Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties

Hobart noted that Richard Stallman has written a very well said piece on the civil liberties that we will no doubt be deprived of following the recent terrorist attacks on the US. I know RMS takes a lot of heat for being out there sometimes, but this is a really well said bit and worth a read. Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil liberties? By Richard Stallman

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 Stallman

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.

Comments

I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[bconway]

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.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[Doctor_D]

Yeah, it bothers me that lawmakers and policymakers are going bonkers with "security measures." I'm honestly questioning the motivations of these measures. I mean, the "heightened security" that we've had at the airports since the WTC bombing where at the airports asked those three stupid questions. Honestly who in their right mind would say yes? Honest citizens won't simply because it's not true. Criminals with no iq whatsoever would say yes, but if they are wanting to bring a bomb on board an aircraft, you simply wouldn't say yes to the questions.

It seems to me in this hysteria people are looking for a good scapegoat, wheter it be flight training schools, MS's Flight Simulator, contruction at Logan Airport, some middle eastern terrorist (that the US supported at one time), strong encryption, Quake, or whatever. Unfortunatley many people here in the US will say "There needs to be a law for <blank>" and then go back to downing a six pack and watching TV.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[sharkey]

Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties?

Bother, yes. Suprise me? No. There are certain members of Congress who will exploit any tragedy, sacrifice any human life and trample the rights of any citizen to pursue their own political agendas.

I personally wouldn't call it "using" the terrorist attacks, but rather "Dancing on the graves" of all those who died last week.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[Spyffe]

This post is a very interesting experiment with the Slashdot community. The message carbon-copies RMS's statement above (enough to warrant a -1: Redundant).
No flamers about "just trying to grab attetion" here, however! Far from pointing out the obvious equality between the opinion expressed by BConway and RMS's, the conversation is intelligent and focuses on the facts.
Why do we bitch about RMS making a statement and respond positively to a rehash of the same statement from someone else?
I thought the Slashdot community prided itself on being a little bit open-minded. Kneejerk condemnations of people's opinions based on their identity is not only rude, it's stupid. Hats off to BConway for making this so clear.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[zpengo]

Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties?

They're not. As a matter of fact, the government has been remarkably reserved, all things considered. I applaud them for their efforts to balance protection of civil liberties with an obvious and immediate need to protect a nationful of knee-jerk reactionaries complaining that the government isn't doing enough to protect us.

Whatever the government does, they're going to piss people off. That much is a given. If they protect civil liberties at the expense of physical security, or vice versa, people will slam them for being either ineffectual or tyrannical. 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 agree, to a certain extent. How do we know where to draw the line? Is looking through the window of a known terrorist's apartment a violation of that person's civil rights? Probably, but it's part of the dirty work involved in protecting a country's population. 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.

It hasn't all been blamed on the internet. That's just one particular group of wackos trying to take advantage of the situation to run some legislation through. Ask Pat Robertson: He says it's because of feminists, abortionists, homosexuals and the ACLU. Everyone's got a theory.

I understand the need to be vigilant, but while we're doing it, we could at least give the government a tiny bit of applause for not taking advantage of the situation to get their Stalin on.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[zpengo]

I personally wouldn't call it "using" the terrorist attacks, but rather "Dancing on the graves" of all those who died last week.

That's the most idiotic thing I've seen on here since this whole incident happened.

Congressman: We need more security. We're vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Someone else: Whatever.

Congressman: We need more security. We're vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Someone else: Whatever.

Congressman: We need more security. We're vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Someone else: Whatever.

[Insert catastrophic terrorist attack that does billions of dollars in damage and kills thousands of innocent people.]

Congressman: We need more security. We're vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Someone else: You'll exploit any tragedy, sacrifice any human life and trample the rights of any citizen to pursue your own political agendas!

Yeesh.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[MindStalker]

Yes, but one must always stop and conceder all tradeoffs is the real point. The most important point being, will this truly give me security, or just the appearence of security.
Letting the FBI monitor the internet will NOT put a hampor on terrorism, but it will make people give up their liberties that the terrorist hate so much, and only give them one more win.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[tanpiover2]

Yes, it bothers me, and I'll tell you to do what I did.

Instead of (or in addition to) bitching about it here on /., write your elected officials. And do it soon. Let them know that you stand against terrorism but not at the expense of your civil liberties.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[Alien54]

The correct argument to present to congressmen and senators and their aids must be found. Otherwise it will not penetrate the illogic of terror.

We must point out that we should not destroy the very things we value in order to preserve them. This is the old logic of the Vietnam war: "we had to destroy the village to save it"

The best way to save america to to protect and reinforce those freedoms and values we cherish so much.

We must also counsel finding the right target to attack. We must point out that the only abopsolute security is to turn Americas into a prison camp, with every innocent safely in their cell.

As it has been pointed out, the airline security measures worked perfectly. The terrorists knew that all of the passengers would be safely un-armed. Unfortunately, many of the knee-jerk reactions only wind up making the world safe for criminals, not for the rest of us.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[sharkey]

Hmmm. Interesting interpretation. From what I've seen, it has been more like:
Congress: We need more power. Trade us some of your freedom for a facade of security.
Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Congress: The FBI needs to be able to read any and all digitised correspondance whenever they take it into their heads to do so.
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
FAA: The passengers of Flight 53 are heroes for fighting the attackers. We obviously need more security. Make yourself as helpless as possible while flying.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson: The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

The "security" measures currently under proposal have only one effect: Reduction of the freedoms of the people of America.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[zpengo]

Your obiously an idiot.

That's just funny.

Trading liberty for safety will get you neither.

Trading saftely for liberty will also get you neither.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[doom]

Why would you be "ashamed to say" you agree with RMS about something?

Most of the slash kids are barely fit to tie RMS's shoe laces (in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they don't know how to tie a set of shoelaces period), where do you come off being so condescending?

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[greenrd]

Actually, you are incorrect. You do have the freedom to do those things, you don't have a control collar around your neck or a pain inducer implanted in your brain monitoring your thoughts to keep you from doing bad deeds. Yes, someone may well try and stop you.

That's not the kind of freedom we're talking about. We're talking about freedom in a legal sense - what you are legally allowed to do.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[lukel]

Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties?

Personally, no. I'm more bothered that the Bush Administration will use the terrorist attacks as a blank check for military action that will take away more lives. I guess it's just me though.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[AxelBoldt]

In theory, if you happen to have a pitchblende (uranium ore) mine in your back yard, then you can build a nuclear reactor and fuel it! legally! In the U.S.!

Yup, and then just sit back and wait until those fuckers crash a jumbo jet into it. We are not talking 5,000 quick deaths, we're talking 50,000 slow ones. Have a nice day.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[crucini]

why does everyone think that the government has been itching to do this all along and is using this as an opportunity to screw everyone over?

To take just one aspect, backdoors in encryption: The government previously tried to promote a key-escrow system via the famed Clipper chip. They backed down after a massive backlash. The people who favored key escrow claimed that terrorists would use encryption. They are now in a stronger position to ask for key escrow again.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[moebius_4d]

Semi-automatics have as many "legitimate" uses as any other firearm. You might be surprised how fast you can accurately fire a lever action or even a bolt action rifle, with only a few sessions of practice. You do have to come off sight a bit, or at least I do, but then if you're just shooting at a crowd of people that makes essentially no difference.

The question of how sporting it is to use a semi-auto while hunting is only raised by people who don't know what the hell they are talking about. This is not an "automatic" rifle, whre rounds are discharged until the trigger is released, it is a semi-auto, meaning one trigger pull gets you one round discharged. Respectful hunters like the semi-auto because it gives them the ability to make a quick second shot, in the cases that they have wounded the animal but not killed it at once. This is an ethical and humane practice. Once the wounded animal is allowed out of sight, you may never find it, and its suffering will be increased.

The notion that semi-autos "most of the time" will be used to kill one's self or a member of one's family is pretty goddamn ludicrous, the more so coming from someone who later wishes to charge the NRA with "inventing bad statistics." Consider the longevity of firearm rights organizations if "most of the time" their own guns were killing their members and their member's families. You may also wish to consider the fact that nearly the entire male population of Switzerland keep an automatic rifle in their homes, and their homicide rate is not substantially different from that of Japan.

If you want to kill lots of people quickly, the most available weapon I know of is an automobile. A quick run down a sidewalk in a Ford Expedition ought to easily outdo some jerk with an AK, not least because the SUV doesn't look all that suspicious until it does something unexpected.

Maybe if you got your facts from someplace besides the performances of tranvestite comedians you would be able to appear more coherent.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[mpe]

Personally i blame MS Flight Simulator. The amount of times i've crashed into buildings...

Indeed this may have proven more useful to the terrorists than any kind of computer based cypher machine. But it's utterly pointless even trying to ban it now, when there are copies all over the world.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[TandyMasterControl]

I'll second that emotion.
It would be particularly unsettling if the same government that is now demanding sweeping domestic spying capabilities also ignored good evidence that a major terrorist attack was coming via the airlines to American soil, wouldn't it? It might be enough to make you wonder just what they want the increased surveillance powers for if they intentionally ignore the critical intelligence they're already getting from sigint and allied spy networks.

Did administration officials receive advance knowledge of attacks with frightening indifference ?

Did administration officials smother a friendly, timely warning with shocking obtuse ness

Did adminstration officials shitcan a timely bipartisan report on America's vulnerabilty to airborne terror because it did not suit their political agenda of pressing for utterly irrelevant Buck Rogers style intercontinental missile defense?

These people simply do not deserve to be trusted with broader powers. Take your pick of reasons to distrust them, they're all equally valid, probably. We should be considering instead how to limit the further damage they can do of granting them a permanent, legislated hold on what should be only "National State of Emergency" wartime powers to be granted in the last resort in a fight against a dangerous foe like Nazi Germany/ Kaisarean Germany before that or the Confederacy even earlier.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[4of12]

The people who favored key escrow claimed that terrorists would use encryption. They are now in a stronger position to ask for key escrow again.

In which case, it is time to bring rational inquiry to the debate. (I know, I know, it ruins all of the fun of an uninformed and emotional debate.)

First, how much evidence do we really have that ObL was using encryption rather, than, say, low-tech pre-arranged signals like those used by the French Underground over BBC during WW2? You know,

"Mr. Green likes to eat oranges at midnight."

, (pick favorite Koran quote), etc. right over the telephone. The degree to which encryption has streamlined the operation of crime and terrorist networks is overstated; it is hypothesized more out of fear and ignorance of how these networks really work.

Secondly, if commercially-available encryption products are known to have backdoors, why would ObL, Scarfo, or any other individual needing to hide information even think of relying on such inherently-crippled tools? You certainly wouldn't. Neither would they.

If you ask me, most of the stupid terrorists and stupid criminals can be caught through the introduction of less-intrusive measures, rather than by making it difficult for the 99% of law-abiding people to keep their information and communication truly private.

Privacy may not be a fundamental liberty explicitly guaranteed in the United States Constitution, but IMHO, the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure is tantamount to the same thing. And I will take the interpretation of the spirit of the law to the letter of the law any day.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[Flower]

No, the $6000 per hour professional simulator they used when they attended flight school was the most useful computer based machine.

I can just see it now. "Ackbar! Wire for more money. I just can't practice on this 15" screen that came with the American-pigdog Dell."

On a much more serious note. Flight Simulator would not have provided the needed social engineering training that a real flight school would provide. How do airline pilots carry themselves, what is common behavior in the areas of the airport that passengers never see. Etc., etc.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[Merk]

Uh, more like...

Congressman: I need more money for my pet programs so I get more bri... campaign contributions.

Others: Whatever.

Congressman: I need more money for my pet programs so I get more bri... campaign contributions.

Others: Whatever.

Congressman: I need more money for my pet programs so I get more bri... campaign contributions.

Others: Whatever.

[Insert terrorist attack]

Congressman: I need more money for my pet programs so I can protect the world against terrorism!

Others: Make me feel safer, kill non-americans!

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[crucini]

I agree with you that it's unlikely encryption played a major role in this attack. However I don't think the opponents of privacy are motivated by fear and ignorance. Rather, they want to preserve the ability to listen in on lots of communications.

They are in a stronger position now simply because the attack occurred, whether or not they can drag encryption into it somehow. All this talk of an "intelligence failure" translates to budget increases. In weighing the tradeoff of freedom versus security, the general public is likely to put little weight on encryption because they don't use it.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[sharkey]

I would consider email to be a "paper", as much as postal mail is. Email interception by "anyone" is not the issue here. Email interception by the government, based solely on the whim of whomever is doing the interception is.

Postal mail, in its generic form, can be intercepted and read with a minimum of effort, just like plain text email. Just walk down your street after the mailman passes, and take a letter opener with you. Viola! You have the tool to read postal mail. Easy? Yes. Illegal? You bet. What if a government agency decided that a terrorist had sent a letter at some point. Does that justify their setting up shop in whatever post office they feel like, and opening all mail that goes through it, without a court order? Or walking down your street behind the mailman, and opening all the mail he delivers?

Or perhaps, in a more apt scenario, they decide that a terrorist has used a telephone. Does this give the government license to install a wiretap on every single line at any phone company they want, when they want? Wiretaps are fairly easy, you really only need a field phone and access to the wires at the network interface.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[sharkey]

I have nothing against luggage checking. There are definite safety concerns on a airplane, that don't really exist anywhere else in our lives. What I object to is the removal of my freedoms. Disarming passengers on a flight only serves to make them more vulnerable. Disarming the people only serves the same purpose. Go look at Nazi Germany for an example of this. Warrantless net/wiretaps are a step towards removing all restraints on government violation of "...persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[morris57]

You make a good case. I'm just not sure I know what is covered by the word "papers" in the amendment. I don't even know if postal mail is or not....

It should be, I suppose. But we don't really live in that perfect world anymore, do we?

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[sharkey]

We haven't for a long, long time, neighbor.

We lose liberty, we lose America

[Uttles]

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.

Re:We lose liberty, we lose America

[Uruk]

America is the land of the free, with liberty, and justice for all

Check that, it's the land of liberty and justice for all those who can afford it. I mean, does anybody really doubt that after seeing Rodney King's attackers walk, after seeing OJ walk, and after seeing mentally retarded people with no money for expensive lawyers get the chair in Texas despite obvious mental incompetence? Does anybody really think that it's "liberty and justice for all" in a place where a respected journalist gets the death penalty and the courts won't even listen to an appeal WHEN SOMEONE COMES FORWARD AND COPS TO THE MURDER that the journalist was accused of?

When you can get ass-raped in a police station bathroom by a racist motherfucker with a gun, is it really freedom and justice for all? What about when unarmed people get shot in the back whlie running away?
One of my biggest problems with all of this WtC stuff is the UGLY NATIONALISM that it has bred. People who knew that the US government didn't have their best interests in mind on Monday now slap flags on their cars and sing patriotic hymns as if just because we were attacked we're suddenly in the right about everything. Well I've got news for you. Just because Lee Harvey Oswald was killed doesn't mean that he was a great guy that deserved our support.

America is what it is. The people are going to get EXACTLY as much as they're willing to put up with. America will be america even if we turn into a jackbooted fascist state (which I don't think is that likely). The only difference is that we'll have a few fewer assholes singing patriotic hymns that were written by rich white slaveholders.

Re:We lose liberty, we lose America

[kaisyain]

Then we lost America a long time ago. Maybe it was back when they interned American citizens of Japanese decent. Or maybe it was when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. Or maybe it was when Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

You might want to rework your central thesis a little bit. Did we lose America back in 1798? If so, then what is it you are defending with your rhetoric. If America was not lost back in 1798 then perhaps you can delineate which liberties we are able to lose and maintain "America" and which we are not able to lose.

Re:We lose liberty, we lose America

[__aaahtg7394]

The key difference between those incidents and the current one is that those were "merely" temporary restrictions, while the bill in question is permanent.

The constitution makes specific exceptions for temporary revocation of rights for as long as necessary, but no longer. This is not that.

