to suspect *you* of criminal behavior;
2) they have a warrant;
3) the evidence providing probable cause for the warrant is supported by oath; and
4) the warrant describes what particular person or place is to be searched, and what *particular* things are expected to be found and seized.
Since the Constitution is the highest law of the land, any other sort of search is simply illegal.
And any time government gets away with simply ignoring one part of the Bill of Rights, this weakens the entire Bill of Rights.
Furthermore, let me point out what should be obvious: all the humiliating searches and violations of our rights that we are already enduring DIDN'T WORK. The only thing that did work -- for one of the airplanes -- was when the men on the spot resisted the terrorists instead of simply submitting as we in this cowardly society are trained to do.
So arm the pilots, arm the stewardesses, put a plainclothes air marshall on board, and if you really, truly believe in human liberty and the value of human life, allow the passengers to carry the means to defend their own lives. Only in a thoroughly disarmed and emasculated society such as ours could three or four criminals so easily prevail against an entire planeload of people.
The scenario you describe would be effeciently served under all of our existing laws. What the government is seeking to do is to monitor DOMESTIC communications in bulk. Thank-you, but I would rather not have have the FBI busting down my door at three AM based upon THEIR misinterpretation of one of my emails, or my repeated visits to www.howtomakeabomb.com.
When it comes to highly technical topics, the government is dangerous because law enforcement is largely populated by morons. Its an ugly truth, but the truth nonetheless.
More importantly, ANY errosion of our liberties and/or privacies hands a measure of victory over to our recent attackers, whose real aim was not a crude attempt at premature urban renewal, but to attack the very fabric of our society.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
It would have been helpful if Stallman had said what measures he would tolerate. It is a given than in wartime some restrictions are necessary.
He might have also addressed the question of duration. Some restrictions might be acceptable temporarily.
He might also have addressed under what condition he would accept more stringent restrictions. If the attacks continued or reoccur, more restrictions might be necessary than they are now.
He might also have addressed the issue whether it is better to err on the side of too few or too many restrictions. It's unlikely the legislators are going to get it exactly right.
Stallman might also have made a distinction between rights, which are defined by the U.S. Constitution, and privileges, which can be removed at the whim of the legislature. Clearly, we would be willing to give up more privileges than rights and for longer.
One question to ask is what restrictions on traditional rights might have prevented the attack on September 11. The next question to ask is what restrictions would prevent terrorists from using poison gas and biological weapons in the future.
Whatever the answers to those questions are, they are the ones we will have to live with.
In Finland 70% (a guess) of population have cellular phones from which their movement can be tracked. You don't have to make any calls to be logged. They have actually used cellular phone movement logs as tools to catch criminals (I don't know if it's good evidence in court).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why airports would entrust such an important job to such a low paid and consequently high turnover jworkforce is beyond me. That's capitalism I guess...
My cat's breath smells like cat food.--R. Wiggums
That was the point he was making.
Non US citizens have the same legal rights in the US - free speech, etc, that US citizens have. The fact that US citizens rights have been eroded by appeasers and placaters does not change that.
RMS evidently values his "rights" more than anyone else's lives. RMS should stick to sofware and let more competent thinkers worry about the balance of his rights and our lives.
That's the danger in face recognition technologies. It isn't impossible to overcome, but it must be watched.
-Elendale
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
You know as well as I do, these bills are not as spontanteous as they appear. Those who wanted to increase their own power to control the citizens of the US prior to this incident, are using this incident as an excuse to force their view of the New World Order on the rest of us - US citizens included.
Interesting. Merely noting the historical reality that Bush was installed by the Supreme Court after they stopped the counting of votes is enough reason for you to close your ears to everything a person says?
Seems to me that you really want to close your ears, then. That you're looking for any excuse to do so. I can see where that would be a useful attribute for a Bush supporter. It would help you when dealing with things like his military desertion, insider trading, denouncing manual recounts in Florida while requesting them in New Mexico and signing them into law in Texas, and so on. I guess whatever works for you.
I think that RMS and his sympathizers have an extremely naive view of what it will take to win this war. There are going to be extreme limits on privacy and mobility that will become only stricter as time passes. War is the antithesis of civility. Will you complain about a lack of civil rights when your food and water are rationed? When you cannot travel freely from city to city and state to state? When you are drafted? Being forced to serve in the armed forces is the ultimate violation of civil rights, and that is exactly what happens in a war. Everything will be directed toward winning this conflict. Note that I don't necessarily want this to happen, but this is what is going to happen.
I've found it effective to mention to all your friends about Stegonography. When I tell them that its practicaly undetectible, and probably the method of choice and that encryption helps us from each other (read passing credit card #'s) they understand.
People aren't dumb, but they need to understand what encryption is and does. Otherwise they'll be wary of every attempt to modulate their bitstream! (j/k)
But seriously, people think encryption is like WWII enigma and such where all that is needed is a key or a crack and we'll know everything the enemy is doing. That is simply not true. And the problem with Congresses simplistic view of the whole thing is that it fits so neatly with the public perception.
I get the feeling that anti crypto laws, etc. will
have the same effect as restricting access to
guns (hark, is that a flame I hear approaching??)
Controlled access to firearms = no access to
firearms for the general public not for crooks.
Restricting crypto = no secure crypto for the
general public, but the terrorist "purchases"
a programmer and has his own written, the end
result is the same. The crook still has the
advantage in the end.
"God grants liberty only to those love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it"
(Daniel Webster)
"The ultimate authority....resides in the people alone"
(James Madison)
"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them"
(Franklin D. Roosevelt)
"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
(Benjamin Franklin)
"per aspera adastra"
-:
You have been watching way too many movies. Turn off the TV and get a life.
You should be ashamed for suggesting this. And saying "Not saying this is what happened" doesn't mean squat, because you are suggesting this is what happened.
Here's a copy of the letter I emailed to my congressman and senators:
Dear [representative's name],
Like many Americans, I am very concerned that our country respond appropriately to the terrorist attacks of last week. I have been greatly encouraged by the tone and content of statements both by President Bush, and by our representatives from Utah, as well as many others. I agree strongly that we must act decisively, leaving no question that the United States of America is a very unwise choice of targets for terrorism. I agree that we must target our response carefully to ensure that we root out the source of the problem and destroy the ability of those who have committed terrorist acts to continue such activities, while at the same time ensuring that we do not participate in the terrorists' game of injuring and killing innocent people. I am in favor of greatly increased security at airports, even at the cost of convenience. I am even in favor of some controversial uses of technology which may assist us in fighting terrorism and crime, like using face recognition in public places to look for known criminals and terrorists.
However, I am also very concerned that we do not overreact. I am concerned that our united America go united in the right direction. I am concerned that in our determination to protect ourselves from future terrorism we do not give a free hand to those who would take advantage of an opportunity to expand the power of our government to intrude in the privacy of our citizens. The terrorist attacks of last week have been characterized as an attack on the freedom of Americans and free people everywhere. If our reaction to terrorism is to give away our freedoms in hope of greater security, then I fear the terrorists will have succeeded. I urge you not to be afraid of being called un-American by those who would erode our freedoms for opposing unwise or inappropriate measures at this time when our nation is so focused on unity and protection from physical danger. Please stand up for America by protecting not only our lives, but the chance to live our lives as free people.
I wish in particular to voice my strenuous opposition to two particular proposals which I have heard are being considered. First, a law requiring "back doors" in cryptographic software. Second, a law allowing internet wiretaps without a warrant.
The first, requiring "back doors" in cryptographic software, simply sounds like a bad idea. Why, while tightening security at airports in an attempt to protect ourselves, would we loosen the security of our communications by requiring an easy way to eavesdrop on them? We used to be confident that we could prevent hijackings in this country. Is there any reason to believe that we are not equally overconfident of our ability to protect back doors in encryption software? How can we be confident that no one will be able to compromise the back doors, gaining access to the strong encryption upon which we depend to protect our online credit card, banking, stock market and other transactions? If these systems were compromised, I fear the consequences to our nation may even be greater than what we have seen in the last week. The stock market was closed for a few days and is down sharply today, but our economy certainly has not been destroyed. Aside from the direct damage that might result from a serious breach of security in our online financial systems, it would almost certainly keep us off line for more than the few days that the markets were closed. The cost of recovering from such a breach would be enormous. For that matter, the cost of implementing the required back doors would probably be enormous.
Another argument against this proposal is that such a law seems certain to be obeyed only by those who the government has no need to listen in on anyway. Certainly not all criminals will be sophisticated enough to use cryptographic tools without back doors, but those who will are probably unsophisticated enough that they could be found by less drastic methods. This measure seems to carry too great a risk and too great a cost to justify the advantages in would provide.
The second proposal, allowing internet wiretaps without a warrant, appears to me to be a gross violation of our Constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. I admit I do not know much of the details of this proposal, but I cannot fathom how any such law could be Constitutional. And especially if coupled with the first proposal, I fear what might happen if our government crosses that line. The fact that our nation has stood strong so long is a testament to the sound foundation upon which it is built, not a small part of which is the limits which our Constitution places on the power of the government. It is said that power tends to corrupt. I believe that we have succeeded in limiting corruption in our government by limiting its power, and urge you to stand for the values upon which the Constitution is built in resisting the temptation to over-extend the power of government in a time when we are all looking for someone with the power to protect us.
In closing, I thank you for your service on behalf of the State of Utah and of our nation. It is encouraging to know that there are men and women of good will who are willing to carry the burden of public office, which I am sure is, especially at times like these, very great.
Sincerely,
[my name]
[city name], UT
Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
Criticism and opinion (even your whining rant) is an important part of the democratic process. Suggesting solutions are sometimes good (and sometimes not -- the government has suggested "solutions" to the problem of cryptography), but everyone is entitled to express how they feel, whether or not they have all the answers.
(Yes, the subject is a joke.)
From former FBI director Freeh's testimony to the Senate Judiciary committee in September 1998: *We are very concerned, as this committee is, about the encryption situation, particularly as it relates to fighting crime and fighting terrorism. Not just bin Laden, but many other people who work against us in the area of terrorism, are becoming sophisticated enough to equip themselves with encryption devices.*
This link has been a staple of the move for key escrow and federal key management for as long as there has been a debate. That is, since the first WTC attack in 93. It is hotter now and even less likely for reasoned arguments to be heard.
Wadih El Hage, suspected in the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies, sent encrypted e-mails under various names to associates in al Qaida according to the Oct. 25, 1998 indictment against him.
Ramzi Yousef, him of the 1993 WTC bombing, used encrypted files to hide details of a plot to destroy 11 U.S. airliners.
News that bin Laden was using stego to conceal communications within X-rated pics was all over the web in February of this year.
illegitimii non ingravare
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
Except that a human would not necessarily have the most up-to-date list of faces to recognize in his/her memory.
In walking, just walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
-- Yun-Men
Sadly, no. Approximately 1.58 million votes were never recounted even once . Not even through the legally mandated automatic recount.
The Bushies did every manoevre they could to prevent the counting of votes. I think we all know why.
Our president was elected, not by the people, but by our government who decided not to count the public vote. RMS is merely reminding us of that fact. A majority of the population did not vote for Bush and did NOT vote for bush to take us into WWIII.
No, this is a cop out argument. YOU are responsible for your own safety, not the government. Also, YOU are responsible for your freedoms, and when you turn them over the government, you get what you deserve.
Don't use other countries as examples. They were both bad examples, because they both set themselves up for what they got.
I recommend Smoke and Mirrors if you want to see the effect that another "War" has had on the systematic removal of American civil liberties.
"Human face recognition" is a painfully naive concept. Even if Osama Bin Laden himself shaved his beard, wore Western clothing and then tried to walk through security/customs/whatever at any airport in the country, how likely is he to be recognized? Maybe...*maybe* if some CIA analyst who had devoted his career to Mideast terrorist organizations walked by he *might* recognize Bin Laden, but I'd even consider that a longshot.
I watch the news regularly and could recognize him immediately... if he were wearing his tunic-robe-thingy, had his somewhat distinctive facial hair and was carrying an AK-47 or walkie-talkie.
Let's face it: human face recognition is just a euphemism for racial profiling. I certainly don't advocate computer face recognition, but it's got a lot more going for it than a concept that doesn't hold true in the real world.
One of the things I would be most scared of is to be called "un-american". That kind of wording is the most direct road to extremism, as it leaves no choice and no shades. It is dangerous and stupid, and the McCarthy era and the anti-socialist witch-hunt are one of the darkest sides of modern America, apart from state-approved racism (got rid of as early as the sixties, remember). America is still closer than it realizes to dropping over the edge to fanatism itself (again).
There is no way to ever know who won the popular vote. The split of the vote was less than the margin of error in the voting tabulation methods.
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that anyone won the popular vote.
I'm strongly against facial recognition systems also.
Mainly becuase i have felony arrest warrants in several states.
I guess i'll have to chill inside on the net even more than usual heh.
Then you have a group that would say that it is the neighbor, in fact that is bad and evil simply because he has purchased or constructed a toy that his neighbor does not have. These fine fellows who disregard history and ethics believe that it is OK to then not only take away that neighbor's toy, but make it illegal for him to ever have one unless it can be 'shared' with all. No matter HOW YOU SLICE it my friends... no matter what pretty words, chants, graphics or other talking monkey nonsense you place on it, it is THEFT. We call that form of controlled and violent backed up theft (after all, what happens if mr. neighbor refuses?)... anyway, we call that SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM. After all, what is socialism without the violent means to back it up?
So, basically we come full circle again and find that there are those who would rather steal from others and instead of themselves being violent, they hide behind socialist laws and policies (or should I say POLICE-ies).
No, I cannot take anything that Stallman says seriously, because his ability to purge logic and reason from his existence makes it impossible to take HIM seriously. This is obviously an Heir Klinton'esque attempt to cash in on a terrible situation for personal gain because of the backlash he received from his tyrannical views coming out. But what do I know? Hell, what does history know?
URL for this leader is:7 643&rtmo=k7CAx7ep&atmo=rrrrrrrq&pg=/01/9/14/do01.h tml
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=00602623063
i dunno about what the rest of u are thinking but personaly im scared out of my mind about the whole big brother idea, which is exactly what this fella' is talking about. just thinking about not haveing the liberty to do what i want in the "privacy" (and im not even going in to that particular issue) of my own home is and should be soley my busness, not that of some cia spook 500 miles away that thinks im amusing. what ever our "founding fatheres" thought when they made this contry, although through various ambiguities in their posts we can never realy know, i can assuredly say that having ameriucan citizens spied apon by their own government for no good reason was not among the principals of this nation at is founding.
"My heart is in the work." - Andrew Carnegie
On the contrary, without light there is only darkness. Darkness, a word describing a lack of light, is merely a negated by having such a lack of a lack. And of course a lack of a lack is nothing other than the original thing...light. Just because darkness is a lack of light does not make light a lack of darkness.
Your claims are arguable...I just did. Impotent? rather deceitful in saying so. For by this saying you have affected me respond.
Light is good, darkness is a lack of good. We call it bad but they are not equal.
Don't you know that it would be totally typical that Richard Stallman, chief fanatical "free" software propagandist would see this as an opportunity to mouth off about his obnoxious and annoying opinions.
How dare he make some kind of comparison that the thousands of people killed, the worst attack on our nation *ever* would be lesser than the minimal loss in privacy for
For the most part I agree with the idea that privacy and the right to encryption is important, but I'm at a total loss why some people are totally hung up on it. Just like I can't at all understand Stallman's rabid obsession over the semantics of "free" vs "open source" or his obnoxious insistance that we call linux "GNU-Linux".
Stallman, you have written some good software and you also began a movement of sorts that spawned open source and Linux phenomenon, but other than you are truly an obnoxious a--hole and I have no respect for your personal beliefs or opinions on software or anything else.
Do the world a favor and write some good software, or else if you can't do that anymore keep your obnoxious opinions to yourself. Why don't you work on getting that big turd HURD off the ground. Or can you ever do that? Doubt it.
Just F off you kook.
But because RMS writes it, it's thought-provoking? Jeepers, Louise.
Bin Laden has NOT been proven to be behind it. The talibann, and bin laden himself have unequivocally denied involvement in the attacks. Don't just shrug this off as lies on their part, Bin Laden fucking HATES the United States, if he had planned this and carried it out, he would be jumping for joy, claiming responsibility, sending messages, and preparing for war. He would be PROUD of the fact that his attacks have been wildly successful. He has claimed responsibility for his embassy attacks, the attack on the USS Kohl, but not this time. No, he has unequivocally denied involvement. . . this make anybody else's red flags go up?
In this country, people are innocent until proven guilty, we extend this right to all who we prosecute under our law, so please, don't jump the gun here. There is zero evidence to back up the allegations against Bin Laden, though he may be a bastard for his past attacks, we have to consider the possibility that he is NOT behind this one, and that those who WERE behind it are still out there, readying their next volley.
The basic message is: Keep a cool head when passing judgement, you're less likely to regret it later.
Nor do they involve the Florida Supreme Court, for that matter, who seemed to have no trouble agreeing to change the rules in a way that unfairly benefitted one side. In case you don't recall, that's how the judicial system got involved in the first place.
