Slashdot Mirror
Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties
The worst damage from many nerve injuries is secondary -- it happens in the hours after the initial trauma, as the body's reaction to the damage kills more nerve cells. Researchers are beginning to discover ways to prevent this secondary damage and reduce the eventual harm.
If we are not careful, the deadly attacks on New York and Washington will lead to far worse secondary damage, if the U.S. Congress adopts "preventive measures" that take away the freedom that America stands for.
I'm not talking about searches at airports here. Searches of people or baggage for weapons, as long as they check only for weapons and keep no records about you if you have no weapons, are just an inconvenience; they do not endanger civil liberties. What I am worried about is massive surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements.
These measures are likely to be recommended regardless of whether they would be effective for their stated purpose. An executive of a company developing face recognition software is said to be telling reporters that widespread deployment of face-recognizing computerized cameras would have prevented the attacks. The September 15 New York Times cites a congressman who is advocating this "solution." Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. But that won't stop the agencies that have always wanted to do more surveillance from pushing this plan now, and many other plans like it. To stop them will require public opposition.
Even more ominously, a proposal to require government back doors in encryption software has already appeared.
Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War.
Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, know that you don't want your civil liberties to become the terrorists' next victim. Don't wait -- the bills are already being written.
Copyright 2001 Richard StallmanVerbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.
Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties? As we all know, a bill has been proposed that would require back doors in all encryption products, which is NOT okay in my book. I'm all in favor of heightened security carried out in an intelligent manner, and I'm willing to give up some liberties for security, but the way this whole thing has been blamed on the internet is completely ridiculous.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
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
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.
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.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
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.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
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.
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
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
So, we now require all check-in agents at all airports to memorize the faces of thousands of known terrorists? I must have missed that in the news...
Personally, I'm all for placing face regocnition systems in airports. If it will save lives, beginning with mine and my family's, then let's get it done. Absolutely.
Look, the age of technology is here, and the criminals are already using technology to the max. The use of facial scanning technology, matching against wanted or known criminals in airports is not a violation of civil liberties, IMO. The unrestricted use of facial scanning technology by government may be, but it is important that we build out our legal system to accomodate new technologies AND protect civil liberties.
For example, we could make a distinction between "scanning and matching" and "tracking" (without a court order).
What I'm totally against is reactionary diatribes about the loss of civil liberties that don't cast an eye towards reshaping law. We have to keep seeking out that unique balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting society.
I understand *fully*, why face recognition systems in public places is wrong. BUT, the airlines have a right and a duty to know who their customers are, and if face recognition systems help peal off the layers of anonymity they should be allowed to use them. Airlines have the right to know with whom they are doing business with. The business transition of purchasing a ticket is done on a contractual basis, and the airlines and the customer have the right know who the other party in the contract is.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Sometime last week, I suggested voluntary biometrics as must one small measure to help facilitate idendification of the average joe. The thought is that as we are routed to more automated inspections, enforcement officers are freed up to perform more thorough human inspections. I've seen facial recognition and other technologies suggested as well.
Perhaps what's needed is NOT legislation as the article suggests. For as with toll bridges, once set, they are very difficult to repeal.
Instead, why not voluntary programs? For example, my enrollment in the above program would automatically expire in a year's time, unless I opt out right away. No harm is done either way, as I choose to go the long route.
Granted, we are temporarily suspending some of our civil liberties, in return for safety, but in a way where we control the duration and participation in the program.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
This does not make much sense. Generalising gives "Given that humans cannot do something means that computers cannot do it either" should explain. I really don't know what is meant here. We have something that is already happening poorly. Someone has suggested that using technology would improve it, and this is an infringement of civil liberties. Sorry, I just don't buy that argument.
Airlines have a right (and, de facto, an obligation, especially now) to know who is using them. Using computers can make their execution of this duty much more effective: it is counterproductive (to say the least), to demand that they forgo this because the use of this technology by some other body may infringe civil liberties.
It may be that the use of the same technology, for a different end, by a different body, will be an infringement of civil liberties: by all means fight that battle then. But to try to stop a technology that has beneficial uses because it also has bad uses is luddite.
And to fight the battle with the weapon "it's no better than what we've already got" is just dumb.
Although careful oversight would clearly be needed, if properly administered this system, allowed only to check against existing wanted criminals and terrorists and not allowed to track the movements of those not in the database or to store long-term information on non-tagged individuals, could provide a very powerful tool to intercept people who should not be allowed on an airplane.