(suspension of habeus corpus sucks, but it tends to make logical sense, and is fair. interning japanese people is overreactive, foolhardy, and unfair. assigning survellance teams to follow around anyone who had been in recent contact with others in japan is reasonable, however.)

Re:We lose liberty, we lose America

[Uttles]

I said very clearly that we don't always do the right things. The principle is the important thing, the law, as it was intended, is just. The problem is how individuals carry out the law, as in the situations you describe. We're not perfect, nobody is, and terrible things happen here, but we try, we have good intentions, and we're the best thing going if you look around the world.

Re:We lose liberty, we lose America

[kaisyain]

Nothing is permanent in America. Even the Constitution can be amended. None of the actions being talked about are any more permanent than the Alien and Sedition Acts were.

Re:We lose liberty, we lose America

[gmhowell]

In general, we, as a nation, hold the process to be as important as the outcome. Hence the reason OJ, Rodney King's attackers (and Darryl White?), and countless others have been freed: the process was incorrect.

You see, the ends do not justify the means. That is what RMS is saying. Contrast this with Bin Laden. Despite hating the west, he has no problem using their tools (capital and technology) in his attacks. He has lessened himself by stooping to our level.

As far as your enlightened comment on slavery, who pays? My family was still in the Welsh coal mines at the time of the Civil War.

Re:We lose liberty, we lose America

[redhog]

One of the problems with your law system, which is not about individuals, but about the principle, is that each pay his/her own bill. In most european countries, the loser pays the bill of the winner. This means that you'l get good lawyers even if you'r poor - if you have a good case.

Re:We lose liberty, we lose America

[Dirtside]

A much better solution is that if you lose, you have to pay your opponent's court costs only up to some percentage of your OWN court costs. The problem with "loser pays winner's costs" solution is that if some little guy gets injured by a huge company's product, and takes them to court and loses because he can only afford to spend $5,000 on his case but the company can spend $5 million (thus ensuring the case is a complicated, obfuscated mess), then he's $5 million in the hole and is essentialyl fucked. As a result, no little guys will ever sue a big guy, and big corporations will get to run roughshod over individuals even more than they do now.

If you only have to pay for the winner's costs up to the amount you spent, it's much more fair because it helps ensure that little guys don't get abused by big guys. This is how they do it in, I believe, Finland.

Re:We lose liberty, we lose America

[gorilla]

Actually, costs are totally seperate to the actual case. You can win your case, but fail to have costs awarded against the other side, or even loose your case and have the costs awarded to the other side.

please RMS

[gol64738]

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...

Re:please RMS

[eAndroid]

C'mon, we needed at least one flame-war capable Stallmanism in there!

Re:please RMS

[Sir_Real]

I have to agree... I hate that Bush is in office, but this statement utterly nullifies any kind of rational argument.

Re:please RMS

[UberOogie]

Excellent point.

Even when a pundit seems to have a point, it immediately looses credibility as soon as the inevitible political cheap shot is thrown in.

This is what made Katz' last article so disturbing. 5,000 dead, and he's railing on "old media" and taking cheap shots at Bush.

This is a problem inherant in OS advocacy as well: Good ideas get lost because some pedantic or childish taunt thrown into the whole to make it seem less serious.

Re:please RMS

[Uruk]

Are you totally incapable of separating two personas in the same person? I'm sure you have opinions on software. Do those opinions void the value of your political opinions?

Why can't the guy talk about politics if he wants to? While I don't think that he's officially speaking for the Free Software Foundation with this article, and speaking only for himself, everything that he's about has to do with wider politics and society in general, and not just whether or not 14 year olds have to pay for their w4r3z at the store, or whether they can download and compile them themselves at no cost.

RMS has said over and over and over and over and over that it's all about freedom. I'm sorry, I meant that it's all about Freedom. With a capital (F). Read this article again, and see if you think it's totally inappropriate. It's about Freedom isn't it? Or did I miss something?

Re:please RMS

[Arandir]

Yup. But the popular vote isn't what elects presidents. Go read your constitution. Then go read your history books to see that this wasn't the first time. (hint: research the naming of the California town "Wilsonia").

Re:please RMS

[sfe_software]

I'll admit, he had me until that remark. Otherwise, I think he makes some good points that aren't in the typical RMS-style. That 'unelected president' remark throws the whole thing off IMO.

G. W. Bush was in fact elected; not by me, perhaps not by RMS, but he is our president, and I stand behind him 100% on most of the recent issues. I personally think he's doing a great job so far, especially in his public appearances.

Re:please RMS

[AntiFreeze]

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...

I too, respect RMS's opinions when it comes to software and licensing. But I disagree with your sentiment that he should not voice other political opinions. Stallman has every right to voice any other political opinions he might entertain. Just as you have the right to your beliefs, and I have the right to respond to them, and everyone has the right to respond to me.

It is your choice whether you accept RMS's remarks concerning "other political opinions", but in no way should you attempt to bar him from offerring those opinions.

Your point about RMS saying "unelected president" is right on the money. The President was certainly elected -- not by the people -- by the Supreme Court. I have my own strong opinions on this issue, but all they do is interfere with the matter at hand. I stand behind our President now: not because I agree with him or his approaches, but because I realize the turmoil disagreal would cause at this point in time.

I, for one, took RMS's words to heart. The last clause about our "unelected president" detracted from his point, but does not render his points irrelevant.

So, to sum up: if you believe in your own civil liberties, please do not attempt to curtail others'.

Sorry that was so long winded, it's been a crazy week. If you think I'm wrong, please don't flame me, respond and offer your views instead.

Re:please RMS

[Reality Master 101]

I agree, that was totally uncalled for, and quite frankly, exactly what the terrorists want: to divide us.

RMS should be ashamed of himself.

Re:please RMS

[dimator]

cote n. : a shed or coop for small domestic animals and especially pigeons.

Re:please RMS

[Reality Master 101]

I'm going to resist reopening this debate.

The question is not whether you believe Bush was legitimately elected or not. The question is whether it's appropriate the question it at this time, and in this context.

The election is done. There are more important matters to attend to.

Re:please RMS

[gmhowell]

Your misspelling of the word "piece" makes you look stupid anyways... But not as stupid as having missed the forest for the (single) tree.

While this comment may or not be appropriate (and even though I agree with the sentiment, it does not belong in this article), it does not change the message that RMS is attempting to send: that our civil rights are what the terrorists fear, and that by giving in and lessening them in the name of 'security', we will have already lost.

Now, would you care to talk nice with the grown-ups on the broader picture, or do you still want to whine because RMS took a shot at George the Lesser?

Re:please RMS

[sphealey]

"Why can't the guy talk about politics if he wants to? While I don't think that he's officially speaking for the Free Software Foundation with this article, and speaking only for himself, everything that he's about has to do with wider politics and society in general"

I hope so. During World War I, that "right" was taken away (ref. Alien & Sedition Act) and numerous people who said things the government didn't like were jailed. I wonder how close to that point we are today?

sPh

Re:please RMS

[Puk]

Oh, please. Your remark about his remark makes your piece look stupid, but I still read the rest of it for it's potentially interesting content.

No one is right all of the time, even our most popular politicians of all time. Read things point by point and determine for yourself if what he saying makes sense. Because he makes one bad point don't automatically invalidate everything else he said. I have a brain to let you determine these things for myself.

Further, I see no need for someone to restrict what they comment on because it's not what they're best known for commenting on. Some people have a good grasp of multiple fields, and interesting opinions on them. When Enstein made commentaries on the societal impact of nuclear technologies, no one told him to shut up because he was a physicist.

I, for instance:
1) Don't particularly believe that Bush should have ended up as president.
2) Totally agree with you that that remark had no business in that article, and was totally irrelevant. Now that Bush is president, I deal with the world on those terms.
3) Find that the rest of RMS's article is very interesting and informative, and resonates with my own personal beliefs.

-Puk

p.s. Sorry to flame, it's not my usual way, but I'm all for people being able to express opinions without being told to shut up because they've been pigeon-holed, or disregarded because of one bad point among many good ones.

Re:please RMS

[gmhowell]

Division of opinion in the US is hardly a problem. Go back and reread the first amendment. From it, you can surmise that healthy and open discussion is natural and strengthens us as a people and a nation. This is precisely what the Taliban (and many religious groups, from mainstream Islam to Catholicism) fear: discussion and the idea that was once said could now be considered wrong.

I think that GWB did and said the right things last week. However, his economic policies are BS, and his 'election' was a sham. Big frickin' deal.

How does silencing those with a differing opinion make you any different than Osama?

Re:please RMS

[wumingzi]

Are you totally incapable of separating two personas in the same person? I'm sure you have opinions on software. Do those opinions void the value of your political opinions?

Yeah and no.

Stallman is a software engineer of godlike proportions. I don't say this because he's on the side of Free software, or anything like that. Count the lines of code he's produced. If I could crank out in a month what he can do in a day, I would be a happy coder.

Because of his stature, and because of how much code he has contributed to the FSF, and all that, his opinions on other subjects get amplified somewhat past their intinsic value.

Of course I largely agree with Stallman, so it doesn't bother me much.

I perceive that damage can be done when people who are well-regarded in one field start remarking on others. The great industrialist, Henry Ford, had some remarks on human behavior (including some well-circulated quotes about the correlation between smoking cigarettes and criminal behavior) which would cause a reasonable person to gasp in disbelief.

The question is not whether Stallman is allowed to have political beliefs. Of course he is! The question is how seriously you should take those beliefs.

j.

Re:please RMS

[banuaba]

You know if Hillary and Bill Clinton, the Democrats in congress and the ACLU can calm down about Bush's validity as president in this time of crisis, why can't you? Why can't RMS? The points you brought up are not-insignificant, yes, but we have more important shit to be dealing with right now than politics.

Re:please RMS

[gmhowell]

Exactly where did I say he should be silenced? RMS is perfectly within his rights to be a jerk. But just because someone has the right say something doesn't mean what he has to say has any value.

However, his economic policies are BS, and his 'election' was a sham.

Fine, believe that all you want. But what does that have to do with the terrorist attacks, and what our response should be?

You are correct in the first comment. You didn't say that. Others in this thread have implied that. Mea culpa.

My other comment (that you quoted) was that it is possible to disagree with many actions and reactions of GW while still condoning his other actions.

(And yes, his economic policy is BS. Ask an economist. Ask the Japanese. You can't save your way out of a recession. The federal government can help recession with massive public spending on large projects. Such as a war. But, as you indicate, this is neither here nor there. And I can use that $600 check anyway:)

Re:please RMS

[dachshund]

I hate that Bush is in office, but this statement utterly nullifies any kind of rational argument.

Er, why? Because we're tired of being reminded? I worry that the same sort of political apathy will eventually settle over our perceptions of Tuesday's disaster. In a year or so, if somebody writes a post about the potential for terrorism, will we just blow them off?

Swept under the rug or not, this past election was a disaster. The events of last November will affect what happens in the next few months. Stallman may have chosen a harsh way to say it, but it's hard to forget that Bush is a controversial president. Most Americans voted for the other guy, and an unelected body declared the winner. These are the facts that we have to live with, whether we agree with the outcome or not. Not only does this call into question Bush's vision for America (in crisis or peace), but it places Bush in a weak position. A more stable president (of either party) might be more cautious, or less desperate to be perceived as taking action.

Re:please RMS

[bnenning]

Most Americans voted for the other guy, and an unelected body declared the winner.

Um, no. First, neither Bush nor Gore received a majority of the popular vote, either nationally or in Florida. Secondly, Bush did win the vote in Florida, confirmed by several official and unofficial recounts. Another "unelected body", i.e. the Florida Supreme Court, attempted to nullify his victory by rewriting election laws after the fact, and the U.S. Supreme Court simply informed them that they couldn't do that.

A more stable president (of either party) might be more cautious, or less desperate to be perceived as taking action.

How has Bush not been cautious? He has not ineffectively fired cruise missiles at empty buildings, nor has he bombed asprin factories based on intelligence known to be unreliable, which were the methods of operation of his predecessor.

This thread is exactly why Stallman's comment was ill-advised. It is a pointless distraction from his valid argument that statist politicians (of both parties) will use this tragedy to remove civil liberties.

Re:please RMS

[aardvarkjoe]

No... it's because we're tired of the whining. And it's a false statement.

Bush was elected by the rules of the election. That's why it's false. Whether or not he got a majority of the popular in the election is completely irrelevant. If you and Stallman don't like that, you should work on changing it. But lashing out at Bush is simply an attack, rather than rational argument.

Re:please RMS

[Arandir]

The president is elected by the electoral college. The members of the electoral college are selected by the individual states. The states have the right to determine how these electors will be chosen.

The Supreme Court decision was to determine which of TWO different methods would be used by Florida to determine its electors. The dispute was between two non Floridans regarding Florida law. The Supreme Court decided that the state rules in place at the time of the election would take precedence over rules proposed subsequent to the election.

The Constitution does NOT provide for the congress being a mediator in disputes. That's not the job of a legislative body, but for a court. Since the dispute was between two people from different states with regards to the laws of a third, the Constitution makes it clear that the Supreme Court was the proper venue.

Should there have been a recount? Of course! And there were! Five recounts completed. Every one of which had Bush as the winner. The only recount that was not finished was the statewide recount, which was started after the cutoff date for recounts as specified in Florida law.

In every instance the rule of law was followed to the letter. You may disagree with those laws (and I do to some small extent), but they were the laws in place at the time the election.

Re:please RMS

[nathanm]

The President was certainly elected -- not by the people -- by the Supreme Court.

That is completely false. All the US Supreme Court did is tell the FL Supreme Court that they could not rewrite election laws after the fact as they were doing. George W Bush was legitimately elected as the President of the US.

Besides, I bet Gore is ecstatic that he wasn't elected now, in view of the recent tragedy. The President has a huge burden on his shoulders & I think he's doing an incredible job at it.

Re:please RMS

[phutureboy]

How has Bush not been cautious?

He's been recklessly running off at the mouth for a week now about war on this, war on that, war, war, war, bomb this, bomb that, kill, kill, kill. He even speaks rudely of other countries, which is not doing us any good whatsoever. During a press conference the other day he rolled his eyes, smirked and made a snippy, condescending remark when asked something about Pakistan.

Bush's response to this conjures images of a speeding pickup truck full of drunken, whooping rednecks, heading on a road trip to shoot them as many gol'darned towelheads as they can find.

Colin Powell, on the other hand, has a very large clue. I would feel a hundred times more comfortable if he were the one in charge. Watch a press conference with him on C-Span, and then compare his demeanor and approach to Bush's. Powell is wise, professional, and diplomatic. He is very firm and focused but doesn't come across as an Imperialist warmonger. He works with other countries instead of pushing them around.

Sigh. I'm sure this 'War on Terrorism' will be no more successful than the 'War on Drugs', or the 'War on Poverty'. Anytime the federal government declares war on something, it seems that problem only becomes larger. Indeed, right now Bush is not pulling out the roots of terrorism, but actually watering them.

Re:please RMS

[greenrd]

Actually, according to unofficial recounts, Gore would have won the Electoral College, if it weren't for the Supreme Court's despicable, underhand, unjustifiable vote-stealing.

Re:please RMS

[Fishstick]

You make an excellent point about Powell. His presence in Bush's administration is a tremendous plus right now. I get the feeling that dubya is just window dressing and Powell and Chaney & co are the ones actually calling the shots.

"So, who are the bad guys again?"

"The ruling Taliban of Afghanistan and bin Laden's organization, sir."

"That's too hard memorialize. Can't I just call them towel-headed freaks?"

"No sir, we have to be careful not to upset friendly governments in the region."

"Oh... who are they again?"

*sigh*

Re:please RMS

[Reality Master 101]

Why can't the guy talk about politics if he wants to?

He certainly can, if he wants to. But we should always remember that he is "just a programmer", like anyone else. His opinion means about as much as joe the truck driver's opinion (and apparently is just as informed).

Re:please RMS

[Reality Master 101]

I get the feeling that dubya is just window dressing and Powell and Chaney & co are the ones actually calling the shots.