You're right that the votes were not properly counted. However, of the votes that were counted, Bush received more. Further, of the additional ballots that were clearly cast but were not counted (primarily overseas military) Bush received more. For some reason, some of you seem to think that if you just keep recounting the votes enough times, Gore will emerge the winner. That doesn't mean that's true however, and the investigative work of the Miami Herald pretty much proved that Bush won - even if the ballots had been counted the way the Gore campaign wanted.
I can see your point here in that people who are allowed to protect themselves (ie. carry handguns) can better protect others. This is already the case with some military and law enforcement personnel who are legally allowed to carry handguns onto passenger planes.
But the problem with this solution is that a handgun on an aircraft is incredibly dangerous, especially if the guns aren't in the hands of trained professionals (even then the danger is still there). And especially if there are thirty untrained amateurs who may not be acting cool in a time of crisis. If a stray bullet (or 30) were to pierce a window, which is possible on handguns of, say, .45 caliber (eg. a Colt 1991A1) or 5.7mm (eg. FN FiveseveN), the possible explosive decompression from a window shattering could prove to be disasterous. Even if it's a standard 9mm slug (from, say, a Beretta 92f - standard issue for FBI) the fracture would mean that the window would eventually shatter from the stress anyway. So the plane could crash somewhere else (say, downtown New York, where it still would have done massive damage). And what if a bullet (or several) were to take out the pilot? The co-pilot could theoretically fly the plane, but what if he was shot, too? In other words, it's a great idea in theory but the dangers are just too great for it to be practically useful.
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
I was referring to Afghanistan harboring bin Laden allowing him to act outside of international law without reprecussion. Refusing him to turn him over because "we asked him if he did it and he said no" (obviously paraphrasing) is rediculous. When the only proof of guilt is an admission of guilt we're all f*cked.
Second, what I was referring to was giving the government the right to tap but only act in cases of national security. Privacy, freedom and "democracy" aren't so tightly linked that you can't give up a portion of one without totally destroying the other.
Still around. You can see some basic info about that program (pre-bombing) on the FAA site. (Report at DOT site on the program is also available.) 9-15 USA Today article also discusses this.
sulli
RTFJ.
I highly doubt Ben Franklin was taking into account international terroists making cell phone calls to plan flying into 110 story buildings with jet planes.
As far as Russia or China, no I wouldn't feel better. Safer? Quite possibly. But freedom and privacy are not one and the same.
What's to keep governments from labeling protestors such as the ones at the WTO conferences as "terrorists", thus justifying long jail sentences or even their assasination by police?
How effective is face surveilance against people whose religion dictates they all wear either beards or veils?
I hear calls for more communications surveilance, but no mention of the fact that we already have global surveilance (the EU has just positively established the existance of Echelon -- curious timing, isn't it?) which did nothing to alert us to the attack.
Isn't it a bit naive to beleive that people willing to kill themselves at others will only use encryption software approved by the U.S. government?
Sadam Hussein said something to the effect of "The U.S. is reaping the effects of the evil it has sown." In a way, he is correct -- the U.S. originally supported and armed both Hussein and bin Laden! Perhaps we need to acknowledge that our foreign intervention, in concert with the law of unintended consequences, frequently has disasterous results?
Finally, I am disturbed by all this talk of "revenge", I think what we need to focus on is protecting ourselves from terrorism by removing the terrorists ability to inflict harm -- which ultimately may involve killing them and thus looks very simular to revenge, but there is a slight distinction in intent.
He's not complaining about airport security checks. He's saying that increased security checks at an airport are ONLY an inconvenience, and not a threat to our rights, as long as they don't retain records on passengers who didn't do anything wrong.
After all, the risk of letting people drive large steel cans around on our nations lifeblood of highways far outweighs any right to privacy or anonymity which American citizens don't have.
Oh, and banks/financial institutes are at risk too. Lets wire face-recognition into the existing ATM's and teller counters to secure our precious economy.
We already give up freedoms when driving, by requiring that all drivers be licensed. We also require that everyone obey certain laws.
90% of our laws are for a good reason, sacrificing individual freedoms for public safety. So maybe lawmakers do have a point in wanting to restrict crypto, etc. But imagine a world where you didn't need a license to drive, and you could carry around large amounts of money w/o being a suspected drug dealer. Are the compromises in freedoms worth the benefits?
--Robert
I've been reading a lot of comments that just make me sick. We have people declaring war not on the United States Goverment but on us the United States Citizens and all any of you are worried about is the inconvenice or the tightened security. How many of you were alive during WWII??
The security measures that will be in place will be no different than during that time. Considering that there never was an attack on the contiguous US. But security was at a premium just in case. Over 5000 people have died and I believe that during this time the Goverment has to do whatever is necessary to protect us and our Freedoms. We should be asking the Goverment to pass the laws they deem necessary but that those laws go out of effect once this War is over.
To believe that we are not at a state of War is to live with your head in the sand. Besides there have been more laws passed in the last eight years during Peace time that have been more restrictive of our Personal Liberties yet no one here seemed to really write our congresspeople or organize a protest unless of course it was a law trying to ban pornography (which was a stupid law) but what about others that none of you/us paid attention too yet exist?????
It's time to stand behind our Goverment and stop allowing our Fear about a Fictional Big Brother dictate what needs to happen?
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
Aye, but without light, what is darkness, but something which is not even darkness, for there is no light to make it dark?
Your definition of lack of lack is based on the syntax of English, or at the minimum, logic, neither of which can comprehend what exists when light doesn't.
By the way, did you know that logic is founded on faith? Check it out; the most fundamental axioms of logic, we accept them on faith.
Light and dark exist. The question is not whether they exist, nor what exists when they don't, but whether you represent one or the other.
I return that the original statement was impotent, using in my definition of impotent the fact that it stated a fact inarguable. The sky is up. The sun is shining. The sound is quiet. I see God. These are impotent facts; what makes them potent is what we do with them, what direction they're going...
information is immaterial
"Would somebody explain it to me, then?"
Ok, so face recognition is a threat to freedom because it implies that everyone needs to have their face scanned - so that it can be recognized.
Just installing face recognition hardware in airports isn't going to do anything unless you have a database of faces to check against.
Innocent until proven guilty really makes you wonder why you have to give the government your thumbprint, your dna and your face map. How easy should it be for the government to know where we are at any given moment, and what we're doing?
Joseph Elwell.
... in this case is a code word to Islamic radicals who are hell bent on destroying non-radical Islamic states.
They might not say it, but it sure at heck is the current aim of the government.
The question might not be, can we stop terrorism ? But can we stop violent fundamentalist Islamic radicals.
I don't know if we can, altought if their societies were more "advanced" I think it would help. Either way, Bin Laden and the corrupt Taliban are good targets to eliminate as a starting point.
- sigs are for wimps.
, "Now the death toll is high enough that we'll be able to do what we've always wanted to do."
You make it sound like they are out to get us. Do you really believe that they are doing this so that they can rat you out to your wife if you cheat on her, or to prevent you from having an anti government conference call?
I have at least some trust that the current motivation for these things is not to fuck over the average joe, but to protect us. When did we all become so cynical?
Captain_Frisk
you want the govt to foil terrorists? give up some rights... you want absolute person freedom, fend for yourself and don't bitch if you die in some plot formed by terrorists that was communicated by secured transmissions which you are so fond of.
pick one, if it's the first, get out of this country, if it's the second, buy a gun.
The US was already in Viet Nam in a big way when Congress gave LBJ free reign over the military, in order that he get the job done already. It didn't work -- LBJ greatly escalated the war and there seemed to be no end. In 2001, Bush is not claiming there will be an end -- at least not for years -- to the effort against terrorism.
[One of the men], Khalid Al-Midhar, who was on American 77 out of Dulles, the one that crashed into the Pentagon, [has the same] last name as a man who kidnapped several British, American and German tourists in Yemen.
[This] man was linked to people who were associated with the attack on the Cole. Khalid Al-Midhar was seen by some kind of electronic surveillance or photographic images, by intelligence, meeting with someone who later attacked the Cole -- before the attack -- was seen meeting them in Malaysia.
Now, he and Salem Alhamzi -- because of this association with the Cole [they were friends] -- were on a watch list. And that watch list [was] part of an active investigation, a manhunt really, by the FBI, for these two guys. A couple of weeks before these attacks, they were looking for these men in the United States. They came in, in July, and they knew that they had come into this country -- they were looking for them.
John Keegan, defence correspondent, blames the Internet.
"The World Trade Centre outrage was co-ordinated on the internet, without question," he writes. "If Washington is serious in its determination to eliminate terrorism, it will have to forbid internet providers to allow the transmission of encrypted messages - now encoded by public key ciphers that are unbreakable even by the National Security Agency's computers - and close down any provider that refuses to comply.
"Uncompliant providers on foreign territory should expect their buildings to be destroyed by cruise missiles. Once the internet is implicated in the killing of Americans, its high-rolling days may be reckoned to be over."
Hello from the UK.
l and.htm for a brief intro to some of the things we got up to in Ireland and elsewhere. It was the IRA's reluctant realisation that they were up against military tactics at least as effective as their own, but with much better funding, that eventually forced them to consider the peace process.
It may help, with regard to what I'm about to say, that you know "where I'm coming from"
I'm a computer consultant involved in a project with major security angles (so I've made myself aware of the issues) I'm nowhere near as skilled as many of the slashdot contributors but it pays the bills.
I'm also a political philosopher, atheist, transhumanist and libertarian anarchist.
Generally, as you might expect, therefore, I oppose a great deal of what both the US government and my own stand for.
However, I also try to be both pragmatic and objective.
OK, so much for the bio.
You may be aware that we've had a little local difficulty with our own home grown terrorists for the past 30 years. A number of points ought to be sticking out like sore thumbs as a result of our experience.
First off, as I've said, I'm no supporter of the British establishment. But one thing is crystal clear. No one knows more about combating terrorism than the Brits. No one even gets close. They were the first victims of modern terrorism (Palestine, late 40s) and have since fought it actively in every corner of the world. British anti terrorist special forces have been trained in real terrorist situations ever since the second world war. The Israelis come a not very close second (their experience is too parochial).
What lessons have arisen from that expertise?
Well, for a start, we've learned that the only terrorism which can be defeated is that which - unlike the current threat - has a very narrow base of support. (Oman is the classic example) Other forms can be suppressed and, to some extent, controlled, but not defeated. Why not? For the simple reason that Terrorism is a response to historical and political conditions. If those remain as they were when the terrorism began, then, even if you manage by extraordinary good fortune to wipe out every member of the current generation of terrorists, more will emerge, like mushrooms, from the background environment. If you don't tackle the conditions which produced the problem, you will reap a regular harvest.
Alarmingly, I do not hear, in the current debate, any mention of what needs to be done in order to reduce the political pressures which produced this attack. Unless AT LEAST as much effort goes into that political effort then the result of even a successful military campaign will be worse than you can probably imagine. Not immediately, not perhaps for 10 or 20 years. But unlike American politicians, the enemy here is patient and has time on its side. Don't lose sight of the fact that Tuesday 11 September 2001 has been in the planning stage for at least 8 and probably 10 years.
If we do nothing to tackle the background causes of this cancer, then even if we succeed in excising the current tumour, it has already metastasised and will inevitably flare up again in the future. And given the developments in delivery systems for biological agents (eg anthrax) and the progress being made in genetic engineering, the attack in 2011 or 2021 can be expected to kill not a few thousand, but millions or even hundreds of millions.
Having said that, terrorists, even when they carry out devastating attacks with the high degree of professionalism we saw on our TV screens, aren't very clever politically. The key breakthroughs in our Irish problem have generally come about as a result of the IRA committing atrocities which even their own supporters couldn't stomach. This has, at times, not only choked off their major source of funding (from the terrorists main supporting country, the USA) but also made it very difficult for them to justify their actions to their own grass roots.
It is very clear, from the speed with which even terrorist sponsor countries like Libya and Syria have jumped on the condemnation bandwagon, that this is precisely what has happened among the vast Islamic community who, though generally hostile to the USA, have recognised the World Trade Centre as an attack too far. The Pentagon, on its own or even the White House might have been regarded as legitimate military targets and you'd have seen a lot more than a few angry Palestinian teenagers dancing in the streets. But most Moslems, even the ones who hate the US, are not so unreasonable that they would seek to justify massive civilian casualties.
It is that reaction which should form the core of the political analysis and response.
The world is now divided into two hostile camps. The vast majority of us are hostile to what the Hussein/Laden axis carried out last week.
I'm not claiming that the figures I'm about to give are accurate, but they are in the right ballpark..
In excess of 99.9% of the human population would probably like to see bin Laden and/or Hussein quickly executed, together with all those for whom we can prove a valid connection to the attack, or preparation for the attack. There are, nevertheless possibly a million or so, who fully support the terrorists aims and methods, even including what they did in New York.
Of that million, probably no more than 5000 are combatants. We need not worry about killing any of those. Their deaths will be widely seen - even amongst the usually anti American community - as completely fair game. Their deaths will, of course, rouse fierce resentment from the million, but they were already in the enemy camp in any case, so the situation will not have been made any more dangerous than it already is.
However, each death outside that circle of combatants will probably:
a) "promote" ten of the million non combatant supporters to full combatant status in their own right and
b) recruit 10 new terrorist supporters - including possible future combatants - from the currently outraged wider Islamic community who otherwise would, regretfully, have "tolerated" (they wont stretch as far as "support") the shooting of their wild dogs.
You can see this attitude most clearly in Pakistan. The military leadership will keep the lid on their generally Laden supporting population in order to ensure that they themselves do not wake up in the firing line. They are currently host to 2.5 million Afghan refugees - who are no friends of either the Taliban or Bin Laden. But if ONE of their number back home is killed by a coalition attack - you can expect a hundred recruits to the anti American cause. And the rest of the Pakistan population would go apeshit. Not that they would necessarily seek to become terrorists themselves, but they would certainly make it easier for terrorists to conduct their business.
It is crucial, therefore, to have very precise targets and stick rigidly to those.
The problem of precision, of course, lies in locating the 5000 combatants. As we've already learned, 12 of the 19 identified had been living in the USA on and off for most of the past few years. How many more are already there? Where are the rest? Its extremely unlikely that they are still hanging around the known training camps in Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan etc. They will have dispersed back to their home villages, or to entirely different countries around the world. What are we going to aim at then?
If the coalition sticks to the Runsfeld line, the answer to that is going to be "whatever we can find - even if there isn't a terrorist within a hundred miles - providing it hurts the host country and makes them think twice about allowing terrorists to operate freely within their borders ever again" That way lie many thousand newly motivated terrorists.
There must be No blanket bombing. No non-combatant casualties - even at the cost of greater casualties for our side.
In this war, we need brains and bullets not blather and bombs. Precision targeting, should mean the sniper's bullet not the laser guided smart bomb. I'm more than happy to see the talk of lifting the ban on CIA assassinations. This is indeed a dirty war and, paradoxically, if fought dirty, will actually be a lot safer for the rest of us.
The Brits have had no compunction in that direction. Its been a major factor in their relative success. Check out, for example, http://www.flamemag.dircon.co.uk/dirty_war_in_ire
And that, above all, or at least alongside the military manoeuvres, is the light that must be placed at the end of the tunnel. If there is no prospect of political reform, there is no prospect of an end to the War on Terrorism. After all, if they're already prepared to sacrifice their lives, what else have they got to lose?
Primarily this means, somehow, forcing Israel and the Palestinians to share, peacefully, a territory over which both claim sovereignty.
The administration has already spoken of flushing out the roots of terrorism. In fact, it has no current strategy for dealing with that ambitious project at all. There are mixed signals coming from Runsfeld. On the one hand he talks about using small units of special forces - which is encouragingly realistic. Assassination is the appropriate tool here. On the other, he talks about the terrorists not having capital targets to go after, but their harboring countries do; so we might go after those instead. Teach them not to support the terrorists in future. This is alarming nonsense. And precisely the kind of behaviour which will increase the problem by recruiting more terrorists to the cause.
Indeed, most depressingly, such talk indicates that they haven't even understood what the "roots of terrorism" are. They are not spoilt arab ex-playboys with too much money (bin Laden) or egomaniacal despots who used to be on our side (Hussein) or training camps in the desert. The roots of terrorism are the political conditions which have provoked widespread anger amongst about 25% of the human population. Are we going to kill them all? Thats what you'll have to do if you wish to flush out the roots of terrorism without confronting the political issues.
There are many such issues, but, without doubt, the strongest, most important root of all, is the ongoing war between Israel and the Palestinians. Find the magic formula for that one, and most of the rest will wither on the vine. Even Iraq would cease to be a problem if it was no longer able to nurture support through its unconditional succour to the Palestinians. This is the area we should be most focussed upon.
One final point on the emerging shape of the Coalition policy. As touched on above, we are apparently supposed, from now on, to be going after not just the combatants themselves, but after the countries which provide support, or merely harbour them. I wonder if the author of that policy is aware that, had the UK adopted such a policy say 15 years ago, it would have necessarily needed to attack Eire for harbouring and the USA for allowing its Irish contingent to provide most of the logistical and financial support which kept the IRA going. Somehow, I can't see the USA having been so keen to support such a policy at that time. Now, of course, that they have become the target, however, we seem to get a faint whiff of double standards...
Moving on...
...to the threat to our civil liberties,
The naivete of some of the responses I've read here is absolutely frightening. It seems that some of you seriously believe that this war is going to be "over by Christmas". Let me make it plain. I'm a fanatical privacy advocate. Indeed I hope in the near future to be able to promote the concept of near absolute safety achieved through and dependant upon the guarantee of near absolute privacy.