The idea that this is a loss of liberty is grabage. You need to present identification at an airport; you have no right to travel by air anonymously, airports are public places and noone has any right to expect not to be exposed to surveillance in this context. Mr. Stallman needs to learn to pick his battles, stick to what he knows, and choose his words more carefully. This tragedy is a little too recent to be using the phrase "thousands die" as a point of rhetoric. And though I am not at all a Bush supporter or fan, I agree with comments about Mr. Stallman's parting shot. Mr. Bush was elected: he was put into power by the Electoral College like every president that has served The United States of America.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
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
-chris (gandalf@darkcorner.net)
British citizens have "chosen" to give up their freedom for nothing.
That's only one example. In France, there is a law that forbids people to use any kind of encryption. Net result ? Algerian terrorists, the ETA, the FLNC still plant bombs in the country. French people too have given up their freedom for nothing.
I'm all for giving up things that make it possible to catch terrorists, but freedom is not one of them. Watching people is not the solution.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
~ now you know
RMS, and Roblimo before him, correctly argue that we must not let our freedom of speech (and freedom to control our personal property!) be compromised by mandatory crypto backdoors. Putting aside the fact that such a decree would be totally unenforceable, and that users would surely revolt (I know I would), and that it would surely be found unconstitutional as prior restraint on speech, nonetheless this is a terrible idea that we need to fight.
(Note that all discussion of this in connection with this incident is 100% theoretical anyway. If the bad guys used crypto, we don't know it yet - only grandstanding politicians have suggested anything of the kind.)
But I must say that I feel very differently about face recognition - particularly in airports. Such a system could have caught some of the hijackers - several of whom who were WANTED BY THE FBI and FLEW UNDER THEIR OWN NAMES! - before they killed 5000 people. Extending it to public spaces such as Times Square is more questionable to me, but particularly in airports where the possible harm is now much greater than we ever imagined, I think this is a technology that would be welcome.
Remember that you already give up a lot of rights while you fly. It's too bad, and I don't enjoy having to check potentially hazardous luggage (e.g. knives) any more than the next guy, but flying is materially different from all other forms of transit. You can't crash an Amtrak train into much more than another train, or a station. You can't do that much with a bus. But you can kill thousands with a plane, and as such we need to exercise extreme caution there.
sulli
RTFJ.
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.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Privacy can be important, especially for someone acting justly who has enemies, but in public there is no privacy. You are already out in the open, anyone who wants can snap a picture of you. Everyone sees you picking that monster weggie, everyone see you wipe that hanger off your nose, everyone sees you checking out that hot chick's ass while you're walking with your wife...
The day someone puts a camera in my house(or in too close a proximity), forces dna sampling, forces me to turn over personal information, etc., then I'll be pissed.
Personally, I'm not sure what I think about gun registration laws, and other such things that exist already, but complaining about face recognition is like complaining about putting up a website with pictures of you and people coming to download them, YOU PUT IT THERE, just like being out in public.
note: I'm still open to any arguments about why it's bad, but right now I just don't see it as a threat in any way at all.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
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?
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.
during the election, i didn't like either choice, viewing both as products of nepotism.
the bush and gore families are powerful political engines...not as powerful as the kennedy machine, but still powerful.
to claim that President Bush is an "unelected president" takes away from what i view as a sacred document--the US Constitution.
the man is legally the president of the united states, so show some respect, and do not use that wording.
otherwise, i agree fully with the paper. the dotGOV will use this incident, and the emotional aftermath, to erode our freedoms.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
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.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Please, tell me where it has? Last time I checked, most informed (not speculative) news analysis in mainstream papers (not Wired News) has discussed $6/hr rent-a-cop airport security, unpreparedness of the Pentagon, the years of flight training taken by the bad guys, and Osama bin Laden's ability to finance all of this and create terrorist cells around the world. Where's this clamor against the net that I haven't seen on the 10+ websites I read daily on the subject?
sulli
RTFJ.
This is what I hear:
piss moan whine Don't take away my freedom
bitch piss moan You better not use this to take advantage of me
gripe bitch whine Oh no, the guy I didn't want for President gets war time powers during war time
What I do not hear:
Members of congress here is a way to realize Civil Liberties AND the protection of world citizens
Mr President I wish to help, here are some possible solutions to the problem
I'm sorry people but if we are only going to bitch about what our government officials do and never give them workable ideas and solutions then shame on us.