That's simply absurd. Can't Bush get any credit around here? On the one hand, many decry the blow-dried politician who looks good on TV, yet is totally ineffectual behind the scenes. Here we have someone who admittedly is limited when it comes to speech-making (although his address at the prayer service was very good), but who has clearly been decisive behind the scenes.

If Bush was as much of a baffoon as people thought, we would see people running back and forth making useless gestures, launching cruise missiles without regard, and generally making empty statements. Say what you want about Bush, but his statements have NOT been empty, regardless of the delivery.

Re:please RMS

[Arandir]

Good points. So much cruft was floating through the air last November and December that it's highly probable that I lost count of recounts, which were finished, etc.

I might dispute a couple of your points, but that would be taking this even further off topic.

The main thing, coming back to RMS's use of the word "unelected", was that Bush was elected by those authorized to elect him, in a legal manner. No, he was not elected by the popular vote, but the popular vote is not what determines the winner.

An eye for an Eye!!

[kermyt]

A tooth for a tooth!! sounds like we will all be blindly gumming our food soon.

Re:Taking advantage of the situation?

[gorgon]

I don't think so. If he were taking advantage of the situation, he probably would have tried to push the Free Software position. Instead he stuck very close to the topic at hand and possible repercussions.

Face Recognition.

[chinton]

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...

Facial Recognition

[waldoj]

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

Re:Facial Recognition

[szcx]

However, If you want to stand atop the still warm corpses heaped onto the aftermath of a tragedy, loudly proclaiming your own selfish agenda, feel free. You'll probably get posted to the front page at Slashdot.

Falwell, ESR, and RMS. They've all made opportunistic comments in the aftermath of the WTC disaster. It's disgusting.

Sign the petition

[claus.wilke]

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

Re:Sign the petition

[AntiFreeze]

I have just added my signature to the petition. I thought I wrote a pretty decent response as to why I was signing the petition, so I'll post it below. [Feel free to copy if you feel like it, although I don't see why you'd want to.]

My office is five blocks north of where the World Trade Center once stood. My old high school (Stuyvesant) is four blocks north. The center of my world was just destroyed by terrorists. But with that in mind, I am extremely angry. But I must also remain level-headed. To curtail civil liberties in the name of "revenge" is a disgusting ideal. Peace must be attained! But it will not be attained through short-sighted thinking and calls for immediate revenge.

'Nuff said.

Re:Sign the petition

[zpengo]

Never sign a petition that wouldn't make it through a Slashdot lameness filter.

Too much data

[dimator]

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?

Re:Too much data

[geekoid]

true but...
What happens when someone reports you as un American, then they go through that data, explicitly looking for you, then tie anything they believe as unAmerican(with no real proof its, just your ID/Login) and use that to lock you away for treason?

They may not beable to do it in a night, but I bet they could go through all of it within a week, if there just looking for you, and not trying to correlate all data about every one.

Has RMS heard of computers?

[Hairy_Potter]

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.

Gosh, do you think maybe a computer can scan millions of faces a lot quicker than a $6.00/hour bored rent-a-cop?

Re:Has RMS heard of computers?

[funkman]

The only problem is the hijackers would not have been in the database yet.

Re:Has RMS heard of computers?

[bwt]

The only problem is the hijackers would not have been in the database yet.

Actually, two of them WERE on the government's "watch list". I don't recall which flight they were on, but I think it quite likely that face recognition could have prevented one or two hijackings.

Casinos are using widespread face recognition NOW to catch cheats, frauds, and probably card counters. This has been standard practice for quite a while with them.

In an airport setting, I don't think you have any expectation of privacy. They already record your travels, X-Ray your bags, and check your ID. The fact that they don't check your name against a database pisses me off, frankly. I think if you are traveling on a passport, they ought to take your thumb print, too.

Face recognition goes too far when the government uses it in settings where you do have an expecation to privacy.

Re:Has RMS heard of computers?

[bwt]

I suppose this is a mock attempt to argue against airport security:
I'm a former terrorist. Reformed by ...

Why should I accept the judgment of a computer when God promises more mercy?

I don't give a crap if you accept it. I'm not proposing airport biometric identification with your interest or opinion in mind. As a former terrorist, you voluntarily abandonded your own rights.

As a former terrorist, I urge you all to consider what the meaning of forgiveness is.

Forgiveness means that I leave it to God to judge your soul after you leave this earth.

People should forgive people who repent on earth only when you accept responsibility and atonement for your past acts and are prepared to make reparations.

If you want to qualify for my forgiveness, then stay the hell out of airports.

Freedom & Security are always a trade-off

[q2k]

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.

Re:Copyright?!?!

[Uruk]

The GPL uses copyright to protect creations.

I think that he would rather that copyright didn't need to exist, but since it does exist, you may as well use it to enforce the distribution terms that ensure freedom for people.

Ask him about the distribution license for this article. That, and read up on the FSF so you're not so grossly underinformed about what RMS actually believes about copyright.

He just had to say that, didn't he

[Kostya]

Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, ... [emphasis mine]

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.

Re:He just had to say that, didn't he

[Rupert]

If you think about for a minute, he's right. you didn't vote for president, you voted for the electoral college. At first I thought he was making a Florida/chad/etc. jibe, but I think it's more a statement on the lack of a directly elected head of state.

It wasn't necessary here, though, and I agree that it detracts from the main point of the article. For someone normally so focussed, this is an unfortunate lapse.

Re:Taking advantage of the situation? [not]

[uqbar]

No, he is warning us that others will take advantage of this situation. Already televangelists like Jerry Fawell are linking the attacks to "pagans, homosexual, abortionists," etc. Such claims are absurd and pathetic - and more than a little indicative of how similar religious fundamentalists like Bin Ladden and Fawell really are in their intolerance.

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.

Out there is right

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

Re:Out there is right

[geekoid]

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".

The Supreme Court upheld several laws past by congress that curtailed civil liberties during McArthism, no reason why it would be different now. Although RMS does use some lame examples, and shot it in the foot with his 'un-elected' comment, his point is true.We must act now.

Obvious, but not redundant

[eAndroid]

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."

Hm ... 6 days, took longer than I t hought...

[johnlcallaway]

... for the Stallman's to strike back. "Oh no, I don't want anyone to know that I went into Kmart today".

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'm done ranting.

Re:Hm ... 6 days, took longer than I t hought...

[geekoid]

During Mcarthism they used information they had abount people as a means to have those people arrested because they might have "commie affiliations". The courts allowed this. All you had to do was have a record of you saying something that they could infer was a communist sympathy, then you were in jail, even though you commited no crime.

That is were the collecting of data like this will lead.

What do you think would happen if you were on record as saying "I think WTC should be blown up"? even if it was 2 years ago, and in a cpompletely different context, they would still come after you.

Re:Hm ... 6 days, took longer than I t hought...

[Ian Bicking]

They might not care where you go, and they probably don't care where I go either. But it isn't just terrorists they care about.

Martin Luther King, Jr., was under significant surveillance because he was a suspected foreign operative and communist. Of course, those suspicions were baseless -- he was spied on because he was in conflict with the power-that-be.

There are people here and now who will be marked as disidents and put under surveillance. They already are -- but these responses to terrorism will only make the surveilance harder to detect ("national security concerns" will allow the FBI to hide more), easier to attain, and more expansive.

Many of the people targetted will be unrelated to terrorist activities. Anti-globalization activists and environmentalists, in particular.

The FBI has always been a corrupt agency, used improperly to suppress and sabotage native disidents. There is a tremendous amount of documentation supporting past crimes of the FBI. There has never been any reform. There is no conceivable reason that they will not abuse any and every power given to them.

Freedom or Death: Take Your Pick

[Proud Geek]

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!

Re:Freedom or Death: Take Your Pick

[panda]

As for me, I say, "Give me Liberty, or give me death!"

Patrick Henry

Re:Freedom or Death: Take Your Pick

[Art Tatum]

"Give me Liberty or give me Death."

Re:Freedom or Death: Take Your Pick

[geekoid]

Death.
No reduction in civil liberties would have prevented this.

Re:Freedom or Death: Take Your Pick

[chompz]

stop the next attack before it starts?

cummon, engage that brain you think you use and think about the point RMS was making, that giving up a few simple liberties will not prevent terrorism, it might prevent unskilled terrorists, but it is not suficient to think that monitoring communications and physical movements will solve any terrorist problems which the world has. Sure, there are some "known" terrorists, but most of them look just like you and me, and act just like you and me. I have a right to keep my secrets secret, and I plan to defend that right if needed.

Re:Freedom or Death: Take Your Pick

[The Pim]

To all the people who say, "Give me freedom or give me death," this is the time to make your choice.

Well, it's always time to make that choice, and I continue to be comfortable with the level of risk I assume for my freedom. The chance of being killed by a terror attack is very low, really. Much lower than the chance of dying in a car accident.

With any trade-off, you can't just say "more of this requires less of that", you have to quantify (if roughly) how much of that you have to give to get how much of this. I recently heard an interview with (I think) Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. He was asked whether proposed security measures would improve our defenses against terrorism. Politically, he's obviously supposed to answer yes, but he hedged. He said, basically, that terrorists have all the advantages. They operate in a decentralized manner. They don't require many resources. They can attack at any time and place. He all but acknowledged that any restrictions that we would be prepared to accept would make us only marginally safer.

Moreover, all of the emotionally charged discussion about about the balance between liberty and security distracts us from the ways we can increase security that have nothing to do with restricting individual liberty. For example:

• Armed guards on airplanes (with non-airplane piercing bullets).
• Cockpits inaccessible from the cabin.
• Remote override of airplane controls.
• Targeted retaliation against terrorists.
• Reduction of US aggression abroad (it takes a lot of hate to go through what the terrorists did).
• Increased awareness and vigilance (the terrorists reportedly made many slips before the attacks; if they had been followed up more vigorously, things may have been different).

(It's often the case that we fixate unproductively on dualities, when thinking outside the either-or box reveals the best solutions. For example, ease-of-use versus functionality in computer software.)

Re:Freedom or Death: Take Your Pick

[Art Tatum]

How is putting face recognition systems in an airport taking away your freedom?

Slippery slope. The distance between a database of everyone's faces paired with constant pervasive monitoring and Big Brother is short. Besides, we must look to the future--we may have to lead a revolution against this government someday. Let's not do anything that would make that goal too terribly difficult.

Re:Freedom or Death: Take Your Pick

[Kenneth]

Just what do you think could have been done to prevent them from doing what they did?

What you must remember is that the terrorists always have knowledge of the laws and rules. If you can't take a metal knife aboard an airplane, they could have gotten away with ceramic ones. Are you suggesting a body search for everyone who gets aboard an airplane?

Unless you enact laws that are so strict as to totally limit your freedoms to the point that they no longer exist.

In truth this is what they wanted. This is the reason they attacked. To them, killing massive numners of people is secondary. They really wanted to destroy our freedom.

What better way to destroy freedom that to scare people into giving it up willingly? Talk about irony. Right now those who planned this atrocity are celebrating, not because they killed Americans, but because we will be willingly giving up a lot of freedoms.

Benmamin Franklin said that anyone who can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary saftey diserves neither liberty nor safety. This is as true today as when it was first uttered, and make no mistake any safety we gain from the sacrifice of our liberties will be very little and very temproary.

Never give up your freedom. I don't know about you, but I had ancestors who died to protect that freedom, and I will not let their death be in vain. I will not say, gee I'm too scared, I'll throw away all they fought and suffered and died for just so I can have a false sense of security.

Are there ways we could have stopped this attack? Absolutely, but none, not a single one involves any realistic level of additional security.

Even forgetting the horrendus difficulty, it would have required monitoring every telephone call, email, and non technologically assisted conversation on earth. What kind of civil liberties violation would that be?

It sickens me that someone could throw away his freedom so easily. I hope that there are still enough Americans who are willing to stand up to terrorism and say, "I will not sacrifice My freedom just because I am attacked. We WILL fight you and we WILL win. You will not intimidate us into giving up OUR freedom."

Short term bad, long term maybe good?

[YouAreFatMan]

I noticed that the Chicago Tribune had an article about the tension between security and liberty today. IMHO, whether or not Congress will move to restrict civil liberties right now is not as important as whether or not civil liberties are even being discussed. Whether or not they are even on the radar or the average person.

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.

Let's be a little more careful, folks

[clark625]

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.

ESR on the WTC Attack

[szcx]

Boneheaded, opportunistic comment of the day. Last week Jerry Falwell blamed the WTC attack on the ACLU, feminists, and gays. Here's what ESR has to say about it;

Raymond, the libertarian open-source guru, known for his love of firearms, suggested that if the passengers of the hijacked jets had had guns the four-plane tragedy might have been prevented: "We have learned today that trying to keep civilian weapons out of airplanes and other areas vulnerable to terrorist attack is not the answer either -- indeed, it is arguable that the lawmakers who disarmed all the non-terrorists on those four airplanes, leaving them no chance to stop the hijackers, bear part of the moral responsibility for this catastrophe."

The story about this took less than five minutes to be rejected by the editors. Apparently when your stock is circling the drain, a member of the Board of Directors saying something like that isn't something you necessarily want publicised.

Think air rage is bad now? Try arming those drunk businessmen and see what happens.

One good thing

[matty]

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).

Is Osama "Emmanual Goldstein"?

[litewoheat]

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.

Re:Is Osama "Emmanual Goldstein"?

[Chris Y Taylor]

No, WE are "Emmanual Goldstein."

We are the convenient enemy that the Taliban and their ilk uses to justify their atrocities.

They cannot keep their stations with an educated and economically strong populace, which modernization will surely bring. They know this, and so to prevent the development of a modern Afghanistan they ruthlessly oppress their people. In order to justify this, they need an enemy. Someone that is seemingly close enough to be a threat but also far enough away so that it can remain vague. Someone who is strong enough not to ever go away, but also someone who still will not likely show up and take over. We are the perfect enemy; the Taliban's Emanuel Goldstein. Or we were. The Taliban and Al Qaeda miscalculated what they could get away with and now we are their worst nightmare.

1984 was great dystopian science fiction, but you don't need telescreens to have oppression. You want to see a dystopian society? Go to www.rawa.org and you can see video of one that works just as well with Stone Age technology.

We will not become Oceania. I have faith in the politicians, and the intelligence personnel, and the police, and the military that while they would tolerate some restrictions during a temporary crisis most all of them would not tolerate major permanent restrictions. But even if my faith in them is misplaced, it doesn't matter. We do, after all, have the 2nd Amendment along with the more popular ones like the 1st and 4th. A government is only stable in the long run, if its political and military power is distributed in similar fashions*. There are enough firearms in the United States for every adult in the nation to have one. This individual ownership of small arms no doubt leads to lethal accidents, and some argue that it leads to more violent crime... but it also insures that the ONLY form of government that will be stable (over the long term) in the United States is one that is supported by the general population. This does not protect against racism or religious oppression or any of the other evils that democracies can exhibit... but it does protect against totalitarianism.

If your argument is meant to suggest that we need a clearly defined victory condition for this war, then I do agree with that.

*Which is probably why the platform the Taliban espoused when gaining power was peace and security through disarmament. Except that they sought to disarm all the OTHER tribes, but not their own followers. If our gov't starts to spout similar ideas, then we should start to worry; but fortunately our current administration is very unlikely to do that considering the pivotal role the NRA and the rest of the "gun lobby" played in getting them in office.

Has anyone noticed...

[InfinityWpi]

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...

Re:Taking advantage of the situation?

[plague3106]

Maybe. Or quite possibly others are using this to push through laws they would not have been able to pass before. Seems like everyone is trying to use this attack to further their own goals...

Re:Bunk

[Mr. Slippery]

If the heads of states of these countries consort with them, kill them too.

Assassination used to be a standard procedure for covert operations.

After JFK - who ordered the assassination of Diem, and attempts on Castro - got his head blown off, however, U.S. leaders realized that using assassination as a political tool made it likely that others would do the same.

Re:Taking advantage of the situation?