Despite that, if I genuinely believed that giving up my rights to privacy for, say, a couple of weeks, or even months, would guarantee success in this war, I would probably concede that it was a price worth paying.
However, first, I would want the control of that situation in my own hands. In other words, at the point I decide that either my sacrifice of privacy is no longer effectively contributing to the war effort, or that the authorities are abusing my surrendered privacy, I would want to be able to switch my privacy back on - regardless of whether they approved or not.
Failing that degree of personal autonomy (which is difficult, though not impossible, in today's world) I would accept no less than a democratically controlled policy where the decision was made not by elected representives but, using a national referendum, by the people themselves in a single issue vote. With a guarantee - enshrined in the wording of the referendum - that the powers being ceded would be time limited to, say, 12 months, after which the powers would lapse unless renewed by another referendum.
Secondly, we are not talking about a short term policy here. I've already made it clear that until and unless you can cure the Arab-Israeli problem (at least), the roots of terrorism will continue to thrive. Those who favour anti-privacy measures will clearly expect them to be in place for as long as the terrorist problem remains. Until, in fact, the roots of terror have been eliminated. So ask yourself the question. How long is it going to take to sort out the Middle East?
Its already taken more than 50 years. I see no immediate reason to believe we could achieve significant progress in less than another 10 or 15 years. Are you really prepared to lose your privacy rights for that long? And do you really believe, that if you gave them away so easily (i.e. without the annual referendum above) that you could ever easily win them back?
And with the so called War on Drugs as a precedent, do you (anti-privacy lobbyists) really understand what you're suggesting. You're already widely regarded as a near police-state with the highest prison population in the western world and have already suffered massive unchallenged breaches to your sacred constitution - the authors of which must be spinning in their graves.
Please, for your own sakes, and for the sake of those who died on September 11, don't sacrifice even more of your freedoms in the mistaken belief that it will protect them. What you'll end up with is a country which is no longer worth protecting.
On September 11 2002 we will commemorate the first anniversary of this horrific attack on civilisation. I hope that the most appropriate name for this day in the future will reflect the fact that it will be recognised as the day the world began to turn away from intolerance, and began instead to pay more than lip service to the very freedoms which are supposed to be enshrined in and protected by - first and foremost - your very own American constitution.
I hope it will be called World Liberty Day.
I know the dead deserve nothing less.
I would like to think that our own actions,
between now and that first sad anniversary,
and all those anniversaries to come,
will make us all feel that we deserve it too.
Harry Stottle
I can personally not understand the hate that one can harbor to do this, or to cheer it as so many in this and other country have (I think that is a bigger threat in the long term).
However, I really liked your comment on complacency (not your words). This country is basically a country of cowards and slackers. Sure it is great that 'we all pull together' but I noticed many times in the past that the love and compassion is very temporary and very much a fad. I have many bruises and I think a cracked rib (hurts to breath) from training to guard against this particular threat... box cutters? WTF? Box cutters, who here has used one of them... geez. The point is to do a little simple mathematics. OK, if I submit then I tell myself I will be ok, and this obviously violent man who is taunting that we will all die (and those like him have proven to back up their intent in the past) will let me live? Uhhh, hi! I am logic... WAKE UP!!!
The math part is this. Realistically, you have zero chance if you give up control. Remember that these are not people robbing a store (who's goal is candy, booze and money) these people kill innocents for fun and 'glory'. You are a sheep waiting to be slaughtered in their eyes. YOU HAVE ZERO CHANCE TO SURVIVE!!! If you fight, then you have a little. Even 0.0001% chace is better than ZERO, as in NULL.
Also, for efficiencies sake, dont wrestle or fight the first baddy. Kill him within 2 seconds or less then move on to the next. The more time you waste on the first murderer, the more time you give them to take control of the ship pand situation (and cut you). Also, you will crap yourself out. Geez, why do I bother. This gets me all worked up, time to go work out.
Just please wake up people. Be nice. Be honorable and be ethical. But when the you know what hits the fan, then fight like your life depends on it... because, duh...
I really fell horrible for these poor families and friends, because what can you do? These people are dead because they where guilty of being civilians and not Muslim or whatever. (yes, it is possible we could find out this was not the work of extremist muslims I suppose)
Well, I will count the seconds until this is mod'ed down, but I feel a lot better now myself :)
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
I would like to see face recognition software used for the coming war. Part of what I've been hearing is that the people of Afghanistan say that they are resigned to being slaughtered even though "they are not the enemy" -- and I've heard people here talk about how if we go slaughter them after they slaughter us, we're no better than they are. Well, what does slashdot think of this -- is it too naive? Couldn't we go into these countries -- obviously forcing our way in, which would hopefully only cause military casualties -- and ferret out only Taliban members and Al Queda members using face recognition software? There may only be 1,000 "criminals" whose photos we'd use, so the scanning might be able to happen quickly.
I realize it probably sounds very big-brother-ish to say "scan the citizens for criminals among them" but it's a lot better than "bomb everyone and sort 'em out later."
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
natch
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
I'm guess you were born after Nixon's presidency.
-- SIGFPE
Its not that liberty is of no concern, but what liberties are even lost from even "mass surveillance".
Obviously police work with evidince from "decrantalized" cameras, so what is so different from having it centralized?
The government will watch you in airports, terminals, subways, and places where it is of political, ethical, and morally right for them to watch you.
My point is, some cameras are needed. I don't know everything, didn't claim to as you do. I'm not afraid to be watched since i'm not breaking any laws. In the privacy of my own home i know my neighboors are listening in, because that is the catholic way out here in lancaster, home of the catholics and amish people.
Its much like a small town, everyone knows your name. Its much like living in the 'burbs' of houston, everyone knows you. It is much like living in NYC everyone on your block knows what is going down..
Its when these unexpected and non localized challenges come along that you need a centralized system of tracking people.
thats my point
One possible way to achieve this last point might be to create legislation that demands software for, e.g. airport check-in face scanners (or, for that matter, stadium entrance face scanners) to be publicly accessible so that tech-savvy individuals or organizations like the EFF can check them for compliance. This would not only encompass software as delivered by the system manufacturer, but also deployed software.
One would have to think carefully about if and how to allow companies to keep trade secrets (e.g. the face recognition algorithm) at the same time.
Thinking about this now, the problem seems to have parallels to international arms control and verification. Same problem there: show the other guys how many missiles you have, and that you don't cheat on the treaties, but don't show them how the warheads are constructed in detail. Maybe some methods could be copied.
-- H. Wilker
That's IT!! Most the government must have been replaced with robots that report to BG! That is why they are dropping the case!
I bet he even staged this whole attack to give hime the ability to finish his take-over of the U.S. Government! He bought the twin towers and all the property around it and hired thousands of acters to act out his dasterdly plan in front of the whole nation!
Hmmm is his funny or not, or just OT?
and what he stood for and what he fought against in the wake of another terrorist act that once again 'Bin Laden' said he didn't do. Just like then when he was accussed of the Oklahoma bombing Bin Laden i stelling Americans to look within their own borders for the perpetrators.
If the government has all of the information they need in order to track "evil-doers", they, of course, will have the opportunity to track anyone.
And I tell you this, I really don't give a crap... look into my life, just as the IRS does. The IRS can look at anyones tax information, and use it against them at anytime. They only do this when there is a "red-flag".
I am so sick of this treehugging hippie, barefoot, conspiracy theory, mentality. What the hell do we really have to hide, anyway?
Soft leadership has buried us under the guise of liberal Bullshit. Conservative leadership may police us too much, but I'd rather know that OUR PRESIDENT IS GETTING INTELLIGENCE FROM HOME AND ABROAD, INSTEAD OF GETTING A BLOWJOB AT HOME, FROM SOME BROAD.
Bottom line:
People are going to compain about anything. What ever may be done, is going to piss of some,and please others. Its beautiful to be American and argue these differences.
Thanks,
Michael M.
However, it occurs to me that there is a possibly legitimate use for face recognition programs that might actually improve security and would not infringe on anyone's rights.
Instead of training the face recognition on the passengers to find specific individuals in a sea of innocents, let's place the cameras in the maintenance hangars and around the planes. Then have them look for faces that don't belong.
By having a record of the employees who are supposed to be handling the planes on a given day, and making sure that no others are getting their hands on the planes, we could actually use this technology to make things better instead of worse.
OK, now someone tell me what part of all of this doesn't make sense, or what I forgot.
the ETA is responsible for bombings in SPAIN!, not France.
The 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry' is a short sighted and historically proven FALSE claim. However it is exactly that sort of illogic that empowers and justifies any secret police or totalitarian regime. So, it does indeed have its uses.
"Its beautiful to be American and argue these differences" That is exactly the case here. If you 'enforce' that freedom you take it away. there are lots of quotes from our Founding Fathers about trading freedom for security and such, and of course the 'I disagree with you and what you say but will fight to the death your right to continue to do so" or something like that :)
Outside the teeter-totter of left and right (and 'moderate'... what a joke) is the true sense of balance and enlightenment that this country was founded on. Good luck finding it
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
1. GWB is president. Nothing is going to change that, come hell or high water. It's ok to admit that things weren't kosher with the SCOTUS decision-- Bush'll still be president and we'll all feel a little better.
2. The Constitution places responsibility for presidential elections with the state legislature. When the legislature produces pairs of conflicting laws, it's the job of the legal system to resolve the confusion. I'm sorry you don't like the Florida court or its decision, but saying "Gore brought the courts in first" doesn't justify the SCOTUS's actions, which essentially took away the state's ability to determine its own elections on some very shaky grounds (equal protection which never existed, and a deadline that was not absolute.)
3. Bush getting more votes doesn't excuse the SCOTUS's actions. Had the court simply allowed the recounts to take place, Bush might have won fair and square. Had the courts provided a uniform standard for the recounts, there would have been no worry about abuses. Had the issue gone before Congress, a bunch of elected representatives would have been able to decide the issue. By entering the arena and essentially shutting the state of FL out of its own election, the SCOTUS muddied what could have been a close but legitimate election.
Now that it's all a moot point, I think it's important that everyone think more thoroughly about the case. A case so unprecedented that it... didn't set precedent! Maybe in twenty or fifty years it'll make interesting reading for high school history students, and they'll all wonder what the hell the court was thinking. It'd be nice if we could be detached enough to ponder the answer to that question ourselves.
I don't worry that much about privacy.
Would Mcarthyism have been less of a caricature if there was more privacy?
If you're paranoid and you have little data, then you work with little data. Sometimes you get different results.
If I'd had to point to the biggest danger , i'd pick the lock-in between
giving more power to people/institutions/ways of thinking that thrive on fear and hate, and those people in their turn feeding fear and hate.
I think that has been (re)happening in Israel recently.
The lockin is very real and hard to reverse, even when the enemy is harmless. I remember reading that Mao maintained a regularly changing fake 'internal enemy' of 5% of the population.
Maybe harder if the enemy is real- and big(hm, what about a small enemy with sth big behind it).
There are ways to motivate people to become your enemy, and after a while you can't just suddenly start disarming- (removing the weapons or the people).
Imagine a war ending when one party suddenly just gets fed up with it and leaves.
a libertarian anarchist. That is like a Zionist Nazi. Anarchy is would allow a rich or physically powerful individual to hurt someone 'weaker' because he/she willed it. That would of course deprive the other person (the victim) of life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.
I don't think anyone would have a problem with face recognition software being used in an airport. We expect higher security there. What many of us don't want, is for such cameras and software to be installed in public places, a la Tampa. I don't want to walk from my school to a gas station and have 5 cameras watching me the whole time.
You bring up a problematic point, though, by casting this as "freedom in a legal sense." Freedom in a legal sense is not currently freedom as most of us would think of it. Look at any book of silly laws for some evidence. The Hoboken Chicken Ordinance comes to mind. The problem of creating legislation in such a way as to address changing times while preserving freedom is probably one of the better reasons to have a legislative body.
As long as we're quoting Founding Fathers, let's take Jefferson's definition:
I think it's clear what Jefferson's opinion of freedom was.
Regards, Krinn
Unfortunately, being profound and being boring are not mutually exclusive; a fact that this sentence proves.
While I can always agree with RMS on subjects, this one does not work with me. I am all for the use of face recognition. Sure many groups are against it and think it is horrible, but when you think about it, I would rather have my face scanned at the airport than get on a plane with hijackers, doomed to be killed during flight.
The government has always had problems with American citizens and privacy. Everyone wants their privacy, but they also want security and don't want to have to worry about being slaughtered on a flight to visit realitives. I hardly think the people who will be using this technology is going to use it in harm or to peer into our lives. They are going to be using it for one reason: security.
So if this technology ever gets implimented at airports and we start to be scanned, I will proudly look up at the camera and let the computers know that I am a honest working American citizen who deserves the right security.
And I can guarentee you that if you could bring back the thousands of dead people and their families also, I would bet that every single one of them would have gladly had their face scanned for security.
Excellent comments, fredbsd. No need to feel sorry for the rant--RMS asked and he received. By the way, shouldn't you call yourself GNU/fredbsd?
w|f
ultra liberal? Not quite. In fact, considering that liberals are the ones that most often deprive people of individual rights for 'the good of the state' you really should reanalyze your statement, and perhaps your life too. Don't get stuck in the parroting name-calling label war that the real extremists (usually liberals, but sometimes the ultra 'conservatives') want you to do. Don't be their slave. Don't be a slave to stupidity please.
All right, you want a real workable solution. I haven't verified this, but rumour has it that Brazil will allow anyone over age 21 to carry firearms .38 calibre on all domestic flights.
That's how you most effectively prevent hijacking. Allow the law abiding and self-interested citizens to outgun the hijackers and the war on air terrorism is over.
Why did these hijackers choose aircraft? Because they knew ahead of time that the group they had to keep subdued would be unarmed.
That's what we need to fix. Do we have the courage, or do I get flamed?
it was the inconsistency of application that was the problem. If you fight with military, then you must kill and destroy. To do less not only puts your military men (kids actually) into unnecessary danger, but reduces the feeling that war trully is terrible. A true warrior would fight to the death and strike true, but do everything in his power to avoid ever having to do so in the first place.
...The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people becomes.
The shaper men's weapons.
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
the more thieves and robbers...
Tao, 57
Keegan is one of the most renowned historians on the topics of warfare, and World War 2 in particular. He is most definitely NOT an idiot, but you have to recgonize his perspective not about the practicality of eliminating encryption, merely posing the problem for thought.
-Stu
..the attacks still point out to me that civil liberties are a compramize. I'm not shure about very much any more as a result. It's easy to say "We should be willing to loose some people for freedom" when you are talking small bombings of a few school children, but nuclear, chemical, or bio weapons are diffrent story.
The one thing I'm shure about is that we must stop congress from taking away our civil liberties for *ineffective* meassures. Crypto restrictions would be ineffective since the terrorists have crypto anyway. Luggage searchs, police on planes, and maybe even extensive background checks when you buy a plane ticket are as unreasonable. (I'm required to identify myself when I drive a car or carry a gun because these activities threaten the lives of others.. perhaps riding on an air plane is not so diffrent.. I donno)
Hell, government sponcered assasinations might be effective.. They would have been unthinkable one week ago, but now I donno. There are many subtil issues.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
They're saying Ussama Bin Laden is coordinating all this via internet and encryption and steganography. They're making him out to be some genius-cum-hacker.
The guy lives in a fucking wasteland with no communications infrastructure of any kind. He probably doesn't see a modern toilet on a daily basis for chrissakes. People talk about nuking Afghanistan into the Stone Age; it's already there. And they expect us to believe Bin Laden is capable of being some internet manipulator par excellence? One would need an internet connection first.
Trust me. The powers that be are always looking for excuses, and this is a great one. That uncomfortable feeling you're having is the feeling of having smoke blown up your ass. The only people who are going to make out well on this deal are the jackbooted types in our own country, and the terrorists, who will laugh themselves silly at us selling ourselves into slavery out of fear.
I'm all with RMS on this one, but then when am I not? =P
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
What the government is seeking to do is to monitor DOMESTIC communications in bulk...
I disagree. What the government is seeking to do is enable internet communications to be tapped similar to how phones can be tapped. Same protections, same controls, same situations, same vital link in law enforcement (and now, warfighting.)
If a known terrorist was in the country, would you have any problem with the FBI coming in daily to check the email logs of that person? Would you have a problem with the FBI obtaining a warrant to copy all communications to and from that person? Carnivore would simply automate these tasks.
Evil is the money of root.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
They found out who these guys where thru paper trails, not email.
right up until he made the statement "...your unelected president." Get over it fucko. He is your president too. I for one am really glad we didn't have to find out what Gore would have proposed we do in this situation. Probably something along the lines of "forgive and forget"... In a word, WEAK.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
".. You know, there are many people in the country today who, through no fault of their own, are sane. Some of them were born sane. Some of them became sane later in their lives. It is up to people like you and me who are out of our tiny little minds to try and help these people overcome their sanity. You can start in small ways with ping-pong ball eyes and a funny voice and then you can paint half of your body red and the other half green and then you can jump up and down in a bowl of treacle going "squawk, squawk, squawk..." And then you can go "Neurhhh! Neurhhh!" and then you can roll around on the floor going "pting pting pting"...