And remember as Abraham Lincoln told us, we have a "government OF the people, BY the people FOR the people"
that statement requires your active partitcipation not just you criticisms.
Please be patient, I'm a work in progress! --Alan Jackson
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.
I presume you're talking about American in some
sense other than the literal, as by the normal value
of the term, sentiments/viewpoints are not capable
of being citizens/people. What exactly do you
mean when you use the term in this way then? Is
this sense of "American" synonymous with
patriotism? Is it synonymous with freedom-loving?
Is it synonymous with hypocriticality? Define your
terms.. Anyhow, in case you mean patriotism, you're
naming an incredibly evil force throughout history,
with very few, if any, good aspects. If that's
what the term means to you, then in that sense,
I oppose Americanism, just as I oppose any other
kind of nationalism.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
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.
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?
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.
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
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.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
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.
This week the papers are getting down to business. Check out these two articles from today's New York Times:
This one recomends ISP censorship. with the lame excuse for corporate control of the public network as, "But the community standards that most Internet service providers apply can be more restrictive." Today it's hate speach, tomorow it will be embarasing or unpopular speach.
This one detailing the FBI making it easier for an ISP to turn over email. Try this thrilling quote that got their attention, "The online posting on Aug. 30 sounded like the rantings of a crank: The subject was "911," and it warned "Something is going to happen tomorrow . . . REPENT!" On Sept. 4, the author of the first message, "Xinoehpoel," was back: "Wait 7 days," he wrote." At least the article goes on to worry about improper collection making such priceless quotes inadmissable. So what's the solution, hint hint? Monitoring? Geee, to bad that it won't work as the above quote really could contain a message and is indiscerable from pure garbage.
There you go. Reputable, non speculative reporting for you advocating government and corporate controls on the internet. Why would big publishers like that? Other news sources have not even bothered to mention privacy.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
While I, too, am concerned that there will be attempts to ride roughshod over some of our civil rights, I think this piece is a rather inflammatory.
If you read the Constitution, you will notice that above all, the framers worked at balance. Balance of powers (executive/legislative/judiciary) and balance of rights. In the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment says, in part
Note the word "unreasonable." This is a rather vague word; intentionally so. It is up to society to determine unreasonable search and seizures. There is no guarantee of absolute privacy. While I feel we should set the bar as high as possible, the example RMS uses of video recognition technology, especially in a public place, is certainly not unreasonable, given of course, that such technology does not result in hundreds of innocent people being held or detained inappropriately.
People are concerned about knee-jerk right wing reactions, lets not make the same mistake in defense of civil liberties and oppose everything that is suggested. Save energy for the battles that really matter.
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
- sigs are for wimps.
John Keegan, defence correspondent, blames the Internet.
"The World Trade Centre outrage was co-ordinated on the internet, without question," he writes. "If Washington is serious in its determination to eliminate terrorism, it will have to forbid internet providers to allow the transmission of encrypted messages - now encoded by public key ciphers that are unbreakable even by the National Security Agency's computers - and close down any provider that refuses to comply.
"Uncompliant providers on foreign territory should expect their buildings to be destroyed by cruise missiles. Once the internet is implicated in the killing of Americans, its high-rolling days may be reckoned to be over."
Hello from the UK.
l and.htm for a brief intro to some of the things we got up to in Ireland and elsewhere. It was the IRA's reluctant realisation that they were up against military tactics at least as effective as their own, but with much better funding, that eventually forced them to consider the peace process.
It may help, with regard to what I'm about to say, that you know "where I'm coming from"
I'm a computer consultant involved in a project with major security angles (so I've made myself aware of the issues) I'm nowhere near as skilled as many of the slashdot contributors but it pays the bills.
I'm also a political philosopher, atheist, transhumanist and libertarian anarchist.
Generally, as you might expect, therefore, I oppose a great deal of what both the US government and my own stand for.
However, I also try to be both pragmatic and objective.
OK, so much for the bio.
You may be aware that we've had a little local difficulty with our own home grown terrorists for the past 30 years. A number of points ought to be sticking out like sore thumbs as a result of our experience.
First off, as I've said, I'm no supporter of the British establishment. But one thing is crystal clear. No one knows more about combating terrorism than the Brits. No one even gets close. They were the first victims of modern terrorism (Palestine, late 40s) and have since fought it actively in every corner of the world. British anti terrorist special forces have been trained in real terrorist situations ever since the second world war. The Israelis come a not very close second (their experience is too parochial).
What lessons have arisen from that expertise?