[abe ferlman]

I'd say its the Feds who are taking advantage of the situation, rushing to install Carnivore within hours of the plane crashes everywhere they could while people were still emotionally vulnerable. For shame.

This is the moment of greatest vulnerability for civil libertarians. This is no time to be meek, quiet or accepting, it is the time when those who previously only sympathized must begin to act.

And thank you for providing such a scabrous, troll-like platform of a post for me to take advantage of. I can't say I blame you for AC'ing.

Bryguy

Please explain

[artemis67]

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.

Re:Please explain

[artemis67]

It might have prompted a more thorough search of the bags of the hijackers, most of whom were already known to the CIA to be involved in terrorism.

In the bags, someone would have found a video about how to fly a commercial jet and some plastic knives.

Re:Please explain

[Anthony Boyd]

The real fact of the matter is that even with this face recognition software in place at Logan on the day of the attack, nothing could have stopped these men once they had their attack in motion.

Hmm. I don't know if that is the real fact of the matter. It seems to me that the real fact of the matter is that with something like this in place, these men would have been stopped before their attack was in motion. That counts, that's wonderful protection. I think it's a very real, persuasive argument. The only thing left for me to wrestle with is, how easy is it for me as a law-abiding citizen to live anonymously? It used to be I could just not use credit cards, and no one would have a "dossier" on me. Then it was that plus, don't give out info online -- certainly not to doubleclick. Now what? Wear sunglasses so I can remain anonymous? How long before wearing sunglasses is prohibited in airports? And how long after that before wearing sunglasses is automatically just-cause for putting someone on a watch list? Will previously legal acts be used to turn law-abiding people into criminals?

Re:Please explain

[Felinoid]

It's simple actually...
The scan and recognition software isn't going to work much better than human recognition.
The scanner has to go over a larg database in a short ammount of time.

So to make things go faster everyone of the same ethnicity, gender and nose as a suspected terrorist will be tagged as that suspected terrorist. Be processed. Go on his permenet record. Maybe on the front page news all while conferming who he is and probably being pissed off at people speaking a language he dosen't understand. Becouse the tagged person speaks ENGLISH and the terrorist dosen't so they'll insist on speaking in the language the terrorist understand and the tagged person dose not.

And get strip searched poked proded and generally inspected in ways that would make X files aliens blush.

All becouse we desided to use a technology that isn't quite ready yet.

On the inverse the human will most likely miss most terrorist but if there is a match it's generaly a good match.

Also as far as I understand the watch list wasn't that big... Not a whole database of every know terrorist but a watch list of a handfull of people.

Those terrorist would have walked by the scanner gone unrecognised unless he happend to have the same nose as somebody else who IS on the long list. Becouse they wouldn't be on the database yet. Burrocratics.. While we can get information on-line in seconds it takes months or years to happen when left to an unintrested paper pusher.

Re:Please explain

[artemis67]

Yes, there was a duffel bag found in the WTC wreckage that contained a copy of the Koran and a pilot training video. The terrorists also used some type of hard plastic knife in addition to the razors. (They used the knives to kill stewardesses in order to get the pilot out of the cabin on at least one of the flights.)

And that's just the stuff we do know about. Who knows what other evidence they may have been carrying on them, either suspicious or incriminating. We'll probably never know now, because it's all been blown to kingdom-come.

But, just imagine if those men had been pulled aside for questioning at that Boston airport. Over 5,000 lives saved, as well as the twin towers and tens of billions of dollars that turned into vapor in the aftermath. If only airport security had had a heads up, this would have been preventable.

Like I said, most of those men were known to have terrorist connections, and I believe 2 were wanted by the FBI already.

Re:Please explain

[Anthony Boyd]

These terrorists had commited no previous crimes, so their faces wouldn't be in the system.

That's not true. I alluded to "watch lists" in my previous message, and in fact, 2 or 3 of the terrorists were indeed on those watch lists. Watch lists include photos. As another poster said, while not all of them would have been picked up or stopped, a number would have -- and since the two on the watch list I heard about had pilot training, stopping them may have stopped at least some part of the hijackings. But regardless of this specific situation, we are also discussing future use, and even if the system has a 75% failure rate, that is still 25% of the killings that will be stopped. That is significant, as any person saved by the 25% would tell you.

I do not feel that a system needs to be perfect to be put into place. I believe in rough concensus and running code. In this case, a "human filter" that prevents a mere 10% or 40% of crime is successful enough for me to consider.

Re:Please explain

[hugg]

No matter what form of security you implement, someone will find a way around it if determined enough. Come on, I'm talking to /.'ers here, you know this!

Security through obscurity isn't even an option here. Every time we prosecute terrorists, we essentially give them the handbook for our investigation methods via the public court case. Tbese are not dumb criminals, they are very intelligent and will find a way to work around anything we throw at them.

Airport security was only one opening which the terrorists expolited. We can try to close it, but there are others we haven't even thought of yet.

Re:Please explain

[mpe]

Terrorists dont need missles or bombs; they will use whatever they at their disposal.

Similarly they don't need computer cypher machines to communicate covertly.

Re:Please explain

[Malcontent]

I would imagine that it would be pretty easy to shave your head or wear glasses or a fake nose or beard or something to fool the cameras. I bet that if a person really wanted to go undetected they could with a 99.99 percent probability. Remember this was planned ahead perhaps for years and they had plenty of funding. if push came to shove they could even get facelifts or something.
I think a 25% hit ratio and people purposfully disguising themselves is just naive.

Re:Please explain

[Malcontent]

You are presuming of course that the security would have actually prevented them from getting aboard. A toy knife? a box cutter who imagined that these could be used to hijack a plane before the 11th? Nobody. Even if the security staff decided they were too dangerous they would have simply taken them away and let the people get on the plane anyway.

Re:Please explain

[artemis67]

As I stated, Who knows what other evidence the hijackers were carrying? Nobody, because its all been blown to smithereens.

Look, nobody can say for certain what security would have done, but at least they would have had the option of intervening, and 6,000 people might still be alive.

Re:Please explain

[Malcontent]

I was guessing over a 100K. There were pilot lessons involved and quite a bit of international travel. It looks like they raised the money by short selling insurance stocks just before terrorist attacks.

Re:Please explain

[Malcontent]

You may be right. I think that they learned very well from American terrorists. They most likely break into small cells of 20 people or so. The American terrorists actually like to keep that number in the single digits but it's probably harder to be international with that small of a cell. So yes there is only so much money that can be raised with small cells and I would guess 100K is certainly doable.

Although they are small cells it's obvious that there is some sort of centralized control. I think this because they have never repeated and attack at the same targets or the same way. While the smaller bands and less organized palestenians constantly repeat the same patterns (car bombs, suicides etc) these guys never do the same thing twice. Instead of many repeated small acts of violence they save up, plan and excute a big one.

I shudder to think what their retaliation to bombing of kabul, damascus, bagdad etc will be like. I am guessing right now it's going to be biological or chemical but that seems too obvious whatever it will be it will make WTC look like childs play I bet.

Yeah but who isn't?

[sterno]

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?

Re:Over half?

[matty]

Word. I voted for Gore and I'm sure sick of it.

What's wrong with airport face recognition?

[zulux]

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.

Re:What's wrong with airport face recognition?

[remande]

I understand *fully*, why face recognition systems in public places is wrong.

Would somebody explain it to me, then?

The last time I checked, nobody has a right to privacy in a public place.

I would oppose them being hidden, but having them publicly visible makes sense. We already have facial-recog systems--we call them "cops".

I am big on privacy and similar rights, and I would thus say that having one of them in a private place would be a violation. But in an airport, a park, anything like that violates no privacy because you had none to begin with.

Re:What's wrong with airport face recognition?

[zulux]

For me, the reason I have a problem with automated face recognition system in normally public places is due to the overwhelming sense of being watched, of being catagorised and of being snooped upon. Dont get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your logical arguments, there is no expectation of privacy in public places - but there is somthing sinister about being watched by inhuman eyes. It's just an element that I don't think we need. When I stop and smell the roses in a park, I don't want to feel "watched and protected." So my argument that survalence is wrong is not logical - it's emotional.

Re:What's wrong with airport face recognition?

[artemis67]

Dont get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your logical arguments, there is no expectation of privacy in public places - but there is somthing sinister about being watched by inhuman eyes. It's just an element that I don't think we need. When I stop and smell the roses in a park, I don't want to feel "watched and protected."

Ever been to Wal-Mart? Used an ATM? Pumped gas? Bought groceries? Gone to the mall?

It's too late, the electronic eyes are already all around us.

Re:What's wrong with airport face recognition?

[Phillip2]

"Airlines have the right to know with whom they are doing business with."

This is simple enough surely. A simple requirement that you carry your passport with you on flights. This is the case with international flights, and its strongly encouraged on domestic flights in the UK.

Phil

Re:What's wrong with airport face recognition?

[zulux]

what will they do to a woman wearing a burqua? Prevent her from flying?

Good points, but I think businesses can mandate a dress code if they want - Most uber-fancy resturants will kick you out if you don't have a jacket and tie, and even McDonald's will won't serve you without shoes and shirt. I don't tink banks would serve you if you had a balaclava (ski mask) on your head. Even so, you are correct, that such a code would raise serious religious issues.

If we were really smart, we'd actually keep the face recognition system a hidden as possible - we would catch a few people who diden't realise it's effectivness. A good place to do it would be when you walk through the metal detectors - you're facing front and one more camera woulden't get too much notice there.

Re:What's wrong with airport face recognition?

[Phillip2]

"I think that works well in the UK - but here in the states, our passports are so forgeable, "

I suspect passports which are difficult to forge is technically easier than automated face recognition.

how about voluntary, opt-out options ?

[beanerspace]

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.

Re:how about voluntary, opt-out options ?

[markt4]

How do you "opt out" of biometrics? Once they have your fingerprint/retina scan/facial landmarks/DNA/rectal topographic profile how do you keep them from continuing to use it to identify you and tracking every g*ddamn thing you do.

And for those who are about to respond, "If I'm not doing anything wrong then what do I have to worry about?" Grow Up! Does the name McCarthy mean anything to you? The Communists were not our enemies. They were people exercizing their Constitutional rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association and the ability to question the policies of the government that they, at least in theory, elected. Didn't keep 'em from being hunted and fired from their jobs, black-listed so they couldn't find any other job, and generally ostracized from their communities.

Think it couldn't happen to you? It has happened over and over again in just the short 225 year history of the United States. Ever heard of the internment camps that Americans of Japanese decent were put into during World War II? Ever heard of civil rights workers in Mississippi that were trying to get Americans of African decent the right to vote? These people were not doing anything "wrong" either.

Re:how about voluntary, opt-out options ?

[zpengo]

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.

Oh, I see. Having someone read my e-mail is a violation of my civil liberties, but it's okay to have machines around the world memorize and store my FREAKIN' FACE?

Re:unelected president???

[Salsaman]

C### ?? Is that a new language from Microsoft ;-) ?

Logic Error

[pmc]

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.

Identification System

[nanojath]

One thing that is clear from this is that Mr. Stallman has no particular knowledge of this photo identification system. This system applies a multi-point comparative analysis of key facial features which are very difficult to alter/disguise (distance between eyes, etc). In combination they provide a very high degree of accuracy in positive identification based on a photograph. Mr. Stallman's comparison to individual surveillance by a human is meaningless because it is impossible for a human to do what this system could do - compare an individual to a database of known criminals.

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.

Re:Identification System

[DrXym]

very difficult to alter/disguise (distance between eyes, etc)

Face recognition means squat.

A terrorist hell bent on hijacking a plane and flying it straight into a building killing everyone aboard including himself, would think nothing of reconstructive surgery if that's what it took. You *can* alter a face sufficiently that a computer would be unable to match it against a face in the database.

So what's the point of doing it at all? You might catch some petty criminals but not the hardened terrorists that the highly expensive system was introduced for in the first place.

Re:Identification System

[DrXym]

Sorry, but I don't buy that for a second.

Installing a face recognition system in every airport & federal building would be massively expensive overkill that wouldn't catch a determined terrorist.

To extend your house analogy it would be akin to installing a highly expensive alarm system on your doors and windows to catch a thief who cuts a hole in your wall with a jackhammer.

Certainly you'd catch small fry, but you'll totally fail to catch the people you installed the system for in the first place.

Re:Not The Time For Anti-Patriotic Rhetoric

[settonull]

but I'll go further to express my view that this is an anti-patriotic, and un-American statement in this time of crisis

I'd argue the opposite. At a time when everyone is agreeing it is even more important to question what is being said. Now the issue of the election is perhaps not the best example, but at times like this it becomes even more difficult, and more important, to disagree with the majority, even if it might be "un-American"

-chris

Freedom & Security are seldom a trade-off

[Svartalf]

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.

Re:unelected president???

[pheared]

I believe RMS is referring to the fact that Bush did not win the popular vote. He only won because of the Electoral College, an aging system that was setup a long time ago, for reasons that don't seem too pertinent today. I don't think he means to refute the idea that Bush won the election. Instead he is trying to say that the majority of Americans did not in fact vote for Bush. Unfortunately, that is quite anti-democratic, but then, we don't live in a Democracy, but a Representative Democracy.

This is silly

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Okay, so the UK have CCTV cameras all over the country. Net result ? they can squelch pretty thefts in high streets and issue speeding tickets automatically. Yet the IRA still strike. Gee, I wonder why the camera didn't pick them up.

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.

Re:This is silly

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Okay, so the UK have CCTV cameras all over the country. Net result ? they can squelch pretty thefts in high streets and issue speeding tickets automatically.

And in each case, you can still challenge the evidence in court if it's unreasonable (not that it usually is, of course). There is still due process involved.

British citizens have "chosen" to give up their freedom for nothing.

There was no choice about it. We made the mistake of electing a landslide Labour government the time before last, and Tony Blair and co. could do whatever they wanted. Please don't mistake having freedom taken away for choosing to give it up.

That said, I actually don't mind the idea of CCTV cameras around towns if their use is properly and publicly scrutinised where appropriate. I think they help to reduce crime and, in the long run, are beneficial to justice.

Speed cameras (at least, the GATSO type they mostly use at the moment) are an entirely different issue, and have many flaws. The government produces a stream of spurious statistics to back up their claimed "reduced accident rates" and "public support", but it doesn't take much to see through them. If they were having that much effect, and not just raising revenue by the back door, how come I don't know any of this vast majority of the public who allegedly want them, when I'm generally a safe, legal driver? Sorry, I digress; you hit on one of my pet peeves.

But hey, at least we get something worthwhile in return for these intrusions -- whatever their flaws, I think these measures are genuinely in the public interest, at least in principle. What you're talking about is way bigger: you're being told your privacy is being taken away in a knee-jerk reaction, and it wouldn't have made one damned bit of difference to the events of last Tuesday.

Re:This is silly

[Mike1024]

Hey,

British citizens have "chosen" to give up their freedom for nothing.

The problem is: We havn't given up our freedom. We just have a few video cameras up in large, public areas like shopping centers and suchlike.

We can trust the government not to match the video cameras with pictures from photo-ID cards and photo driving licenses, using face-recognition technology to track every citizen's movement. Why? Well, why would they want to? it would have a significant cost, and would not produce any useful data.

Furthermore, when you're in the street, you have no implicit right to privacy. A policeman could stand on a long pole with a pair of binoculars, looking for crime, and that wouldn't be invading your privacy. A camera is simply a more practical way of doing that.

The british government has no interest in invading citizen's privacy. They want to prevent crime. We havn't lost our 'freedom'; we have simply allowed a crime-preventing tool to be effectively but not opressively utilised, leading to a drop in crime.

And I'm all for that.

Michael

Re:This is silly

[Midnight Thunder]

How do you know it's for nothing? All you hear about are the successful bombs, the successful IRA strikes, the successful terrorist plots to blow up the World Trade Center.

It isn't necesserily for nothing, but thier use should be limited to where is matters. For example I don't mind security at an airport, as this is a point of focus for anyone wanting to commit intetnational terrorism, but outside of the airport zone it does not make sense.