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
I bite my thumb at the unintelligible person with no sense of humor who down-moderated.
one word:
ECHELON (hope i typed that right).
ps dont say it doesnt exists, even the european union admits that theres evidence of its existance ds
Giving everyone here the benefit of the doubt, isn't it possible that you're overlooking a simple, reasonable and (ultimately) non-inflammatory explanation?
For example, considering that G.W.B. is well into his first term of office, isn't this topic something likely to be of import in the next (not-that-far-away) U.S. presidential election? And therefore, in a short time, someone who is not currently elected will be president (even if it is the same person who won the previous election).
Furthermore, considering that the law of the land says that a man can only be president for two terms...Isn't it reasonable to suppose that our next president (i.e.: whoever succeeds G.W.B. -- Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, be it the next election or the one after) is someone currently in politics, and is involved and watching this situation develop?
I'm assuming that nobody here believes that Bush will suspend the "terms-of-office" law and install himself as imperator or somesuch, but I'm saying that there are reasonable -- and non-biased -- ways of interpreting that line, even if you're a fan of G.W.B. (which the author may not be).
Of course the people doesn't want war. But after all it is the leaders who
determine its politics, and it's very simple to bring the mass to follow you,
whether you live in a democracy, a fascist or a communist regime.
The people can always be brought the the leader's will. It's easy, you only
have to convince them that they're being attacked. Then you denounce the pacifists
for their lack of patriotism and because they put the country at risk.
Hermann Goering
(during the Nuremberg trial)
unlimited power should never be granted. what was that quote about absolute power and corruption?...
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Of course the people doesn't want war. But after all it is the leaders who
determine its politics, and it's very simple to bring the mass to follow you,
whether you live in a democracy, a fascist or a communist regime.
The people can always be brought the the leader's will. It's easy, you only
have to convince them that they're being attacked. Then you denounce the pacifists
for their lack of patriotism and because they put the country at risk.
Hermann Goering.
(during the Nuremberg trial)
I disagree that airport personnel even used face recognition, in a human sense.
to say that they tried it visually and it failed - therefore computer-based recog. software will also fail; this is a non-sequitor.
I am not advocating software-based face recognition. in fact, I'm alarmed that the so-called representatives in congress would even believe we're at that level of technological sophistication. most of us who are based in the tech industry clearly know this isn't ready for prime-time. but I do take issue with RMS's argument logic here.
please argue against F.R.S. on its own dismerits and don't compare it to the lack of procedure currently in place by actual people.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
See what a professionnal war-maker has to say :
Of course the people doesn't want war. But after all it is the leaders who
determine its politics, and it's very simple to bring the mass to follow you,
whether you live in a democracy, a fascist or a communist regime.
The people can always be brought the the leader's will. It's easy, you only
have to convince them that they're being attacked. Then you denounce the pacifists
for their lack of patriotism and because they put the country at risk.
Hermann Goering
(during the Nuremberg trial)
another good reason to use the cryptix library.
There is a bunch of good info on open source crypto and how US govt restrictions on crypto will simply mean that the rest of the world has better crypto than they do at cpsr.org.
europe has gone open source crypto mad. the germans are keen, the eu has just busted eschelon wide open and their conclusion is that everyone in the eu should be using oscrypto. you can bet your ass that everyone will use the strongest cheapest crypto they can - and that will be open, free and so tough you'll need a quantum computer to crack it.
still, thinking about it, quantum computers are so small they'll probably be spray on everywhere things . - so perhaps all this talk is already redundant. software based encryption is already redundant.
dave
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
You don't want your face scanned - don't buy an airline ticket. You don't want your e-mail read - don't send any. You have a free way to travel - you can walk. You have a free way to communicate - travel to whomever you want to talk to to and start flapping your gums. Identifying your face when you get on an airplane does not eliminate your freedom. It increases it. It does this because it helps to protect your life. You know, that self-evident freedom, along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I know, I know. The police might ask for your ID if you don't look right when you are out walking. You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded movie house. The principles that apply in the U.S. are that your freedoms are pretty much absolute unless (and this is a big unless) the rights of someone else are threatened. I'd say that being killed as part of a terrorist act is a pretty big threat. If the government wants to know that I went to Disneyland with the kids on an airplane, I'm okay with that. If I want to plot to overthrow the government and the big meeting is in East Bumfsck, I would probably not get on the plane. Hmmm... Maybe this would make terrorism a little more difficult?
So many of these arguments about freedoms are based on the argument "I don't want the government to know what I'm doing." Why? Are you embarrassed? Are you afraid that you might be doing something wrong? If you are, then why should you be able to get away with it? If you are not, why worry? If the government makes a mistake (this is the fear that I understand) more records would HELP YOU! If the government has a db entry that I went to some terrorist meeting on such-and-such a date, I would love to pull out e-mail records (preferably with PGP signatures!), atm records, toll both records, credit card receipts and more that all show that I wasn't there!
I keep seeing the phrase that 'information wants to be free'. So why not this kind of information?
...
Of course the people doesn't want war. But after all it is the leaders who
determine its politics, and it's very simple to bring the mass to follow you,
whether you live in a democracy, a fascist or a communist regime.
The people can always be brought the the leader's will. It's easy, you only
have to convince them that they're being attacked. Then you denounce the pacifists
for their lack of patriotism and because they put the country at risk.
Hermann Goering
(during the Nuremberg trial)
RMS suggests that face recognition software won't be effective and thus should not be implemented. I'm sure that someone, somewhere is going to object to his thinking thusly:
"If you believe that face recognition software won't work, and thus won't prevent terrorism, then what do you have to fear from it? If it doesn't work, then how are they going to infringe on your precious civil liberties with it?"
I think a lot of people will be fooled by such a question into thinking that if present day face recognition doesn't work, maybe if we implement it anyway and incrementally improve it, maybe someday we'll be safe.
But the failures of face recognition software are precisely what a civil libertarian fears. Fingering the wrong guy. Mistaken identity. NOT just failing to correctly ID the bad guys. Don't be fooled...
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Lesson 1:
Of course the people doesn't want war. But after all it is the leaders who
determine its politics, and it's very simple to bring the mass to follow you,
whether you live in a democracy, a fascist or a communist regime.
The people can always be brought the the leader's will. It's easy, you only
have to convince them that they're being attacked. Then you denounce the pacifists
for their lack of patriotism and because they put the country at risk.
Hermann Goering
(during the Nuremberg trial)
Err I mean extreme-right...
Well like Hermann said :
Of course the people doesn't want war. But after all it is the leaders who
determine its politics, and it's very simple to bring the mass to follow you,
whether you live in a democracy, a fascist or a communist regime.
The people can always be brought the the leader's will. It's easy, you only
have to convince them that they're being attacked. Then you denounce the pacifists
for their lack of patriotism and because they put the country at risk.
Hermann Goering
(during the Nuremberg trial)
Say what you will about how he's handling the Xemacs debacle, but he's right on target with this article.
pressure/grep
Microsoft Fucking Sucks!! Up The Penguins!!
a free dom, not, ahem, this "freedom" stuff you're talking about, whatever that is.
It is my opinion that if we no longer supported Israel, all terrorism against the US would stop. Israel is absolutely hated by all the other Middle Eastern countries. And our support of Israel is why they hate us as well.
If we were to stop providing support for Israel, Israel would cease to exist within 1 year. Every other middle eastern country would attack it.
You don't realize the hatred towards Israel by the other countries in that region.
that fascism is on the rise in America.
Food for thought :
Of course the people doesn't want war. But after all it is the leaders who
determine its politics, and it's very simple to bring the mass to follow you,
whether you live in a democracy, a fascist or a communist regime.
The people can always be brought the the leader's will. It's easy, you only
have to convince them that they're being attacked. Then you denounce the pacifists
for their lack of patriotism and because they put the country at risk.
Hermann Goering
(during the Nuremberg trial)
But the only "rights" you can possibly have are those that are laid out by the governing body in a region. In the US, that is the Federal Government as established by the Constitution, and especially as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and other Amendments.
In other "civilized" countries, rights are based on their government. In "developing" countries, rights are based on local warlords. In the backwoods of Columbia, your rights are decided by the rebel leaders and drug lords. If you go into that area, you must accept the fact that there are no "human rights" in effect. If the local rebels don't like you, they will kill you. They won't even bother to hold you hostage for ransom, since they make plenty of money from the drug trade.
And in the US, even visitors have the right to remain silent, the right to not be searched unreasonably, and the right to a lawyer. About the only time this is routinely overlooked would be with illegal immigrants, who are processed and sent back home with little concern for their rights. But the alternative is for the government to bring them to court and throw them in prison for a few years. For expediency sake, that is not done.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Please don't read the following...
Of course the people doesn't want war. But after all it is the leaders who
determine its politics, and it's very simple to bring the mass to follow you,
whether you live in a democracy, a fascist or a communist regime.
The people can always be brought the the leader's will. It's easy, you only
have to convince them that they're being attacked. Then you denounce the pacifists
for their lack of patriotism and because they put the country at risk.
Hermann Goering
(during the Nuremberg trial)
are lame.
...the terrorist boards the plane. Face scanners aren't that great and with the $6/hr. security temp running them, there won't be anyone with enough experience to run these things in the first place. Turnover is high at that wage, no? Face scanners won't make us any safer (in their current state at least), and they only serve to give Joe Sixpack a false sense of security. No, give me a security professional who has been on the job for years and is very happy with his living wage. That will make me safer, that will make me feel safer, and that is a lot less expensive that rebuilding World Trade Centers.
And while we are on the topic of creating jobs, what on earth is the FAA thinking?! A plain cloths sky marshals on some flights! Here's an idea, 1 uniformed sky marshal +0-2 plain cloths sky marshals on every flight. Seems to me the only plain cloths approach lends itself to being quietly scaled back or removed entirely at a future date when we are 'safe' again (read: passenger safety plays second fiddle to some law maker's pet project in budget debates).
Terrorists, IMHO, are like black hats. They will always be present. You cannot hope to 'eliminate' them. You can, at best, catch and punish those who succeed, and shore up your defenses so that most do not.
then we were a week ago? No.
The level of human stupidity never ceases to amaze me. There is absolutly no way to protect yourself from this kind of attack. There is no way to prevent it if the attackers are resourceful enough and have enough time. America screwed it's citizens years ago with short-sighted, arrogant foriegn policy and we are now paying the price. Any action now will only dig us deeper into the hole we are already in.
Get your head out and wake up folks.
Cutting edge is sharp, avoid contact.
I was watching CNN today when an alaskan reservist called in and mentioned anything we do over in afghanistan will be echo'd here. Then a politition on the panel mentioned that the second wave might be biological in nature.
I swear, when I drove by one of my local resivoirs, security was way beefed up.
I don't like the idea of having a human watch anything at this point. You can run checks, but can you trust them? A machine that neither sleeps, nor wants, nor cares about politics that can identify suspected terrorist and alert authorities if they are in the vicinity of a strike zone. I see nothing wrong with that.
I'd rather have camera's at the resivoirs watching out for me, sure I can't lie to the ranger about catching over my limit, but thats a small price to pay when you consider the consequences of not doing it.
You can buy bottled/filtered water all you want, run your thermostat high on your water heater to boil out biological threats, but what if your neighbor doesn't? What if they catch something really nasty and despite all your own precautions you ended up dying from flesh eating bacteria or anthrax?
What if your little cousin or brother or sister went swimming and got something?
This wouldn't be a quick death like the WTC planes, you would watch your loved one suffer over a matter of weeks.
I'm not just for putting face recognition in airports and borders, we also need it near the places where there are no people.
--toqer
Posted non-anonymously cause im not afraid of bad charma.
People, our system of government works: civil liberites can be suspended during war and then be regained afterwards.
You are incorrect. Federal Income Tax was instituted again in 1942 as a "war measure". It ended up being permenant.
Oh and speaking of which, Some officials have been hinting that this will be one of those "never-ending" wars, like the "War on Drugs"(tm), while not a traditional "war", is still considered one. You can have your property seized without being charged with a crime, with virtually no hope of getting it back, even if you are innocent. All it takes is for someone to accuse you of trafficing in drugs, or suspect you of any "criminal activity". And guess what, they're doing it often.
This isn't the 1860s where our government had some sort of decency. The government didn't repeal the income tax after ww2 because they knew they could get away with not repealing it.
You're assuming that our government is trustworthy enough to give us our rights back. History has shown that they are not. You're a fool if you think otherwise.
The worst part of it is that civil liberties given up in vain. The law breakers always find ways around them.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Today Wall Street opened, and among the few industries that increased value were defense, and those face recognition system makers.
Why don't I agree this increases our 'national security'?
Neither one of these industries prevented 5,000 deaths last week, and there is no evidence that they will in the future, nor will the demands for back doors to encryption, increased wire-tapping, lifting bans on assassination, or other assaults on our civil liberties. I agree with RMS.
Look at airline safety. Paul Krugman in yesterday's New York Times pointed out that it had been privatized by the Reaganites. As a result, airlines contract out to foreign companies who pay workers less than burger tossers. We get the security we pay for. Both the Regan 'conservatives' and libertarians are wrong in bashing government intervention here--the market clearly can't decide not to fly on American or United or U.S. Air because they are 'less safe'.
Note that our defense industries are essentially privatized, the "military-industrial complex" in Eisenhower's words. Note that those facial recognition and biometric systems are essentially privatizing public safety--the system in Tampa, for example, is funded by the company, not the government. One judge refused to fine speeders because a private company, Lockheed, gets a percentage of the speeding tickets recorded on its cameras. This is corruption.
Suppose that liberals or socialists are right in nationalizing the airline safety system. Then will a bloated, lazy, corrupt civilian force do a better job? Who will promise they will be treated any better than the airline controllers under Reagan?
I am all for increased public safety. Why is it that so many people are suddenly experts on the situation now and why is it that I am afraid to leave my house and mingle amongst all those idiots?
Richard's point is made, but not as he intended. Computer facial recognition is different, and more likely to score a hit if the owners of the faces in question are on file and tagged as dangerous... and were they? And besides, the software also produces false positives. Regardless of formal assurances, once you're arrested as a suspected terrorist, it sticks to your record.
The point Richard's trying to make is that the proposed solutions - which involve serious loss of liberty and privacy - DO NOT WORK!. Think about it.
If you are a terrorist, planning to murder thousands of people and perhaps yourself as well, exactly how much attention will you pay to laws requiring you to hand a security key to your communications over to the people you're planning to murder? Or would you be more interested in acquiring a copy of the government database of same, so that your hostile foreign power then had open slather on millions of honest, non-hostile law-abiding people going about their previously secure and private business?
If you are a terrorist, planning to murder thousands and perhaps also yourself, are you going to take all of your guns in and register them, no matter what the law says, and what he penalties are? How about your bombs? Hardwood or plastic knives, when legislation reaches down that far?
If you are a terrorist, planning to murder thousands and perhaps also yourself, are you going to have anything obvious lying around when government agents carry out a home invasion on you?
If you are a terrorist, planning to murder thousands and perhaps also yourself, are you going to worry about the effects of your actions on others of your race or more-or-less faith?
Are you going to worry about the effects of your actions on the day to day lives and business of your enemies? Of course you are! You count the fear and resentment you instil in over two hundred million people (by murdering a ``mere'' five thousand) as a great part of your victory.
Think about it.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Enough about the WTC already. We're bombarded with information, new or not, from every angle. Television, radio, the internet, speakers, churches, ad nauseum. One of the intentions of the terrorists was to completely disrupt our way of life. You can see that it's been sucessful. A 'return to normalcy' is the healthiest possible solution while the government prepares whatever response it feels is necessary.
RMS is right by saying that using terrorist attacks as convenient moves to take away civil liberties is true. Britain's move and resultant general failure to catch any terrorist activity by use of their camera systems should be proof enough. I believe that security should be increased in airports, etc. but face recognition is just a way for FaceCO or whoever to make a quick buck. As any system admin knows, security is an ongoing process and there's no push-button solution for securing ANYTHING. You have to have more than a few things in an airport to lock it down and barely-above-minimum-wage rentacops are a disgustingly sad element to their security solution. Would you buy the crappiest car alarm for your car that doesn't always go off when someone tries to jack your car or an expensive one? I think you know.
All I can say is, I'll be glad when all the damn media hoopla about this event is coming to a close. Do all couhtries sensationalize everything like we do?
looks like i need to get to work writing 'backdoor.h' for PGP.
.. it does to me
Does this smell of M$ to u?
Why, to think if software like PGP isnt secret and controlled by M$ , then the bad guys wont include 'backdoor.h' in their next compile.
This is an assult on OSS by M$, at a time when everone , especially those who dont understand are greiving for our loss.
We have become a 'banana republic' overnight. Not only were we assulted from without by the terrorists, but we have been assulted from within by those who hate all the inconveinence of our pesky constitution.
The next White House press conference may very well look like THIS
* Carthago Delenda Est *
and written Congress about this? I wrote my rep and 2 senators today....act fast people. Congress reconvenes on the 21st and you can bet crypto will rear its head on the agenda pretty quick!
I guess most are of the opinion that a terrorist's email is no one's business but his own. There are perfect ideas and then there is reality. Reality requires moderation and compromise.