Well, for a start, we've learned that the only terrorism which can be defeated is that which - unlike the current threat - has a very narrow base of support. (Oman is the classic example) Other forms can be suppressed and, to some extent, controlled, but not defeated. Why not? For the simple reason that Terrorism is a response to historical and political conditions. If those remain as they were when the terrorism began, then, even if you manage by extraordinary good fortune to wipe out every member of the current generation of terrorists, more will emerge, like mushrooms, from the background environment. If you don't tackle the conditions which produced the problem, you will reap a regular harvest.
Alarmingly, I do not hear, in the current debate, any mention of what needs to be done in order to reduce the political pressures which produced this attack. Unless AT LEAST as much effort goes into that political effort then the result of even a successful military campaign will be worse than you can probably imagine. Not immediately, not perhaps for 10 or 20 years. But unlike American politicians, the enemy here is patient and has time on its side. Don't lose sight of the fact that Tuesday 11 September 2001 has been in the planning stage for at least 8 and probably 10 years.
If we do nothing to tackle the background causes of this cancer, then even if we succeed in excising the current tumour, it has already metastasised and will inevitably flare up again in the future. And given the developments in delivery systems for biological agents (eg anthrax) and the progress being made in genetic engineering, the attack in 2011 or 2021 can be expected to kill not a few thousand, but millions or even hundreds of millions.
Having said that, terrorists, even when they carry out devastating attacks with the high degree of professionalism we saw on our TV screens, aren't very clever politically. The key breakthroughs in our Irish problem have generally come about as a result of the IRA committing atrocities which even their own supporters couldn't stomach. This has, at times, not only choked off their major source of funding (from the terrorists main supporting country, the USA) but also made it very difficult for them to justify their actions to their own grass roots.
It is very clear, from the speed with which even terrorist sponsor countries like Libya and Syria have jumped on the condemnation bandwagon, that this is precisely what has happened among the vast Islamic community who, though generally hostile to the USA, have recognised the World Trade Centre as an attack too far. The Pentagon, on its own or even the White House might have been regarded as legitimate military targets and you'd have seen a lot more than a few angry Palestinian teenagers dancing in the streets. But most Moslems, even the ones who hate the US, are not so unreasonable that they would seek to justify massive civilian casualties.
It is that reaction which should form the core of the political analysis and response.
The world is now divided into two hostile camps. The vast majority of us are hostile to what the Hussein/Laden axis carried out last week.
I'm not claiming that the figures I'm about to give are accurate, but they are in the right ballpark..
In excess of 99.9% of the human population would probably like to see bin Laden and/or Hussein quickly executed, together with all those for whom we can prove a valid connection to the attack, or preparation for the attack. There are, nevertheless possibly a million or so, who fully support the terrorists aims and methods, even including what they did in New York.
Of that million, probably no more than 5000 are combatants. We need not worry about killing any of those. Their deaths will be widely seen - even amongst the usually anti American community - as completely fair game. Their deaths will, of course, rouse fierce resentment from the million, but they were already in the enemy camp in any case, so the situation will not have been made any more dangerous than it already is.
However, each death outside that circle of combatants will probably:
a) "promote" ten of the million non combatant supporters to full combatant status in their own right and
b) recruit 10 new terrorist supporters - including possible future combatants - from the currently outraged wider Islamic community who otherwise would, regretfully, have "tolerated" (they wont stretch as far as "support") the shooting of their wild dogs.
You can see this attitude most clearly in Pakistan. The military leadership will keep the lid on their generally Laden supporting population in order to ensure that they themselves do not wake up in the firing line. They are currently host to 2.5 million Afghan refugees - who are no friends of either the Taliban or Bin Laden. But if ONE of their number back home is killed by a coalition attack - you can expect a hundred recruits to the anti American cause. And the rest of the Pakistan population would go apeshit. Not that they would necessarily seek to become terrorists themselves, but they would certainly make it easier for terrorists to conduct their business.
It is crucial, therefore, to have very precise targets and stick rigidly to those.
The problem of precision, of course, lies in locating the 5000 combatants. As we've already learned, 12 of the 19 identified had been living in the USA on and off for most of the past few years. How many more are already there? Where are the rest? Its extremely unlikely that they are still hanging around the known training camps in Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan etc. They will have dispersed back to their home villages, or to entirely different countries around the world. What are we going to aim at then?
If the coalition sticks to the Runsfeld line, the answer to that is going to be "whatever we can find - even if there isn't a terrorist within a hundred miles - providing it hurts the host country and makes them think twice about allowing terrorists to operate freely within their borders ever again" That way lie many thousand newly motivated terrorists.