On a side note, would you prefer the presence of a friendly cop on the street ( as opposed to the extreme unfriendly cop ) or that of an ominous camera?

Re:This is silly

[Art Tatum]

The problem here was not with the security people at the airport being unable to recognize terrorists. These guys had already been identified and orders were put out to track them. The paperwork got lost in some kind of bureaucratic snafu.

Re:This is silly

[streetlawyer]

Ah, but a policeman isn't a national database of everyone's facial features

What do you think those books of mugshots are for?

Re:This is silly

[gorilla]

Okay, so the UK have CCTV cameras all over the country.

So does the US. Go to a mall. Drive on a highway. Park in a garage. All monitored by CCTV. The only difference between the US and the UK in this respect is that malls are much less common in the UK, and the major shopping areas tend to be in city centers and outside. So the cameras are public instead of private.

Government backdoors prevent open source

[DunbarTheInept]

If there's any people out there who don't think there's anything wrong with mandating government backdoors in all encrypting software, consider this: How can they mandate that encryption software retains that backdoor unless they prevent people from seeing the source code? This would be the death of any open source software that happens to do encryption. This asinine attitude that congress has, that lerge corporate software is the only software that needs to exist, is rearing it's ugly head again here. It's the same attitude that made it so that the DMCA prevents open source DVD players. If you can't beat open source down by technical means, then beat it down with the law.

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.

Re:Government backdoors prevent open source

[sulli]

Reverse is also true: open source prevents government backdoors. Remember what the FreeS/WAN (Linux-IPSec) team did a few years ago - they developed it in the Netherlands, where they didn't have to worry about key-length regulations. This may happen again.

Re:Government backdoors prevent open source

[DunbarTheInept]

What I am worried about is this:

"Open source encryption prevents government backdoors" == "Government declares open source encryption illegal"

In our current mania after the WTC attack, that just might happen. The probable route to get there from here would start with "All communications must be snoopable by the government. Oh, you are using a technique we can't snoop on? Well then you must have something to hide...People who use open source encryption to transmit must be Bad Guys(tm)..." Then watch the witch hunt begin.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slash-dotters should help, not fight USGovt

[code_rage]

[this is a repost from another thread on the same subject]

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/01 /nation/attack_loeb.htm . These comments underscore my personal belief that there is nothing the U.S. can do to appease these terrorists, because what they desire is the extinguishment of the "light on the hill" represented by the U.S.

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.h tm

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 /. community to devise an effective response to the events of 11 September. This response should not simply be "no compromise in the defense of our privacy rights" which incidentally did not have any effective means of enforcement until PGP 1.0. Rather, it should include technical assistance to help protect U.S. safety AND ALSO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

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.

Re:Slash-dotters should help, not fight USGovt

[code_rage]

Umm. Are you replying to my comments, or what? I made no comparison to WW2 except in the sense of what individuals did and might should do now. I presume from your comments that you think that I would propose to fight these terrorists like we fought the Axis powers in WW2. If so then you would be grossly misinterpreting my comments.

Where did I mention cruise missile pinpricks?

As to blaming this on so-called imperialist U.S. foreign policy, if there is to be a superpower then who would you prefer that it be? China? Russia? How about Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia?

I never said "my country good or bad". That is your completely inaccurate interpretation of what I wrote. Please re-read carefully what I wrote. Did I not mention (for instance) the ineptitude of the FBI? Was my proposal to re-target DEA agents against a more pressing threat, namely terrorists, a blanket endorsement of everything the USGovt does? I hardly think so.

As to the notion of assassinating ObN, yes, this would likely inflame and inspire more attacks. I did not say we should kill him in particular. In fact, had you followed the link which I included to the brief Washington Post transcript (about 1 page), you would note that that point has already been raised and I concur with it. However, while I did say that only killing the terrorists would stop them, I see no practical solutions to terrorism from you, except maybe for the U.S. to retreat completely from the world stage. Personally, I doubt even that would appease these medieval-minded morons.

Did I propose acts of terror? No, merely solving the problem.

Next time, read my comments carefully before replying. I kinda doubt you did this time.

Good decisions needed!

[Glock27]

Stallman is making a very good and important point here.

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:

• More armed air marshals in plainclothes randomly on flights.
• Armored (Kevlar) secure bulkheads for the flight compartment of commercial planes.

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!

unelected president?

[Dr. Awktagon]

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.

Fallacy

[jdavidb]

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?

Face recognition yes, crypto backdoors no.

[sulli]

Okay, maybe it's time for a more nuanced opinion on civil liberties in wartime and afterwards.

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.

Re:Face recognition yes, crypto backdoors no.

[Samrobb]

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!

If they were flying under their own names, then the airlines didn't need face recognition software to idenitfy them. The airlines simply were not concerned enough about security to even bother to compare flight manifests against lists of known, dangerous criminals.

Face it (no pun intended) - there is no silver bullet. We, the people of the US, are going to get exposed to a thousand different logical fallacies over the next few weeks: "If we had done <X>, then this wouldn't have happened." Anyone associated with computers should understand that there is no silver bullet for security, and there never will be. We had a lax security posture in our airports, and somebody exploited that to our detriment. If we want to keep the next terrorist from doing the same, we need to start actively testing and probing our own security in a meaningful way, fixing those security problems we do find, and making sure that those fixes remain in place and are not relaxed when the current situation passes.

If that sort of procedure indicates that face-recognition software is of value in beefing up airport security, then fine - let's use it. Until that point, I'm unwilling to accept that the CEO of a face-recognition software company has only my own best interest at heart when he starts peddling his product in a way obviously designed to take advantage of the emotional situation surrounding a tragedy.

Actually, Stallman is a good Writer, hehe

[JSBiff]

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.

likely consequences

[GrassSnake]

Regardless of whether you're worried about a Big Brother scenario in which the FBI arrests you for conspiring to violate the DMCA or some such, there are some obvious adverse consequences for requiring encryption back doors

• 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.

There is another choice...

[Svartalf]

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.).

Don't be ridiculous.

[Giant Hairy Spider]

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.

Re:benjamin franklin's opinion

[TheAwfulTruth]

Of course Benjamin Franklin ALSO said (I'm paraphrasing here) "I would gladly give up my right to slander another if in turn I were to be protected of being slandered." Try reading the book "Fart Proudly" and see what old Ben REALLY said, rather than tiny out of context quotes that are shoved down your throats by a very narrow minded education system. Thruth is usually muych less black and white that most people make it out to be.

I gotta say something

[Ender Ryan]

What is the big deal with face recognition? WTF is wrong with that? Personally, I am not WILLING to give up any of my liberties because of this terrible act of terrorism, but how does face recognition computers infringe on my liberties? You are already in a public place, you're in the open, people can see you, so can cameras(which are already there anyway), what difference does it make if there are cameras connected to computers doing face recognition to be sure that no known criminals/terrorists board a plane?

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.

Re:I gotta say something

[C. Mattix]

Ok. .so then I get added to the "watch list." There are going to be some pretty damn bored FBI agents then trailing me as I go to Best Buy and the mall.
I don't know what everyone that is griping out the "Face Recognition" either. In the US, there has never been a right to privcacy in public space. There isn't even a "reasonable expectation" of privacy. Public is just that, public. If face recognition can do the same job as 5,000 FBI agents eye-balling the city, then great. It is cheaper and more accurate, and I believe fewer innocent people and mis-identifications would happen.
If people start mandating cameras and the like in people's own houses, without a warrant, where there is a "reasonable expectation" to privacy, then people should be pissed. But in public, and even in the workplace, there really isn't a gripe.
But before that, how about decent software that checks airline lists against lists of known felons/terrorists. Sure people would lie, and maybe a few people would be delayed from mis-IDs, but that is a place where it is needed.

Re:I gotta say something

[FFFish]

It's the same big deal as Napster: the digital age allows far greater abuse of rights than ever previously.

Used to be that if someone ("Big Brother") wanted to watch your every move, he'd have to assign a full-time agent to follow you. It was expensive and obvious, with limited opportunity for exploitation.

But with the wonders of technology, your every freakin' move can be tracked throughout the day: cheaply, subtlely, and with great opportunities for data-mining abuse.

(The Napster abuse, for those that need it spelled out: endless generation of audio-perfect copies, shared with an unlimited public.)

FUD from RMS...

[cavemanf16]

Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War.

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?

Re:FUD from RMS...

[bradasch]

OUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED on its own soil!

Exactly. For the first time in history, two big cities in the US were attacked. Now, there's something interesting about it: the US has played first role in the bigger wars in the past 50 years, and none of these wars were fought on american soil. Think about it for a moment.

...and hoping and giving them stuff has failed. It's time to punish the evil with consequences for evil acts, no matter the casualties.

Remember the $40M the US gave the Taliban this year? Well, maybe this should be a reason to review the US foreign policy.

Why is it so hard to some people to understand that the recent attacks were a direct retaliation made to the US by the terrorists? Please, I beg you to think about it and understand that the US has already caused lots of casualties in Mid-East countries, and that those casualties are the main cause of the terrorism we saw last tuesday.
Read this letter from an Afghani-American, and try to understand why bombing Afghanistan is useless.

Terrorism is not dominant in the islamic countries. It's a product of radical groups, spread all over the world. The best way to make them stop attacking the US, is make them stop wanting to do it. And not by fear, but by reason.

Re:FUD from RMS...

[sulli]

Not fighting to keep your freedoms when they're attacked is just as bad as voting to do away with some of them!

Damn right. That's why Congress dod the right thing to authorize the use of force, and why we need to get OBL - dead or alive.

Balance of Liberty and Security

[Planesdragon]

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.

Re:Balance of Liberty and Security

[HiThere]

If the only choices you see are anarchy or totalitarianism, then I'll choose anarcy, thank you.

Also, the question is "Did GWB win the electorial college vote?" And basically the supreme's said:
1) You can't count until we say you can.
and then:
2) Sorry, there isn't time to count, so pick the current choice, even if large amounts of fraud have been demonstrated.
So I don't think the electors from that state should have been seated. Therefore I don't accept GWB as elected. In power, yes, but that's a different concept. Usurpation, I believe it's called.
Now it's true, the supreme court was clearly in complict agreement. And it's possible that things would have turned out the same anyway. And Gore wasn't any better. So? That is'nt what happened. What happened was usurpation.

This is about Fear not Retaliation or Revenge

[Jody Goldberg]

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.

Better than ESR

[drivers]

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

Re:Better than ESR

[Detritus]

Let's see, ESR is "much worse" and "taking political advantage of the situation", because you strongly disagree with him. How convenient.

Well, like I said before...

[Sly Mongoose]

Back on the eleventh I said that the WTC was not the real target.

But who am I? Not a set of initials, so...

"unelected president"

[small_dick]

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.

Re:"unelected president"

[small_dick]

first off, the President is legally different from all other people in the country. by law, you are *legally bound* to respect his executive orders, whether you like them or not. you do not have the legal right to pick and choose which of his orders you will respect, as you would have with the average person.

i'm not saying you have to like the guy, just that he is legally different from other people.

this was an extremely close election. it could have easily gone either way. in such a close election, it really does come down to "the noise" in the process. some say there were gross violations of law in florida, i think there were mistakes made, but nothing particularly different from any other election.

the supreme court had to pick. one side would be pissed off either way. the nod went to bush, for a variety of reasons, most of which come down to chance--that is, it just so happened a lot of conservatives were on the court at the time this election occurred.

i think the nation needs a person of ethics...and neither bush nor gore have that. perhaps guiliani will? or nader? i'd like to see a third party come into play, someone from outside the "republicratic" system.

i think it's unfortunate that you called my post flamebait; i really do think there comes a time when people should accept the undesirable present, release the unfortunate past, and struggle toward a better future.

Re:"unelected president"

[Ralph Bearpark]

My wife and I were watching the TV coverage of the WTC attack, when Bush came on. After he had finished, my wife turned to me and said "I know this sounds bad, but with all these thousands killed, it's a real shame they didn't get him too." I had to agree.

Note, we are peaceful, employed, house-owning European folk with kiddies, living "somewhere in Central Europe" (now there's a target area smaller than Afganistan for you).

But if Bush can get normal people like us thinking so badly of him, how surprised can we be when a group of nutters are willing to kill themselves and all around them in order to try and rid the world of him?

And how the f*ck did he get even get close to being elected in the US?

Regards, Ralph.

Re:Over half?

[Arandir]

Yup, fewer than half. 49.99% versus 50.01%. Big whooptidoo!

More people actually cast a vote for Bush in 2000 than cast a vote for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Bush had a higher percentage of the total vote in 2000 than Clinton did in 1992 and 1996. Yet the Clinton victory was called a "mandate". Go figure.

Re:Over half?

[matty]

Thanks for calling me an idiot, that was sure helpful.

I wasn't saying that Bush's presidency is less valid because of the popular vote totals, I was just wondering if the original poster was referring to that or something else.

pointing out the obvious

[Ender Ryan]

I hate to be forced to point out the obvious, but the Linux "community" is not some homogenized group of like-minded peoples working together for the exact same goals. The Linux "community" consists of millions of people ranging from professionals in film studios to pimply faced nerds who hang out in the computer club in school talking about how much ram memory the computer their mom bought them has.

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

Re:pointing out the obvious

[Phrogman]

So one's a GNU nut and the other is a GUN nut you mean? Sorry, couldn't resist...

Freedom vs. Safety

[IdIoTt]

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.

Re:Civil Liberty Paranoia

[technomancerX]

Actually, the Senate already passed legislation that allows the installation of Carnivore to monitor someone WITHOUT a court order.

I submitted an article on it, but it got rejected. Hit http://node777.net for links to the relevant information.

.technomancer

face recognition

[pos]

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

Peter Jennings?

[KlomDark]

More info on Peter Jennings throwing a tantrum? I missed that, watching CNN. What'd he do?

Protect liberties, but abide the constitution.

[HermanBupkis]

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

If you live in America, You are already watched.

[cybrthng]

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.

Huh?

[jasno]

"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...

The whole thing HAS NOT been blamed

[sulli]

on the internet!

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?

Re:The whole thing HAS NOT been blamed

[dmarcov]

This is completely right. The real problem with airport security are the "rent-a-cops". In fact, even far worse than just a normal "mall-cop". They are paid as close to minimum wage as can be gotten away with, not properly trained, don't realize that just because the screen lights up on a laptop doesn't mean there isn't a bomb in the 2nd battery bay -- and we trust them to keep the really dangerous things off the plane. I believe that is where the focus has to be if we are going to prevent these types of things from happening again. Bring back the Federal Air Marshals!

Re:The whole thing HAS NOT been blamed

[mpe]

I've heard on nearly every report talk about the "failure of the U.S. intelligence effort." What is this failure, and how can it be fixed? I suspect that Carnivore will be put forth as the solution

Rather that it won't be any kind of solution more likely making the original problem worst. The lack here was of so called "humanint" i.e. actual people.

"We could have known about it ahead of time if only we had read the emails."

Without people to spy on and infiltrate the organisation you don't know which emails you need to intercept (or ever if any exist in the first place.) but were you to have this then intercepting emails probably dosn't get you much you don't know anyway.

yeah good point.

[VValdo]

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...

Pardon my attitude but...

[packetgeek]

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.

Re:Pardon my attitude but...

[gregbaker]

Mr President I wish to help, here are some possible solutions to the problem

Do like the Israeli airlines and put an armed marshall on every plane. A cop with an assault rifle would make me a lot less likely to try to hijack a plane than a rent-a-cop with a metal detector.

Security at airports seems to have a much greater effect on the public's perception of their security than they do on their actual security.

A good example I heard in a TV interview: They take away every sharp object at the gate. What do they give you on the plane? A bottle of wine. I've seen enough westerns to know that the first thing you do in a bar fight is grab a bottle and pop the bottom off to get a weapon. The same thing applies on planes.

Re:Pardon my attitude but...

[startled]

"Members of congress here is a way to realize Civil Liberties AND the protection of world citizens."