I don't think even RMS would be that extreme. Rather, what he is saying is that you should 'vote with your feet' and ensure that the next (currently unelected) president who you vote for is fully aware of the issues regarding freedom vs. terrorism.
I really think he meant exactly what he wrote -- that George W. Bush is an unelected president.
Such a viewpoint may be in the minority (unfortunately), but it's hardly extreme. I don't always agree with RMS, but on this point, I and a lot of people I know think he's right. (And, of course, a lot think he's wrong.)
"Freedom is not a right, it is a priviledge."
Wow, that is disturbing. It seems to me that much
of the U.S. population (sorry to generalise) just don't "get it".
Look at the facts before this "tragedy", America is directly responsible for more deaths in one month than all casualties from the WTC. This is foreign soil I am talking about.
America is the big player in the world scene, the government knows and the American people know this. Decisions in the U.S. (generally) have a large impact on the rest of the world. I'll make this brief and not cite the many many problems around the world (of course America is not responsible for all).
That is the point, responsibility.. You can't be the big bad bully on the block and not expect a punch in the face. The "innocent" people that died were (generally) American taxpayers/citizens, THESE are the people that have to be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for the government they put in, either legally or illegally (corruption has no boundaries of authority).
The most valid statement I have heard is, and continues to be: "You reap what you sow".
Hypocrisy and more violence, what the world has come to expect from the American government. I CANNOT stress that enough, the culprit here is the government. The buck stops at the American citizen.
If they open their eyes they will see that America has long been the joke of the world, and everytime the GWB puppet spouts "freedom" his nose grows that little bit longer....
Richard Stallman has no idea what liberty is. While I agree with most of sentiment he expresses in this piece it is quite contridictory for the founder of the FSF to speak of freedom (despite the appearance of the word "freedom" in the organizations name.) Freedom means the freedom to live your life as a human qua human. Humans rely on their mind to produce for survival. This means that people must be able to keep the fruits of their labor. Because man's capacity to produce is primarily mental, this means men must be able to keep the *intellectual* fruits of their mental labor. Thus, the justification for patent and copyright laws. The FSF and others who seek to rid this country of these laws are assaulting rights. I, therfore, beleive that such people have no room to speak about civil liberties or rights. Furthermore, we have two options to keep us safe. One is constant surveillance by the government. This is unlikely to work and punishes the US citizens rather than the terrorists. It therefore achieves the terrorists goal: destruction of the American way of life. The other is to make it impossible for terrorists to operate. Stallman wants us to choose neither option which means that the terrorists will continue to attack us and we will be powerless to defend ourselves. If we target the individuals responsible for this attack then the governments that covertly (or not so covertly to anyone who reads a newspaper on a regular basis instead of listening to the drivel from our government appeasers) spronsor the terrorists will find some new people to replace them.
Although it would seem appropriate to some that the SCOTUS should be dealing out vigilante justice in just this way, it's not legal or appropriate. The Florida Court could have been a bunch of raving liberal commies advocating mass-murder, and the SCOTUS still would not have been justified in inventing arbitrary new deadlines.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
I misread the headline at first. I thought it said, "Stallman Dead, Millions deprived of liberties". Maybe I need new glasses...
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
If we leave Saudi Arabia in the middle of the night like a beaten dog, I hope we at least have the courtesy to inform the Saudis and Kuwaitis of our intention. They'll be overrun by Saddam by the middle of next week, and they might appreciate the warning.
I don't think that Saddam could easily invade Saudi Arabia, nor do I think that he has the intention to do so absent American involvement.
Kuwait is different. Kuwait was originally part of Iraq and when the British pulled out, they created that country as a way to "keep their foot in the door" in that region. As a result Iraq has, for some time (and long before Saddam) looked for a way to reclaim that land.
Don't get me wrong, even though I am highly critical of American war crimes (19 counts of which were tried in front of the international war-crimes tribunal and convictions were reached on all counts against Bush, Powell, etc), Hussein is no good guy. Anyone that would gas his own citizens with poison gas (during the Iran-Iraq war when he was our ally and probably on the payrole of groups like the CIA) certainly deserves much of the disdain he receives.
The 'net is full of people who have never even unfolded a newspaper, much less opened a history book, yet who are only too happy to tell us all what we ought to do. I guess such, er, diversity of opinion is one of the benefits of living in a free society, though.
Speaking of history, the last time a country really went to war over a terrorist act was Austro-Hungary, 1914. Although I can't speak for others, when I say I am afraid this would lead to WWIII, I base it on the following observations:
1: Massive tension in the Middle East which focuses around resentment towards "foreign invaders"-- mostly the Israeli's bot also the Americans.
2: The volitility of the Pakistan/India/China border. I predicted a few years ago that if WWIII broke out, that would be where. Pakistan and India have been fighting over the Cashmere for a long time and about every 20 years, China tried to invade India...
3: Russian Paranoia-- The Russians have been historically paranoid about foreign troups near their borders. We saw how they acted in WWI, at the end of WWII, and in Kosovo. The strategy is always based around a show of force and/or control of border states to prevent hostile troops from entering Russia. I think a war in Afghanistan would qualify there as well.
3:
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Senator Gregg:
As a loyal supporter of conservative causes and as one who is knowledgable in
the science of encryption, I must ask you to reconsider your position on
government oversight of encrypted documents. You stated in your press
release that "we must be careful... that we not cast our net so wide that we
catch innocent people." I assure you that such a bill will do nothing to
hinder terrorist activity, while greatly infringing upon American liberites.
I can write a secure encryption program for my PC or even for my graphing
calculator in a few hours, and so can terrorists. Information on how to
create such a program is available on thousands of sites across the Internet.
Today's encryption algorithms are asymmetric, meaning that one can receive
and decode an encrypted meant for them, but yet be unable to decode other
messages using the algorithm and sent by the same person. More importantly,
this means that there is no single piece of information that will provide the
government with a backdoor. Therefore, this law will be unenforcable against
anyone determined to break it. For law abiding citizens, however, it will be
a great invasion of privacy. The argument against the passage of this bill
mirrors that against gun control - "If secure encryption is outlawed, only
outlaws will have secure encryption." I urge you to further analyze this
issue and to consult with a cryptologist.
Sincerely,
Daniel Franke
Do they intend to do this now? No, of course not. Is it possible that they may do things like this later on, once the infrastructure is in place and the restrictions are gone? Nah, our government'd never abuse their power and persecute ordinary citizens... for something as simple as their alleged political beliefs. It's completely unlikely that a key figure with the FBI would use his agency to collect information on people not under investigation.
I mean, it's not like any of this has happened in the past fifty years, even.
I can tell you something now, though. If these attacks continue, I would hate to be a peaceful Arab American. If the morons don't harrass you, you can bet that the government will.
As we all know, a bill has been proposed that would require back doors in all encryption products, which is NOT okay in my book.
If the required "Backdoors Rule" is passed, it will be possible to undo erroneous legislation. The method is to use Nonviolent Protest and Civil Disobedience as demonstrated by Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi. So if Congress passes a law seen as unjust, ethical masses of people can choose not to obey the unjust law and accept the consequences. This is easy enough- just download the source code or a binary installer for encryption known not to have a back door and keep running it. And as part of the civil disobedience, these people must accept the unjust but pre-determined consequences. I don't know what the consequences for using non-backdoor software would be under these proposals, but the worse they are the more ridiculous they will seem. As hundreds of thousands of peaceful geeks and other ordinary citizens are say, shipped off to prison for the "crime" of using non-backdoor/escrow encryption, the government will continue to look dumber and dumber. As the government loses credibility of the criminal nature of the crypto masses, they might try to persecute the convicted and incite them to some kind of violence which would retroactively justify their unfair treatment. If they can survive the harsh treatment of this phase and remain for the most part polite in the face of injustice, the crypto law would lose all credibility and be forced to be repealed.
So if the irrational "No Crypto" legislation does go through, consider being ready to commit your own small acts of civil disobedience until the insanity is exposed and revealed. Civil disobedience requires sacrifice, but it has worked on far larger issues on this. The real question is, if our civil liberties are taken away in small enough increments, will people people be willing to make the sacrifices? You can boil a frog to death without restraining it- as long as you heat up the pot slowly enough that it can't detect the change.
Well, I agree that the US Supreme Court overstepped their bounds. But like I said, the Florida Supreme Court overstepped their bounds first, and once the conflict reaches the judicial system - it has to be decided there. Besides, would it really have been better if two Florida delegations showed up to the EC and the US Congress voted to choose one? IMHO, that would have been an even bigger debacle. And it certainly would not have been fair to have the Republican dominated Florida legislature intervene to determine the electors either. In 20/20 hindsight, now that we know the outcome with more certainty, I wish the judiciary was never involved and the counting had just followed the legal process. But I do blame the Gore campaign more than the Bush campaign for trying to involve the judiciary in the first place and dragging the process on.
I have seen a report that, in response to the events of last Tuesday (including the passengers who resisted and downed the fourth plane on its way to DC), Brazil has legalized gun-toting by airline passengers.
.44 special Bulldog model. It was developed for the US Air Martial program. Fires a big, slow bullet to avoid puncturing the hull or the windows. Kicks like a mule, but a bruised hand is better than a crash. Reasonably easy to conceal.
The flight-attendant speech is being revised to add instructions on how to plug a hijacker with minimum risk of puncturing the pressure hull, crew, and other passengers.
(This may be a bow to the inevitable. I understand that well over 60% of the Brazillian population already carries concealed pistols, often in violation of their existing gun laws.)
FYI: If this is ever legalized where you fly, I recommend the Charter Arms
(Try Glaser Safety Slugs, too - in this or anything else. Think of pistol-round sized shotgun shells that spread out in the first thing they touch, rather than a jacketed bullet that penetrates and damages whatever is behind the target. That's also what "Black Talon" slugs were REALLY about.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Contrast
--------
In the old days, the US and Britain funded Massoud to the tune of billions. If Mr Bush and the generals go back into the CIA files from the 1980s - during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan - they will find themselves going backwards into a graveyard of rivalry and hate that was as much of their making as it was of the other countries that have made a plaything of Afghanistan.
The world walked away from Afghanistan with the end of the Cold War - the Soviet Union in collapse and defeat and the US uncaring, because it had only ever been there to challenge Moscow within a Cold War construct.
With
----
The Administration does not have conclusive proof that bin Laden ordered Tuesday's attacks. But it believes it is assembling a circumstantial case that will justify action to capture him.
The goals the Administration has set out "will almost certainly require an expeditionary force on the ground in Afghanistan", said L. Paul Bremer, a former State Department counter-terrorism chief. "It's going to be a hell of an operation."
My view
-------
The US messes too much with other countries, more lives have been lost due to their policies over the last few years than they would care to admit. The sooner they live up to their responsibilities and open their eyes, the faster this mess will resolve.
War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
The WTC and pentagon crashes didn't deserve to happen, but the US has brought it upon themselves due to both their actions and inactions.
This is not going to be a very popular view, but at least where I live in Mainland China its a free country, as opposed to the US - see the recent roughshod trampling over freedom in the last few days there. Bittersweet irony.
Lawrence.
www.shanghaiguide.com
I read this expecting to get seriously pissed off, as I occasionally do with RMS, but this is a great piece.
It is a tragedy that so many lives were lost, but that is not an excuse to stop thinking. I am all for retaliation, and elimination of terrorism. Though I'm not exactly sure how they plan to implement the second part of that. But we need to be realistic at the same time. I think that the Russians and British proved that we don't want a ground war in Afganistan. And it's obvious that air strikes won't do all the work for us.
Congress needs to also be using their brains. I know they have them, and I hope they use them when it comes to starting to pass legislation. I think that they made an excelent move in their 'down payment on the fight against terrorism' and a some what dangerous, but not neccessarily bad, move in giving GWB a license to kill (so to speak).
What disturbs me the most are the pushes to pass privacy invading legislation that has nothing to do with and/or no hope of stoping terrorist acts. If you want to make this harder to do, redesign your aircraft. Put the pilots behind locked steel doors, something that'll withstand a kick. And make it so that those doors remain locked during flight. As far as I've heard of the new security measures, everywhere, they're not going to stop what happend.
If you want to learn how to fight terrorism, look to Europe. I lived in Italy for two years. Their measures include a National ID Card (which was mainly used for tax purposes, but also for anti-terrorism purposes). They also have Caribinari (I don't remember the spelling). These are para-military police who's specific job is anti-terrorism. They can stop anyone at anytime, for no reason at all and ask for proof of identification and inspection of cars. I don't say this will stop terrorism, nor do I specifically belive this is what should happen. But it is a more effective solution than what our government has instituted. I give it credit in that it did virtually destroy the Red Brigade...
My final thoughts are to the victims. These include those who are dead, the families that have lost members, friends who lost friends and those who survived. It also includes those who have unfairly felt the backlash of hatred to those who are Muslim and those who 'look Muslim'. I am not a Muslim, but I know and have known several. I have read parts of the Koran along with the Bible, and several other holy books of other religions. As many have said before, and I repeat here, Muslims preach peace, not war. Those who interpret the Koran, or their Muslim faith as a reason to kill are demented individuals. But we must be careful what we think. Terrorist have delcared Jihad against the USA, a religious war against the people they hate. But Christians delcared (in and around the Middle Ages) Crusades against Muslims, a religious war against people they hate. The Crusades are over, but we should be careful as a society in saying that Muslims kill. Christians have killed before for the same reasons.
Though I am not particularly Religious, I must say God Bless the USA. And to those of you who did this, were coming, and you won't survive it...
- AMW
You are a coward and a discrace to all of the people who gave thier lives so you might have freedom. When long life is the hightest of all values we have lost. Maybe we have become a nation of fat and lazy pussies. This country was founded by people who decided that long life was way down on the list of priorities. This is the land of the free and the brave, not the land of the fat and the afraid.
People who have nothing to fear have done nothing. And they call this virtue. Pussies.
I hate to say this, but I've already started to lose interest in the whole thing as it sinks in. Yes, 5000 people died and a bunch of buildings are fucked up. OK, let's move on to the next movie of the week. I'm BORED with this already and Bush is already talking about stretching a war out for years? Are you fucking kidding me? Unless you will have new and exciting shit to show on CNN everyday don't even bother. Either just nuke the entire fucking country of Afghanistan right now or drop it. Raise the bounty on bin Laden's head to $1 billion and let some rogue group hunt him down for the bounty. Case closed, money saved, Americans not bored to death by yet another televised "war".
I agree with previous two comments.
I will not ignore the opinion of people who don't share my opinion on the election of President Bush, however I will ignore the opinion of people who mention their opinion in passing while they are discussing the bombing of the WTC. Is the "election" of president Bush relevant to RMS argument? - then bring some facts, and put it on the table. Is it not relevant? - then leave it out.The bombing of the WTC, and the appropriate response to it, is an horrendiously complex mix of world politics. Any person who choses to complicate with political opinions, where they don't justify the opion, or justify the relevance to the WTC, must be ignored while we seek more cogently argued answers.
bush was elected, and I hope he pulls his head out soon. His message is wasted, as we have yet to clean up the mess. A loss of some personal liberties is warranted to eradicate terrorism.
and into your life it has creeped
that just plain sucked.
nuff said ahole, non-citizens rights should be limited, as well as immigration more controlled
The 5,000 dead are the direct result of creating yet another 'weapons-free zone'.
While intended to produce safety, these stupidities produce killing zones instead.
Lew Glendenning
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
No sir, you are incorrect: the 16th amendment ratified in 1913
alright, i'll concede that point. i just read that little factoid somewhere on the net and assumed it to be true.
You haven't answered my point about WOD. Like it or not, the government has declared "war" on drug users and dealers and the "states who harbor them"(colombia, anyone?), just as it is now declaring "war" on terrorism and "states who harbor them" in much the same fashion. Now in the WOD, the U.S. government has basically assumed that every american citizen is assumed guilty, until proven innocent. This war on drugs is an utter failure, and we've already proven that curtailing or civil rights in the name of "national security" only helps the criminals more. The people who are talking about this "war on terrorism" are eerily using the same language that was used in the war on drugs, and many are saying that we should be using the same tactics that are being used on the war on drugs.
In addtion, the government does not trust me to plan my own retirement(social "security"), does not think i'm capable of using a firearm properly(idiotic gun control laws), does not trust me to educate my children(mandatory public eduacation), thinks i'm old enough to force(or 'drafted' as they say) me into military service, but irresponsible enough to have one beer. And the government does not trust me to use recreational drugs safely period.
Now, please explain to me, why the fuck should I trust a government that does not trust me back? Until it trusts me to live my own life, I will never trust this government.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
My God...
Is anyone watching David Letterman's show?
Dan Rather gave a very good interview, he cried twice. It is NOT your typical late nite fare.
What nobody is talking about, at least directly, is that these hijackers used items that are allowed through the security at airports. A 4-inch knife is allowed through security. I don't know, but my Stanley cardboard-cutter measures up at about 3/4". I haven't heard measurements of the other knives wielded by the hijackers, but 4-inches is pretty intimidating. Everybody is screaming for more security at airports and on airplanes, which is most certainly needed. However, removing our basic civil liberties is not. Especially when you consider the evidence that the hijackers boarded with weapons that were probably discovered and allowed by the current regulations!