There must be No blanket bombing. No non-combatant casualties - even at the cost of greater casualties for our side.
In this war, we need brains and bullets not blather and bombs. Precision targeting, should mean the sniper's bullet not the laser guided smart bomb. I'm more than happy to see the talk of lifting the ban on CIA assassinations. This is indeed a dirty war and, paradoxically, if fought dirty, will actually be a lot safer for the rest of us.
The Brits have had no compunction in that direction. Its been a major factor in their relative success. Check out, for example, http://www.flamemag.dircon.co.uk/dirty_war_in_ire
And that, above all, or at least alongside the military manoeuvres, is the light that must be placed at the end of the tunnel. If there is no prospect of political reform, there is no prospect of an end to the War on Terrorism. After all, if they're already prepared to sacrifice their lives, what else have they got to lose?
Primarily this means, somehow, forcing Israel and the Palestinians to share, peacefully, a territory over which both claim sovereignty.
The administration has already spoken of flushing out the roots of terrorism. In fact, it has no current strategy for dealing with that ambitious project at all. There are mixed signals coming from Runsfeld. On the one hand he talks about using small units of special forces - which is encouragingly realistic. Assassination is the appropriate tool here. On the other, he talks about the terrorists not having capital targets to go after, but their harboring countries do; so we might go after those instead. Teach them not to support the terrorists in future. This is alarming nonsense. And precisely the kind of behaviour which will increase the problem by recruiting more terrorists to the cause.
Indeed, most depressingly, such talk indicates that they haven't even understood what the "roots of terrorism" are. They are not spoilt arab ex-playboys with too much money (bin Laden) or egomaniacal despots who used to be on our side (Hussein) or training camps in the desert. The roots of terrorism are the political conditions which have provoked widespread anger amongst about 25% of the human population. Are we going to kill them all? Thats what you'll have to do if you wish to flush out the roots of terrorism without confronting the political issues.
There are many such issues, but, without doubt, the strongest, most important root of all, is the ongoing war between Israel and the Palestinians. Find the magic formula for that one, and most of the rest will wither on the vine. Even Iraq would cease to be a problem if it was no longer able to nurture support through its unconditional succour to the Palestinians. This is the area we should be most focussed upon.
One final point on the emerging shape of the Coalition policy. As touched on above, we are apparently supposed, from now on, to be going after not just the combatants themselves, but after the countries which provide support, or merely harbour them. I wonder if the author of that policy is aware that, had the UK adopted such a policy say 15 years ago, it would have necessarily needed to attack Eire for harbouring and the USA for allowing its Irish contingent to provide most of the logistical and financial support which kept the IRA going. Somehow, I can't see the USA having been so keen to support such a policy at that time. Now, of course, that they have become the target, however, we seem to get a faint whiff of double standards...
Moving on...
...to the threat to our civil liberties,
The naivete of some of the responses I've read here is absolutely frightening. It seems that some of you seriously believe that this war is going to be "over by Christmas". Let me make it plain. I'm a fanatical privacy advocate. Indeed I hope in the near future to be able to promote the concept of near absolute safety achieved through and dependant upon the guarantee of near absolute privacy.
Despite that, if I genuinely believed that giving up my rights to privacy for, say, a couple of weeks, or even months, would guarantee success in this war, I would probably concede that it was a price worth paying.
However, first, I would want the control of that situation in my own hands. In other words, at the point I decide that either my sacrifice of privacy is no longer effectively contributing to the war effort, or that the authorities are abusing my surrendered privacy, I would want to be able to switch my privacy back on - regardless of whether they approved or not.
Failing that degree of personal autonomy (which is difficult, though not impossible, in today's world) I would accept no less than a democratically controlled policy where the decision was made not by elected representives but, using a national referendum, by the people themselves in a single issue vote. With a guarantee - enshrined in the wording of the referendum - that the powers being ceded would be time limited to, say, 12 months, after which the powers would lapse unless renewed by another referendum.
Secondly, we are not talking about a short term policy here. I've already made it clear that until and unless you can cure the Arab-Israeli problem (at least), the roots of terrorism will continue to thrive. Those who favour anti-privacy measures will clearly expect them to be in place for as long as the terrorist problem remains. Until, in fact, the roots of terror have been eliminated. So ask yourself the question. How long is it going to take to sort out the Middle East?