Suggestions on what to do are useless if they're not willing to listen. The Senate passed a bill immediately after the tragedy in 30 minutes: do you think it even matters at all what was in the bill? Do you think anyone other than the authors read it?

No, what needs to be urged at this time is some caution, a bit of restraint. We shouldn't strike at those abroad who have done nothing to us, just as we shouldn't curb those liberties which played no part in the terrorist attack.

Suggestions from most of us would be as ill-informed and useless as those from our representatives right now. Have they waited for any investigation? Have they been briefed on the root causes? No, they have not. There is no sign cryptography played any part in this, yet they already want to restrict crypto.

In the short term, propose short-term measures. And in the long term, pass laws. Don't pass kneejerk laws. At best, they're irrelevant; at worst, they exacerbate the problem.

Re:Pardon my attitude but...

[Baldrson]

the protection of world citizens

Where do I submit my renounciation of "world citizenship"?

Re:Pardon my attitude but...

[Pseudonym]

Exactly.

You can't be at war with a person, or an idea. You can only be at war with a country. If Mr Bush decides to remove the Taliban from power over the 90% of Afghanistan that they currently control, that would be a war. What we have is a criminal investigation followed by possible millitary action to aprehend the alleged culprit(s).

Re:Pardon my attitude but...

[nihilogos]

A cop with an assault rifle would make me a lot less likely to try to hijack a plane than a rent-a-cop with a metal detector.

Oh yes, you want an assault rifle fired within a pressurised aircraft cabin. Great idea.

Re:Pardon my attitude but...

[Jose]

Do like the Israeli airlines and put an armed marshall on every plane. A cop with an assault rifle would make me a lot less likely to try to hijack a plane than a rent-a-cop with a metal detector.

Why simplify things for terrorists? One of the hardest things to do (especially now) is to get good weapons onto planes..putting an armed guard onto a plane guarentees that you will have easy access to a weapon once aboard the plane. All you need is a couple people to attack the guard at once, get the weapon away from him or her, shoot them, and the plane is theirs. Sure one or two of the terrorist will be killed, but they are all going to die any way.

No muss, no fuss at the security check in, just a couple of friends taking a trip together.

Lock the cockpit door you say? Won't work if any of the aircrew can unlock it, once a few people get killed, or seriously wounded, one of the air crew will break down garenteed. And the Terrorists now have control of the plane.

You now have terrorists armed with guns, and a large aircraft.

Re:Pardon my attitude but...

[nihilogos]

At least it's a level up from whining about other people's whining.

Voicing a concern is a valid form of participation.

Land of the Free?

[eddy]

I've ranted on this very same topic. Flame on!

"Land of the free? -- On Terrorism, Cryptography and Freedom in the aftermath of WTC"

Re:Kinda Hard to Ignore

[gmhowell]

I never said whether it was fair or not. Life ain't fair. I said it was 'stupid', although perhaps 'ignorant' would be a better term.

Let's not ignore the importance of a war in matters of politics. Bush has the highest approval ratings of any prez in a good long time. And as long as we keep rallying around the flag, and stomping down critics, they will stay high, thus nearly assuring reelection.

I don't think that any actions taken by GW thus far are purely political (US. Some are obviously important vis a vis global politics) But as we get closer to the 2004 elections, you will see that our (as a nation) actions now and for the next three years will figure very highly in the Bush reelection effort.

don't be manipulated

[mj6798]

The loss of thousands of lives is tragic. We should quietly honor and remember the dead, and we should take appropriate measures (i.e., bring US airport security up to international standards) to keep this from happening again.

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.

One Straw Man:

[rkent]

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.

And why should we care about being "American"?

[Improv]

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.

RMS Totally misunderstands one of his three points

[MacGabhain]

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.

Re:Small price to pay

[UnknownSoldier]

> Freedom is not a right, it is a privalege.

If it's a privalege, then who grants it? You?! On whose authority do you (or anyone else) have the right to deny a person's freedom if they are not infringing upon anyone's rights??

I recommend you *read* the Declaration of Independence:

"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 is very foundation of the Constitution. Will you also deny Amendment IX

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

> 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.

Outlawing encryption won't stop terrorism, or crime. What's next, outlawing ANY object that could POTENTIALLY be used for terrorism??!!

Re:Taking advantage of the situation?

[Anonymous Coward]

To save our civil liberties and more, we should come to a full stop. Do not invade Afghanistan and others. Immediately pull out of Iraq, without even bothering to tell Sadaam.

Over the next few years, unilaterally pull out of the rest of the middle east and eastern europe. Tell Israel we won't even try to stop them from doing whatever they think is necessary to survive. Say so long to NATO. Start weaning Japan and Taiwan. Do whatever it takes to become independent of imported oil. Tell the disappointed war-mongers in the US that they're being good Christians.

Let the Palestinians crow over their "victory" - at least until they realize we aren't going to be there to stop the Israelis any more. Let the terrorists claim they they've won and are great heroes. Let Sadaam strut and probably brag that he was behind the WTC attack. Let the international media record it all.

Then, about 3 years from now, after all the bragging and celebrating is over, and we know who our enemies are, strike with no warning, with deliberate and massive force.

Or would you rather salve your ego, toss aside your civil liberties, and go into an impossible war on terrorists that has potential to quickly escalate into WW III?

Re:Root Mean Squared -- The Real RMS

[webword]

Boy, you are right. That really sucked. Big time.

Re:Another Unpopular Position Taken By RMS...

[Golias]

Actually, he took a very popular position. Most Americans like freedom. He was also incorrect in much of what he said:

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.

Here, he is saying that a massive computer database of faces could not possibly do better than a minimum-wage drone looking at people and going of half-rememberd police sketches like those you see on the post-office wall.

Really. If you want to object to cameras and digital face-prints on privacy grounds, then make your case on privacy grounds, instead of lying about their potential effectiveness.

To stop them will require public opposition.

No, to stop them might require public oppostion. If there is a clear-cut civil liberties issue here, a small group of old people in black robes could also stop them.

Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War.

This betrays a profound ignorance of history. What "moment of anger" could you possibly be referring to!? We trickled into Nam very slowly, over the course of the JFK and LBJ administrations. First with advisors and indirect support, then gradually sending in more and more troops.

Furthermore, if we had brought the full force of the US military to bear "in a moment of anger," we might not have lost. The fact is that the American people did not have the stomache to see US soldiers getting killed every night in a war that was fought for a purpose that few really understood.

2 of the hijackers were on a "watch" list ...

[Augusto]

... for possible terrorist activities.

Detecting when they're going in a plane is a big deal, don't you think ?

What a pity

[mjh]

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.

Slashdot schizophrenia once again.

[Lord Vipor Scorpion]

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.

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/Off ic ials_aware_in_1998_of_trainingP.shtml
(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/17MON2 .h tml

Re:Not The Time For Anti-Patriotic Rhetoric

[jmorse]

To quoute a DK song:

Tell me: who's the real patriot:

The Archie Bunker slobs waving flags

Or the people with the guts to work for some real change?

...

Our land, I love it too

I think I love it more than you

I care enough to fight the Stars and Stripes of Corruption!

Who the hell are you to call anyone un-American? You're the one violating American ideals.

Re:Taking advantage of the situation?

[Sheetrock]

Your reaction is certainly... colorful... but a reminder for the three or four of us who are going to take this opportunity to contact our representatives that when we bring up an issue we must be focused on one topic at a time. Whether or not the Florida process produced an illegitimate result may be an important subject for discussion, but it is irrelevant to the individual argument that mandatory backdoors in U.S. cryptographic software runs counter to logic even in light of the recent attacks. As your reaction points out, when Stallman brings up his opinion on a topic that a member of his audience doesn't agree with, it may color that member's reception to the more relevant opinion in Stallman's piece.

In other news, Congressman Bob Barr (of Georgia) was on CNN today saying that enforcement of current laws is more important than cracking down on our civil liberties. If you are in Georgia, please give him your support and bring up how either the mandatory encryption backdoor issue or the amendment tacked on to H.R. 2500 vastly increasing the authority of law enforcement to wiretap with reduced oversight will impact civil liberties without any proof that they are necessary to combat terrorism.

Fears behind FR systems...

[cr0sh]

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...

Re:Fears behind FR systems...

[cr0sh]

All I can say is go out, buy the book, and read it. It will answer any questions and concerns you may have. The link discusses the book, and has a sample chapter online (not, IMHO, the best chapter they should have picked).

The fact is that these databases do not match anything to people - they only match to information, which can be altered, and in many cases, those in the database have _no_ recourse to know they are in the DBs, or any ways to change the DB (just look at the amount of crap one has to go through to correct a problem on a credit report - if you get to see in in the first place!).

He's right, they are proposing these bills

[WillSeattle]

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!

protection for the innocent

[chompz]

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?

Re:Funny you should mention Uzi's...

[MindStalker]

First of all, even if the airlines wern't regulated by the government, they would have policies against allowing people to carry weapons onboard. Such policies of checking you weapon at the door was very commonplace when carrying a personal weapon used to be the norm. Also firing a weapon on an airplane is VERY stupid, you are most likly going to create a hole and decompress the air. Anyways, most likly some of the passangers were also armed with knives, it is a very common activity of people who fly freqently to carry small knives, which is the main reason the terrorist got away with getting them onboard. But before this insident, the rule was to let the terrorist have what they wanted, so that nobody got hurt. Well this rule is now out the door, and anyone who tries to highjack an american plane anytime soon will get a rude awaking by the beatdown they will recieve.
Aways in general I agree with you, but you have to remember we trade some liberties, just by having a government, but you should always be careful and fully conceder all consequences of giving up any liberties, instead of the kneejerk reactions of many who are too concerned about personal security, of which they will never recieve.

I wish that I could say.

[duffbeer703]

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.

Re:I wish that I could say.

[duffbeer703]

The heart of the matter is money.

This is not a typical guerilla war situation, where a rebel or other dissident group is using guerilla tactics against a regular army.

Bin Laden & Co have hundreds if not thousands of followers, funded by a variety of financial schemes and states. When the 'rouge' states are forced to cut off the money supply to terrorists, the terror will stop.

This will not be a war on methodology when all is said and done. It will be a clash of civilizations.

unelected BUT lawful president

[FreeUser]

I didn't vote for Bush, but I recognize him as my elected president, especially now.

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 ... creative, to say the least.

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.

Attack Result of Restricted Liberty

[kc0dxh]

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.

We're not looking for "silver bullets" ...

[Augusto]

... 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.

try the New York Times

[twitter]

As another poster has noted, most news papers have been calling this a "technically sophisticated" attack. They seem to think that encrypted email made the co-ordination possible and that wholsale government postal privacy violations will be able to keep such things from happening again. It was backhanded and disturbingly stupid. An article like this in last weeks New York Times and an interview with Dan Quale finally made me realize this was more than speculation.

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.

Re:try the New York Times

[sulli]

I read both articles and I think you're still being alarmist. The first referred to ISPs booting hate speech as a violation of TOS - something they've done for years. (Post a pro-KKK web site on Yahoo and see how long it stays up.) The second was more relevant, but nothing very substantial - just a discussion of one crank who posted a prediction on a Nostradamus bulletin board. (As if the very fact that he was on a Nostradamus board didn't already dismiss him as a nut.) That he was investigated was not much different from those stock-pumping kids that got caught last year.

Neither of these articles even implied that ObL was using these internet resources for terror, and in fact one suggested the opposite:

There is evidence that true terrorists are more circumspect. According to security experts, Osama bin Laden and his followers do not trust the Internet, and pass the most important messages face to face.

(i.e. ObL isn't stupid.)

Yes, the second implied that Carnivore might work in this case. But there was no serious discussion of crypto, stego, backdoors, etc. - appropriately, because it just isn't relevant in this case.

Re:try the New York Times

[dattaway]

how do you know that?

Doesn't OBL read slashdot too?

Re:try the New York Times

[pallex]

Are you sure they didnt just use a phone. A payphone or something? Or are black helicopters watching every phone box in the country now?

The Forth Amendment

[blamanj]

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

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

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.

So your suggestion is ...

[Augusto]

... 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.

Re:So your suggestion is ...

[Augusto]

"Bin Laden's head on a pike" has already been clearly proclaimed.

Not to mention an end to the Theocratic and corrupt Taliban.

Re:So your suggestion is ...

[Augusto]

US government a Theocracy ? LOL !

I agree with you.

[Tom7]

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.

Re:The fallacy in your argument

[duffbeer703]

God you are an ignorant idiot aren't you?

The facial recognition system in Tampa can match individual faces out of a database of 350,000 in less than 5 seconds with 92% accuracy.

It uses measurements between your eyes, mouth and nose to make a match, so disguises don't work to well against it.

Computers are not better at making weather forecasts either. (they do keep good records though)

COME ON PEOPLE

[Ender Ryan]

Peoples, EVERY SINGLE BIT OF TECHNOLOGY ___CAN___ be used by the government for draconian purposes. The arguments agains face recognition are all assuming that the policies regarding face recognition will be draconian in measure, but if you can argue that, then you should arugue that the government should not be able to use computers, because they _CAN_ have databases of our information, guns, because they _CAN_ be used to kill innocent people, etc, etc.

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.

Flawed Argument-There is no privacy invasion here.

[Captain_Frisk]

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

"please RMS" - Profoundly Offensive

[maggard]

RMS, i respect your opinion when it comes to software, but please don't voice any other political opinions.

Why not? Why should anyone not express their opinions? RMS certainly has as much right to one as you do.

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.

Once more ...

[Augusto]

... 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.

Re:Once more ...

[Augusto]

They were on a terrorist watch list, they would have at least stopped them and been able to note both of them carrying box cutters and maybe even one of them being trained as a pilot.

They could also have connected them to the other 2 or 3 people in the plane.

If you can't see how stopping these two would have prevented further carnage, then you really are not even trying to understand.

BTW, what freedom is restricted by checking your face ? They are supposed to check your ID at the very least, is that a restriction on freedom too ? Where does it say you must enter an airplane anonymously ?

BTW 2, one of them had a FL arrest warrant too.

Re:Once more ...

[Anthony Boyd]

BTW, what freedom is restricted by checking your face? They are supposed to check your ID at the very least, is that a restriction on freedom too? Where does it say you must enter an airplane anonymously?

Great points, Agusto. I guess the only real concern is what another poster mentioned -- the difference between "scanning and matching" and "tracking". A match of my face, if discarded when I turn out to have no criminal record, well that's probably OK for me. If I have to show ID to get on the plane anyway, why object? However, are you also scanning all the family members that are seeing me off? Those people didn't have to provide photo ID. And are you keeping this data somewhere? For instance, do I, as a person with no criminal record, end up with thousands of bits of data compiled about me?

• saw mother off on 5-sept-2002, LAX
• picked mother up on 7-sept-2002, LAX, with childhood friend
• shopped at Macy's in SF on 15-sept-2002
• etc.

I don't know about you, but I can almost convince myself of the usefulness of such data -- say some law-abiding citizen "goes bad" at some point. We could reconstruct their entire life all in the name of "profiling" that kind of person so we can root them out easier next time. But that totally violates all the people who don't go bad. They are open to manipulation by corrupt officials who abuse the power they have. They are open to manipulation by companies that might buy (or compile themselves) that data. Laws could be applied retroactively to people by running a SELECT statement on a database, and finding out all the people who may have broken a law that didn't exist at the time. For instance, at the urging of the RIAA:

SELECT * FROM citizens WHERE purchases="mp3 player"

I'm not suggesting I've presented a compelling reason to NOT do these things, just that I'm still working through this stuff, so I'm very uneasy rushing into anything.

Re:Once more ...

[Augusto]

A match of my face, if discarded when I turn out to have no criminal record, well that's probably OK for me. If I have to show ID to get on the plane anyway, why object?

That's what I'm talking about, in this case, it would have helped.

I don't think most people want to be recorded and followed 24/7, but like most things there's a middle ground here and we should explore it with no need to react "LET'S TRACK EVERYBODY" or "DON'T RECOGNIZE MY FACE".