Arm the flight crew. Put a flight marshall on board (all flights!). Don't allow obvious weapons in passengers' immediate possession or carry-ons. Train the American public in how to endure and/or subvert a terrorist attack. These are all simple solutions to last week's tragedy that would have prevented it without posing major challenges to the basic rights guaranteed to Americans by our Constitution.
I would say computers recognize fingerprints fairly well.
;)
Why not use fingerprints for security? Most likely the goverment already has them on file
How many people are there who can distinguish tens of fingerprints at a glance?
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
If you think you are free, I suggest you try denouncing communism. Maybe get a bunch of your buddies together and try to peacefully assemble and request a redress of your grievances... Tienamen Square would be a good spot for that. See how free you are then.
FUCK COMMUNISM.
Only sort of related, but has anyone else noticed the almost total absense of news and/or footage of the plane that went into the Pentagon?
I saw a thread on Slashdot that was discussing eye-witness accounts in the first flurry of news that described a second light prop aircraft that followed the jet into the Pentagon, then pulled up and flew away. There seemed to be a fair bit of consensus in the thread that there was one early broadcast that included this discription in an interview with an eyewitness.
If this was true, it seems to have vanished along will all other news about the Pentagon hit. Even the Slashdot thread I saw doesn't seem to be available now.
Also in one early report out of Afganistan I saw, the reporter claimed (gunfire, explosions, and fires in the background) that the attacks included strategic bombs from high altitude aircraft. The press is now claiming that it was an un-related attack by internal resistance to the Taliban. Could a reporter in Afganistan really imagine high altitude aircraft attacks?
Part of your civil liberties include and rely on freedom of the press, no? What aren't they telling you, and if they are hidding stuff, why? Can you trust what they _are_ telling you?
Can anyone confirm/deny this or any other strange subtle anomalies in the press coverage?
ABO
ABO
This is completely wrong-> "Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War."
The President was NOT handed an open-ended resolution to handle the situation. Congress rejected the White House request for a "carte blanche" resolution like the one that followed the Tonkin Gulf incident. The toned-down version is specifically written so that a repeat of the Vietnam experience, where Congress was powerless to limit the President's actions because of a previous resolution, would be impossible.
People have DIED FOR FREEDOM. There is nothing you can do or say to argue that. I will die for my right to sit @ home & type this without being wiretapped, and monitored by some fatass grubby FBI agent (Oh. Yes! I can say that in this country.) eating a fish sandwich. People have died for my right to say what I just said. And I will gladly lay down my life for my grandchildren to be able to say it also. If you don't like it, then go live in another country that has no freedom, like China. Lets see how you like it there. I will die so you can say the same thing.
But I will NOT sit around and let my governemnt take away my rights. Those %60 that voted on that CNN site deserve no freedoms. If they want their freedom taken away at ALL then they are not American's and have NO buisiness being here. Go Live in China all you Anti-Freedom lovers. I will die for my freedom. Why won't you?
I'm no punk bitch !!!
Just because your favorite canidate couldn't carry his homestate, or a majority of the rest of the country, doesn't make the victor unelected.
Just goes to show that Stallman once again shows he is a rabble rouser, and should stick with writing code that he is good at rather than politics...
At least Sadam looks like he showers.
The year of 2001 was supposed to be the "Year of the Great Privacy Debate." With the broadening use of digital and Internet based communications, the ability for others to intercept those communications have become great. Mobile phones are in the hands of kids calling for a ride home from school, CEOs of major corporations closing a multi-billion dollar deal and even international terrorists. Email and instant messaging (IM) are used for more than novelty and casual exchange. People and businesses conduct much of their daily communications over such mediums. In the wake of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, with phone lines down in New York City, email and IM took over as the most available and efficient method of communicating to the world the horrors witnessed by the city. We use these mediums of communication to relay all levels of information from one person and place to another. There is no doubt that there is information floating around these communication networks that is private to individuals and some that is indeed valuable to others.
... have made ever more intrusive surveillance possible, expectations of privacy have naturally diminished."
Everyday, but especially in the wake of September 11th, many government and news agencies around the United States are searching valuable information on these communicatin networks. Today they are searching for clues as to how this event on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 took place and how it took place without warning.
One question that arises is, How did this happen without our knowledge? We spend billions of dollars in the name of National Security and yet something as dramatic and horrific as this could still happen in this country without warning. How could such a strategic and orchestrated attack take place within our boundaries without a hint of what was to come? A plan like this must have been in the planning stage for some time by the attackers and communication over phone lines (land and mobile) and the Internet were inevitable during that process.
There are many "spying" or communication "monitoring" systems set up around the globe by numerous government agencies, US and foreign. The two most widely known entities are code named Carnivore and Echelon. The organizations and agencies behind these systems use this technology to monitor communications over the phone and radio lines and also the Internet. They search and scan privately transmitted communications filtering for keywords in hopes of thwarting terrorism, drug dealing and smuggling, organized crime and anything that endangers public safety and national security.
In this, the year of the Great Privacy Debate, the question of the motives and techniques of Carnivore and Echelon have taken center stage in the public debate forum. Personal privacy is of great value to the people of this country and the world and the use of monitoring technology often violates that very right. In response to these monitoring technologies, as well as in response to security, there has been a surge in the development in privacy and security tools. With the possible death of many aspects of personal privacy in the dawn of the Internet, people demanded tools to protect their rights to communicate freely.
In the dawn of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, there is a big question that now looms over those that have fought hard against the likes of Carnivore and Echelon.
To what extent do we value personal privacy?
Assuming the attackers communicated using traditional methods (land and mobile phone lines and email), these sophisticated monitoring systems should have gotten a hold of something suggesting this attack. It was orchestrated in such a way that many people had to have been involved, which indicates the need of communication. If these attackers used "normal" means of communication, Carnivore and Echelon should have picked up on something - that is unless they had access to advanced means of communication, namely encryption devices and encryption software.
So again, the balance between personal privacy and national security is questioned. With an incident as dramatic as this, the balance has been shifted. The great privacy debate is not new to the 21st Century, it is only debated upon in a different context. Whether it be Roe vs. Wade or Echelon and Carnivore, it is a debate that lives on searching for a balance.
In his book, The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America (Random House, 2000), Jeffrey Rosen says, "The future of privacy will be determined not by the inherent nature of the Internet, but by social choices about how much privacy we as a society think it is reasonable to demand," But, he adds, "People's subjective expectations of privacy tend to reflect the amount of privacy they subjectively experience; and as advances in technology
Today, we have a new social choice to make. We will never be able to return to the same point in the debate as we were prior to this morning prior to 8AM EST September 11. Again, how much do we value personal privacy? Is it worth 10,000 to 20,000 American lives? How many are to follow with similar incidents?
As someone who was (and still hopes to be) heavily involved in the security industry and within the privacy debate, I am at an ethical fork in the road. We developed a highly secure email encryption program that allows someone to send a secure message with complete confidence that it will not be intercepted. That includes malicous hackers and thieves, but more importantly, monitoring technologies such as Carnivore and Echelon. The fork in the road was reached September 11 when these terrorists attacked the principals of our country - democracy, capitalism and military. More fundamental is the attack on our personal privacy and personal freedom. When I was developing, selling and pitching these security products, the most abundant negative response was in regards to national security. The products and services that we developed and sold could indeed be used by terrorists and law abiding citizens alike. The privacy now debate takes a different direction with respect to the realm of high-level encryption products and systems.
Personally, the scariest part of this debate is in either side of the argument. With today's incident, both sides of the debate present scary situations. To the side in favoring personal privacy (use of uncapped encryption levels, banning of such systems as Carnivore and Echelon for example), it appears that our intelligence agencies will never be able to gather enough information required to uncover terrorist attacks such as the one today. People can orchestrate these threats to national security with confidence that they are doing so in private thanks to encryption technology. Encryption historically has been used primarily for military purposes, from Caesar to Hitler.
On the other side of the debate stands the face of national security. If "Enemy of the State" conditions existed, people attempting to orchestrate these attacks would eventually leak important information leading to the demise of the plan. Without encryption software for email and VoIP and encryption hardware for analog land telephone lines, one of our many monitoring systems would surely have caught glimpse of what was to come. If we chose this direction in the fork, is it not impossible to imagine someday living a world similar the one constructed by George Orwell in his look at a futuristic society in 1984 (New American Library, 1989)?
The people of this country, citizens and elected officials, will not have to ask the question, stated above, To what extent do we value personal privacy? It was indeed correct to say this year, 2001 is the year of the Great Privacy Debate.
How can you avoid this?
Is the only way to shorten terms of people that control others in a society?
Allowing common 'good' citizens, as they do in juries, to monitor the evil guys?
I'm just throwing ideas. I'm not thrilled about the idea of being completely 0wned.
PS- What about the stupid drug war? I still got pushers on my block & it's getting worse. "IT'S A BUSINESS!" "Jim Carrey"
Well, I live in Brazil and, AFAIK, this is total nonsense. Didn't heard of anything about such a law. Also, AFAIK, information about "over 60% of the Brazillian population already carries concealed pistols" is false.
Because Terrorists would know about the facial recognition software, and it's use, and would undergo facial reconstructive surgery to avoid even the best facial regongnition software. And if a terrorist organization lacked that kind of funding, they'd find 'clean' record people to commit the suicide missions like the ones on 9/11 in fact, only 2 of the terrorists involved then Had any sort of record at all. One other point, unless human cloning has been widespread in the mideast for the past 2 decades, I find it doubtful that knowing the 'faces' of the terrorists involved will help prevent any future plane hijacking/bombing, since last I heard they died on impact.
Companies claiming that 'facial recognition' will cure crime are forgetting one thing. Where there is a will to break the law, there will always be a way.
Facial recognition software doesn't address the issues of the 9/11 bombing. Facial recognition is a strong violation of civil liberties. Instead of surrendering civil liberties, why not build a more secure front cabin? Why is the pilot's cabin attached to the main cabin anyways? for the one in a billion odds that the etire pilot crew dies/falls ill and ther 'happens' to be a pilot in the passenger cabin? I am sorry, but this is real life, not a movie, if you want Safe airlines, refit them so that there is a thick steel plate seperating the pilots from the passengers. Sure it isn't fool proof, but it only needs to be strong enough that you can't brute force it with 4 built guys, since any tools needed to breach it would be screenable as they screen for weapons.
Actually, you do NOT need to present identification at the airport. There's an FAA directive requiring them to ask for indentification, but you aren't legally required to give it and they can't stop you from boarding the plane if you don't have ID. There are some people who simply don't have a picture ID for whatever reason, and others who choose not to show it, but they are still able to travel.
Here's a decent summary of how to travel without ID from somebody who has done it many times.
If you want to travel without ID, allow plenty of extra time to argue with the airline employees. Note that your carry-on bags are likely to be searched by hand - removing everything and putting it back - and your checked luggage will be set aside and passenger-matched, meaning they will wait to make sure you are getting on the plane before they put your bags on it.
I play Nerd-Folk!
First of all I'd like to express my respect to RMS. His opinions are generally worth to consider and his contribution so far has been great. However for any opinion, there's a condition where it becomes irrelevant. I think we all have reached this position.
The network of international terrorism that has performed the WTC bombing still exists. Moreover, it uses publicly available resources - the Internet - in order to carry out its operations. The only practical way to shut them down would be to compromise their communications.
Without losing one may not gain. The United States will not have security from international terrorism, as long as its communications are uncontrolled and open to abuse. One may not have both complete privacy and complete security.
At times of war (and when thousands of people are killed it is a war), citizens often have to endure hardships. What would happen if Winston Churchill would offer to each Englishman a cup of 5 o'clock tea rather than "blood, toil, tears and sweat"?
Backdoor to encryption tools, sounds like something proposed by armchair philosophers.
FBI can use the backdoor, so do anti-spies, and terrorists.(so haven't we had enough anti-spies stories?)
Business are forced to use backdoor encryption tools to do their sensitive transactions. Now if the backdoors had been exploited by wrong hands.....
Too bad those who realize, or understand, the treats are mostly can't/won't vote. So who can save us?
I must thank RMS, for bravely standup and voice out something that'll surely be attacked by emotional patriotic mobs.
When you get a sandwich, does Togo's have a right and duty to know who you are? Airlines are providing a service of transportation to paying customers. They need to figure out how to provide that service safely without endangering innocents, but it's certainly not obvious that forcing people to show a government-approved ID is a necessary or even particularly useful requirement to that goal.
Anyway, under the rules that were in effect before last week, airlines were not required to verify the identity of their customers, they were simply required to take extra-special care checking the baggage of passengers who don't show ID. Amusingly enough, merely asking what the rules are about ID is likely to get your carry-ons searched just as thoroughly as not having ID at all.
According to this page on FAA rules
Q. Do I have to have a photo ID to fly?
A. The FAA does not prohibit the airline from transporting any passenger who does not present a photo ID. Airlines have available to them alternate procedures that allow them to transport passengers without ID. However, some airlines choose not to use such procedures, which is their prerogative. However, for international travel, a passport is usually required and an entry or transit Visa may also be required. If the airlines were to allow you onto a plane without proper paperwork, including a Visa - the may be assessed a penalty of up to $10,000 by the country of entry. Airlines will deny boarding if your Passport is not in order (and usually valid for 6 months past date of travel) and your visa is stamped inside if required.
Q. Why didn't the airline ask for my ID?
A. The FAA does not require all passengers to present ID. The FAA requires that airlines apply additional security measures to passengers who are unable to produce ID upon request.
Q. Can an airline exceed minimum FAA requirements?
A. Yes. The FAA sets minimum requirements for airlines to follow. Should airlines wish to exceed these requirements, the FAA cannot prohibit them from doing so.
I play Nerd-Folk!
And we're going to pay.
I am so fed up with idiots on slashdot (including RMS) claiming President bush wasn't elected.
He was elected under the very same United States Constitution that RMS seems to hold so dear.
The 2002 election was a perfect example of why we simply can not let "the popular vote" superceed the importance of the electoral college.
The men who wrote the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights were incredibly wise men who are likely turning in their graves at this FISA warrants and abuses of power. (exploiting a tragedy to sweep the eradication of civil rights under the rug while nobody is looking)
This country would be a lot better off if the federal government was prohibited from passing laws. What I find the most ironic is how the United States Government's purpose is to DEFEND the country, yet that is the ONLY budget simply never increased annually.
Now we're caught with our heads up our ass and still recovering from the Gulf War.
I find it amazing how many slashdot users are liberals.
Since the "unelected" jibe prompted about twice as much discussion as the actual intended points of Mr. Stallman's article, I think we can in fact conclude that it was a mistake to include it.
I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Stallman's work, and I even admire his tenacity on specific details such as the distinction between "Free Software" and "Open Source." He harms himself and his cause here, though, by including inflammatory and irrelevant rhetoric.
While I'm posting this, I'd also like to request that people stop posting the liberty/safety quote. Thank you.
But don't forget that if face recognition software was used, the terrorists would know that, and would have worked around it. Either by not using people who were wanted, or by routine plastic surgery.
except for respecting software opinions as I don't recall ready any of his.
well, I can only agree partly with you.
the big difference is that the constitution and the legal fundaments of a society are there to protect the people from, for example dictature. the laws protect the fundamental rights and try to establish a society where you have no legal means to circumvent those liberties. How did most of the dictators come to power?
2 ways:
- revolution (people involved)
- putsch (circumvent laws)
I say that laws should protect us from the second part. A society should simply have no technical means for enabling bad-willing persons to takle the power and misuse it.
... we have the rights laid out in the European convention on Human Rights. I think these rights apply to visitors in Europe as there was a case recently when an Asylum seeker who had come to Britain took the government to court in Europe over his treatment... but I could be wrong... ;)
The real danger is not the prospect of face recognition software or increased baggage searches. The real danger is that legislators will take this to extremes.
Alas, it is human nature to not be proactive, but to go overboard when reacting. We already have ridiculous zero-tolerance policies at schools where kids can be expelled for drawing a picture of a gun or pointing their hands in the shape of a gun or bringing a nailfile to class.
Soon, not only will we be arrested for having a razor in our suitcase, we will be forced to eat crappy airline food with rubber knives and forks as we struggle to cope with the confines of our straightjackets.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
This morning (Beijing time) US Attorney General was talking to Larry King on CNN.
AG was describing how Congress is working on new legislation and how the justice department is actively seeking new measures. Larry King asked, "Do you mean to say if these measures have been available say one year earlier, you could have prevented these attacks?"
I found this a good yard stick. If some one proposes a new law, ask him/her whether this would have stopped these attacks
(The AG's response to the above questions was just off the topic)
yAthum UrE yAvarum kELir All the places are our place, everybody is our kin. (A Tamil Poet - 2000 years ago)
RMS has some very good things to say here, but the crack about Bush supposedly being "unelected" is a crock. He's not the first president who won without carrying the popular vote.
Perhaps RMS would like to rescind every action of the Kennedy administration? Now, there was a very close election thrown Kennedy's way with the help of Mayor Daley getting out the Chicago graveyard vote.
Now then, all that being said, I agree with the FBI counter-terrorism officer I saw on some round-table discussion program last night, who when asked what civil liberties we should give up, and what compromises we should make w/r/t our constitutional rights, answered: None at all. If we can't beat terrorism while remaining a free people, then I won't join in this fight, and they can't have my son for it, either.
(I wish I remembered the man's name and could give the quote verbatim. It's perhaps the sanest thing I heard anyone say on TV in the last week.)