Its already taken more than 50 years. I see no immediate reason to believe we could achieve significant progress in less than another 10 or 15 years. Are you really prepared to lose your privacy rights for that long? And do you really believe, that if you gave them away so easily (i.e. without the annual referendum above) that you could ever easily win them back?
And with the so called War on Drugs as a precedent, do you (anti-privacy lobbyists) really understand what you're suggesting. You're already widely regarded as a near police-state with the highest prison population in the western world and have already suffered massive unchallenged breaches to your sacred constitution - the authors of which must be spinning in their graves.
Please, for your own sakes, and for the sake of those who died on September 11, don't sacrifice even more of your freedoms in the mistaken belief that it will protect them. What you'll end up with is a country which is no longer worth protecting.
On September 11 2002 we will commemorate the first anniversary of this horrific attack on civilisation. I hope that the most appropriate name for this day in the future will reflect the fact that it will be recognised as the day the world began to turn away from intolerance, and began instead to pay more than lip service to the very freedoms which are supposed to be enshrined in and protected by - first and foremost - your very own American constitution.
I hope it will be called World Liberty Day.
I know the dead deserve nothing less.
I would like to think that our own actions,
between now and that first sad anniversary,
and all those anniversaries to come,
will make us all feel that we deserve it too.
Harry Stottle
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*
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
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.
I misread the headline at first. I thought it said, "Stallman Dead, Millions deprived of liberties". Maybe I need new glasses...
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
If we leave Saudi Arabia in the middle of the night like a beaten dog, I hope we at least have the courtesy to inform the Saudis and Kuwaitis of our intention. They'll be overrun by Saddam by the middle of next week, and they might appreciate the warning.
I don't think that Saddam could easily invade Saudi Arabia, nor do I think that he has the intention to do so absent American involvement.
Kuwait is different. Kuwait was originally part of Iraq and when the British pulled out, they created that country as a way to "keep their foot in the door" in that region. As a result Iraq has, for some time (and long before Saddam) looked for a way to reclaim that land.
Don't get me wrong, even though I am highly critical of American war crimes (19 counts of which were tried in front of the international war-crimes tribunal and convictions were reached on all counts against Bush, Powell, etc), Hussein is no good guy. Anyone that would gas his own citizens with poison gas (during the Iran-Iraq war when he was our ally and probably on the payrole of groups like the CIA) certainly deserves much of the disdain he receives.
The 'net is full of people who have never even unfolded a newspaper, much less opened a history book, yet who are only too happy to tell us all what we ought to do. I guess such, er, diversity of opinion is one of the benefits of living in a free society, though.
Speaking of history, the last time a country really went to war over a terrorist act was Austro-Hungary, 1914. Although I can't speak for others, when I say I am afraid this would lead to WWIII, I base it on the following observations:
1: Massive tension in the Middle East which focuses around resentment towards "foreign invaders"-- mostly the Israeli's bot also the Americans.
2: The volitility of the Pakistan/India/China border. I predicted a few years ago that if WWIII broke out, that would be where. Pakistan and India have been fighting over the Cashmere for a long time and about every 20 years, China tried to invade India...
3: Russian Paranoia-- The Russians have been historically paranoid about foreign troups near their borders. We saw how they acted in WWI, at the end of WWII, and in Kosovo. The strategy is always based around a show of force and/or control of border states to prevent hostile troops from entering Russia. I think a war in Afghanistan would qualify there as well.
3:
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Februrary 28, 1933
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?
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I have seen a report that, in response to the events of last Tuesday (including the passengers who resisted and downed the fourth plane on its way to DC), Brazil has legalized gun-toting by airline passengers.
.44 special Bulldog model. It was developed for the US Air Martial program. Fires a big, slow bullet to avoid puncturing the hull or the windows. Kicks like a mule, but a bruised hand is better than a crash. Reasonably easy to conceal.
The flight-attendant speech is being revised to add instructions on how to plug a hijacker with minimum risk of puncturing the pressure hull, crew, and other passengers.
(This may be a bow to the inevitable. I understand that well over 60% of the Brazillian population already carries concealed pistols, often in violation of their existing gun laws.)
FYI: If this is ever legalized where you fly, I recommend the Charter Arms
(Try Glaser Safety Slugs, too - in this or anything else. Think of pistol-round sized shotgun shells that spread out in the first thing they touch, rather than a jacketed bullet that penetrates and damages whatever is behind the target. That's also what "Black Talon" slugs were REALLY about.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"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.