Extremes don't help, just look at the hijackers.

Bzzt ! You're wrong.

[Augusto]

Where any of these bastards in the massacre of WTC/Pentagon on the FBI's list?

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/suspe ct_had_outstanding_warrant_in_broward_1.html

If now is not the time for dissent, when is?

[Nonesuch]

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?

Actually, no, I do not want to live a long, meaningless life in a world without any risks, and without any freedom.

Wouldn't you feel safer riding an airplane if you knew security at the airports is airtight?

Problem is, we can give up ALL of our civil liberties, and security will still not be 'airtight'.

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?

Interestingly enough, Congress unanimously supports the President. This is not the time for dissent.

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?

Re:If now is not the time for dissent, when is?

[Nonesuch]

It does not take much to capitalize on the reaction to a major disturbing incident to revoke civil liberties. I don't have a problem with tighter airport security. What concerns me are provisions for more monitoring of all Americans, additional restrictions on the freedom to travel, and the relaxation of standards for wiretaps.

Februrary 28, 1933

At a cabinet meeting held later in the morning, the Chancellor demanded an emergency decree to overcome the crisis. He met little resistance from the cabinet. That evening, the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor went to the President and the befuddled old man signed the decree "for the Protection of the people and the State."

The Emergency Decree stated: "Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

Does any of this sound familiar? Can you not see similarities to the proposed 'new FBI powers' and 'relaxed wiretap requirements' discussed in Congress today?

Granted, perhaps the most recent terrorist bombings were no Reichstag fire. Is that any excuse for ignoring the lessons of history?

Re:Not The Time For Anti-Patriotic Rhetoric

[Omnifarious]

I really dislike the style of DKs music, but practically anytime anybody bothers to quote the lead guy or any of their songs, I have to admire the succinct and pointed truth of the statements.

Re:The thing that scares ME...

[John Miles]

... is that this joker actually seems to think we are occupying Iraq.

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.

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.

And ?

[q-soe]

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 ?

How naive can you be?

[mj6798]

you seriously think that religious memorial services are done not to grieve for the dead but to somehow empower some shadowy religous empire that's going to take over everything

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.

Re:Unpopular?

[reverius]

Yes, but unfortunately, none of them will ever know who Richard Stallman is or hear what he has to say.

Although some of you may want to "s/unfortuntately/fortunately/" that statement. :)

(For those of you who don't grok perl, that's "replace")

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Wasted words

[jevan]

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, anyone who would discount an entire message because of one politically motived phrase is clearly a member of the stupid half of the Americans.

Some restrictions may apply

[dgroskind]

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.

Re:Some restrictions may apply

[Steve B]

Some restrictions might be acceptable temporarily.

What color is the sky in your world?

Re:Some restrictions may apply

[dgroskind]

Putting a specific time limit on a suspension of a right, a sort of sundown clause, addresses in part the threat that government will abuse the new power. I recall, for instance, that in World War II U.S. citizens were drafted for the duration of the war plus 6 months. The almost total loss of rights imposed by the draft was mitigated by the fact that it would be over when the war was over.

However, if the terrorist threat persists, then the reason for the suspension persists, and the suspension will persist. Since the terrorist threat is likely to persist for decades, perhaps the idea of an expiry date should be replaced by another sort of limit like "no domestic terrorist acts for 3 years."

One way to look at restricting rights is: is the risk of government abusing its power as a result of imposing restrictions greater than the risk of terrorist acts caused by not imposing restrictions? That is, is the threat of terrorism to our rights and freedom greater than the threat of government?

Another way to look it is: everyone recognizes that the restraints on soldiers' rights and freedom are necessary to fight a war. Why isn't anyone worrying about government abusing that authority?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Simple but not unrealistic solution

[On Lawn]

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.

Re:Not The Time For Anti-Patriotic Rhetoric

[Dolly_Llama]

Im going to go out on a limb on this one:

The chorus of that Song goes "The Stars and Stripes of Corruption, Let's bring it all down!"

Now the guys who flew those planes into the buildings had 1) Serious issues with the United States, be it with the government and/or the capitalists who arguable impose some form of imperialism upon the third world (let's call 'em "developing countries" so then our paternalism toward them will seem more appropriate). and 2) Great Big Huge Brass Balls that they were willing to die for their cause, not in some knee-jerk, fall on the grenade sort of manner, but in a long, well-planned conspiracy.

Now doesn't that sounds a little like what Jello was singing about? Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge DK fan (although Jello comes off as a self important Rockstar at his talks. I try to forgive him, i agree with most of what he says). I think these guys were trying to cause radical revolutionary change in the world by destroying some capitalist institutions, and also by provoking the US into an asymetrical war against elusive targets, something we (Vietnam, War on Drugs) and other large, lumbering powers (Russia in Afganistan, Chechnya) have shown we're not particularly good at.

Sort of like swinging a baseball bat at a swarm of hornets.

crypto and terror

[rodentia]

(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.)

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.

Not true

[Von Rex]

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.

You are all forgetting....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Dangerous Idea

[Self Bias Resistor]

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.

Re:OT: Moderate me to oblivion

[greenrd]

Consider that tax cuts CAN and HAVE stimulated economies.

Consider that increases in (gasp) public spending CAN and HAVE stimulated economies. Even when accompanied by tax rises.

But economics is far more complicated than this, of course.

Air Marshals

[sulli]

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.

Re:Much of your argument has already been written

[Nonesuch]

Your mis-reading of the term "well regulated militia" aside, I have one thing to say:

Where does the 2nd amendment say that the right is restricted only to the members of said militia?

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

What does the term "the right of the people" mean in this context? Does it not mean the same as it does here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And more relevant to the questions Stallman brings up in his original article:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except incases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And finally:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I think you missed the point..

[mindstrm]

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.

Do it on U.S. Highways too.

[Ramses0]

With the shortage of trained labor, I'm sure it'd be easy to get a job as a truck-driver in the U.S., delivering gasoline to needy people across the nation. Therefore, we should take advantage of the fact that front-facing window tint is illegal, and tie face-recognition software to all of those "red-light cameras" in order to prevent a future catastrophe involving 25k gallon fuel trucks and large buildings.

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

Re:Let's put the slashdot effect to use!

[Anthony Boyd]

Wow, that seems totally over the top for such a low-key, easily solved mistake. I mean, he messes up his mod point, surely other moderators will mod up the parent post to cover for that mistake, and you call him a "pigfucker"? Demo, don't let these kind of posts get you down -- they're inappropriate and way out of line for such a trivial thing. Can /. encourage a little more civility? Maybe?

Why Face recognition can be bad.

[jelwell]

"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.

"terrorist"

[Augusto]

... 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.

Re:Flawed Argument-There is no privacy invasion he

[Captain_Frisk]

, "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

Try the british press

[epeus]

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."

Re:Try the british press

[sulli]

What an idiot. I will admit, this guy is pretty out there. But they don't have a first amendment in the UK, and clearly this guy's never even used a modern browser (or at least hasn't paid attention to how it works), so perhaps his view is skewed.

But here in the US I am still not seeing that kind of viewpoint. Maybe because people here are smart enough to know how ridiculous this guy's ideas sound. Blow up ISPs that allow SSL? Precisely what the fuck is this guy smoking?

Re:Try the british press

[Manaz]

I quote sulli:

"Last time I checked, most informed (not speculative) news analysis in mainstream papers..."

I'd hardly call the British Press in general, and the Daily Telegraph especially (as a tabloid newspaper of the highest order) well informed.

If you read the rest of John Keegan's report, as you quoted it, it's obvious the guy has no clue. I quote:

"The World Trade Centre outrage was co-ordinated on the internet, without question" - What evidence does he call to support this? Yes, it may have been co-ordinated over the Internet - but that is only one of many ways the whole thing may have been co-ordinated."

Any sane person can see that Keegan's a complete idiot - his suggested solution (ban all encryption over the Internet) throws the baby out with the bathwater, and his suggestion that ISPs foreign to the US who refuse to disallow the transmission of encrypted data be taken out with cruise missiles is just ludicrous.

Keegan obviously has issues with the Internet - hardly surprising when it allows people the world over to see what a complete fool he is. He is using the recent attack as a weapon against the Internet, blaming the Internet for the attack - he has obviously forgotten that terrorist attacks happened before the Internet existed. Next he'll be campaigning to have shaving outlawed, because someone who shaves might have a razor, which they could use as a weapon.

Re:Try the british press

[Manaz]

I was referring more to the style of writing then to the width of the paper it's printed on, yes.

Towards World Liberty Day?

[harrystottle]

Hello from the UK.

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_irel 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.

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

Face recognition to limit civilian death in war

[Anthony Boyd]

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."

you forgot bin Laden's CIA training

[homunq]

natch

Re:Flawed Argument-There is no privacy invasion he

[SIGFPE]

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'm guess you were born after Nixon's presidency.

Re:If you live in America, You are already watched

[cybrthng]

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

Re:Not The Time For Anti-Patriotic Rhetoric

[FattMattP]

Umm, there are no lyrics to the songs in Donkey Kong.

Re:Another Unpopular Position Taken By RMS...

[Lumpy]

about the Vietnam war or possibly korea.. I believe the fit or anger was the suggestion by Patton to place a 3 mile wide line of nuclear wasteland along the border of the north and south.

This is a response I duly hope america does not resort to. If we take that genie out of the bottle it will be impossible to put back in and with china and other countries in striking distance of the US it will not be only our side launching the nukes.

Re: Freedom vs. legal freedom

[KrinnDNZ]

Quoth greenrd: "That's not the kind of freedom we're talking about. We're talking about freedom in a legal sense - what you are legally allowed to do."

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:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it it violates the right of the individual."

I think it's clear what Jefferson's opinion of freedom was.

Regards, Krinn

Can't agree on this one

[suprax]

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.

Re:Can't agree on this one

[suprax]

Thats true about the body language thing, but I think this plays a lot with our psychological state of being. Personally, I would feel much safer if I knew everyones face was being scanned when they entered an airplane. It may not prevent anything at all like you said, but then again you never know.

Either way, I am still for it as it makes me "feel safer". I could get blown to bits on the flight still, at least I know my face was scanned. Hey then maybe that photo could be used on my obiturary!

RMS is right, but..

[Weezul]

..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.

unlimit coredumpsize; NOT military power

[TheGratefulNet]

Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks

unlimited power should never be granted. what was that quote about absolute power and corruption?...

Re:unlimit coredumpsize; NOT military power

[TheGratefulNet]

Congress is simply declaring war

but on whom?

I dislike the acts of middle east terrorism as much as anyone, but exactly who are we declaring war on? arab extremists? ALL terrorists? does that include the IRA as well?

vague and distributed enemies isn't something you can declare tangable war on. even if the rhetoric DOES appear to appease the general populace.

Re:unlimit coredumpsize; NOT military power

[TheGratefulNet]

Not that I wouldnt shoot the terrorist bastards...

the first gut instinct is to punish and send a message.

but realize who we're dealing with here. its like the monty python routine, "don't kill him; you'll only make him madder.". I don't mean to be flip here, but you can't apply ruleset-A to a bunch of people (I'm using that term very loosely here) who, for one reason or another, follow ruleset-B.

in the western world, we tend to value life. yet these attackers don't seem to believe in those rules; and in fact, believe that they will get instant heavenly rewards by killing others.

so shooting and killing them probably won't have any effect unless we get them all. and this is clearly impossible.

I believe the only way to get back at them is to show them that their goal (US out of israel and perhaps even total collapse of the western world) will never come to pass. dig in even more in israel and make israel rich. that will CLEARLY piss them off a lot more than merely killing them; and there doesn't have to be a mass shed of blood in the process.

given a choice, I would hope we'd take more the path of Gandhi than Ghengis Khan.

airports did not even employ face recognition

[TheGratefulNet]

Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out,

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.

Re:Much of your argument has already been written

[egomaniac]

"They have squashed our constitutional right ... Most of you stood idley by."

Oh yes, characterize us as lazy just because we don't want everybody and his cousin walking around with deadly weapons.

I did not stand "idley" by. I voted for politicians who support gun control, because I think the NRA is a bunch of raving lunatics who always talk about how great everything would be if only we were all prepared to kill one another at a moments' notice. Well, sorry, I happen to rather strenuously disagree with you on that point, and I voted that way. You're welcome to your opinion, but please don't mistake opposition for apathy.

Re:He had me agreeing with him...

[Lurkingrue]

Since someone else has previously said something similar, I'm going to respond with almost the same answer I gave before.

You don't need to posit an attack on G.W.B. by that statement -- it can be interpreted to mean that this issue will be very important in political arena over the next few years, and not just today. That was, in fact, how I understood it on reading it initially.

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 am saying that there are reasonable -- and non-inflammatory -- ways of interpreting that line, even if you're a fan of G.W.B. (which the author may not be).

A specious argument...

[Junior J. Junior III]

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...

Re:Another Unpopular Position Taken By RMS...

[GunFodder]

Are you sure you aren't breaking the law? There are an awful lot of them, and they were mostly written by a lot of rich white guys supported by extremely large corporations. Those folks don't necessary have your best wishes in mind. You may not actually be doing anything illegal now, but what about a year from now? Or ten? Even if I am perfect now (and few people are) a new law could instantly turn me into an outlaw if I was being watched constantly.

One thing I have always appreciated about the US is a healthy disrespect for the law. There are many stupid laws out there passed by special interest groups that serve no one but a priviledged minority, and it is an American right to break those laws. This breakage can only occur because law enforcement has limited means and tends to use those means to enforce the important stuff.

Unfortunately, he needs to do that with everything

[leonbrooks]

...else he takes the added risk of being misquoted, quoted out of context and/or misinterpreted. Perhaps you missed some of the implications of the ``secondary damage'' allegory in his message? Or this phrase:

of this entire article

Re:Funny you should mention Uzi's...

[BadDoggie]

While bullet holes in the hydraulic system would certainly be a bad thing, a few holes punched through the skin very close to each other (go look up the firing rate of an Uzi) would be a much worse thing. Airplanes are pressurised. A single hole is a very bad thing. Go look up "explosive decompression" on Google. More than one hole basically acts as a much bigger hole with a diameter approximately the distance between the two farthest-spread little holes (within a reasonable distance). A big enough hole and you get a catastrophic failure (back to Google again).

Yes, I'm a pilot.

How many times do you have to point out that Franklin never said the quotation contstantly mangled here (the one about security and liberty)? Ludwig Thoma. Ludwig Thoma. Ludwig Thoma.

And so I don't get shot down for being off-topic, not a single one of the suggested and/or planned "security measures" would have made the slightest difference last Tuesday. I can make a weapon with a plastic spoon and an emory board or with a shoelace and the in-flight magsazine. The only way to have truly safe flights is to strap all passengers down like in slave ships, not that we're that far removed already. Lose your rights and gain NO security.

The false sense of security people are getting from all these knee-jerk actions is actually more dangerous than being scared and therefore attentive. People in the US are too busy waving their flags right now to remember the hundreds of thousands who fought and died for the rights they're now ready to simply give up. THAT is shitting on the memory of far more people.

woof.

perspective: 5,000 dead is the monthly toll on US highways.

Re:Another Unpopular Position Taken By RMS...

[gweihir]

Here, he is saying that a massive computer database of faces could not possibly do better than a minimum-wage drone looking at people and going of half-rememberd police sketches like those you see on the post-office wall.

Civil liberties aside, the problem is not with the face recognition, but with the database that backs it. I know, one of the attckers was wanted by the authorities, but assume none are wanted and in fact seem to be perfectly innocent. From what I read in the german news (e.g. www.spiegel.de) some of the terrorists where not suspect at all. What will face recognition accomplish against such people?

The question also applies the other way round:
Is face recognition needed after they are in the database? Stolen ID's can be identified. Correct ID's will identify people in that database. So where does the face recognition come in?

IMO this is just one of these ghoulish efforts to make a profit using all the pain, death and suffering.

And look what hasn't come back after wartime...

[mickeyreznor]

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.

IMPORTANT: the proposed methods DO NOT WORK!