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The National Reconaissance Office has had this problem for many years, too.
What they've had to do in many cases, is just to file images by location, and then when they have some reason to check a particular site out, they pull up the history of the images they have, so they can see what's happened there over time.
Of course, our satellites weren't up to the task of finding all of Saddam Hussein's SCUD missles, since it's pretty easy to pile bushes around a truck, or park it under an overpass.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So all of the computers RMS runs have no password and everyone runs around as root? It is a free world afterall. The U of Wash computer department has no forms to fill out and has no idea who is using their computer labs and systems? That's freedom.
Technically inclined people know that back doors to encryption and face scanning software is complete horse shit. You can't put backdoors in encryption because it negates the encryption entirely. You also can't make people that are already willing to break the law use only legal encryption, that's ridiculous. A couple of hours and even I could write a decent encryption program. Any crypto book ever written's got the RSA assymetric encryption algorithm in it. Face reognition is only as effective as your database behind it. If someone doesn't have a criminal record it isn't going to pick them out, unless you program it to pick up Arab facial features or something. Like another dude already said people planted by well organized terrorists don't make waves in their time before they're activated.
Stallman is trying to take the hippie way out by saying security is a bad thing. You can't be secure in a society that doesn't police itself. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence. The US got itself fucked up the ass because it wasn't paying attention. The proposals for encryption and face scanning and whatnot are kneejerk reactions by people aiming to make their constituants happy. If you convince people a law will make their kids safe they'll vote for it because they don't know any better. Politics is about bullshitting people. Political power is held by the best bullshitters. Stallman ought to get some of his crypto writing friends to write long logical letters to Congressmen and to media organizations. "Backdoors to encryption will make encryption only useful to criminals and the government". People won't support it if they are told whatfor. Stallman is just playing the hype game because it is all he knows. He's as bad as Fox news and MSNBC. Instead of presenting facts and giving those facts to people he's trying to build a hype fire to generate emotional response with the reverse harmonics of the media hype machines. Boo. So how about you folk write your letters explaining the technical infeasibility of these proposals and point out the wisdom of the centuries regarding police states. "The more you tighten your grip the more worlds will fall through your fingers" -- Princess Leia
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Yes. If you told him that he`d have said `no, that sort of safety is worth losing freedoms over.`
Of course, Franklin wouldnt have armed the Taliban, or had American secret services train bin Laden. Or Israel. But hey, thats in the past!!!
Twat.
And you sir, program in VisualBasic........
I couldn't agree more with the name check. The biometrics may be feasible, if cost weren't a factor. Maybe a long term goal could be Biometric Identification in major airports, with the understanding that records aren't kept, only comparisons are made against known criminals. Restrict this to the airlines, as they require special consideration.
An airplane is significantly different than a train, bus, or even a van outside of a federal building. The explosive combination of jet fuel and potential gravitational energy is not innate to other forms of travel. I could even strap explosives to my body and go to a crowded public place with similar devastation, despite the train.
The difference is that once the airplane is off the ground, massive destruction is an innate property of most any deviation from standard procedure. To grant such a liability to a non-airborne craft would require extensive and contrived effort, e.g. undetected access to the depot for a "Speed" like rig of the bus. Even then, it takes less expertise than that of the Blue Angels to intercept a two dimentional craft, using a similar craft or even a helicopter. A commercial airplane is for all practicality a hermetically sealed box - there is no viable "backdoor" at 30,000 feet.
(The Blue Angels are highly trained stunt piliots that exhibit feats of synchronized flying -- but even they don't try to board each other's craft mid-flight. Without a breathable atmosphere.
In Speed, the vehicle couldn't stop moving, without a previously rigged bomb detonating. Most aircraft wouldn't need tampering to prove destructive.)
I would hate needing a passport to board a train. I take for granted that I don't need my gov't papers for free unrestricted travel within US borders, as I understand some nations require. I "richly enjoy" all of the liberties defined by our constitution. Any national tragedy is exactly the time that piece of hemp proves invaluable, and deserves the most respect. This is not the time to "temporarily" discount it.
My American prayer - to whichever god it may concern:
Dear Lord, protect us; from those who would protect the constitution at all costs, from those who would protect us at the cost of the constitution, and from your followers who may commit your will upon us. Protect us from zealotry, Christian, Muslim, national and foreign. Most of all, save the Agnostics, and the Citizens of the World.
Hmm?
Because the solution to the problem of terrorism is a simple but terrible one and it doesn't require that your freedoms are compromised.
You simply make terrorism too personally horrible to contemplate.
If someone performs a terrorist act, you wipe out him, all of his relatives and all of his friends; remove his genes from the gene pool. You make it very personal. Make sure that every future terroris knows that all of his family; mother, father, brothers, sisters, cousins, nieces, nephews, children, wife and every friend he ever had will all be assasinated if he performs a terrorist attack.
Sending in bombers, missiles and massed ground troops does not have the desired effect, and neither will simply reducing civil liberties in the name of safety.
Since 1996, visitors do not have the right to a speedy trial, the right to see all the evidence against them, or the right to be released after they serve their sentence.
What ? Nobody ?
When I was in college there was a guy who looked so much like me that I couldn't tell the difference. I saw him once and actually thought I was looking in a mirror - he was even dressed the same as me. Now, if I can't tell this guy isn't me when I'm staring straight at him, how is a piece of software going to manage the distinction?
I also understand there's another guy who looks identical to me who went to another area college. Some of my close friends swear he and I are absolutely indistinguishable. He is widely hated, and people have vaguely suggested to me that he might even be a criminal.
So, what happens if you put me in front of a facial recognition camera, it thinks I'm one of these guys? Let's pretend they're a known violent criminal. Are you implying they should have the power to arrest me based on some machine thinking I'm someone I'm not based on questionable criteria? That I should then be forced to prove my innocence in order to be permitted to go about my ordinary, boring, perfectly legal life? That the security staff should open themselves up to the liability of the multi-million-dollar lawsuit I would no doubt file against them?
And then what happens the next time I fly?
In an airport, sure, I don't mind being on cameras with face recognition software. However, I don't believe rms is making that a point either. A bill in congress to provide backdoors in all cryptographic programs is an obvious example of overstepping civil liberties.
I have a point of my own... The government has long depended on technology to make up for the lack of human skill. I am afraid that getting cameras with face recognition software will simply be a move to shut-up the public, with no actual benefits involved. The funny thing is, all the government needs to do is add a new section to that emergency training we get when we board the airplane... This time, they cover how to break off your tray table and use it as a weapon to beat your hijackers with.
(Anyone that didn't see such an attack comming was an idiot, and I'll stand by that.)
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Woo! RMS wrote an "article" that basically is what everyone here and abroad thought of within two days of the attack.
What's next, will he regale us with how orbital mechanics will ensure that the sun rises tommorrow?
Like others have said (so mod me down if you like, you're just being as fascist as the police state you fear will come into being) we don't need Stallman's diatribes right now. How about some efforts contributed to finding out who caused this nightmare to happen in the first place.
Another thing to remember is that 20k geeks aren't about to change US policy in any regard. Think you can? Good luck - there's millions in the US that don't give two shits about computers, much less what OS they run. What percentage do you think would be necessary to change policy?
Download your fav encryption now...it's gonna be a long haul..
Gotta get back to work, I can't sit here and post all day.....welcome to the new police state.
Hotblack_Desiato
** By reading this post, you've agreed to my EULA - which includes not modding-down due to difference in opinion. **
Kashmir also Cashmere. A historical region of northwest India and northeast Pakistan.
You dismiss this idea far too easily. The military and secret service stand to gain a great deal from this 'terrorist' action.
And yes, _I_ am suggesting that this may have been what happened. I think we're all familiar with the things the CIA have done overseas "in defence of the nation". Do you really think they wouldn't be willing to sacrifice a few thousand civilians "for the good of the nation as a whole"?
You're talking about agencies whose reason for existence is global turmoil. Do you really think that there isn't a conflict of interest there? At some level at least...
As the numbness wears gradually off from the shock - listen to what the great leaders (formerly, two weeks ago, numbnut a**holes) are saying about this new bipartisanship, this new vision for America, this "War on Terrorism". And the proposals from Ashcroft (more wiretap authority) which sound reasonable in light of the circumstances (but what OTHER authority beyond this does the request grant?).
This is sounding more and more like a never-ending war (can we say "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty"???), a wonderful excuse to reduce permanently civil liberties and hand the terrorist bastards a long-term victory. The US has been psychotic on the subject of encryption and does look to be moving in that direction yet again.
There were two basic failures that the government is diverting attention from - the first, the degradation of intelligence services after the cold war ended which allowed a complete failure to have any information at all about this plot. The BBC had an article that indicated the FBI was handed a piece of the puzzle in June or August and failed to follow up...). A guideline says not to deal with unreputable or questionable people in recruiting agents - how stupid can we be?
The second was the failure of airport security throughout - a basic assumption that domestic travel was "different"...
Yes we should retaliate - at specific connections to this attack carefully researched and documented and presented to the world. Violently. Completely. At financial targets and logistics targets. Handle the specific intelligence and airport and other security problems. And get on with life...
But GW says we will "eliminate evil" - WHICH EVIL? who gets to define this evil? That is a very nice unspecific and very open ended objective which can never be achieved and therefore will never allow us to EVER regain the liberties a war footing steals.
I protest your using similar in the post, just change the words in the first line with the words in the second and you get pretty much the standard fundamentalist Islamic rethoric; they are for all practical purposes the same.
Why is this? Because they both want a return to a religon based fuedal society, that why. The only real difference is whose religion is used.
What these people don't understand is the society as it exists today will not allow this to happen no matter how much they pick and chose verse from their Holy books to support their fantasies. Personaly I don't like the idea of big government period, whether that government is elected, installed by force, or religon based.
The societies of the world are evolving to a point where the majority of peoples are becoming pretty tollerant of others, this incites people who are unconvertable bigots to act in increasingly extreme ways. I hope who ever was behind the attack on the US realises that many nations who only last month we would have concidered enemies, are now standing beside us. The world has just said "no more."
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"ordinary Americans will have to learn to bear... interference with their liberty of instant electronic access to friends and services... If Washington is serious in its determination to eliminate terrorism, it will have to forbid internet providers to allow the transmission of encrypted messages...
The register rip's the article to pieces better than i ever could.
He also answers the most common questions about handguns on airplanes:
A: with the right ammunition, NO. Frangible ammunition has a very, very low chance of penetrating the plane's skin or damaging its systems.
A: Probably not. Modern plans have redundant systems. The most important need would be to reduce altitude to ensure that the occupants could breath without supplemental oxygen.
There's more. Check out the article to find out.
Ever since I've heard about the idea of adding back-doors to encryption products in the US, I've been wondering exactly HOW this was supposed to help.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US is not the only country in the world where encryption research and development is taking place. So terrorists could still use programs like GnuPG to encrypt their communications.
In contrast, encryption research in the US would be hindered by the back-door laws. This means that US citizens wouldn't be able to (legally) access quality encryption products. It could even mean that encryption research would move elsewhere (or at least quality researchers would), which would make it more difficult to find encryption experts to hire in the US. And THAT would mean the FBI and other legal entities would have MORE trouble fighting terrorists (who, as noted, are still happily using GnuPG).
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
few people were thinking of starting a few groups in minneapolis to focus on getting information to the public's eye
Peoples Online Rights Now
Anyone remember the UK in the 1980s? the Thatcher government decided that they would restrict the speech of Sinn Fein (political wing of the IRA) to "deny them the oxygen of publicity".
To do this they ruled that any news item that showed a Sinn Fein member speaking had to have the soundtrack removed and the voice overdubbed by an actor. No change to the words, just a different voice.
Quite what this was meant to achieve, nobody was completely sure, and the policy was quietly dropped just after Thatcher got kicked out. One satirical programme suggested that instead of overdubbing, the SinnFein members should be forced to inhale helium before speaking to detract credibility from what they were saying.
My point? Maybe instead of restricting speech on the internet, the Feds should automatically insert a smiley after every mention of 'Jihad' 'Taleban' or 'Bin Laden'. Just a thought.....
Mr. Stallman's plea for the protection is a nobel, yet misguided effort. The truth is, in times of war the United States has every right to declare martial law and suspend all civil liberties until the action is complete. They have acted on this right in almost every major engagement for the last two hundred years.
I submit that it is not possible to talk about civil liberties and safety while we scrutinize and search every car going on a military installation and every bag going on an airplane. I believe that at this point in time it would be irresponsible to criticize a lot of the knee jerk reactions of the FBI and congress simply because there goal is the protection of America and the safety of Americans.
Mr. Stallman noted the back door into encryption is a scary development. I feel that it is merely moronic. It's not as if terrorists are going to buy the U.S. products. I can see the sales add now, "Buy U.S. Encryption, good enough to keep out everybody but the FBI."
Beware the wood elf!!!
And I say, Let JEfferson spin in his grave. Despite writing endlessly about how bad slavery was, he freed no slaves during his lifetime, and the only slaves he freed when he died were his own children.
Not so. Having recently read some information on the Monticello slaves, I can toss in a few facts. Jefferson had the patronizing but, for his time, compassionate attitude that freeing slaves who had no means to provide for themselves would be just kicking them out in the cold world to starve, and would be much crueler than keeping them fed, housed and employed on his plantation. The slaves he freed were all skilled craftsmen, whom Jefferson (correctly, as it turned out) believed would be able to make a living on their own.
Don't be so quick to judge your ancestors and their contemporaries without knowing all the facts and taking into account the world in which they lived. Perhaps 200 years from now, your descendants and their contemporaries will consider you barbaric and evil for actions now considered acceptable by most.
---dragoness
I've used Linux for years at home and have been working to get it introduced into whatever company I've worked for. I've always thought these new ways of doing things were the way the computer industry should go. Dick's statement has shaken the cobwebs out of my brain and brought me to the realization that he and probably many Open Source zealots are anti-American and anti-business.
Like others have said, what does Dick mean when he says "your unelected president"? Is now the time to use such a term? We are under attack you jackass!!! He has the right to say such things (just as Jerry Farwell does) but I have the right to be outraged and to take action against such people. Does he think he would be better off living under the Taliban? Microsoft is far from perfect but I now believe they are closer to what I stand for then the Open Source clan. I will use Dick's statement to fight the use of Open Source in companies I deal with. Whether Open Source or Closed Source is not as important as supporting America or not in a time of crisis such as this.
God bless America!!!!!!!
I will take, apprently, the unpopular view here. Why is it that everytime someone mentions cameras, surveilance, etc. that everyone starts crying "My civil liberties are beig violated" It's as if one measure immediately equals a complete pollce state, big brother on every corner, microphones in our bedrooms, and cameras in our shower. I personally don't care if the government has information on me. So what? Wow, now they know I wasn't a straight A student, I was a punk rocker in my youth, I am a VW fanatic, I like computers, I speak Japanese, and I love my wife. So frigging what? What leap of logic does it take to arrive at the conclusions so many of us readily make? I don't believe increase security is going to make me a slave of the "State". I don't care if they photograph my face, I'll even pass out 8x10 glossies...
The whole argument over mandatory encryption backdoors, or even banning the use of encryption by citizens, seems ludicrous to me. Chances are that terrorists and spies are more often using techniques such as steganography to hide their messages; and if they aren't now, they would if such encryption laws were passed. Why bother using encryption when you can hide 50KB of attack instructions in a 400KB GIF file of a basket of puppies? Hiding a message inside another, seemingly innocuous one would be more effective than sending clearly encrypted files. I suppose you could say we should then outlaw steganography, but you might as well try to outlaw calligraphy.
Rather interesting statement, hrm?
Cheers,
Brian
It really is that simple. Let ANYONE take away one liberty you now enjoy in the name of and sooner rather than later "they" will insist on another because "any good citizen would do this" and then another and the dominos will fall as you lose more of your Constitutional and God-given rights. This trend has cost more people throughout the world their freedom than can be imagined. This is a very real theory that has toppled governments and countries.
The time to stand for what you belive in, for what rights and freedoms you have is NOW for there is not tomorrow once they are gone. Take the time to think it through rationally and put aside the gut-check reaction from the terrorist attack that screams "protect me!" I know, as do we all, that this was a horrific incident and that we should take more precautions and increase safety but that can be done by strengthening the protections in place without resorting to more laws that only law-abiding people will obey in the first place. A criminal is a criminal because they don't care and don't follow the law anyway. Giving up your freedoms and liberties for nothing gains you nothing.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
you and a lot of people you know are wrong. just like rms is wrong in bringing this bs to the table and undermining the fsf. DOWN WITH COMMANDANT STALLMAN!
> If Osama bin Laden's millions can finace this
> sort of operation, imagine what kind of operation
> Bill Gates could finance with his Billions??
Actually, I heard on the radio this morning that some billionaires are putting together a pool of money to hire mercenaries to take care of business.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
But the only "rights" you can possibly have are those that are laid out by the governing body in a region. In the US, that is the Federal Government as established by the Constitution, and especially as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and other Amendments.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Your rights are not granted by the Constitution or any government, they are inherent (granted by the Creator). The Constitution merely enumerates certain rights which the authors of the Constitution were especially concerned that the government not be permitted to legally usurp. Your rights are not limited to those enumerated in the Constitution; the Constitution even says so. Because Natural Rights are inherent, and some are inalienable, you have the same set of Natural Rights (human rights) anywhere in the world, but some local governments tyrannically usurp your rights more so than others. Remember that! Your rights are not limited to what any government deigns to grant you; however the free exercise thereof has historically been restricted by what governments are allowed to usurp. This does not mean they have any moral or ethical "right" to do so, and you have no moral or ethical obligation to support tyrannical usurpation of your rights under any government, anywhere.