[leonbrooks]

Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out,

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.

So how many of you have gotten off your butts...

[Noxxus]

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!

Re:Funny you should mention Uzi's...

[Chris Y Taylor]

"Also firing a weapon on an airplane is VERY stupid, you are most likly going to create a hole and decompress the air"

Frangible bullets can be used inside aircraft at altitude with very little risk of decompression.

Even without weapons, I agree that any hijacker on a US plane will probably be swarmed by passengers (either out of bravery, or fear that the USAF would shoot the plane down) during the initial stages of trying to secure the aircraft. In such close quarters a swarm attack is very effective against even a trained and armed opponent.

Re:Bunk

[John Miles]

U.S. leaders realized that using assassination as a political tool made it likely that others would do the same.

And what do you know? Not using assassination as a political tool also appears to make it likely that others will do the same.

Bummer, huh.

Heh....

[DragonPup]

I misread the headline at first. I thought it said, "Stallman Dead, Millions deprived of liberties". Maybe I need new glasses...

-Henry

??

[einhverfr]

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:

Re:Much of your argument has already been written

[egomaniac]

"Show me one article or statement by NRA policy-makers that say anything remotely like that."

Ooookay. Policymakers? I don't give a rat's ass what the official policy is if the members obviously feel differently. How about ESR saying that the skies would be safer if the passengers were armed? I defy you to tell me that that is not plain lunacy. And I've heard some NRA members who happen to be friends of mine echo eerily similar sentiments. I never said "NRA policymakers dictate lunacy", I just said that the "NRA is a bunch of lunatics". You've done nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.

"Just because you personally think the right to keep & bear arms is an unimportant one and the freedom from unreasonable search & seizure isn't doesn't mean that you're right."

First: I never said the right to keep and bear arms is an unimportant one. I said that I favor gun control. Gun control does not mean "nobody should own guns", it means "the second ammendment was written two hundred years ago and we need to be a little rational about things". For instance, I consider the fact that there are more guns than people in this country a tad ridiculous.

Second: as for me not being right, I never said I was. I just offered my opinion. You're welcome to disagree with me, as I clearly said in my post. You obviously do, fine. I also said I voted for politicians who supported my views, and I would of course encourage you to do the same. You were the one who brought the idea of absolute 'rightness' into it, not me.

Brazil legalizes airline passenger guns.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

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 .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.

(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.)

Re:Brazil legalizes airline passenger guns.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I wonder why Slashdot moderators are so stupid to score such a crap as "2".

Because this hasn't been moderated yet. I get a +1 because of my karma - still far above the cap from all the other interesting and informative factual postings I've made.

THIS IS COMPLETELY INVALID INFORMATION, CAN'T YOU SEE, STUPID MODERATORS?

As far as I know it's God's honest truth. The gunnies are crowing about it big-time. Here's the article:

From Tomás Mano de Carvalho
Alliance Nacional do Brasil
9-15-1

RIO DE JANEIRO - To avoid that an aircraft is used as bomb against important buildings, the Brazilian parlament decided today to liberate lightweapons (calibre less than 0.38) for all passengers over 21 years old.

As 65% of all Brazilians with income more than US$ 2000 always walksequipped with gun, the government finds it safe and guaranteed thatsufficient persons will react against any eventual highjackings.

Extra information will be distributed and presented by the airhostess, when they show the safety equipment they will also inform thepassengers to prepare eventual shot with precision, always take aim at chestto avoid that bullets perforate the shell of the aircraft.

The president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, wanted to make his vetoagainst the proposal, but was rejected by the astounding majority of 234 against 6 votes.

Now maybe it's a hoax. But these things usually aren't. You're welcome to hunt up documentation to disprove this story.

This makes perfect sense to me. To quote a pro-gun billboard: Society is safer when the crooks don't know who's armed. Research has shown that whenever a state in the US legalizes concealed carry their crime rate drops like a rock.

Now just sum the anger of being stupid yourselves to the anger you suffer from this stupid terror incident and set this message as -1.

Telling the truth is stupid? Recognizing the truth when it hits you in the face is stupid?

I don't think so.

About five or six hijackers with box cutters took over each of the four planes. Two of those planes - a total of eleven hijackers - took out both towers of the World Trade Center AND building seven, with a loss of over five thousand lives (and still counting).

Three or so UNarmed passengers took back one of the planes - at least well enough to fly it into the ground instead of a still-unnamed target in DC.

The planes had an average of over fifty people on them. How many hijackers would it have taken if, on the average, more than 32 of those passengers had been armed, and freshly instructed on shooting hijackers without destroying the plane or killing the other passengers?

Would the terrorists have even treid to hijack the planes?

Bush not given the same powers as during Nam

[angkor]

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.

Re:The fallacy in your argument

[sheldon]

So let me get this straight.

Because a security check cannot be 100% accurate we should not use it at all?

So we should just abandon the requirement for ID at airport checkin because the ID might be counterfeit?

That makes no sense.

Consider adaption

[Gorimek]

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.

Re:Echelon, Carnivore, 1984 and Terrorism

[Chris Y Taylor]

I have now on my desk a copy of a document prepared over a decade ago detailing our nation's vulnerabilities to terrorism and what should be done about it. It is rare both in the sense that not many groups had the foresight to have put together such a thorough analysis so far in advance; and because while the document was not classified, not many copies were made (for obvious reasons). In the wake of last week's tragedy I took the document out of its file and read it again with new eyes. Last week's attack could have been much worse. Thank God the people who wrote that document are on our side. It is a shame we didn't listen to them.

If you are feeling bad about the role encryption plays in allowing terrorists to act freely, perhaps some excerpts from this document will ease your mind and open your eyes to the usefulness of encryption systems in combating terrorism. Also keep in mind that this was written in the mid 1980s. I apologize in advance for not giving proper credit to the authors, but I'm sure that they understand why.

-- begin quote --

Adulteration, the accidental or deliberate injection of undesired material into a network, can cause serious problems. Accidental diversion of unintended liquids into a pipeline system, like accidental switching of a train onto the wrong track, sometimes leads to disastrous results... ...Perhaps the most insidious form of adulteration is the accidental or deliberate entry of false data into a computer network because until the problem is detected incorrect decisions are made and once the problem is discovered user confidence in the system is shaken... ... identifying false information is a critical function that can be seriously complicated by adversaries' use of deception.
...
Leakage from networks is at least... ... But again, the most insidious form of the problem is associated with communications: tapping networks is a primary source of illicit information both in the business world and in foreign intelligence... ... so that communications and database security is of significant importance.
...
MEASURES FOR RISK REDUCTION
Robustness
protective enclosures
solid construction
guards
deterrent laws
human engineering to reduce errors
operator training and practice
ENCRYPTION OF INFORMATION (emphasis added)
Ruggedness
redundancy
excess capacity
backup systems
error correcting coding for communications
emergency response teams
crisis training
alarm systems
automatic diagnosis systems
emergency subsystems
preplanned triage
public or customer emergency instruction arrangements
Resiliency
stores of critical spares
emergency recovery teams
training of recovery actions
insurance
procedures for sharing abnormal resource costs
pre-established plans for implementing improvements rather than return to status quo ante

-- end quote --
The measures listed above were to be encouraged in PRIVATE organizations and amoung the general public. I have reproduced the entire list because unlike the rest of the report it should be shared amoung as many people as possible, especially in business. As you can see public use of encryption is on this list.

It is important that businesses be able to encrypt data securely so that critical vulnerabilities and response plans cannot fall into the hands of terrorists. It is important that businesses be able to encrypt and digitally sign communications so that false data or false orders cannot be transmitted that will cause their facilities to be damaged or an inappropriate action taken that could jeopardize lives and infrastructure. People need to be able to encrypt data and communications so that they will be less susceptible to blackmail (supposedly "no organization is secure from an operative who catches a secretary who is having an illicit affair") or assassination by terrorists.

Encryption is a powerful tool. It is as useful for protection from terror as it is the commission of terror. We cannot prevent the terrorists from having access to these tools; so we must seek to learn to use them better ourselves, and to make sure that they are in the hands of "the right people." With the ever-increasing reliance on data collected and sent over electronic networks in the making of critical decisions by all sectors of society, failure to use encryption and digital signature technology could be very bad.

In Europe..

[EnglishTim]

... 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... ;)

Could this have been prevented?

[ma_sivakumar]

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)

So close, but he had to blow it.

[jcr]

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

Re:So close, but he had to blow it.

[nagora]

He's not the first president who won without carrying the popular vote.

There is a difference between not winning the popular vote and just plain fraud. Bush isn't President in any legal sense. He is in charge but he does not have the ability to run the country. Yesterday's stupid remark about "dead or alive" proved how little grasp of reality he has. He might as well have said "we'll give him a fair trial and then we'll hang him". Oh, yeah, that'll make it easier for Muslim countries to support action against Ben Laden.

The world would be safer with a real chimp in the white house instead of this poor imitation.

Re:So close, but he had to blow it.

[jcr]

>There is a difference between not winning the popular vote and just plain fraud.

True, and Kennedy was the one who won through plain fraud.

-jcr

Re:So close, but he had to blow it.

[nagora]

True, and Kennedy was the one who won through plain fraud.

I may be wrong, and I'm pretty sure Illinois' votes have changed since Kennedy, but didn't he actually win by about 80 electoral votes? Illinois only has 22 at the moment. The fraud would have to be big-time to make up that difference. I mean, much bigger than just getting you brother-in-law's computer firm to "accidentally" mark a few thousand black people as ineligible to vote.

TWW

The NRO has this problem, too.

[jcr]

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

Security?

[Graymalkin]

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

Re:Another Unpopular Position Taken By RMS...

[GreyPoopon]

From what I read in the german news (e.g. www.spiegel.de) some of the terrorists where not suspect at all.

But at least two of them were suspected -- by the CIA. The FBI was informed, and lost track of the suspects weeks ago. Without trying to argue in favor of machine face recognition, let me point out that with the correct policies in place, it would have worked in this case. At first sign of suspected terrorists attempting to board a plane (the machine part), all flights in the country could have been grounded (the policy part) until some checking on the situation could be done.

Is face recognition needed after they are in the database? Stolen ID's can be identified. Correct ID's will identify people in that database.

Not all of those involved had stolen ID's. You can bet that they all had FAKE ID's, but who's to say that if you had their ID in the database they wouldn't have managed to get a new one since it was entered? Identifying them by facial recognition is much more effective in this case. If you have a picture of the terrorist, you can program the scanners to recognize him/her.

Face recognition costly, airplane backdoors no.

[castlan]

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.

Re:Taking advantage of the situation? [not]

[budgenator]

"pagans, homosexual, abortionists," while not add infidels, capitalist, Western whoremongers to the list?
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."

Try the daily telegraph

[Marcus Brody]

From the respected UK broadsheet:

"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.

Re:The fallacy in your argument

[duffbeer703]

If a machine is 75% as effective as an alert human being, it is worth having, since machines are always working.

$9.00/hour airport guards spend plenty of time staring into space, oogling girls and thinking about what pub they'll be drinking in that night.

Re:Pulling out of Israel?

[haizi_23]

um, everyone realizes the hatred towards israel in that region. even the idiots. that's one point that's simple enough for us americans to understand. the problem is, the likelihood of us completely pulling out of israel is pretty low.

imho, the creation of israel was an extremely bad idea and another example of British/American arrogance. we thought that we could mandate this solution and it would somehow work despite all of the natural reasons why it would devolve into the constant state of war that it's been. i'll admit to not knowing that part of post-war history as well as i should, but it seems obvious to me that israel as an artificially created jewish state was destined to be in its current situation.

that opinion notwithstanding, we'd never go back on that decision for at least 2 reasons that i can think of:

1) it would involve admitting that the idea was an error, something that we never do. admitting culpability usually leads next to people demanding reparations and we can't have that.

2) a large, very active and very passionate (about israel) jewish electorate in the u.s.,
who carry a lot of weight with our elected officials.

it's a bad situation, but it seems unlikely that any of the primary actors are going to reverse any of their positions in our lifetimes.

Re:Funny you should mention Uzi's...

[Ralph Bearpark]

> perspective: 5,000 dead is the monthly toll on US highways.

Actually in 1999 it was 3468, but the point is well taken.

Regards, Ralph.

No, three steps

[Steve B]

1.Set clear limits on the use and storage of personal information gathered by technical means.
2.Create credible methods of verification that these limits are actually being observed.

The government also needs to:

3. Establish a convincing track record of punishing violations of these limits (with real don't-bend-over-for-the-soap prison time, not a few weeks at Club Fed).

This is part of any real definition of "credible" in point 2, but sufficiently important to be listed separately.

Airbus Superjumbo

[Chris Y Taylor]

Am I the only one who thinks that superjumbo airliner Airbus wants to build suddenly seems like a bad idea?

What About Easier And More Likely Technology?

[Artagel]

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.

Re:Funny you should mention Uzi's...

[Sodium Attack]

How many times do you have to point out that Franklin never said the quotation contstantly mangled here (the one about security and liberty)? Ludwig Thoma. Ludwig Thoma. Ludwig Thoma.

Benjamin Franklin. Benjamin Franklin. Benjamin Franklin.

Here is the quote, attributed to Franklin, in the 1919 edition of Familiar Quotations (commonly referred to as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations). The 1919 edition is the most recent available online, but I was able to check a 1980 print edition, which also attributes the quote to Franklin.

Bartlett's Familiar Quotations is generally considered the definitive work on quotations, so if you're going to challenge it, please provide more evidence than your own assertion.

Is Bartlett's perfect? No, no reference work is. But I'm willing to accept it until I see more definitive evidence.

Weapons

[Tassach]

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.

Re:Another Unpopular Position Taken By RMS...

[Znork]

Um, the false positive rate in face recognition systems is huge when you're talking about any reasonably large database. You'd have hundreds, if not thousands, of false positives at every airport every day. And the problem is that even if you do have a human, the resemblance would likely be enough that a human would trust the computer unless there is some obvious reason that it is incorrect (wrong skin color, eye color, or something other the computer face recog software would be worse than a human at deciding).

Face recognition software is useful for one-to-many applications like indentifying a certain face against a large database where you can tune it to less tight matches just to find possible faces, or security ID checks where you can tune it to be really tight about the match so people have to try a few times at worst. But since you cant get rid of the errors, only make them more or less likely to be false positives or false negatives, it absolutely stinks at a many-to-many comparison.

Face recognition sometimes, crypto backdoors no.

[HiThere]

Face recognition systems are legitimate to use in places where it is reasonable that one be required to identify oneself.

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 ... 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.

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.

Re:The usual misconception about rights...

[sydb]

Any chance of seeing the list of rights granted by the 'creator'? And, of course, evidence of it's source.

Short on Long Vision

[virg_mattes]

> 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

The Rub

[virg_mattes]

> 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

Face Regognition vs. Name Recognition

[HamNRye]

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

Re: they give you weapons RIGHT ON THE PLANE!

[johnrpenner]

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

Huh ?

[Augusto]

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.

Freedom and Security

[virg_mattes]

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

Like to See

[johnos]

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

Re:Another Unpopular Position Taken By RMS...

[Znork]

Its rather hard to make an exact judgement on how many false positives there would be, because it simply depends on the conditions in which the scans are done and the setup on the software. If you check Visionics homepage and read the data on their software it has about .68 equal error rate. If I read the data correctly, that means that .68% are false positives, and .68% will be false negatives at that, probably optimal for this type of use, threshold of recognition for that certain database test. Its hard to say how that translates into comparing a large database under uncertain conditions with tens of thousands of people, but it does not sound like false hits will be a rare occurance.

The problem is difficult either way, and in my opinion pretty hopeless. You can manage to use security to catch the absolutely most wanted people, and in that case face recog software will perhaps be useful due to a very small database. But try everyone everywhere who has ever been suspected, or even worse, the loads of people with no record at all who may do bad things... it just isnt viable.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Totalitarian Dictatorship

[Perdo]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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-)

Update: You're right, it was a hoax.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Subject says it all.