Indeed, some might feel that they have a moral and ethical obligation to resist tyrannical usurpation of theirs and other's rights anywhere and everywhere.
---dragoness
What does the fact that he doesn't like the current president have to do with anything? Sore Loserman lost and he just had to take a shot at a time like this.
Fuck you Richard!
And to CmdrTaco, given the shit this guy wrote, how can you say this was well said? WTF!
He says:
"Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help."
Yeah, very insighful, because as we all know, the human check-in agents at all of our airports have memorized the face of every known terrorist. So of course, since the face recognition savants we employ as check-in agents missed these guys, it follows that face recognition computer systems will also fail.
Moron...
I have not heard a thing about a duffel bag found in the WTC wreckage with a copy of the Koran. They found this stuff in a rental car parked in a garage at Logan airport. All they have found at WTC from the planes (that I have heard) is a passport of one of the hijackers a couple of blocks away. If there is a news story about the duffel, please point it out - Ive watched little except for NY1 the past week.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
The government also needs to:
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
1) it won't save lives.
2) the acts last week were completely low-tech.
3) people who say 'to the max' fail.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
I strongly disagree with having security/facial recognition technologies in public places. We've already seen what that does. Nor can I actually believe I'm about to support the use of facial recognition for preventive measures, but I really don't have a problem with this type of use for airline passengers.
Is an airplane a public place? I can't get on a plane without identifying myself. I am required to verbally acknowledge responsibility for the items I bring on the plane. It is, in fact, a private company's plane. They have the right to know who's traveling on it.
We check our rights at the gate when we get on a plane. If I'm going to do that, I would hope to get better security in return.
Of course, this does lead down the slippery slope to a police state, and I see the dangers. I'm not a fanatic on either side, it's a matter of properly using technology in areas where it actually has value, and properly using technology so that innocent people are not harmed/disrupted in the name of security.
A second genocide? You think there has only been one so far? There have been plenty (of at least good attempts) since WWII (bosnia, Rawanda, East Timor, etc.). Israel made its bed. Why should the US support that state, if it brings terrorist attacks to US soil?
Am I the only one who thinks that superjumbo airliner Airbus wants to build suddenly seems like a bad idea?
It is healthy to question. And I agree that patriotism can be abused by tyrants. Nationalism is a wonderful topic for philosophical discussion.
However, no matter how much you wish to intellectualize it, the fact remains that the freedom and prosperity we enjoy in the West today was bought with the blood of our grandparents in WWII.
You can debate all day about the justifications for war. In the end, the truth remains: you likely would not possess the education, technology, or right to post your anti-government sentiments if not for the willingness of our ancestors to give their lives for us.
Regardless of how we got to this point (and the endless discussions about blame), the fact is that it will likely once again require the blood of our sons and daughters to protect our way of life.
No one is asking you to enlist. And only extremists would call you un-patriotic for disagreeing with the decisions of our leaders. But be honest with yourselves. Is your intellectual angst sincere? Or are you simply unwilling or afraid to see the ugly truth outside your narcissistic little world?
Question: yes. Protest peacefully: yes
But never doubt what it took to give you the freedom to do so.
Slider451
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
I just got a response from Gregg's secretary. They don't allow any e-mail not containing a NH postal address in the header. I don't live in NH. This guy is slime.
One of the most fanatic people I know about besides Usama writing loads of crap about his rights are more important than others lifes.
I would more likely fear the issuance and use of electronic national identity cards. Perhaps with a biometric component added to increase certainty of identification. Visitors get one when they come in.
I would expect not only the government to use them, but for office buildings to key their security off it. That way, there is private cooperation with the government in tracking your movements. Heck, they might be sold as making financial information and the like more secure too so that the government can track your financial transactions in real time too.
Big Brother is probably more interested in your fingerprint than your face.
Also, semi-automatic firearms have the advantage of less felt recoil, which aids accuracy and makes the weapon more controllable. For example, compare the 1906 Springfield (the US's WW1 service rifle) to the M-1 Garand (our WWII service rifle). Both fire the exact same cartridge (.30-06), they are both about the same size and weight, and both have an internal box magazine which is loaded with a stripper clip. The Springfield uses a bolt-action, whereas the Garand is a gas-operated semi-automatic. Having personally fired both weapons, I can say that the Garand is much more pleasant to shoot, mainly due to the fact that it doesn't kick half as hard as the Springfield.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Face recognition systems are legitimate to use in places where it is reasonable that one be required to identify oneself.
... the implications seem easier to handle) is to allow you customers to have you recover their data, for when they've forgotten their password. But they need to know whether or not you can do this.
Nowhere else. Nowhere else.
Crypto-backdoors are and intrusive evil. They are (possibly) legitimate in intra-government communications. If a company has the key, then they are (possibly) legitimate in intra-company communications. But even in those cases, everyone needs to know who has the spare key.
A third legitimate reason for having a spare key (I prefer this metaphor to backdoor
I can't think of any other legitimate reasons. If they can justify it to a court, the court can order you to produce your password. If they can't, then it's unreasonable search and seizure.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I really don't see these new technologies as giving up any liberty that we have, but more rather, a much needed technological advance in our criminal justice system.
The respective authorities have always had the right to monitor your communications provided that there was adequate suspicion that you were breaking the law. Encryption in the hands of suspected criminals, prevents the respective authorities from doing this.
I don't believe that putting decryptors, or whatever monitoring device that's in discussion, is equivalent to a blank check for the authorities to monitor those who have a implicit right to privacy. We just need to make sure that any individuals that abuse this new technology remain accountable and that the execution of present law remain the same.
BadDoggie writes:
According to Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, that was indeed Franklin.
NUMBER: 3929AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
QUOTATION: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. 1
ATTRIBUTION: Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
BIOGRAPHY: Columbia Encyclopedia.
Note 1.
This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin's "Historical Review," 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.--Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413.
Facial recognition is a strong violation of civil liberties.
...Where there is a will to break the law, there will always be a way. Facial recognition software doesn't address the issues of the 9/11 bombing...
Please explain. If you must show a photo ID to board a plane, how is comparing one's face to those of known criminals infringing on civil liberties.
So that means we should give in to the will of law breakers? We can argue all day that any precautionary measure can be circumvented. Put up a kryptonite shield between the cockpit and the passenger area. Then our favorite terrorist group seeds the airlines with their own pilots. There is NO single easy answer to this problem. Nothing can prevent the actions of fanatics on a suicide mission, we can only hope to make it extremely difficult for them. You said it yourself, where there is a will, there is a way.
Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
> It is my opinion that if we no longer supported Israel,
> all terrorism against the US would stop.
Your world history needs a little updating, then. Your statement implies that the only reason that anyone in the Middle East (or anywhere else in the world) dislikes us is because we're pro-Israel, and that's not true. For today's history lesson, the main reason Osama bin Laden hates us has nothing to do with Israel. See, we (the CIA, specifically) trained him and his men in the beginning so that they could fight effectively against the Soviet Union. When the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, we pulled our funding, which for all intents and purposes plunged Afghanistan into civil war. The reason ObL wants us dead is because, in his mind, we left him and his men twisting in the wind when it no longer suited our purpose to support him. This all has naught to do with Israel.
Virg
> it's like the mark of the beast, eventually you won't be able to
> buy bread without joining the majority of people who really just want to
> be able to walk down the street without being shot at.
This statement is the rub of what truly worries me about this whole thing. There will be numerous people who will be putting this idea forward, saying that their particular law/procedure/whatever will protect you from the dangerous terrorists lurking around every corner. They'll tell you that the removal of your privacy is small price to pay for the safety of being able to get on a plane without having some crazy flying it into a building. And they'd be right if selling your privacy actually helped you to become safer, but it won't.
The part that they won't tell you is that terrorists aren't the only threat to your safety, and in the world they propose, they're not even the biggest threat to your safety. If police states are so good at protecting us from threats, why do people so regularly revolt against them? It's true that the number of Chinese citizens killed by terrorists is very low. So, what's their beef? The simple fact is that the people who say "only the guilty need privacy" always seem to want to apply their own definitions of "guilty" to others. Anyone who believes that giving up their right to privacy will keep them safe should consider talking to anyone who lived in Russia under Soviet rule. Ask them just how safe they felt, protected from terrorist attack by a government that controlled privacy very carefully to make sure no harm came to them. Ask them why the USSR had to close the borders and criminalize emigration to keep people from leaving the country in droves. Ask them if what they gained was worth what they had to give up. Then, and only then, will you be in a position to consider whether your freedom is worth whatever promises of safety these people are selling.
Virg
5 to 4 fuckwit.
Of course he was'nt, as he could not see into the future. I, however, can take that into account, and still feel that if you give up your freedom for security, you don't deserve either. If I had not attributed it to him, I would have been a plagerist, so I qouted him instead of saying it myself.
if [ ass > brain ] then
sleep 99
fi
Try it some time.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Hi. Bush brought it to court first.
Without water, there is no non-water. Without non-water, there is no water.
Without air, there is no non-air. Without non-air, there is no air.
Without qwerty, there is no non-qwerty. Without non-qwerty, there is no qwerty.
Wait! There is no qwerty, yet non-qwerty, i.e. reality, seems to be here still.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
These guys flew under their own names! They purchased the tickets as themselves.
So, the FBI/CIA/UJA cannot cross-index airline ticket purchases for names of possible terrorists, but you want to allow them to do facial recognition?? Think about how silly this is...
What happens when they hijack an armored car and run it into a building?? Will we then pass laws that require a blood sample before turning on the ignition.
Another overlooked piece of info is this: By law, even if they had advance notice that something like this was planned, they could not have held the would-be attackers because they had not committed a crime yet. Should we push for the right of police to hold citizens without charges??
First they came for the Jews, and I did nothing, because I wasn't Jewish.
The NAZI's set fire to the Reichstag and used this as an excuse for decimating personal liberties. Makes me wonder who destroyed the WTC and used it as an excuse for decimating personal liberties.
~Hammy
"By clicking I agree, you consent to sex with Bill Gates at any time, any place... Click it baby, you know you want it."
~Microsoft's first EULA
checking for weapons won't help.
when the stewardesses come and give you your in-flight meal -- IT COMES WITH A FORK AND A METAL KNIFE to eat your dinner with!
i.e. all this 'heightened airport security' is bogus - you can kill people with a metal fork or knife that they give you WITH you in-flight meal just as surely as you can with any that you carry on board.
so what is the difference between good people and bad people? they all have the same instruments at their disposal -- only, some will eat their dinner with it, and other will use it to hijack planes. no amount of pre-boarding search will stop that.
if they don't have a knife - a trained ninja could use his hands
to 'down-and-out' the crew - are we going to require that people
remove their hands and feet before they're allowed on a flight?
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner
Nowhere did I say this, but I did say, at the very minimum, somebody at the FBI should have been notified that these two were boarding aircraft.
If they were on a watch list it was for a reason, a reason which has now become obviously painful.
- sigs are for wimps.
Actually, there are a few points of contention that may change your analysis.
Defined borders - these exist to define who gets to do what with which piece of land, not so that we can limit or control immigration.
Immigration Policy - this is to define who can live in the U.S., and so it doesn't generally apply to visitors. It helps with protection against terrorism, but for most attacks it would be ineffective.
Flight Schools - This may have been effective in this particular case, but it's obvious that this regulation doesn't really impinge on personal freedom, unless you consider flying a passenger airliner a personal freedom.
Locked Cockpit Doors - These are to insulate the pilots from interaction with passengers so they aren't interrupted while running the plane, which is a sort of freedom-for-security tradeoff, insofar as the passengers aren't allowed into the cockpit, but again, barring El-Al flights, these doors aren't capable of stopping a determined effort to enter the cockpit (they can be kicked open). They're in place to prevent honestly accidental intrusion, or intrusion by pasengers who aren't hell-bent on getting in.
Just About Any Other Law... - Since there is a huge spectrum of laws, and they address many different levels of behavior, this is too broad a statement. More on this below.
> Are all examples of the "mythical" freedom verus security tradeoff.
You need to be careful not to confuse security with simple safety. A handrail on the stairs offers safety, but no security (it won't actively protect you if you fall, but it can be used by you to help prevent a fall). Laws pertaining to safety and laws pertaining to security are different animals as well, since safety is often very well defined (protection from a well defined and mostly passive threat), but security not so well (perceived reduction in the likelihood of victimization).
> The courts have ruled that there are certain cases when "a priori"
> censorship are permissable in the public interest, notably in
> matters of national security.
True, but the courts have always stated in such rulings that the censorship is a blocking of the dissemination of information, and have only allowed for the collection of information pursuant to warrants. These new laws and processes seek to establish permanent and warrantless collection and examination of information, which is in blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment, and cannot be defended with an "a priori" argument.
> There is another intersting issue, however. The FBI was able to
> identify all of the terrorists from the passenger manifests.
> Obviously these people were flying under real names, or known aliases.
The second statement doesn't follow from the first. The way the FBI identified the terrorists is to track back through all of the passengers on the manifest, eliminating each from suspicion until only those remain whose past doesn't ken for some reason, and these people are examined more closely or simply identified as the perpetrators. Since this method requires that the FBI know which manifests to examine (the ones for the planes that were hijacked), it does not follow that the terrorists were all identifiable by name or alias.
> Would it be a violation of your rights if the government furnished
> "watch lists" to airlines to check flight reservations against?
This is a real grey area ethically, because the watch list is not a perfect solution. What if my name happens to match a known terrorist? It would be a violation of my rights to detain me or deny me passage on a plane just because of unfortunate coincidence. You could argue that it's for the common good, but it's still ethically ambiguous, and you'd need to have some mechanism in place to protect against fault or abuse (abuse could occur if someone put my name on the list, assuming it doesn't belong there).
Virg
http://www.visionics.com/faceit/tech/techspecs.
On the other side there are systems being used in the real world with reported 80% accuracy which is pretty bad.
Tons of citations on this page:
http://www.cs.rug.nl/~peterkr/FACE/olp.html
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
You can't eradicate human nature with all of the weapons in the world.
Cashmere/Kashmere is usually writtem in San Scrit or Arabic, so it is translitterated.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
you must have something to hide
we're now beyond the point where whining ala stallman is persuasive. The onus is on those who wish to preserve their right to hide from the government to explain how to prevent exploitation of these rights by those who would do away with all civil liberties (e.g. terrorists). I hope such explanations are available. I have no desire to live in a police state but can't exist in the comfortable cowardice of those who pronounce on civil liberties but never have to look in the eyes of the orphans created last tuesday.
I would really like to see some new ideas about security. What we have now are mostly checkpoints, little more than the same thing you would have seen in the Middle Ages. Just augmented with some technology.
What about new ways of looking at these problems. Some systemic or process changes that would make security checks more efficient.
In the present climate, the people who should be natural allies, airport security and 99.999% of passengers, have a false adversarial relationship. Security checks amount to punishment.
In 1979, I flew out of Belfast airport. My passport was checked six times, my boarding pass eight times and everything I had was searched at least once. By hand. It was friendly, fast and no inconvenience. There are better ways
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Mr. Stottle, I too would like to thank you for an extremely well written and moving article. i've found this to have more impact on me than any of the first-person accounts from people who got out of the WTC alive. I will be referring everyone I know to read your opinion, I can only hope that the US government comes to the same conclusions that you have.
thank again
mjk
p.s.: moderators, please mod this up!!
touche`
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
so fuck of dickheads
Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War...
Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led to the nazi party and hitler's rise to power following world war one.
Their constitution stipulated that in the event of a national emergency, the president would get nearly absolute power.
In the absence of respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as we are witnessing in this country, we are facing a similar threat to the rule of law.
Carefull no one gives them the idea of a terrorist amendment. There is currently enough bi-partisanship on the issue to do some REAL damage to the country
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The president was elected, dickweed.
My respect for Stallman has just dropped to a new low.
His idea of Free Software is good, but don't trample American captialism at the expense this quest in ONE BIG STEP. People, institutions and marketplace change and they can be made to change slowly to embrace whatever ideal one wishes to enspouse.
Most can only embrace liberalism so far but to call the current President "unelected", my patriotism flares against him.
I'm tempted to drop-kick him out of USA for his unpatriotic views.
A very well written post, and I agree with most (all) of it, but one thing struck me while reading it
> Such a system could have caught some of the
> hijackers - several of whom who were WANTED BY
> THE FBI and FLEW UNDER THEIR OWN NAMES!
Imo, it's database problem. If *name recognition* DBs aren't up-to-date, what makes you sure *face recognition* DBs will ?
As you may already know, a technology may be great, but if it lacks *good* implementation (remember crypto), it will fail.
Peace ! ^^
As 65% of all Brazilians with income more than US$ 2000 always walksequipped with gun...
This may be true. But keep in mind the the percentage of the Brazilian population with income more than US$ 2000 is roughly 5%.
But what percentage of the population with annual income under US$ 2000 will be riding airliners? B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Subject says it all.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way